QRZ! Ham Radio 5

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ QRZ! Ham Radio 5 / QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 5.iso / digests / infoham / 940872.txt < prev next >

Wrap

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 25.8 KB

Date: Wed, 3 Aug 94 17:09:31 PDT From: Info-Hams Mailing List and Newsgroup <info-hams@ucsd.edu> Errors-To: Info-Hams-Errors@UCSD.Edu Reply-To: Info-Hams@UCSD.Edu Precedence: Bulk Subject: Info-Hams Digest V94 #872 To: Info-Hams Info-Hams Digest Wed, 3 Aug 94 Volume 94 : Issue 872 Today's Topics: .52 beacon legal? (was: Amateur Radio Newsline #885 31 Jul 94) Amateur radio clubs in the Brenham, Texas area? Car warrantee and 2m radio (4 msgs) Daily Summary of Solar Geophysical Activity for 31 July Ham Software Pirates? ICOM 3230 800mhz mod? Info on linking repeaters? Mobile Radio in Dodge Caravan? Question from a NOVICE (2 msgs) Send Replies or notes for publication to: <Info-Hams@UCSD.Edu> Send subscription requests to: <Info-Hams-REQUEST@UCSD.Edu> Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu. 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: Wed, 3 Aug 94 10:14:20 -0500 From: news.delphi.com!usenet@uunet.uu.net Subject: .52 beacon legal? (was: Amateur Radio Newsline #885 31 Jul 94) To: info-hams@ucsd.edu David R Tucker <drt@world.std.com> writes: >I was under the impression that automatically controlled beacons on 2 >meters were restricted to 144.275-144.300 (97.203d). How, then, can >this be legal? And anyway, does continuous MCW on the National >Simplex Frequency, even locally, qualify as good practice? Here Here! I found this very disturbing as well, and i thought that it showed baltant disregard for the band plan. 146.52 is a major simplex thorofare here in CT and a beacon would be bombed in short order. It took a load of griping for me to get the local foxhunters (whom i now "represent") to get off .52. Any op's confirm the existence of this thing??? 73 de n1qdq ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 1994 13:54:27 GMT From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!overload.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!news.uh.edu!usenet@network.ucsd.edu Subject: Amateur radio clubs in the Brenham, Texas area? To: info-hams@ucsd.edu Subject says it all, pretty much. I am in process of getting Technician+, and could use some help/advice setting up shack/antenna system, etc. Although I commute to Houston everyday, I would rather get help from a little closer to home. (FWIW I actually live closer to College Station/Bryan than to Houston.) Thanks. David F. Jenkins DJENKINS@jetson.uh.edu Decision and Information Sciences Room 280-A MH University of Houston 713/743-4725 ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 1994 14:15:36 GMT From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!pstc3!md@network.ucsd.edu Subject: Car warrantee and 2m radio To: info-hams@ucsd.edu In article <31m6iv$f94@news.bu.edu>, David Gagnon wrote: |> I am in the process of looking for a new car and someone brought up the |> possibility that installing a 2m rig might void a new car warrantee. His |> thought was that the radio might do damage to the cars computer and that |> having the radio might invalidate a provision of the warrantee. Every time I hear about this I have to chuckle, as if these car manufacturers think that outside RF somehow stops at the boundary of their vehicle. If the computer is so prone to damage from large RF fields and installing a radio in your car may cause damage, according to the manufacturer, tell the manufacturer that you're not going to purchase the car. Tell them "gee, I wouldn't want to have my computer fried by some CB radio operator in the car next to me running an illegal 1000 watt amplifier." See how quick they change their story... MD -- -- The best way for Bill Clinton to keep his -- legal fees down is to keep his zipper up. -- ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 94 10:27:42 From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!zip.eecs.umich.edu!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news1.oakland.edu!rcsuna.gmr.com!@@ihnp4.ucsd.edu Subject: Car warrantee and 2m radio To: info-hams@ucsd.edu In article <31m6iv$f94@news.bu.edu> david@bu.edu (David Gagnon) writes: I am in the process of looking for a new car and someone brought up the possibility that installing a 2m rig might void a new car warrantee. His thought was that the radio might do damage to the cars computer and that having the radio might invalidate a provision of the warrantee. It's not a problem with GM products. They even publish a nice pamphlet describing how you ought to go about installing the radio for least interference. GM has provided vehicles for mobile communications activities for as long as I can remember and doesn't want to loose that business. Send me a SASE and I'll send you a copy. Val Breault 8101 Warren Blvd. Center Line, MI 48015 I recently acquired an Icom IC-28h that puts out 45 watts at high power. Nice rig. I think I've fallen in love with mine. :-) BTW I'm looking at the 94 Accord, Mazda 626, Mitsubishi Gallant, Taurus, Subaru Legacy, and Camry. Ask your salesperson for hard proof that the installation will be okay. I've heard that installing a mobile radio voids the warranty on some manufacturers vehicles. I have a hard time believing that it'll be a problem, but this is the place to ask. Please respond directly via e-mail. Thanks. Okay. The rest of you folks please pretend you didn't read this. :-) >David< -- David R. Gagnon, MD MPH david@med-buspheb.bu.edu Boston University School of Public Health (617) 638-4457 [voice] Boston, Massachusetts (617) 638-4458 [fax] "ecrasez l'infamie" -- Val Breault - N8OEF - vbreault@gmr.com \ /| Instrumentation dept GM NAO R&D Center \ / | My opinions are not necessarily those of \ /__| GMR nor of the General Motors Corporation \/ |___ ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 1994 09:43:56 -0400 From: news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail@uunet.uu.net Subject: Car warrantee and 2m radio To: info-hams@ucsd.edu In article <31m6iv$f94@news.bu.edu>, David Gagnon wrote: > > I am in the process of looking for a new car and someone brought up the > possibility that installing a 2m rig might void a new car warrantee. His > thought was that the radio might do damage to the cars computer and that > having the radio might invalidate a provision of the warrantee. > > I recently acquired an Icom IC-28h that puts out 45 watts at high power. > I notice interference in my car radio when transmitting at high power, so > there is some leakage going on. Do I have anything to worry about? > > I guess there are two questions here: "Is there a chance of causing damage?" > and "Am I in trouble just by putting it in the car?" > > BTW I'm looking at the 94 Accord, Mazda 626, Mitsubishi Gallant, Taurus, > Subaru Legacy, and Camry. > > I have a hard time believing that it'll be a problem, but this is the place > to ask. Please respond directly via e-mail. Thanks. > > >David< > -- > David R. Gagnon, MD MPH david@med-buspheb.bu.edu > Boston University School of Public Health (617) 638-4457 [voice] > Boston, Massachusetts (617) 638-4458 [fax] > "ecrasez l'infamie" See if they'll let you test drive the vehicle over the weekend. Put all the gear you're going to use into the vehicle, put up mag mount or trunk mount antennas, and QSO-away at full power driving around your neighborhood. If the vehicle dies, catch a ride home, pull out the gear, call the dealer and tell him they've got a DOA vehicle to pick up! Just a sly suggestion, a friend did this before he picked up his Bronco II and it worked fine, so he finalized the deal. Andy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Aug 1994 03:43:24 GMT From: netcomsv!netcom.com!benacp@decwrl.dec.com Subject: Car warrantee and 2m radio To: info-hams@ucsd.edu David, I not only had my 2m rig in the car but I have 155Mhz radio in my car scanner under the dash and Green Light on my roof (Volunteer Paramedic). None of these devices voided my warantee or ruined my cars computer. Yours cars computer get more sh*t from that engine then it ever will from your 2m rig. So relax and enjoy your car and your hobby. Pete, N2BLY David Gagnon (david@bu.edu) wrote: : I am in the process of looking for a new car and someone brought up the : possibility that installing a 2m rig might void a new car warrantee. His : thought was that the radio might do damage to the cars computer and that : having the radio might invalidate a provision of the warrantee. : I recently acquired an Icom IC-28h that puts out 45 watts at high power. : I notice interference in my car radio when transmitting at high power, so : there is some leakage going on. Do I have anything to worry about? : I guess there are two questions here: "Is there a chance of causing damage?" : and "Am I in trouble just by putting it in the car?" : BTW I'm looking at the 94 Accord, Mazda 626, Mitsubishi Gallant, Taurus, : Subaru Legacy, and Camry. : I have a hard time believing that it'll be a problem, but this is the place : to ask. Please respond directly via e-mail. Thanks. : >David< : -- : David R. Gagnon, MD MPH david@med-buspheb.bu.edu : Boston University School of Public Health (617) 638-4457 [voice] : Boston, Massachusetts (617) 638-4458 [fax] : "ecrasez l'infamie" -- Peter P. Benac North Winds Systems, Inc Specializing in Custom Data Communications Solutions for DOS and Unix Voice: 1-315-598-9212 Compuserve: 74151,2703 Internet: benacp@netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Aug 1994 20:03:50 MDT From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!library.ucla.edu!news.mic.ucla.edu!unixg.ubc.ca!quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca!alberta!ve6mgs!usenet@ames.arpa Subject: Daily Summary of Solar Geophysical Activity for 31 July To: info-hams@ucsd.edu /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ DAILY SUMMARY OF SOLAR GEOPHYSICAL ACTIVITY 31 JULY, 1994 /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ (Based In-Part On SESC Observational Data) SOLAR AND GEOPHYSICAL ACTIVITY INDICES FOR 31 JULY, 1994 -------------------------------------------------------- !!BEGIN!! (1.0) S.T.D. Solar Geophysical Data Broadcast for DAY 212, 07/31/94 10.7 FLUX=075 90-AVG=079 SSN=014 BKI=2213 2213 BAI=007 BGND-XRAY=A1.4 FLU1=5.5E+05 FLU10=1.3E+04 PKI=3213 2223 PAI=008 BOU-DEV=017,014,006,***,***,***,***,*** DEV-AVG=012 NT SWF=00:000 XRAY-MAX= A5.1 @ 1102UT XRAY-MIN= A1.2 @ 0104UT XRAY-AVG= A2.1 NEUTN-MAX= +001% @ 0530UT NEUTN-MIN= -003% @ 0710UT NEUTN-AVG= -0.9% PCA-MAX= +0.1DB @ 0900UT PCA-MIN= -0.1DB @ 0245UT PCA-AVG= -0.0DB BOUTF-MAX=55245NT @ 0444UT BOUTF-MIN=55235NT @ 0137UT BOUTF-AVG=55240NT GOES7-MAX=P:+000NT@ 0000UT GOES7-MIN=N:+000NT@ 0000UT G7-AVG=+058,+000,+000 GOES6-MAX=P:+120NT@ 0006UT GOES6-MIN=N:-034NT@ 0058UT G6-AVG=+089,+022,-010 FLUXFCST=STD:075,075,077;SESC:075,075,077 BAI/PAI-FCST=005,005,010/008,008,010 KFCST=2223 3221 1223 3221 27DAY-AP=011,007 27DAY-KP=3332 2333 2221 2323 WARNINGS= ALERTS=**SWEEP:II=2@1029-1044UTC(1500KM/SEC) !!END-DATA!! NOTE: The Effective Sunspot Number for 30 JUL 94 was 27.9. The Full Kp Indices for 30 JUL 94 are: 3+ 3- 2o 2- 2- 2o 2+ 3- The 3-Hr Ap Indices for 30 JUL 94 are: 20 12 8 6 6 8 10 12 Greater than 2 MeV Electron Fluence for 31 JUL is: 2.7E+07 SYNOPSIS OF ACTIVITY -------------------- Solar activity was very low. A Type II sweep was reported by the Sagamore Hill and San Vito observatories at 31/1029Z. Shock velocity was estimated at 1500 km/sec. No x-ray or optical correlation was indicated with this sweep. Solar activity forecast: solar activity is expected to be very low. The geomagnetic field has been at mostly quiet to unsettled levels for the past 24 hours. The GT 2 MeV energetic electron flux was mostly normal to moderate. A brief period of high flux readings was recorded early in the period from 30/2100Z to 30/2400Z. Geophysical activity forecast: the geomagnetic field is expected to be mostly quiet to unsettled for the next three days. Event probabilities 01 aug-03 aug Class M 01/01/01 Class X 01/01/01 Proton 01/01/01 PCAF Green Geomagnetic activity probabilities 01 aug-03 aug A. Middle Latitudes Active 10/10/20 Minor Storm 05/05/05 Major-Severe Storm 01/01/01 B. High Latitudes Active 10/10/25 Minor Storm 05/05/05 Major-Severe Storm 01/01/05 HF propagation conditions were normal over all regions. No changes are expected over the next 2 to 3 days, although there is a slight chance high latitudes may begin to see minor signal degradation on 03 or 04 August in response to recurrent geomagnetic activity. COPIES OF JOINT USAF/NOAA SESC SOLAR GEOPHYSICAL REPORTS ======================================================== REGIONS WITH SUNSPOTS. LOCATIONS VALID AT 31/2400Z JULY ------------------------------------------------------- NMBR LOCATION LO AREA Z LL NN MAG TYPE 7760 S07W63 271 0020 BXO 03 004 BETA 7759 N03W03 211 PLAGE REGIONS DUE TO RETURN 01 AUGUST TO 03 AUGUST NMBR LAT LO 7754 N12 080 LISTING OF SOLAR ENERGETIC EVENTS FOR 31 JULY, 1994 --------------------------------------------------- BEGIN MAX END RGN LOC XRAY OP 245MHZ 10CM SWEEP 1029 1044 II POSSIBLE CORONAL MASS EJECTION EVENTS FOR 31 JULY, 1994 ------------------------------------------------------- BEGIN MAX END LOCATION TYPE SIZE DUR II IV 31/ 1029 1044 RSP 2 INFERRED CORONAL HOLES. LOCATIONS VALID AT 31/2400Z --------------------------------------------------- ISOLATED HOLES AND POLAR EXTENSIONS EAST SOUTH WEST NORTH CAR TYPE POL AREA OBSN NO DATA AVAILABLE FOR ANALYSIS SUMMARY OF FLARE EVENTS FOR THE PREVIOUS UTC DAY ------------------------------------------------ Date Begin Max End Xray Op Region Locn 2695 MHz 8800 MHz 15.4 GHz ------ ---- ---- ---- ---- -- ------ ------ --------- --------- --------- NO EVENTS OBSERVED. REGION FLARE STATISTICS FOR THE PREVIOUS UTC DAY ------------------------------------------------ C M X S 1 2 3 4 Total (%) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- ------ Uncorrellated: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 ( 0.0) Total Events: 000 optical and x-ray. EVENTS WITH SWEEPS AND/OR OPTICAL PHENOMENA FOR THE LAST UTC DAY ---------------------------------------------------------------- Date Begin Max End Xray Op Region Locn Sweeps/Optical Observations ------ ---- ---- ---- ---- -- ------ ------ --------------------------- NO EVENTS OBSERVED. NOTES: All times are in Universal Time (UT). Characters preceding begin, max, and end times are defined as: B = Before, U = Uncertain, A = After. All times associated with x-ray flares (ex. flares which produce associated x-ray bursts) refer to the begin, max, and end times of the x-rays. Flares which are not associated with x-ray signatures use the optical observations to determine the begin, max, and end times. Acronyms used to identify sweeps and optical phenomena include: II = Type II Sweep Frequency Event III = Type III Sweep IV = Type IV Sweep V = Type V Sweep Continuum = Continuum Radio Event Loop = Loop Prominence System, Spray = Limb Spray, Surge = Bright Limb Surge, EPL = Eruptive Prominence on the Limb. ** End of Daily Report ** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Aug 1994 12:10:10 GMT From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary@network.ucsd.edu Subject: Ham Software Pirates? To: info-hams@ucsd.edu In article <Ctwy08.5yF@csn.org> lwjames@csn.org (Dr. Lawrence James) writes: > >In August '94 QST, Brian Beezley, K6STI, is quoted as saying "Many >software developers have no defense against the widespread software >piracy that occurs in the Amateur Radio market." > >Without implicating any specific person, is this valid? Are hams really >any worse than the rest of the population? I think it's fair to say that hams *are* more experimentally inclined than the general population, most of the general population are still staring at the 12:00 flashing on their VCRs. However, I don't think hams are much different from the average technoid computer user. Many hams are hackers (in the original good meaning of the term). They are going to want either source code, or they're going to disassemble the binary to see how it works. And they are likely to want to tinker with the code. Then they'll want to share that knowledge with their fellows. Because of the experimental nature of amateur radio, I prefer not to use commercial software for my amateur activities. That's why when the Netrom-theNet controversy boiled up I went another way, using the KA9Q code as switch code. Yeah, it meant a PC on the mountain, but it gave me more flexibility to experiment. And that's what it's all about for me. When I do buy commercial software, I avoid software with copy protection or restrictive licensing. I'll pay a book price for useful software whose author treats it like a book in his license agreement. I won't pay exorbitant prices for buggy software with no support and lock and key licensing. It seems that most software marketed in the latter way has fallen by the wayside because others feel the same way I do. When most software authors complain about piracy, it's usually just imaginary sales that they are trying to tally. The ones screaming piracy the loudest probably have software priced such that they aren't going to get many legitimate sales anyway. Those with more realistic pricing don't seem to have as much complaint about piracy, and their sales are larger too. 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: 3 Aug 1994 14:54:27 GMT From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!ceylon!NewsWatcher!user@network.ucsd.edu Subject: ICOM 3230 800mhz mod? To: info-hams@ucsd.edu Fellow Amateurs, Does anyone have any information on the mods for the ICOM 3230 dualband transciever? I found some for the 2410 sister unit, but it doesn't appear to be the same. I'd be interested in any comments from mod advice to performance comments. Please Email comments to ==> dginsberg@gte.com 73, Don ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 1994 00:23:29 -0500 From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!insosf1.infonet.net!worf.infonet.net!not-for-mail@network.ucsd.edu Subject: Info on linking repeaters? To: info-hams@ucsd.edu Hello, I'm interested in obtaining some information on linking repeaters. Such as simply linking up 2 machines, all the way up to wide area repeater networks that I hear about out west. Send any replies to cjvan@worf.infonet.net. Thanks. 73, Chris - N0WHI m ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 1994 15:50:15 GMT From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!haven.umd.edu!cs.umd.edu!newsfeed.gsfc.nasa.gov!lvn@network.ucsd.edu Subject: Mobile Radio in Dodge Caravan? To: info-hams@ucsd.edu I'm about to install my 2 meter mobile in my Dodge Caravan and would like to hear what others have done. Offhand, no outstanding location for mounting it is leaping out at me. Thanks, Larry, K3TLX ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 1994 14:25:41 GMT From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!newsrelay.iastate.edu!news.iastate.edu!isuvax.iastate.edu!TWP77@network.ucsd.edu Subject: Question from a NOVICE To: info-hams@ucsd.edu In article <17210026@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com>, lou@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Lou Duncan) writes: Yes, there is a "Technician Plus" license now. The FCC just started issuing to Technicians who passed the 5wpm code test. Even before it was a separate license, Technicians who passed the code test could operate on all the HF Novice bands. So, yes, the code test will make a difference. It will give you HF priviledges that Technicians who have not passed the code test will have. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Aug 1994 14:08:05 GMT From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!gatech!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!darwin.sura.net!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary@network.ucsd.edu Subject: Question from a NOVICE To: info-hams@ucsd.edu In article <17210026@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> lou@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Lou Duncan) writes: >Howdy, >I've had a Novice license since the mid 80's and have recently started to >think about getting a Technician Class License. > >I notice that there is now a NO-CODE Tech. License....is there an advantage >to me having passed the 5 wpm test? Yes, it qualifies you for the Tech Plus license which has limited HF priviledges, including voice on a segment of 10 meters and all of your current Novice CW segments. >I always thought the code test kept HAM from becoming like CB (I"ve >really been out of touch so if this is a sore issue, please give me some slack) It's a very sore issue, off to policy with you. :-) >Obviously, I have no room to make any comments...all I want know is there a >separate license for Technician with code? The FCC initially said that there wouldn't be a separate license for Tech with code, just keep your proof you passed a 5 WPM exam forever and go ahead and use the HF slivers. Now, however, it's reported that the new computer system at the FCC is allowing them to print Tech Plus on licenses of those with proof of passing a 5 WPM exam. If you haven't passed a 5 WPM exam, you're limited to the frequencies above 30 MHz and don't get the Plus printed on your Tech license. 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: 2 Aug 1994 18:36:14 -0700 From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken.llnl.gov!apple.com!apple.com!not-for-mail@network.ucsd.edu To: info-hams@ucsd.edu References <CtKs4o.5or@news.Hawaii.Edu>, <gregCtpuwo.F3y@netcom.com>, <31c699$7sv@chnews.intel.com>Ñ Subject : Re: Ramsey SlyFox Cecil_A_Moore@ccm.hf.intel.com writes: >In article <gregCtpuwo.F3y@netcom.com>, Greg Bullough <greg@netcom.com> wrote: >>>In article <h0+RTqi.jramsey@delphi.com> jramsey@delphi.com writes: >>>>it's easier to spread the coils a bit than to have to add more turns! >>Gee, Cecil, it's a good thing that kit manufacturers can expect not to >>have to re-teach hams the 'basic physics' that they had to know to get >>their ham licenses, isn't it? Greg >Hi again Greg, Obviously, John functions on an algebraic plane so he >no doubt meant to say, "add more (negative) turns". ;-) Oh boy. It is arguable if Ramsey deserves some of the flames hurled at him. He definitely does not deserve this one! Look, I interpret what John Ramsey wrote as: Ramsey purposely made the coils a little larger than neccessary, so that simpletons could tune the stuff they had built with very little trouble. Had he made the coils a little smaller, the purchaser would have had to add more turns, which is much more difficult to do, to achieve equivalent ability to tune. Thus >> it's easier to spread the coils a bit than to have to add more turns! If you find John's explanation so hard to understand, how did you blokes understand Icom manuals, anyway? :-) 73, Kok Chen, AA6TY kchen@apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. ------------------------------ End of Info-Hams Digest V94 #872 ******************************