QRZ! Ham Radio 5/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 5.iso/digests/infoham/940748.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 25.5 KB

Date: Tue,  5 Jul 94 20:06:07 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 #748
To: Info-Hams


Info-Hams Digest            Tue,  5 Jul 94       Volume 94 : Issue  748

Today's Topics:
            Amateur calls on auto license plates? (2 msgs)
                       ARLB057 Contest weekend
                Best linear for scientific experiment
                          Careers in radio?
                  Does CW as a pre-req REALLY Work?
                            F.E.M.A. Freq.
                        FIELD DAY 1994 REPORT
                    IPS Daily Report - 05 July 94
                           License Renewal
                  mac softwares for digital signals
                Sock Size Conversion Chart: Inches/CM

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: 5 Jul 1994 23:32:19 GMT
From: koriel!newsworthy.West.Sun.COM!l1-a![e-mail]
Subject: Amateur calls on auto license plates?
To: [e-mail]

In article <2vbdpk$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan Hughes) writes:
>
>I see a lot of vehicles with ham calls on their plates, but I am wary of
>doing this for fear that the specialized plates are a billboard to
>thieves that there might be expensive radio equipment in the vehicle.
>
>Any comments pro or con?  Thanks!     ---Dan, N9XDK


Well, I usually leave my radio on when I leave the car - tuned to
the local police frequency.  I turn up the volume too ... :-)




-fred




[ Fred Lloyd, AA7BQ                       [e-mail] ]
[ Sun Microsystems,                              Systems Engineer ]
[ Phoenix, AZ                                      [phone] ]

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

Date: Wed, 6 Jul 1994 00:13:28 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!llyene![e-mail]
Subject: Amateur calls on auto license plates?
To: [e-mail]

Someone writes regarding his fears about ham call plates and an increase
in the potential for radio theft.

I have thought about this many times while owning two vehicles with call sign
license plates and many without:

1)  A car bristling with antennae is always a car bristling with antennae.

2)  Antennae indicate the potential for some kind of radio equipment inside.
    Anything that looks like a cell phone antenna will be assumed to be a
    cellphone antenna and therefore connected to a cellphone.

3)  Bad guys generally do not know what "W2XYZ" or NW6H" or "XE3CCC" mean, any
    more than they know what "3EDR305" or "DES 944" or whatever means.  Call
    sign plates that also include the words "AMATEUR RADIO" may be slightly
    more risky, but I have no proof of that.  In fact, I would prefer plates
    that said that simply for political reasons.

4)  I have never had a radio stolen from a vehicle and I have driven (and
    parked) all told more than 500,000 miles through a lot of bad parts of
    town.

5)  Your mileage may vary.

6)  Always engrave your drivers license state and number on all radio equipment
    that is installed into your vehicle.  This sure will help if the cops find
    it and then wanna find you.  They have no clue as to who "NW6H" is, but
    they sure can figure out who I am from my California DL.

7)  Also engraving your call sign on the equipment may be handy if "bad hams"
    steal the stuff and try to sell it at the local ham swap meet.  But there
    aren't any bad hams, are there?

8)  I am mildly paranoid about delayed retribution from the many souls that
    incorrectly decide that I have just cut them off and terminally offended
    them;  even though a license plate is a difficult (or at least more
    difficult thing than it used to be) thing to track down to its owner's
    address, the ease of using a callbook lookup (and of course you have to
    know where to look) has helped to change my callbook address to a post
    office box.  But that's just a handy thing anyway, in case one of my
    fellow hams thinks that I have cut him or her off on the RF highway on
    40m or 2m or some such place...

9)  Some individuals might even go so far as to wire their radios to explode
    if removed without pushing the magic button.  But that would be illegal.

10) If you're living in Manhattan, radios should be kept on your person at all
    times and never should an antenna be bared.

Good luck.  Safe driving.  73 - Jon

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

Date: Tue, 05 Jul 1994 17:42:05 EDT
From: psinntp!arrl.org![e-mail]
Subject: ARLB057 Contest weekend
To: [e-mail]

SB QST @ ARL $ARLB057
ARLB057 Contest weekend

ZCZC AG22
QST de W1AW
ARRL Bulletin 57  ARLB057

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

Date: Tue, 05 Jul 94 17:42:15 EDT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!sdd.hp.com!think.com!hsdndev!nmr-z.mgh.harvard.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Best linear for scientific experiment
To: [e-mail]

I need your advice on a good transmitter for a physic experiment I'm working
on....  Thanks in advance for any help.  First some background:

Ham transmitters can be very useful in molecular physics experiments.  For
example, working on a cold-atom trapping experiment, I was able to get a 2000V
4MHz electric field on a wire, by using an old tube kw linear.  I used a
50-to-12 ohm balun, plus a homemade 12-ohm non-inductive resistor and
air-tuning coil, and was able to get the electric field across a 100pF load,
with under 250W from the amplifier.

Now I'd like to make a more reliable and permanent setup.  I'm looking for
suggestions on the best brand/model of linear amplifier to buy for another
experiment.

My primary criteria is that the transmitter amplifier be easy to modify!  This
is because I'll be working at 1.0 MHz, and also want very fast rise/fall times
(a few microseconds, which means reduceing the tank Q).  If you have an
amplifier you're happy with, then look inside and see how accessible the pieces
are, and guess as to its applicability for my strange needs!  Better yet, if
you've had good results and a happy experience modifying a certain amplifier
model, please let me know!

Incidentally, my RF energy stays in a coax cable and thence to a
stainless-stell vaccuum chamber, so meeting FCC rules isn't an issue.

P.S. Although I'm an experienced electronics engineer (incl low-power rf), I'm
not a ham, and have only nominal experience with ham gear, brands, etc.

Winfield Hill      <[e-mail]>
Rowland Institute for Science
Cambridge, MA 02142  USA

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

Date: Tue, 5 Jul 1994 14:00:59
From: galaxy.ucr.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!news.kei.com!ssd.intel.com!chnews!ornews.intel.com![e-mail]
Subject: Careers in radio?
To: [e-mail]

Like most people, I'm still looking for the perfect job.  I am looking for
suggestions in radio-related careers.  I have an engineering background, but
don't really want to work ON radio equipment (design), I'd prefer working WITH
radios.  I was thinking about being a radio consultant (working with companies
to meet their radio needs), but wasn't sure if there was such a thing.
Anybody have thoughts on radio related careers?

Thanks


Brett Miller N7OLQ                  [e-mail]
Intel Corp.
American Fork, UT

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

Date: 5 Jul 1994 23:05:27 GMT
From: swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!news.cac.psu.edu!news.pop.psu.edu!psuvax1!news.cc.swarthmore.edu!netnews.upenn.edu!news.drexel.edu!news.ge.com!knight.vf.ge.com!cnn.@@ihnp4.ucsd.edu
Subject: Does CW as a pre-req REALLY Work?
To: [e-mail]

   CW proficiency is a good pre-requisite for knowing CW, period. It does not mean
an individual will be a better operator than a non-CW person. I think the license
structure should be changed, so that no-code people can have HF voice privileges.
The commercial radio operators are split into two groups. Why not hams?
   There should be more emphasis on good operating procedures. Also, I don't think
that the questions and answers for amateur licenses should be made available like
they are now. I feel it is too easy to get an amateur license and much too easy to upgrade.
   Ham radio used to be a fraternity, it's become much less of one during my
25 years as a ham. However, the majority of the people on the air are worth talking
to and if some idiot wants to tie up a frequency, I can just tune somewhere else.
   I don't agree with Andy Domonkos' statement that CW is courteous hassle-free
operation. There are LID's on every mode, although I feel CW op's have a little
more operating savy.
   Except for most JA's, poor operating practices are common throughout the world.
Are test questions or CW proficiency going to eliminate poor operating, or will we
just continue to see a reflection of our societies on the air no matter what? I
don't have an answer, just an opinion.  .... ..


Where have all the sunspots gone?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Weissman AD3Y     |  All opinions expressed are my own and
Martin Marietta Corp.   |  in no way related to my company. All my
Moorestown, NJ   USA    |  designs are my companies and in no way
[e-mail]  |  considered my own.

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

Date: 6 Jul 94 02:23:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: F.E.M.A. Freq.
To: [e-mail]

The list of FEMA freqs posted to this group contains various error.
In particular, who ever typed the list had their right hand placed
one key right of where it should be when typind the freq for F-24 to
F-27.  For example, the day primary calling channel of 10493 was
mistyped as 10483.  Also, 10194 (mistyped as 10184 was listed twice).
--
David L. Wilson            INTERNET:  [e-mail]
Phone: [phone] (H)   Amateur callsign: AC4IU  G.S.: FM18fg

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

Date: 5 Jul 1994 23:19:47 GMT
From: koriel!newsworthy.West.Sun.COM!abyss.West.Sun.COM!spot![e-mail]
Subject: FIELD DAY 1994 REPORT
To: [e-mail]

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Joel B Levin) writes:
>In article <2v865b$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Douglas J Renze) writes:
>   [e-mail] (Joe Salemi) writes:
>   >We also ran 6A, and I do remember contacting a 16A on 40m -- think they
>   >were from one of the New England states -- Mass. maybe, or VT.  We
>   >also ran into a 15A.
>
>   I hit a 14A on 40-m SSB, I believe.  Heh, I was a bit shocked when I QSL'd
>   it.  I can't imagine being on a site with 40 rigs in what sort of radius of
>   one another?  . . .
>
>OK, it can be told.  We were 15A: N1NH, the Nashua Area Radio Club,
>operating out of Hollis, NH (next town over from Nashua).  While
>working 75m I contacted a 16A operation in Michigan.  Our usual
>competition is a California club which has in the past operated 23A or
>25A.  I was told that they were out again this year, but I didn't
>reach anyone that far west this year on my station.

You're undoubtably referring to the Conjeo Valley ARC, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Nice bunch of folks.

---
 * Dana H. Myers KK6JQ, DoD#: j    | Views expressed here are    *
 * [phone]         | mine and do not necessarily    *
 * [e-mail]    | reflect those of my employer    *
 * This Extra supports the abolition of the 13 and 20 WPM tests *

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

Date: Tue, 5 Jul 1994 23:24:54 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!msuinfo!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!metro!ipso![e-mail]
Subject: IPS Daily Report - 05 July 94
To: [e-mail]

SUBJ: IPS DAILY SOLAR AND GEOPHYSICAL REPORT
ISSUED AT 5/2330Z JULY 1994 BY IPS RADIO AND SPACE SERVICES
FROM THE REGIONAL WARNING CENTRE (RWC), SYDNEY.
SUMMARY FOR 5 JULY AND FORECAST UP TO 8 JULY

No IPS Disturbance Warning is current
-----------------------------------------------------------
1A. SOLAR SUMMARY
Activity: very low

Flares: none.

Observed 10.7 cm flux/Equivalent Sunspot Number : 083/024

GOES satellite data for 4 July
       Daily Proton Fluence >1 MeV:   1.6E+06
       Daily Proton Fluence >10 MeV:  1.1E+04
       Daily Electron Fluence >2 MeV: 7.3E+08
       X-ray background: A6.0
Fluence (flux accumulation over 24hrs)/ cm2-ster-day.

1B. SOLAR FORECAST
             06 July            07 July            08 July
Activity     Low                Low                Very low
Fadeouts     None expected      None expected      None expected

Forecast 10.7 cm flux/Equivalent Sunspot Number : 080/020

1C. SOLAR COMMENT
None.
-----------------------------------------------------------
2A. MAGNETIC SUMMARY
Geomagnetic field at Learmonth: unsettled 00-03UT, and quiet
thereafter.

Estimated Indices : A   K           Observed A Index 4 July
    Learmonth       06  3121 1212
    Fredericksburg  04                          12
    Planetary       07                          11

Observed Kp for 4 July: 3332 2333


2B. MAGNETIC FORECAST
DATE      Ap    CONDITIONS
06 Jul    10    Quiet to unsettled.
07 Jul    10    Quiet to unsettled.
08 Jul    10    Quiet to unsettled.

2C. MAGNETIC COMMENT
Coronal hole-induced magnetic activity observed 10-12 June is NOT
expected to re-occur during the corresponding period of 7-9 July, as
the associated coronal hole is no longer visible in X-ray images.
-----------------------------------------------------------
3A. GLOBAL HF PROPAGATION SUMMARY
                LATITUDE BAND
DATE        LOW            MIDDLE         HIGH
05 Jul      normal         fair-normal    fair
PCA Event : None.
3B. GLOBAL HF PROPAGATION FORECAST
                LATITUDE BAND
DATE        LOW            MIDDLE         HIGH
06 Jul      normal         normal         fair
07 Jul      normal         normal         fair
08 Jul      normal         normal         fair
3C. GLOBAL HF PROPAGATION COMMENT
None.
-----------------------------------------------------------
4A. AUSTRALIAN REGION IONOSPHERIC SUMMARY
MUFs at Sydney were near predicted monthly values

Observed T index for 05 July:  33

Predicted Monthly T Index for July is 30.

4B. AUSTRALIAN REGION IONOSPHERIC FORECAST
DATE   T-index  MUFs
06 Jul    35    Near predicted monthly values.
07 Jul    40    Near predicted monthly values.
08 Jul    40    Near predicted monthly values.


4C. AUSTRALIAN REGION COMMENT
Occasional Sporadic E layer was observed yesterday. Similar
conditions are expected for today.

--
IPS Regional Warning Centre, Sydney           |IPS Radio and Space Services
email: [e-mail]  fax: [phone]      |PO Box 5606
RWC Duty Forecaster   tel: [phone]      |West Chatswood NSW 2057
Recorded Message      tel: [phone]      |AUSTRALIA

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

Date: 6 Jul 94 01:21:16 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: License Renewal
To: [e-mail]

Jim, WK1V (sorry, I didn't capture his address) writes:


        I can't tell who replied to whom now but looks like some
        misinformation is being passed along here.  Eric, you MAY NOT
        operate until you receive a new license from the FCC.  I'll tell
        you why:

Well, misinformation is certainly being passed, the question is, by whom?
Yes he may continue to operate!

        97.19(c) of the FCC Rules:

        [When the licensee has submitted a timely application for renewal
        of an unexpired license (between 60 and 90 days prior to the end of
        the license term is recommended), the licensee may continue to
        operate until the disposition of the application has been
        determined...]

        Yes, you stated that you submitted your renewal at around the 90
        day point. But, your license has expired so the application was not
        timely.

Jim, Do you interpret regulations for the IRS? Eric's application was
timely, in fact at the long end of the recommended window. The FCC's
processing of the application is not timely.

        It's not your fault that the FCC is backlogged so much that it is
        taking longer than the recommended 60-90 days for the renewal to be
        processed.

Precisely! That is why the regulation allows for continued operation,
provided the APPLICATION was made prior to license expiration.

        The 60 to 90 days is only a recommendation and in times like we are
        in now submission should be done earlier, like 120-150 days.

Actually, if I recall a post I read earlier today, it seems that renewals
will not be processed with actions sent more than 90 days prior to
expiration of the license. In the past, any submittal of a 610 resulted in
a license extension. The new system at the FCC eliminates that "feature".

        The keywords in the first half of 97.19(c) are [unexpired license].

Correct, unexpired at the time of submitting the renewal application.

        Now let's look at the second half of 97.19(c)

Let's not, it doesn't apply [snip]

        My point, Eric, is what if the FCC came to your house and caught
        you operating? You present an expired license.  What proof do you
        have that you submitted a renewal application?

Hopefully, Eric kept a copy of his 610 on file, and will attest to the fact
that he mailed it on or about the date the original was signed. Ideally, he
has a postal receipt, or perhaps sent it registered, although I doubt it.


        If I am incorrect in my assessment of this situation I'm sure
        someone will let me know.

Happy to help. :-) I recall this being hashed out on the net about a year
and a half ago. The intent of the rule changes involved were to allow
continued operation if the licensee did their part on time, and provide for
keeping an existing callsign if you missed the renewal date.

73

_____________________________________________________________________
Wm. A. Kirsanoff              Internet: [e-mail]
Rockwell International        Ham: KD6MCI
[phone]
Alternate Internet: [e-mail]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Who are you? * I am number 2. *  Who is number 1? * You are number 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------







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

Date: Tue, 05 Jul 1994 16:40:15 -0400
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!utcsri!newsflash.concordia.ca!altitude!interso.hip.cam.org![e-mail]
Subject: mac softwares for digital signals
To: [e-mail]

Where can I find Mac softwares for receiving of digital signals, such as
CW, fax and RTTY? That, without buying a TNC.

Thanks for your help,

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

Date: Sat, 2 Jul 1994 20:38:55 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!csn!carbon!mercury.cair.du.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Sock Size Conversion Chart: Inches/CM
To: [e-mail]

I'm not sure why, but in the past week or so, I've had qsos with a
number of people who, in addition to telling me the temperature at
their QTH, have volunteered the size and color of their socks.  I
don't know if this is the beginning of a fad, or if I've simply missed
this bit of info in previous qsos, but I am now responding in kind.

However, in qsos with foreign amateurs, I wish to state my sock size
metrically.  Does anyone have a simple chart listing lengths in
inches on one side and the metric equivalent on the other?  Most of my
socks range in length between 7 and 14 inches.  A chart that could round
off lengths to the nearest quarter inch would be most appreciated.

Art, N0OQS

P.S.  Thanks for the responses to my previous posting requesting
assistance with temperature conversion.  73.


--
Art Winterbauer  N0OQS
Internet:  [e-mail] OR [e-mail]
Packet:    n0oqs @ w0ljf.#neco.co.usa

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

Date: (null)
From: (null)


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

Date: 5 Jul 1994 08:55:48 -0700
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!news.kei.com!ssd.intel.com!chnews!ornews.intel.com!ornews.intel.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>.co
Subject : Re: simnplex on two meter

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Mollan - Harm) writes:
>...  I also call CQ on 2m cw and SSB.  I anderstnad the
>"Moniroring" business came about when people decided that if they could
>hear their repeater, there was no sense to call CQ

There was a time when 'CQ' was being actively discouraged on 2 meter FM.
I remember when I got reprimanded by somebody for calling CQ the first time
I tried using a 2 meter repeater back in the early 70's.  Of course I called
CQ about 20 times before signing my call :-)

To avoid using Q signals on voice as well as trying to sound more human, I
use the following call or variations on FM simplex:

"This is WA7LDV listening.  Is anybody out there?  Hello anybody!"

Experience has shown me that just saying 'listening' or 'monitoring' won't
get a rise but add a little more bait and you can catch them.




--
[e-mail]  WA7LDV

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

Date: 6 Jul 94 00:02:39 GMT
From: uswnvg![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>il.co
Subject : Re: AEA IsoLoop - Opinion

John Welch ([e-mail]) wrote:

: (often being a single pulse wide for good SWR).  In spite of the
: manual saying one did not need and should not use a tuner, there *is*
: a matching antenna tuner available for it.  Think about this - why
: would they do that if the antenna truly should not be used with a
: tuner???
Huh...what tuner?  Do you have an AEA part number?  Or, are you referring
to the "Automatic Tuner" that AEA is selling for about $249. THAT
"tuner" is NOT an "antenna matching network", but is a box that replaces the
two-button manual "tuner" that COMES WITH the Isoloop.  It has little dial
that is calibrated to move at the same rate as the capacitor in the
antenna, and allows you to repeatedly tune to the same spot (I think it
may also have an SWR bridge and be able to "read" lowest SRW, but I'm
not 100% certain about that.

:    Untill somebody else will do a side-by-side comparison, I will
: stand beside the laws of physics that show smaller antenna size will
: mean worse performance, and the concept that if you could fit a small
: loop in the attic you could also fit a wire dipole in the same space,
: with the advantage of a wire dipole being the total system cost is
: drastically lower.  In short, if an antenna sounds too good to be
: true, it isn't true.  There is no snake-oil cure for size.

Well, OK - here's one for you (YMMV, of course).  I have an Isoloop in
my attic.  It's about 30' AGL, inside a cedar shake roof.  The "loop"
is bent in what looks like a figure-8, to clear the rafters.  I ALSO
have a 10M full wave "delta loop", with one piece of the triangle supported
by a mast that's about 16' (at the top) off my roof (I get away with it
because the antenna looks like "guy wires" from a distance, and my CC&Rs
say my anemometer is legal, but the Isoloop wouldn't be).  Last
Saturday morning at about 0100Z, I had a QSO with a station in Utah on
10M.  The band was in the process of 'closing down', so it was not a long
QSO, and it was kinda iffy, BUT, the Isoloop outperformed the Delta by
at least a couple of S units (ie, I could HEAR him on the Isoloop, and
he could hear me, but NOT on the delta).  So, there you have it - your
side-by-side comparison, no snake oil, no nothing.  BTW, there have been
OTHER times when the delta has outperformed the Isoloop - also, the
delta delivers about 1.2:1 SWR on the novice voice part of 10M.  But,
don't take my word for it - I think the vast majority of the posts you
have seen here have been favorable toward the Isoloop - sure, it's not
a 4 el quad, but, for those places where a 4 el quad, or ANY outside
antenna is a hassle, it's a great alternative.

I have NO association with AEA, other than a very satisfied Isoloop
user.  These opinions are strictly my own, and have not been blessed by
anyone, let alone my management.  I just hate to see this sort of
misinformation spread...

--
Clay Jackson - N7QNM
US WEST NewVector Group Inc
Bellevue, WA
uunet!uswnvg!cjackso

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

End of Info-Hams Digest V94 #748
******************************