QRZ! Ham Radio 5/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 5.iso/digests/infoham/940655.txt

Text File | 1994-11-13 | 22.4 KB | 545 lines

Date: Sun, 12 Jun 94 14:30:58 PDT
From: Info-Hams Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: Info-Hams Digest V94 #655
To: Info-Hams


Info-Hams Digest            Sun, 12 Jun 94       Volume 94 : Issue  655

Today's Topics:
                                "73's"
                        ** QUESTION TO HTX-20
                          Amateur Television
                     ARLP023 Propagation de KT7H
                           Barry Goldwater
                    Beware of RADIOKIT kits (IMHO)
                          E-Mail for Kenwood
                         France & Switzerland
                               HTX 202
                   VHF Maritime Outrage!! (2 msgs)

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <[e-mail]>
Send subscription requests to: <[e-mail]>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to [e-mail].

Archives of past issues of the Info-Hams Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/info-hams".

We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text
herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official
policies or positions of any party.  Your mileage may vary.  So there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 94 16:35:39 -0500
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!yale.edu!noc.near.net!news.tufts.edu!news.hnrc.tufts.edu![e-mail]
Subject: "73's"
To: [e-mail]

By the way,
   in addition to the question of whether one uses s or 's to indicate the
plural of a figure, and
   in addition to the issue that 73 is a plural to begin with,
there is *another* issue (for me, anyway) that causes 73s (or 73's)
to have the same grating effect on my ears as other forms of
poor grammar:  73 was originally introduced
as a shorthand.  Adding an s (with or without the apostrophe)
flies in the face of the economy that prompted its invention in the first
place.

Just my $0.02, but I'll take 73s (or 73's) wherever, whenever, and in whatever
form I find them.

Hey!  I managed to use the plural even though it's a plural to begin with!

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 18:10:00 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!iat.holonet.net!michaelr![e-mail]
Subject: ** QUESTION TO HTX-20
To: [e-mail]

 On 06-08-94 IGNACY MISZTAL wrote to ALL...

 IM> My IC-24AT becomes too hot to touch after extended transmission at
 IM> high power.  It seems that PA modules used in HF have dismal
 IM> efficiency.  At 13.8 V, the HT draws 1.5 A. The input is 13.8 V * 1.5A
 IM>
 IM> = 20W, at output 5W, for 25% efficiency.  The remaining 75% heat the
 IM> HT.
 IM>
 IM> I am wondering if there exist RF modules that have higher efficiency.

Remember that part of that power runs the CPU and other stuff. Subtract
the squelched receive draw for a better idea of efficiency. It may not
look so bad then. My DJ-580 gets warm after extended use at 1/2 watt!
Thats with the other band turned completely off.

 * OFFLINE 1.56 * If I throw a cat out the car window, is it kitty litter?
............................................................

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 13:59:41
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!gatech!udel!news2.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!indirect.com!s146.phxslip.indirect.com![e-mail]
Subject: Amateur Television
To: [e-mail]

Sunday, 6/12/94, 6:00pm EST, the Ham Radio & More show will feature
Henry Ruh, KB9FO, publisher of Amateur Television Quarterly.
Call 1-602-241-1510 to see if you have a local station carrying the show
in your market. It's on the Talk America Network. On satellite, you can find
Ham Radio & More on Spacenet 3, Transponder 9, 6.8 audio.
73,
Len

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 23:42:03 EDT
From: psinntp!arrl.org![e-mail]
Subject: ARLP023 Propagation de KT7H
To: [e-mail]

SB PROP @ ARL $ARLP023
ARLP023 Propagation de KT7H

ZCZC AP37
QST de W1AW
Propagation Forecast Bulletin 23  ARLP023

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 14:03:17
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!gatech!udel!news2.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!indirect.com!s146.phxslip.indirect.com![e-mail]
Subject: Barry Goldwater
To: [e-mail]

Former Senator, former presidential candidate, and internationally
well known ham, Barry Goldwater, K7UGA will be on the national
syndicated talk show, Ham Radio &  More, June 26th, 1994, at 6:00pm EST,
on the Talk America Network, to discuss amateur radio, MARS, and the
future & past of amateur radio. Don't miss this important show with one of the
most famous hams in the world!
Ham Radio & More is heard on 22 stations throughout the country and on
satellite. Call 602-241-1510 to find out if it's on a station near you. Also,
call the same number to find out how to get the show on in your area, if
it isn't now. There's no charge for a station to air the show.
73,
Len, KB7LPW

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 94 12:28:46 EST
From: ccsua.ctstateu.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Beware of RADIOKIT kits (IMHO)
To: [e-mail]

I purchased 2 kits from RADIOKIT (New Hampshire) recently (the QRP-20
by K1BQT and the 7MHz Optimized by W7EL).
First, the 7MHz kit was missing SEVEN parts (5 caps, 1 pot, 1 resistor). After
2 attempts to get these components replaced over 2 weeks, I received
ONLY the pot. No explanation as to where the rest of the parts are.
Now for the UGLY one...... the QRP-20 kit is a mess.....missing parts,
wrong-sized standoffs for critical transistor heat sink installation,
directions furnished are for the QRP 15 (!) with several "mod sheets",
undrilled PCB connections, PCB layout errors, gross assumptions in
directions, changes in kit that were not forwarded to customers, etc.
and etc. And gee, all this fun for $100. "Easy to build ....comes with
detailed manual and parts diagram [for a different RIG]..... easy to
wind coils with _full_pictorials_ [NOT] ...." etc. etc.
This is reckless merchandising at best. I'm no rocket scientist,
but this is NOT what it was portrayed to be.



------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 1994 11:37:15 -0500
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!austin.lockheed.com!kestrel.austin.lockheed.com![e-mail]
Subject: E-Mail for Kenwood
To: [e-mail]

Does Kenwood have an E-Mail address?  I understand they have a
BBS, but it takes a LD call and takes forever.

If you know of an E-Mail address, please reply.

Dick, KD5VU


=====================================================================
   Richard (Dick) Kriss    E-Mail:[e-mail]
      904 Dartmoor Cove    Packet Radio: SP KD5VU @ N5LJF.#AUS.TX.USA.NA
    Austin, Texas 78746    Phone: [phone] (day) or 327-9566 (evenings)
                           AMPRnet: [e-mail]
 My employer has nothing to do with this message! ...  _._
=====================================================================

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 14:24:39 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!yale.edu!news.yale.edu![e-mail]
Subject: France & Switzerland
To: [e-mail]

Last time i was in france, you'd actually need to apply for a french
amateur radio license to be able to operate there.  Their bureaucracy
is absoulutely overwhelming.  I've also found European government officials
to be incredibly inflexible and unforgiving.  You're worried about confiscation,
I'd be worried about ending up in the slammer--e.g., albeit, Franco was
in power at the time, but when a Spanish bank-teller accidently
converted my travelers checks from Fr. Francs to Pesos at the dollar
rate instead of the Franc rate, I found myself being picked up by
3 plain clothes policemen, two of who were toting submachine guns, in the
next town.  It is a different world over their, even in "civilized" Paris.
Take chances at your own risk, they don't invoke canings, and the
guillotine is also not used any more.

--
James H. Revkin,  KA1QJ
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 02:32:13 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!caen!malgudi.oar.net!witch!bjohns![e-mail]
Subject: HTX 202
To: [e-mail]

I am looking for opions on the Radio Shack HTX 202 HT.


Thanks..


-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.3a

mQCNAizy0mcAAAEEANS3EQdolfenqKcXrFLeXg0FCqpgPqnpemDDZKau9TzG71h7
s/Ev0sW8Mgirbi4SQ3+AXqrcV3+uLG7GOV9iQJYDfvnPQmoq9xntEIXRtiU4XSLq
A0fmqjI6zUqGbdaL/4AGP/ljWt4Hjf77NG8tTnL3Jnq/iBDfNcqp6kag5Cc5AAUR
tCpCcmV0IEEuIEpvaG5zb24gPDE6MjI2LzExMTAuMUBmaWRvbmV0Lm9yZz60O0Jy
ZXQgQS4gSm9obnNvbiA8QnJldCBKb2huc29uQHAxLmYxMTEwLm4yMjYuejEuZmlk
b25ldC5vcmc+
=V5q8
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
-

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 00:47:23 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!caen!malgudi.oar.net!witch!doghouse![e-mail]
Subject: VHF Maritime Outrage!!
To: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]>, Scott Statton ([e-mail]) writes:
>How many licensed hams are there in the US now?  200,000 maybe?  At $7
>per ham per year, we're paying merely $1,400,000 p.a. rent on a LOT of
>real estate...

A bit over 600,000 according to the latest figures.


>I'm vaguely upset that for administrative reasons they chose to charge
>the ten years in advance.  I can imagine a young ham having some
>difficulty scraping up that money, but if you are like me, or most of
>my ham buddies, kicking in the $70 for a new ham's license would make
>a great "welcome to ham radio" gift.  Go without a new doodad for a
>few more weeks.

But the charge is ONLY if you want a "vanity call."  There's still no
charge for the regular ham license and a call assigned from the
regular pool.  So NOBODY has to come up with $70 for a ham license.

73...joe



----------
Joe Salemi, KR4CZ               Internet: [e-mail]
Compuserve: 72631,23   FidoNet: 1:109/136   MCI Mail: 433-3961

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 13:16:40 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!gatech!kd4nc!ke4zv![e-mail]
Subject: VHF Maritime Outrage!!
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeffrey Herman) writes:
>
>A new VHF marine radio, with all channels, can be bought for as little as
>$135 (through West Marine Supply). The license is worth almost as much as
>the radio.

No it's not, they just *charge* almost as much as the radio. It's worth
whatever you're willing to pay.

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 15:21:43 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: VHF Maritime Outrage!!

In article <[e-mail]>,
Gary Coffman <[e-mail]> wrote:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Scott Statton) writes:
>
>We're *not* a big sink to the FCC. They spend on average 8 manhours a
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>week on the amateur service. It's the cheapest to administer service
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>that they regulate. The spectrum we occupy doesn't belong to the FCC,
>nor does it belong to the Federal Government. It is public spectrum
>that belongs to the public, not the government. The government's role
>is merely to regulate it's use as a resource held in common. In the
>case of the amateur service, the active regulation is minimal.
>
Thanks for that lucid fact.  I reverse my stance.

    Scott

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 14:35:34 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <2tct8t$[e-mail]>, <2td3t2$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: End of `440 in SoCal' thread (was: VHF Maritime Outrage!!)

Jeffrey Herman ([e-mail]) wrote:
: In article <2td3t2$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Sohn) writes:
: >
: >Don't know what your source is, but the US amateurs in ITU region 2 have
: >access to 275 MHz in the 5.8 GHz band alone, and another 750 MHz in the 10
: >and 24 GHz bands.  These allocations are valuable - just ask any business
: >or government agency that operates their own network on similar
: >frequencies.

: Jim's statement above should bring to an end the `440 in SoCal'
: thread. Those are incredibly huge chunks of spectrum that need to be
: put to use. When you consider the amount of unused spectrum we have
: it really makes the 440 debate moot.

: Can't readily *buy* a radio to play with up on those UHF freqs? Put your
: amateur skills  to use and *build* something for up there. [Roger: I'll
: send you my soldering iron if you don't already have one.]

: Jeff NH6IL

That's very kind of you Jeff.  My address is in the callbook.  I won't
hold my breath though.  I realize that you are just running off at the
mouth in your usual discourteous way.

Say, Jeff, if you are such a technical stud and CW whiz, why don't you
upgrade to Extra Class?  It's nice at the bottom of the fone and CW
bands.  Nice bunch of ops there.  Just had a wonderful rag chew on 14.158
with a nice fellow in Alaska.  He'd been a no-code tech right here in
Southern California before upgrading to Extra and moving to Anchorage.

Have fun with your soldering iron, old chap.


--
                                             [e-mail]
                                             Glendale, CA
                                             AB6WR

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 14:43:47 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <2te51k$[e-mail]>π
Subject : Re: Icom R100

In article <2te51k$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Smathers) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>,
>Richard Crisp <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>Another quirk is the lack of a line level output (useful for taping or RTTY,
>>not that RTTY matters since there is no BFO!).
>
>I have no problems using the speaker out jack and using a "line level to
>recorder level" attenuator to record with my boom box.
>

Yep, that's basically what I do. I just wish they had provided
a line out.

>To avoid the problems of switching between speaker and recorder, I have
>put the two together so I can record and listen on my speaker at the
>same time (or record and turn off my speaker with a switch)
>

I find it annoying to use the speaker out line for recording
because I do not like the volume control on the radio to affect the
recorded level. Usually line out levels are fixed to allow recording
to be unaffected by volume control changes.

>Robert
>[e-mail]
>


--
Richard Crisp                 Cupertino, Ca.                [e-mail]
[phone] wk                                         [phone] fax
             For PGP Public Key, type finger [e-mail]
"It is a good thing that we do not get as much government as we pay for"
                        -Will Rogers

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 1994 13:41:42 -0700
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!news.cerf.net!ccnet.com!ccnet.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <2tct8t$[e-mail]>, <2td3t2$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>╡
Subject : Re: End of `440 in SoCal' thread (was: VHF Maritime Outrage!!)

Jeffrey Herman ([e-mail]) wrote:

: Can't readily *buy* a radio to play with up on those UHF freqs? Put your
: amateur skills  to use and *build* something for up there. [Roger: I'll
: send you my soldering iron if you don't already have one.]

Right on, Jeff!  (oops - showing my age again!)

Where better to further the radio art than on an unexplored band and/or
mode?  Equipment for 5.8, 10 and 24 GHz is readily available on the
surplus market.  Remember all those microwave towers that Sprint blew up a
few years back?  The stuff is out there.

What can you practically do up at 24 GHz, you ask?  ATV, packet
backbone/LAN (full ethernet speed), "secure" repeater control, remote HF
station control, etc., come to mind at the moment.  You could even bring
the entire 1.8-30 MHz "chunk" down to your house and use your HF receiver
there to listen to it!

Buying something off the shelf, plugging it in, and being satisfied with
simply talking, is ordinary.  I'd rather get the enjoyment out of doing
something extra-ordinary, and get some satisfaction that I may be doing a
little bit to keep the hobby vital.

--
    Jim Sohn    phun        [e-mail]
            nophun        pms/s=sohn/g=[e-mail]
    KF6NY        wireless    KF6NY@wd6cmu.#nocal.ca.usa.noam

------------------------------

Date: (null)
From: (null)


------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 13:00:45 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!gatech!kd4nc!ke4zv![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Reply-To : [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject : Re: VHF Maritime Outrage!!

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Scott Statton) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (James W Chandler III) writes:
>> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Revkin) writes:
>> > [asks for opinions on VHF maritime license fee increase]
>>
>> This is only the latest attempt by the Administration to raise money for the
>> federal coffers.  The fees for other licenses have also risen.  The fee
>> for the commercial radio licences has risen from $35 to $105 also.  Can
>> charging for amateur radio licenses be far behind?  I don't think so.  I
>> predict that with 5 years all amateur will be paying something to
>> apply for/renew their license.
>> Jim Chandler, N0VAH/AE
>> [e-mail]
>
>This is probably an unpopular sentiment, but here goes:
>AFAIK the US is the ONLY nation that charges $0.00 for a life-time
>amateur license.
>
>If kicking in a pittance every year (and, face it, genetlpersons, $7
>per annum is NOT a huge sum of money .. less than 2 cents per day;
>heck, I lose that much behind the sofa) will warm the cockles/coffers
>of our government, and maybe make them just a TEENY bit more
>responsive to us, then it's a good thing.

Ha! Fat chance. Remember that these fees go into the Federal general
fund, just like any other *TAX*. And remember that the Federal Income
Tax was a pittance when it was enacted too, as was the Social Security
Tax. If the funds were actually to go directly to the FCC *in addition
to their normal appropriation*, then we might see some improved services.
But that isn't going to happen. Even if Congress were to earmark the
funds for the FCC, unconstitutional, they'd just reduce the general
fund appropriation by a like amount (and spend those funds elsewhere)
while the FCC would be no better funded than it is now. This is just a
*TAX*, nothing more.

>Remember:  The amateur service is a big sink to the FCC ... we provide
>nothing of significant value any more, and we're sitting on hundreds
>of megahertz of valuable bandwidth.

We're *not* a big sink to the FCC. They spend on average 8 manhours a
week on the amateur service. It's the cheapest to administer service
that they regulate. The spectrum we occupy doesn't belong to the FCC,
nor does it belong to the Federal Government. It is public spectrum
that belongs to the public, not the government. The government's role
is merely to regulate it's use as a resource held in common. In the
case of the amateur service, the active regulation is minimal.

>How many licensed hams are there in the US now?  200,000 maybe?  At $7
>per ham per year, we're paying merely $1,400,000 p.a. rent on a LOT of
>real estate...

More like 600,000 (and growing!). If we pass the 1,000,000 mark, we'll
begin to be a political force to be reckoned with, but $7 million a
year would still be chicken feed to a $3 trillion dollar Federal budget.
The Feds spend that much every 48 minutes.

>I'm vaguely upset that for administrative reasons they chose to charge
>the ten years in advance.  I can imagine a young ham having some
>difficulty scraping up that money, but if you are like me, or most of
>my ham buddies, kicking in the $70 for a new ham's license would make
>a great "welcome to ham radio" gift.  Go without a new doodad for a
>few more weeks.
>
>A friend of mine and I scrounge the swap-fests and pick up all of the
>IC-2ATs and 4ATs that we can find.  When a young person we know gets a
>license, but can't afford a radio, [s]he's given one on 'permanent
>loan'.  I suppose we've spent about $700 each doing this, but I
>consider it just a part of my obligation to keeping ham-radio alive.

That's admirable, and a much better use of your money than pouring
it into the bottomless Federal coffers.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

------------------------------

End of Info-Hams Digest V94 #655
******************************