QRZ! Ham Radio 5/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 5.iso/digests/infoham/941073.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 22.9 KB

Date: Thu, 29 Sep 94 15:50:54 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 #1073
To: Info-Hams


Info-Hams Digest            Thu, 29 Sep 94       Volume 94 : Issue 1073

Today's Topics:
                  [LOOKING] for ftp site w/ham-exams
                    Best HT anywhere at any price!
                           Callbook online?
                       Colorado Repeater Assn.
                     FCC forms wireless division
                       For Sale: PK-232-MBX TNC
                  IPS Daily Report - 27 September 94
        Need help with FT-530: half-duplex crossband operation
                       Shops in NYC and Boston?
                             Subsciption
                          Tucker Electronics
                 UK repeaters frequencies needed ...
                      Vertically Polarized Noise
                  VTVMs? Anybody use these anymore?
          Why does Radio Shac care if I export HT202?     ##

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: 29 Sep 1994 02:15:47 GMT
From: intac![e-mail]
Subject: [LOOKING] for ftp site w/ham-exams
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] ('terence johnson/zpe4') says:
>
>
>Does anyone know of a good ftp site which has recent example-tests or
>a program that generates them from a question pool. My nieghbor wants
>a PC program which can generate random tests.
>
You might try to ftp:     nic.funet.fi  /pub/ham/exams
           view the index for latest versions of
           Novice, Tech, General, Advanced and Extra class
           license exam question pools.

Software will drill questions and generate complete exams for practice.

  - 73 and good luck -
    Thom / N2CBV

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

Date: 30 Sep 94 00:19:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Best HT anywhere at any price!
To: [e-mail]

As far as I am concerned, when I am looking for HTs I am looking for:
 - Price
 - Quality
 - Features

The best match is the AT-18, sold by Electro Automatic Corp, of Lawrence MA
01840, 508/687-6411, fax:[phone].

Its looks like a Standard (same commands as well, no bells and whistles -
probably built by the same factrory) sold by another name (in Europe its
called ADI-18). Quality and performance is there except that the price is
$159, not $459. They even have a AT-48 for the 70cm band for $179.

No I have nothing to do with this company, but I always support products at
realistic prices.

Beats any kit or any HT at any price.

Peter Vekinis, KC1QF
[e-mail]

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

Date: 29 Sep 1994 00:14:34 GMT
From: spool.mu.edu!news.nd.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Callbook online?
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (T.J. Alessi) wrote:
>
> I presently use the callbook server at "callbook.cs.buffalo.edu" and it
> is OK, but does anyone know of others (more up to date that I can telnet
> into?
>
The Buffalo callsign server is updated periodically. It has simply been a
while since an update (January). Since then, there has been new info
available on CD ROM, so it is probably just a matter of time until the
callsign server is brought up to date. I myself have several QSLs which I
am holding until there is an update.

Does anyone know when an update is likely to occur? Perhaps after the
release of the October update from Buckmaster?

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

Date: 27 Sep 1994 17:54:36 GMT
From: yuma![e-mail]
Subject: Colorado Repeater Assn.
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Deeming) writes:
>Does anyone have a phone number I could call to get my CRA membership
>underway?  I have the mailing address from the Repeater Directory, but it
>does not contain any membership information and I'd like to talk to a real
>person so I can send everything I need the first time.

I joined at the swapfest on Sunday.  I can't find a Ph #, but they say
to get on the 147.225+ repeater if you have questions.

A family membership is $20/yr, a student memebership is $10/yr.  They
asked if I was interested in joining the tech committee or the work crew
when I joined.

Colorado Repeater Association
PO Box 621
Parker, CO 80134

Galen, KF0YJ

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

Date: 28 Sep 1994 17:58:48 -0600
From: mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx.cs.du.edu![e-mail]
Subject: FCC forms wireless division
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,
William E. Newkirk <[e-mail]> wrote:
>(i dunno, i find it funny that people use the term "Wireless" and
>think it's something new and different than "Radio")
>
>"If It's *Wireless*, It's *Radio*"
>

uhhh, not to seem inflamatory or anything but, wireless = without wires,
and radio = is using a certain portions of the EM spectrum. Hence people
do not normally consider Infra-red communacation or any such, 'radio'.

--
[e-mail]

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

Date: 28 Sep 1994 06:52:47 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!olivea!gossip.pyramid.com!news.c2.org![e-mail]
Subject: For Sale: PK-232-MBX TNC
To: [e-mail]

    I have a Pk-232-MBX in 'very' good condition.  It has 01 AUG. 91
firmware chips installed { 18k plus in the MBX } and comes with the $75.
We-Fax cable and manual.  I also have the original carton for this critter
as well.

    I am thinking that $200. would be ok for this unit { shipping via
U.P.S. etc. won't be that much extra from Berkeley }.

    Just drop me a reply here if you have any questions that I can help
you with re: the unit.

    Sincerly;

    Randy Kielich N6WDV  [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 23:36:22 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!munnari.oz.au!yarrina.connect.com.au!news.uwa.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!metro!ipso![e-mail]
Subject: IPS Daily Report - 27 September 94
To: [e-mail]

SUBJ: IPS DAILY SOLAR AND GEOPHYSICAL REPORT
ISSUED AT 27/2330Z SEPTEMBER 1994 BY IPS RADIO AND SPACE SERVICES
FROM THE REGIONAL WARNING CENTRE (RWC), SYDNEY.
SUMMARY FOR 27 SEPTEMBER AND FORECAST FOR 28 SEPTEMBER - 30 SEPTEMBER
-----------------------------------------------------------
1A. SOLAR SUMMARY
Activity: very low

Flares: none.

Observed 10.7 cm flux/Equivalent Sunspot Number :  75/13

GOES satellite data for 26 Sep
       Daily Proton Fluence >1 MeV:   1.0E+06
       Daily Proton Fluence >10 MeV:  1.4E+04
       Daily Electron Fluence >2 MeV: 3.1E+07 (normal)
       X-ray background: A3.4
Fluence (flux accumulation over 24hrs)/ cm2-ster-day.

1B. SOLAR FORECAST
             28 Sep             29 Sep             30 Sep
Activity     Very low           Very low           Very low
Fadeouts     None expected      None expected      None expected

Forecast 10.7 cm flux/Equivalent Sunspot Number for 28 Sep:  75/13

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

Estimated Indices : A   K           Observed A Index 26 Sep
    Learmonth        9  2223 2322
    Fredericksburg  13                          16
    Planetary       18                          20

Observed Kp for 26 Sep: 3445 3222
2B. MAGNETIC FORECAST
DATE      Ap    CONDITIONS
28 Sep    15    Quiet to unsettled
29 Sep    12    Quiet to unsettled
30 Sep    10    Quiet to unsettled

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

3B. GLOBAL HF PROPAGATION FORECAST
                LATITUDE BAND
DATE        LOW            MIDDLE         HIGH
28 Sep      normal         normal         fair-normal
29 Sep      normal         normal         normal
30 Sep      normal         normal         normal

-----------------------------------------------------------
4A. AUSTRALIAN REGION IONOSPHERIC SUMMARY
       Observed
DATE   T-index  MUFs at Sydney
27 Sep    12    near predicted monthly values

Predicted Monthly T-index for September: 20

4B. AUSTRALIAN REGION IONOSPHERIC FORECAST
DATE   T-index  MUFs
28 Sep    15    Near predicted monthly values
29 Sep    20    Near predicted monthly values
30 Sep    20    Near predicted monthly values
COMMENT: The MUFs were slightly depressed in the early UT day.
--
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: 27 Sep 1994 18:27:54 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!news.duke.edu!duke.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Need help with FT-530: half-duplex crossband operation
To: [e-mail]

This weekend we were experimenting with crossband repeating and ran into some
difficulty with feedback when trying to use the HT transmitting on one band
and receiving on the other.  With my DJ-580 you set FL (freq lock) and then
toggle full-duplex on/off for the active band by pushing the "Power" button.
Works great - with FD off no feedback when you transmit.  My friend has an
FT-530 and nothing in the manual gives any clue about turning off full-duplex
operation.

Anybody out there know how to switch it off on a 530?

Thanks in advance...

  -joe
--
"When personal freedom's being abused, | "I have an open mind, about everything
     you have to move to limit it."    |       it needs to be open about."
                                       |
   - U.S. President Bill Clinton, 1994 |     - George Greene   9/13/94

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

Date: 28 Sep 1994 15:38:57 +0200
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!ucsnews!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!sunic!news.funet.fi!sauna.cs.hut.fi!elvis.clinet.fi!clinet.fi![e-mail]
Subject: Shops in NYC and Boston?
To: [e-mail]

I'm going to visit NYC and Boston at mid-October. I have been in NYC
before, but found only "Barry's Electronics" at 512 Broadway. Is it the
only one there? If so, i don't need to visit there this time...

I haven't been in Boston before this, so it would be nice to know, if
there's toys for boys available there. Or is there some kind of
"Electronics Street", as in some big cities?

73!
--
Jukka Salomaa     [e-mail]     OH2BUA
phone [phone]  puhelin 9400 315 444

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

Date: 29 Sep 94 19:20:15 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Subsciption
To: [e-mail]

Suscribe.

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

Date: Wed, 28 Sep 1994 02:31:38 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!redstone.interpath.net!ddsw1!news.kei.com!yeshua.marcam.com!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!csusac!csus.edu!netcom.com!edlawson@network
Subject: Tucker Electronics
To: [e-mail]

The bottom line is Tucker is a very reputable dealer who has been around
for years and knows (remembers) what customer service is.  Their prices
will never be the lowest, but this is not a garage operation and they
will be around. If you want som'tin for nut'in as the CW posting went,
don't bother with Tucker.

I will admit that their used commercial equipment pricing is out of touch
with reality..(goes back to when there was a military budget and
when an ambitious sub would pay the price.......they're a little
sleepy on this part)

......jes depends on how bad you want it......


                                             [e-mail]
                        KD5EZ, Austin

*******************************************************************************
Please help Bill
out.......vote
Republican in
November.
*******************************************************************************


--
                                             [e-mail]
                        KD5EZ, Austin

*******************************************************************************
Please help Bill
out.......vote
Republican in
November.
*******************************************************************************

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

Date: 28 Sep 1994 15:16:01 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!cea.fr![e-mail]
Subject: UK repeaters frequencies needed ...
To: [e-mail]

 73 to everyone,

I'm searching repeaters freq. in VHF and UHF for UK and especially
for KENT and SUSSEX.

If someone can post that ...

TNX

Note : If you have the same thing for Italy ...

Jean-Christophe MONIER
Ingenieur Reseaux / Networks Engineer
Athesa - C.E.A. Defense - France
E-Mail : [e-mail]
Phone : [phone]


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

Date: 27 Sep 1994 14:12:07 -0400
From: newstf01.cr1.aol.com!newsbf01.news.aol.com![e-mail]
Subject: Vertically Polarized Noise
To: [e-mail]

In article <369hac$[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Luigi Greco) writes:

>Why is most man-made noise vertically polarized?

(quick-and-dirty explaination follows):
It's mostly a function of how the noise is actually measured.  That is,
most man-made noise measurements of interest take place very near ground
level (in a building, car, etc.).  Since you're low to the ground, and the
earth is a fairly good conductor at low frequencies (HF), the horizontal
component of the noise electric field gets cancelled out due to the
boundary condition imposed by the earth (same physics as vertical electric
fields reflect without phase reversal, but horizontal ones phase shift 180
degrees).  So in the process of observing these noise fields, only the
vertically polarized ones exist at the measurement points.
If you went up in the sky and measured the same quantity, you'd find both
polarizations.
scott nx7u

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

Date: 28 Sep 1994 22:06:21 GMT
From: news.tek.com!tekgp4.cse.tek.com![e-mail]
Subject: VTVMs? Anybody use these anymore?
To: [e-mail]

Tom Randolph ([e-mail]):

: I picked up a neat old VTVM ("Knight" by Allied Radio) for $3 at a flea
: this. . .

: Anybody still use these things? Any thoughts on a probe for it? How about
: calibrating it? I'm gonna measure a few 1% resistors to get that scale set, but
: I dunno about the voltage scales - maybe one of those 1.2V reference chips?

Sure. Anybody with discriminating eyes can see that the VTVMs give very
noticeably smoother readings, unlike the harsh, crystalline readings of
the solid-state meters. I don't care what tests you run, the readings
just look better. I understand that the Japanese are particularly fond
of VTVMs, so there must be something to it.

It's also been found that you get better readings if the probe cable's
impedance matches the input impedance of the VTVM. (Boy, is the center
conductor small!) Gold plated connectors help, too. Some authorities have
reported that a green magic marker applied to the meter rim noticeably
enhances readings, but I haven't tried this myself.

Better get yours before they're all snatched up by the metrophiles!

Sorry, sometimes I just can't resist. . .  ;-]

Roy Lewallen, W7EL
[e-mail]

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

Date: 27 Sep 1994 18:20:01 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!bigfoot.wustl.edu!motel6.cec.wustl.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Why does Radio Shac care if I export HT202?     ##
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,
Barry Rose <[e-mail]> wrote:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Patrick Lestrade) writes:

>>I am brand new to ham radio and yesterday in a RS when I asked aboout
>>their sale on the HT202, the salesman asked me if I intended to take it
>>out of the country. (I happened to be with a french friend whose accent
>>was obvious.)  I am not going, unfortunately, out of the country!
>>can anyone enlighten me as to why this is `illegal'?
>
>I am not sure it is illegal but I have heard that the repeaters in Europe use
>a different scheme than we do here. Here we use one pl tone to access a
>repeater, (sub-audible tone that you must have installed in your radio to
>brind up the repeater). This means that a rig made for the US will have to
>have their type of tone encoder installed or you will not have access to their

You are right about this.  I have not traveled to europe, but you might notice
a few things.  In Europe, they, indeed, do not usually use pl tones for
squelch.  I believe, instead, they use an audible 1650 Hz (?) tone at the
beginning of each transmission to key the repeater.  You may also notice, if
you check the product information guides from Icom, Yaesu, Alinco, etc.
(those companies who sell both here and overseas) that there is usually both
a US and European version of each model, plus maybe asian, etc.  Remember
that other countries have other band plans; some european countries have
not 144-148 as the 2m band but other frequencies.

What's really surprising is that the RS person would know about anything
like this.  It's quite out of their character to be educated ;)

Anyway, this is what I understand

--jesse
  AB5XC
  (btw, my call only took 8 weeks to process, unlike my tech+ call, which
   took 32 weeks!)

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

Date: Wed, 28 Sep 1994 19:27:59 GMT
From: wang![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <367agl$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Answer to "How far can I talk?"

[e-mail] (Clifton T. Sharp) writes:

>   Uh, Todd, wanna try that again?  (Clues below. :-)

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Clifton T. Sharp) writes:

>The formula is sqrt(2 * h).

>In article <367agl$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Todd Little) writes:

>The formula is sqrt(2) * sqrt(h).  This is 50% greater.

Uh, Cliff, wanna try that again?  (Clues below. :-)

True, it is 50% greater than something, I suppose, but not of the
correct answer.  It is 0% greater than the correct answer.  Let's
look into this further, using real numbers for "h".

Let "h" = 1,000,000 feet

Formula 1)

D = sqrt(2*h)
  = sqrt(2000000)
  = 1414.213...

Formula 2)

D = sqrt(2) * sqrt(h)
  = 1.414213... * 1000
  = 1414.213...

So that a million-foot-high antenna will talk about 1400 miles.

Can I get one of them from Texas Towers?



Dave, KZ1O
--
Dave Bushong
OPEN/image Recognition Products

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

Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 09:14:39 +0000
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!sun4nl!hacktic!cpzap![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Why is aviation COM VHF *amplitude* modulated?

In article <[e-mail]>
    [e-mail] (Curtis Wheeler) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Roy Smith) writes:
>
> >[e-mail] (David Stockton) wrote:
> >> In this way the whole world (except
> >> the odd reclusive country) would have to change over at once.
>
> >Why?  You pick some unused band and simulcast AM on 118-136 MHz and FM on
> >the other one using channel-pairing.  That way, planes equipped with the
> >new equpment can use it and people will the old stuff can continue to use
> >that.  Gradually (after 10 or 20 years, or whatever interval seems
> >appropriate) you force the remaining few to switch over.
>
> >Not that I'm convinced this would be practical, but it's certainly
> >possible.
>
> From a technical standpoint it would be possible.  However there isn't any
> suitable RF spectrum available for such an undertaking.

Well it depends. Here at the AT-Centre we use paired VHF-UHF frequencies,
which multicast upon demand. This is done for civil/military coordination.
It will however be from a human standpoint impossible. If it's busy, then it
takes a lot from the controller to listen to both frequencies together.
But then, the militaries don't use these frequencies, because they have their
own ATC's.

                           -martin-

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   e-mail: [e-mail]

'This message was brought to you, with the help of subluminal advertising.'

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

Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 09:15:54 +0000
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!sun4nl!hacktic!cpzap![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <35uf24$[e-mail]>│π
Subject : Re: Why is aviation COM VHF *amplitude* modulated?

In article <35uf24$[e-mail]>
    [e-mail] (Roy Smith) writes:

> [e-mail] (Martin Heffels) writes:
> >AM also suffers much from ignition noise, generated by cars, which makes
> >mobile comms very difficult.
>
> Why should a gasoline piston engine in a car produce any more or less
> ignition noise than a gasoline piston engine in an airplane?  In fact, the
> airplane has twice as much ignition stuff per cylinder, so I would expect it
> to produce more.

Because an a/c engine is much better shielded than a car's engine.

                           -martin-

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   e-mail: [e-mail]

'This message was brought to you, with the help of subluminal advertising.'

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

End of Info-Hams Digest V94 #1073
******************************