QRZ! Ham Radio 5/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 5.iso/digests/infoham/940997.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 23.5 KB

Date: Mon,  5 Sep 94 22:33:49 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 #997
To: Info-Hams


Info-Hams Digest            Mon,  5 Sep 94       Volume 94 : Issue  997

Today's Topics:
               2m RTPR freqs for Las Cruces,NM/ZiaLink?
                       A Repeater on 147.555?!?
                 Extra features of the Kenwood TH-78A
                  IPS Daily Report - 05 September 94
                            Kenwood TH79A
                          Origin of "Elmer"?
                 Questions about TV Twin-lead J-Pole
                  questions from a beginner (2 msgs)
                         Roof mounted antenna
                            Santec FM-240

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: 6 Sep 1994 04:21:39 GMT
From: yar.cs.wisc.edu![e-mail]
Subject: 2m RTPR freqs for Las Cruces,NM/ZiaLink?
To: [e-mail]

Could some kind soul please post 2m freqs for Las Cruces?  Especially a
connection to ZIA if possible...
--
Jason J. Hanson            |    1076 Goss Avenue          |  [phone]
State Rep. #55 - Candidate |    Menasha, WI 54952-2619    |  Ham: N9LEA (Extra)
--  [e-mail]      =*++*=      n9lea@wd9esu.#scwi.wi.usa.noam  --

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

Date: 6 Sep 1994 03:01:41 GMT
From: linet02.li.net![e-mail]
Subject: A Repeater on 147.555?!?
To: [e-mail]

In article <34di6t$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Leigh) says:


>I informed the control operator that both 146.535 and 147.555 were intended
>for FM simplex, under the ARRL band plan.  He stated that several local ARRL
>Official Observers had approved the non-standard repeater frequencies.

ARRL OO's have one function: To help amateurs understand and follow the FCC rules.  They can, in
extreme cases of non-compliance, take the matter to the FCC for enforcement, but they are not,
I repeat, NOT the FCC.  Their acceptance of an operation should by no means be construed to be a legal
precedant or "official" interpretation of the rules.  And you can check THAT with the ARRL.


>Do the "suggested" Band Plans have any meaning any more?!  What next:  FM
>packet nodes on 144.200 or CW QSOs on repeater inputs?

You'll have to do some digging to find it (perhaps the ARRL Regulatory Info group can assist), but I
remember reading a decision from the FCC stating that amateurs operating out of the ARRL Band Plan were
not operating in accordance with "Good Amateur Practice" -- which is in violation of the Rules.  I would
also argue that if the simplex operations on the frequency were regular and numerous, that the repeater
owner would be in violation of good amateur practice again in causing malicious interferance by not
considering the establiahed use of the frequency.  While he may argue that "no one owns a frequency", he
in effect does now, since no one else can use it for the pupose it had been in use for.


The FCC decision came due to the fact that the ARRL Band Plan had met with significant acceptance in the
ham community and since no one else had come up with one!


>Yes, all of the conventional 2 meter repeater pairs in Southern California
>are all used up, and repeater-to-repeater interference is common.  But does
>every Ham have a right to have his own repeater?   With our crowded,
>limited VHF spectrum, I believe we all should use FM simplex or SSB
>whenever possible.

Yes, every ham has a right to a repeater, as well as anything else his/her license priviledges convey.
However, if there are no pairs available, there are no pairs available, and then the coordination issues
come into play.


>Evidently, the local "co-ordinating" group for 2 meters in California, TASMA,
>is having some organizational problems, and will not currently be of much
>help, or so I'm informed.

Same here in NYC area.   Problem always seems to be that repeater owners have friends.. Or themselves.. on
the board...


****************************************************************************
*         :JOE TOMASONE:          GOD IS REAL; UNLESS DECLARED INTEGER     *
* INTERNET: [e-mail]          AMPR AX.25: N2MUO@N2BQF.#NLI.NY.USA   *
****************************************************************************

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

Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 17:56:00 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!ub!acsu.buffalo.edu!ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Extra features of the Kenwood TH-78A
To: [e-mail]



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

Date: Mon, 5 Sep 1994 23:08:22 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 September 94
To: [e-mail]

SUBJ: IPS DAILY SOLAR AND GEOPHYSICAL REPORT
ISSUED AT 05/2330Z SEPTEMBER 1994 BY IPS RADIO AND SPACE SERVICES
FROM THE REGIONAL WARNING CENTRE (RWC), SYDNEY.
SUMMARY FOR 05 SEPTEMBER AND FORECAST FOR 06 SEPTEMBER - 08 SEPTEMBER
-----------------------------------------------------------
1A. SOLAR SUMMARY
Activity: low

Flares: none.

Observed 10.7 cm flux/Equivalent Sunspot Number :  94/40

GOES satellite data for 04 Sep
       Daily Proton Fluence >1 MeV:   2.7E+05
       Daily Proton Fluence >10 MeV:  1.6E+04
       Daily Electron Fluence >2 MeV: 2.3E+06
       X-ray background: B1.1
Fluence (flux accumulation over 24hrs)/ cm2-ster-day.

1B. SOLAR FORECAST
             06 Sep             07 Sep             08 Sep
Activity     Low                Low                Low
Fadeouts     None expected      None expected      None expected

Forecast 10.7 cm flux/Equivalent Sunspot Number for 06 Sep:  92/37

-----------------------------------------------------------
2A. MAGNETIC SUMMARY
Geomagnetic field at Learmonth: unsettled

Estimated Indices : A   K           Observed A Index 04 Sep
    Learmonth       13  3333 3322
    Fredericksburg  10                           3
    Planetary       10                           4

Observed Kp for 04 Sep: 2111 1212
2B. MAGNETIC FORECAST
DATE      Ap    CONDITIONS
06 Sep    12    Unsettled
07 Sep    16    Unsettled to active
08 Sep    25    Active
COMMENT: IPS Geomagnetic Warning 3 was issued on 4 September and is
current for interval  7-10 September. Active levels, with minor storm
periods during local night expected 7-10 September due to coronal
hole.

-----------------------------------------------------------
3A. GLOBAL HF PROPAGATION SUMMARY
                LATITUDE BAND
DATE        LOW            MIDDLE         HIGH
05 Sep      normal         normal         normal
PCA Event : None.

3B. GLOBAL HF PROPAGATION FORECAST
                LATITUDE BAND
DATE        LOW            MIDDLE         HIGH
06 Sep      normal         normal         fair
07 Sep      normal         fair           poor
08 Sep      fair           poor           poor
HF Comms are expected to be degraded after 6 September.
-----------------------------------------------------------
4A. AUSTRALIAN REGION IONOSPHERIC SUMMARY
       Observed
DATE   T-index  MUFs at Sydney
05 Sep    33    near predicted monthly values

Predicted Monthly T-index for September: 20

4B. AUSTRALIAN REGION IONOSPHERIC FORECAST
DATE   T-index  MUFs
06 Sep    30    Near predicted monthly values
07 Sep    25    Near predicted monthly values
08 Sep    15    10 to 15% below predicted monthly values
COMMENT: IPS HF Communications Warning 2 was issued on 4 September
and is current for interval  7-10 September. HF comms conditions are
expected to become degraded after 6 September.
--
IPS Regional Warning Centre, Sydney       |IPS Radio and Space Services
RWC Duty Forecaster   tel: [phone]  |PO Box 5606
Recorded Message      tel: [phone]  |West Chatswood NSW 2057
email: [e-mail]  fax: [phone]  |AUSTRALIA

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

Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 03:44:16 GMT
From: netcomsv!netcom.com![e-mail]
Subject: Kenwood TH79A
To: [e-mail]

I was just down at the San Diego hamfest and closely looked at all of the
dual band HT's.  I decided that the 79a was by far and away superior,
IMHO, and proudly purcased one.

Excellent HT, you will be very pleased with it.


--
[e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Sep 1994 03:59:20 GMT
From: tymix.Tymnet.COM!niagara![e-mail]
Subject: Origin of "Elmer"?
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stan Olochwoszcz N2AYJ) writes:
>I got my license in March, 1979 and Elmer was pretty strongly entrenched
>by then.

Ditto back in 1960 when I got started.

73, Dick
--
Dick Flanagan, W6OLD                           w6old@wa6ewv.#nocal.ca.usa.na
[e-mail]                               CIS:73672,751  GEnie:FLANAGAN

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

Date: 5 Sep 1994 23:39:56 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!psgrain!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!prodigy.bc.ca!espresso.prodigy.bc.ca![e-mail]
Subject: Questions about TV Twin-lead J-Pole
To: [e-mail]

I recently posted a requested for instructions one building a TV
Twin-lead J-pole antenna. I received many helpful responses that included
plans for an antenna by Ed Humphries. I;ve been trying to build this
antenna and I keep messing something up so that  the results I get are no
better than my standard HT antenna. I was hoping that someone might have
some ideas as to what I may be doing wrong. Here are some of the problems
I've encountered:

-The TV twin-lead does not lay completely flat so it's difficuly to
measure (i.e. there's some curvature). How should it be measured?
-Does the exact location of the feedpoint for the coax make a significant
difference?
-Will the length of the coax used to feed the antenna make a
signification difference?
-I'm using an RG-58U cable with a large connector at one end to which I
attach a BNC adaptor. Will this make a difference?
-Is there any way to measure the efficiency of the antenna without using
a SWR meter? The only meter I have access to is a Radio Shack meter than
measures HF only. It's readings seem to be quite a bit off.

Any assistance would greatly be aprpeciated.

Paul
-----

Paul Antaki
Prodigy Technologies Corporation         Phone: [phone]
1100-1190 Hornby Street                    Fax: [phone]
Vancouver, B.C.                         e-mail: [e-mail]
V6Z 2K5

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

Date: Mon, 5 Sep 1994 04:25:24 GMT
From: prism.poly.edu![e-mail]
Subject: questions from a beginner
To: [e-mail]

I'm beginning to familiarize myself with amateur radio and am interested in
getting the technician's license. With this, I have several questions:

1) how is the autopatch service exactly used?
for example, I looked at the 2-meter FM Ham Transceiver sold by Radio Shack,
and it says in the catalog that it has "touch-tone (DTMF) dialer and five
memories for autopatch". How would one use this radio to make a phone call?
And, is autopatch available almost anywhere in the US, well particularly in
the Northeastern area?

2) are the Radio Shack radios any good? should I be looking at something
more expensive, more powerful, and better?


3) how can I get my appointment set up to take the exam? Does the FCC have
the information on the VE's or is there some amateur radio club that I need
to call (in the NYC area)?

Thanks for any help, I'll probably come up with some more questions later
on...

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

Date: 6 Sep 1994 00:07:44 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsrelay.iastate.edu!news.iastate.edu![e-mail]
Subject: questions from a beginner
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Paul Zelicof) writes:
|>
|> I'm beginning to familiarize myself with amateur radio and am interested in
|> getting the technician's license. With this, I have several questions:

Welcome to amateur radio!  I hope you get all the information you are
looking for, and then join this wonderful hobby.

|> 1) how is the autopatch service exactly used?
|> for example, I looked at the 2-meter FM Ham Transceiver sold by Radio Shack,
|> and it says in the catalog that it has "touch-tone (DTMF) dialer and five
|> memories for autopatch". How would one use this radio to make a phone call?
|> And, is autopatch available almost anywhere in the US, well particularly in
|> the Northeastern area?

Some repeaters are connected to phone lines.  By transmitting a certain
DTMF code to the repeater, a ham can access the autopatch and make phone
calls the same as from a touch-tone phone.  (Of course, you have to let
go of the PTT to listen to the other side of the conversation. :-)

|> 2) are the Radio Shack radios any good? should I be looking at something
|> more expensive, more powerful, and better?

The HTX-202 radios are very good 2 meter HTs.  They don't receive out of
band, but then they also don't have many of the intermod problems common
to wide-band radios.  If you're looking for a 2-meter only HT for not
too much money, the HTX-202 is a good radio.

|> 3) how can I get my appointment set up to take the exam? Does the FCC have
|> the information on the VE's or is there some amateur radio club that I need
|> to call (in the NYC area)?

Your best bet is to contact a club in your area, or a ham in your area.
You can also contact the ARRL and find out when an ARRL-sponsored VE
testing session is in your area.  (Sorry, but I don't have any info on
the NYC area in particular.)

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

Date: Mon, 5 Sep 94 22:15:43 -0500
From: news.delphi.com![e-mail]
Subject: Roof mounted antenna
To: [e-mail]

  I'm a HAM wanna-be (currently studying for the exam).  Wondering about
the pros and cons of a roof mounted antenna system for 2 meters.  Seems an
antenna on top of a 2 story house would be fairly effective.  Are there
any particulars (grounding, wind, etc) of which I should be extra careful?
Thanks for the help!

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

Date: 5 Sep 1994 21:09:55 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!news.uh.edu!news.sccsi.com!nuchat![e-mail]
Subject: Santec FM-240
To: [e-mail]

A.C. Spraggins ([e-mail]) wrote:

: I have a borrowed Santec 240 WITHOUT the manual.  I've found the "enter"
: key and such.  My question is, does this rig have transmit "PL" capability
: or just receive "tone-squelch" type stuff?  The problem is , I need a xcvr
: with transmit PL on 103.5 for some repeaters, but, I can't seem to toggle
: the PL on here using the "enter" key that lets me select the actual PL freq.

: Did I make myself clear here?  In a nutshell, does the Santec 240 have a
: way to turn the TRANSMIT PL on?

:      Thanks, and 73 de A.C., W5EZM in Houston

I FINGERED it out.  IF you go to the "memory" switch position, use the
enter key to select "tone" and turn the freq knob clockwise until the PL
tone reaches the one you want, THEN the PL is on all of the time on THAT
channel.  Turning the freq knob counter-clockwise until it hits zero turns
the PL off.

     Now if I could JUST know exactly what freqs are needed around here!

     Thanks for all previous suggestions and 73 de A.C. in Houston




:  --
: A. C. Spraggins                         [e-mail]
: South Coast Computing Services, Inc.    [e-mail]
: P. O. Box 270355                        [phone]
: Houston, TX 77277-0355                  [phone] fax

--
A. C. Spraggins                         [e-mail]
South Coast Computing Services, Inc.    [e-mail]
P. O. Box 270355                        [phone]
Houston, TX 77277-0355                  [phone] fax

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

Date: 5 Sep 1994 21:18 CDT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!news.uh.edu!elroy.uh.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <34fpr2$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <34gbfd$[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: A Repeater on 147.555?!?

In article <34gbfd$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (William J Turner) writes...
>
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jeffrey Herman) writes:
>|> 600,000 hams each with their own repeater would use 1.2 million
>|> frequency channels, not counting the frequencies needed for control.
>|> They would be using three times the needed spectrum and certainly more
>|> power than needed to carry out their desired QSO.
>
>OK, but does this mean that a ham who wants to put up a repeater does
>not have the right to do so?  Most hams won't because of the expense
>involved, and many also don't care about repeaters, but I don't see why
>they don't have the *right* to do so.  It might not be practical,
>or even feasible, but I don't think this means they don't have the
>*right*.
>
>Having the right and exercising it are different things.

I agree with you, Bill.  There isn't a rule (that I know of) that
prohibits a ham from constructing a repeater, coordinated or not.

--
Brad A. Killebrew N5LJV, EMT-B        | Student of Computer Engr Technology
President, University of Houston ARC  |    University of Houston, Texas
Internet: [e-mail]                |  U of H Amateur Radio Club  WB5FND
AMPRnet : [e-mail]    |      [e-mail]
Packet  : n5ljv@f6cnb.#setx.tx.usa.na | Box 85-T2, 4800 Calhoun, 77204-4083
AT&Tnet : 713-743-6676  Fax [phone]  | For info, finger [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 02:43:39 GMT
From: news.Hawaii.Edu!kahuna![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <34gbfd$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: A Repeater on 147.555?!?

One thing I might add is that most of the current 2M users would
think of  their radios as useless if all repeaters were to suddenly
go QRT. It's a shame to be dependent upon someone else's radio (i.e.,
The Repeater) in order to value your own.

In a past repeater debate over on .policy someone mentioned he'd
bought a dual-band HT; when he found no open repeaters on 440 he
said he returned the HT for a 2M-only radio. How sad.

Jeff NH6IL

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

Date: 6 Sep 1994 13:18:15 +1000
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!msuinfo!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!metro!news.ci.com.au!eram.esi.com.au![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <34fpr2$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <34gbfd$[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: A Repeater on 147.555?!?

In article <34gbfd$[e-mail]>,
    [e-mail] (William J Turner) writes:

| OK, but does this mean that a ham who wants to put up a repeater does
| not have the right to do so?

In many countries that I am aware of, this is the case.

--
Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU) | [e-mail] | VK2KFU @ VK2AAB.NSW.AUS.OC | PGP 2.6
Opinions expressed are mine. | E7 FE 97 88 E5 02 3C AE  9C 8C 54 5B 9A D4 A0 CD

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

Date: 6 Sep 1994 00:00:45 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsrelay.iastate.edu!news.iastate.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <34fpr2$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>a
Subject : Re: A Repeater on 147.555?!?


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jeffrey Herman) writes:
|> 600,000 hams each with their own repeater would use 1.2 million
|> frequency channels, not counting the frequencies needed for control.
|> They would be using three times the needed spectrum and certainly more
|> power than needed to carry out their desired QSO.

OK, but does this mean that a ham who wants to put up a repeater does
not have the right to do so?  Most hams won't because of the expense
involved, and many also don't care about repeaters, but I don't see why
they don't have the *right* to do so.  It might not be practical,
or even feasible, but I don't think this means they don't have the
*right*.

Having the right and exercising it are different things.

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

Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 01:41:16 GMT
From: psinntp!isc-newsserver!ultb![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <34di6t$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <34fpr2$[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: A Repeater on 147.555?!?

In article <34fpr2$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William J Turner) writes:
>
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jeffrey Herman) writes:
>|> In article <34di6t$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Leigh) writes:
>|> >But does every Ham have a right to have his own repeater?
>|> A very good question and the answer certainly must be *NO*.
>
>I know this will start a large debate (at least it looks like it might),
>but I have to ask why does "the answer certainly must be *NO*"?  I
>agree that most repeater QSOs could be used on simplex at lower power,
>and thus, technically, they are breaking the law.  But, how does this
>make it so each ham does not have a right to have his own repeater?
>
>I would say they probably do have the right, but that exercising it is
>not in the best interests of the ham community at large.  I see nothing
>in Part 97 to say every ham *can't* have his (or her) own repeater.
>Please enlighten me and the group on your thinking.

Why must it by "my" repeater?  What's wrong with talking on "somebody
else's" repeater?  Most of them are idle most of the time anyway.

The only place I'd like to see more repeaters are on less-used bands
to entice more people to use something besides 2 meters.

73...Jim  N2VNO

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

Date: Mon, 5 Sep 1994 21:58:26 GMT
From: news.Hawaii.Edu!kahuna![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <34di6t$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <34fpr2$[e-mail]>│p
Subject : Re: A Repeater on 147.555?!?

> (Jeffrey Herman) writes:

>|> [e-mail] (Leigh) writes:

>|> >But does every Ham have a right to have his own repeater?
>|>
>|> A very good question and the answer certainly must be *NO*.

600,000 hams each with their own repeater would use 1.2 million
frequency channels, not counting the frequencies needed for control.
They would be using three times the needed spectrum and certainly more
power than needed to carry out their desired QSO.

Jeff NH6IL

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

End of Info-Hams Digest V94 #997
******************************