QRZ! Ham Radio 5/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 5.iso/digests/infoham/941157.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 27.0 KB

Date: Tue, 25 Oct 94 20:32:17 PDT
From: Info-Hams Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: List
Subject: Info-Hams Digest V94 #1157
To: Info-Hams


Info-Hams Digest            Tue, 25 Oct 94       Volume 94 : Issue 1157

Today's Topics:
                 ##Help my HT set the car alarm off##
                    ARLB084 FCC licensing changes
                             Call Sign ID
                         callsign server site
                Electronic Filing of VECs -- New Rule
                     HOW TO LEARN CW??? (2 msgs)
                      Intl call sign servers/CDs
                      Motorola Amateur Group????
                    Repeater/Tower noise problem?

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: 25 Oct 1994 04:32:06 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Charles Richards)
Subject: ##Help my HT set the car alarm off##

Nat Sombat ([e-mail]) wrote:
:     I just put RF concepts 30 watts amp. in my car and every times I
: key on the air the car alarm go off.  It'll stop as soon as I let off the
: key.  When I turn the amp. off it's find.  I have call RF concepts and
: they told me to use aluminum foid to wrap around the brain unit and
: siren.  It's still go off everytimes.  I have 5/8 larsen mount on the
: roof.  The SWR read lower than 1.5:1.  Any idea, what I have to do to
: have 30 watts amp. and car alarm.
 First of all, you could eliminate some possibilities. Try the HT and amp
with an isolated power supply (12V, powered by 110V...or another car batt.)
This will let you know if the sudden power drain is triggering some "low
voltage warning" feature of the alarm. Maybe it's not a "feature", but
just a quirk. Mine gets weird at low voltage. If that's it, you probably
just need a bigger battery and/or alternator. If you can't do that,
you'll need to run a cut-off switch to the alarm and it's back-up batt.
(if it's got one).
 If you think the RF output is the trigger, confirm this with a dummy
load at the output of the amp. If that is it, you may solve your problem
by moving the alarm and antenna as far apart as possible. If that STILL
doesn't do the trick, you'll probably have to use the cut-off switches
(or buy a different alarm).
 Let us know what you find.
                           ...chuck...KE4QPU...

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

Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 09:55:42 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: ARLB084 FCC licensing changes

SB QST @ ARL $ARLB084
ARLB084 FCC licensing changes

ZCZC AG49
QST de W1AW
ARRL Bulletin 84  ARLB084
 From ARRL Headquarters
Newington CT  October 25, 1994
To all radio amateurs

SB QST ARL ARLB084
ARLB084 FCC licensing changes

The FCC today released a 7-page Order amending its amateur rules,
effective December 20, 1994, to reflect what the Commission calls
''nonsubstantive procedural changes'':

1.  To permit electronically filed data from VECs (paper
applications also will still be accepted);

2.  To authorize operation as soon as the new license data appears
in the amateur service licensee data base, rather than (as now) when
the license document has been delivered (details of how the new
licensee can determine his call sign will be announced later);

3. To add a new rules section, ''Examinee Conduct,'' to emphasize that
an examinee must comply with the instructions given by the
administering VEs;

4. To treat ''Technician Plus'' as a license class;

5.  And to provide for a ''renewal short form'' which the FCC says
will be mailed to licensees in advance of their expiration date
beginning sometime in 1995.  The FCC added that renewal applications
would be accepted no more than 90 days before the expiration date.

Because of the nature of these rule amendments, there is no notice
or comment period required by federal law.  Again, these changes do
not take effect until December 20, 1994.
NNNN
/EX

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

Date: 25 Oct 1994 13:56:53 GMT
From: [e-mail] (William J Turner)
Subject: Call Sign ID

In article <38hqas$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Hughes) writes:
>Is it appropriate or not to state a call with a double letter (i.e., xy8ppq) as xy8 double pq?  An older Ham indicated this was not proper.  Seems minor, with all the imaginative phonetics heard and people who say zed for the z in thei
>in their calls...which is supposed to be some fancy british pronunciation?

I'd say no.  Say what you mean, and mean what you say. if you say
"double p", some will undoubtedly think you are using a cute phonetic
for d.

BTW--"zed" is the correct pronunciation for z.  It keeps it from being
confused with c.  Of course, only old-timers probably know this, as it
hasn't been stressed much at all lately.

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

Date: 25 Oct 1994 10:17:55 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Waldemar Kebsch)
Subject: callsign server site

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Seth Taylor) writes:

>Can anyone advise where I might telnet to get a US based
>callsign server ?

>TNX es 73  Seth KC2WE

Try
      telnet callsign.cs.buffalo.edu 2000

or, if you have access to www .... :-)

      http://www.mit.edu:8001/callsign

Have fun

Waldemar
--
Waldemar Kebsch  (dk3vn),  c/o  Siemens Nixdorf Informationssysteme AG,
33106 Paderborn, Federal Republic of Germany, E-Mail: [e-mail]
+                                                                     +
++++++ Es geschieht nichts Gutes, es sei denn, Du machst es! ++++++++++

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

Date: 25 Oct 1994 10:37:08 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Rich Biby)
Subject: Electronic Filing of VECs -- New Rule

Hello fellow Hams. I saw this on the FCC's Daily Digest
and thought it would be of interest. Don't call me if
you have questions, cause I can't answer them.

Rich



AMATEUR SERVICE. Amended amateur service rules to
provide an electronic filing capability to the volunteer-
examiner coordinators; to clarify  that amateur station and
operator licenses are authorized as soon as the license data
is entered into the Commission's licensee data base, and to
reflect other nonsubstantive procedural changes. (By Order
[DA 94-1158] adopted October 17 by the Chief, Private
Radio Bureau)




--
Rich Biby          | Communications Data Services, Inc. [e-mail]
KD4DSX             | 6105-E Arlington Blvd, Falls Church, VA  22044
                   | [phone]  FAX:[phone]  [phone]

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

Date: 25 Oct 1994 13:45:35 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: HOW TO LEARN CW???

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Donald Davis)  writes:
>
>BS>I give up!   I have been trying to learn the code since before I was
>BS>licensed with no luck.  I have tried tapes... all I do is memorize
>BS>the tape... not the code.  I sit in front on my computer pounding my
>BS>head on the keyboard (figuratively).  I HATE CW!!!  I don't even
>BS>recognize my own call in CW.  I will use it ONLY to upgrade.  I have
>BS>no intention ever to participate in a CW QSO.
>

  I started from scratch with no previous CW experience.
  I began listening to CW lectures on cassette tapes, and
  after a while found them extremely boring!
  I started skipping half of the lectures or more, so when I
  finally came to the end of it all, I know all the letters
  and numbers, but was very unsecure.
  I had a HF receiver and asked on my local repeater for
  suitable frequences where low speed CW was present.
  If I remember it correctly, on 20m around 14060 kc and
  on 15m around 21140 kc.
  After listening for a while I understood the lingo,
  and started listening to rag-chewing QSO:s in my own
  language, mainly on 80m.
  Then, together with some other local amateurs in the same
  situation and some nice oldtimers, started use the 2m CW part.
  That part around 144.075 or so is almost never used at least
  in Sweden. (Only if there is a 2m test, or if Aurora is present)
  We met once a week with an oldtimer as "netcontroller"
  After a couple of months I could upgrade!
  So I started to transmit only after having listened to a lot
  of HF CW. Then of course I knew (at least rudimentary) how
  one expects to behave on CW.

  So, that's my story.  Good luck!

  73 de SM5RIH  Nils


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

Date: 25 Oct 1994 09:40:20 -0400
From: [e-mail] (John S. Roberts Jr.)
Subject: HOW TO LEARN CW???

[e-mail] (Donald Davis)  writes:


>BS>I give up!   I have been trying to learn the code since before I was
>BS>licensed with no luck.  I have tried tapes... all I do is memorize
>BS>the tape... not the code.  I sit in front on my computer pounding my
>BS>head on the keyboard (figuratively).  I HATE CW!!!  I don't even
>BS>recognize my own call in CW.  I will use it ONLY to upgrade.  I have
>BS>no intention ever to participate in a CW QSO.

>Hey Bob, don't give up so easily.  I felt the same way but kept trying.
>I purchased a Yaesu FT-900 and listen to W1AW after a year of listening
>to the tapes and using Super Morse and it all clicked in one week.  I
>think you have it down but need to listen to on the air broadcast like
>the code practice from W1AW.  I also tried the ARRL tapes which I didn't
>like at all.  I found the tapes by Gordon West of the W5YI group were
>better and more enjoyable.  Give it a try, you can do it, I DID!!!!

Ditto here.  I am a tech no-code right now, but am VERY slowly starting to
understand the code.  I built a 40 meter receiver that I listen to W1AW on.
Don't give up man! Nothing is worth doing that is so easy ANYBODY could do
it.  This is what it's all about.  Struggle and succeed!  I know you can do
it!

John

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

Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 22:11:49 +0000
From: [e-mail] (Mike Gathergood)
Subject: Intl call sign servers/CDs

Hi Brian,

> I have a list of callsign servers and an Amsoft CDROM but they only
> have FCC/American calls. Does anyone know of a server or CD CD that has
> international calls as well?

The 1994 UK Callbook on Disk is available from The CQ Centre, details
below. From your side of the pond, the number is 011 44 1753 595468
or 011 44 1753 593524.

73
Mike
G4KFK


*************************************************************************
* The CQ Centre BBS * 01753 595468 and 01753 593524 * Fidonet 2:252/320 *
* Hundreds of Megabytes of Quality Software for Radio Amateurs and SWLs *
* Tel [phone] * Fax [phone] * Internet [e-mail] *
*************************************************************************

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

Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 03:41:28 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Mike Morris)
Subject: Motorola Amateur Group????

[e-mail] writes:

>IJ>I am trying to find out if there is such a thing as a Motorola User Group
>IJ>-- you know, hams who use Motorola gear, etc...

>IJ>If you can shed light on this for me, I would very much apprecitate it.
>IJ>Thanks.

>I didn't think Motorola made HAM gear??? (So I heard..)

Does that mean my two Metrums don't exist? ( a Moto's 2m radio actually
made for and marketed to hams)  It was actually a marine radio - the
Modar Triton - with the tuned circuits revised for 2m.  I'd love to find
a 25w Triton for spare parts - my 25w Metrum needs a driver and a final.
Hint: don't plug in a 145mhz crystal in it and transmit -600khz.  The
tuned circuits are very narrow - when they say the Metrum is 146-168,
they mean it.  But when it was made, FM was only in 146-148, so I can't
blame Moto.  I also need the PL option documentation..

One of my 2m bases is a factory 138-150 B93MPB (soon to become a
synthesized remote base), the 440 repeater in my dining room has
a factory 440mhz Micor receiver in it, one of my 2m mobiles is a
factory 138-150 40w Micor...
The later Syntors (synthesized whereas the Micor is crystal) were
in a ham mag a while ago for $100 - and they were 136-150mhz.
My 6m portable is a 42-54 PT-200, and I once mickey-moused up a 220
exciter using a 72-76mhz HT-200 transmitter and a tripler.  The biggest
problem was that it had as much power on high band (doubler) and 480mhz
(quadrupler).  Minor problems...

You can order out a 220 repeater from Moto right now if you have the $$
as the Radius repeater is factory available for 220, as well as 2m and
440.  All the repeater controler manufacturers - Zetron, ACC, Palomar
Telecom, etc have data sheets on the necessary modifications.
The Radius mobile and hand held lines are also available factory
ordered on ham freqs... as are most of the other radios like
the MX (out of production, as I understand), Saber, MT-1000, HT-2000,
etc.
I personally have seen a MT-500 that was factory ordered on 440.
And I was told by an ex-Moto service center tech that there was a
standard "option" code for a fleet order that was defined in the order
book as a extra handheld desk charger and handheld radio configured
differently from the fleet - so that salesmen could use it as bait to
clinch the deal if the decision-making or decision-influencing person
was a ham...  which was usually the case in a city or county government
situation back in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.
But this is only hearsay...

FYI, my 2m Micor mobile came from Canada - I understand they use the
138-150 range for some commercial stuff, where the FM use of that range
in the USA is military mostly - so there is a lot more commercial grade
stuff for 2m floating around in Canada than here.  And the 440-450
range is used for commercial in Europe, rather than amateur in the USA,
Mexico and Canada.

--
Mike Morris   WA6ILQ   | All opinions must be my own since nobody pays
PO Box 1130            | me enough to be their mouthpiece...
Arcadia, CA. 91077     |
ICBM: 34.12N, 118.02W  | Reply to: [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 03:57:54 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Mike Morris)
Subject: Repeater/Tower noise problem?

[e-mail] (Bruce Burke Redi) writes:

>In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (John Rice) writes:
>}In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (George L. Hiscox) writes:
>}
>}Snip.....
>}
>}> : affects?  How can I prove that this is a problem?  At least, can I get some
>}> : more data to point in this direction?  Thanks for the help.
>}
>}You'll need to borrow a good spectrum analyzer, connect it to the coax
>}for the reciever that's having the problem. Then have someone climb
>}about halfway up the tower and 'shake it' as hard as possible. Watch the
>}analyzer for signals around the receive frequency.
>}
>While you're at it, use the spectrum analyzer to "look" into the receive
>port of the duplexer to see if there is some low level stuff in the notch of
>the duplexer on the receive frequency. This is also a way to see if the
>repeater's transmitter is the major contributor.

Put the repeater TX on a good dummy load and a termination on the
analyzer while you do this - i.e. everything sees 50 ohms.  Then do the
test with the TX off and with it on - look to see what trash is
contributed by your TX and which by someone elses.  Some of the grunge
might be contributed by a bit of corrosion inside your multiplier chain.
Back around 1979-1980 I was given a half-dozen old Moto A & K tube TXs
(30w & 60w) that had gotten wet in a storage shed flood.  If the tube
socket pins in the oscillator-multipliers had a little of the creeping
green glop on them they would give off low level grunge when keyed.

And make sure the duplexer is a _pass_ & notch rather than just a
notch-only.  You'd be surprised what can float thru a notch-plexer from
the antenna port to the RX port.  A friend told me a tale of woe about a
2m repeater with a notchplexer at a site with paging, FM broadcast &
TV transmitters.  There was no cure for the RX desense, mix, overload
and intermod (look 'em up  - there is a big difference in definitions)
until they replaced the duplexer with a legitimate 6 can Cellwave.

--
Mike Morris   WA6ILQ   | All opinions must be my own since nobody pays
PO Box 1130            | me enough to be their mouthpiece...
Arcadia, CA. 91077     |
ICBM: 34.12N, 118.02W  | Reply to: [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 04:43:08 GMT
From: [e-mail] (John Mollan - Harm)

References<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>, <38edh9$[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: anyone know anything about hallicrafters

Thirty years ago, when I first got my license, I used a Hallicrafters
S40A.  It was old even then.  I smoetimes knew what frequency I was on,
although the sensitivity above 15 Mhz was a joke.

I finally figured out my own frequency by listening for my transmitted
crystal controlled signal and working from there.

If it weren't for the ton of rotten paper capacitors in that rig, I
probably would have kept it.  It would never blow away in a windstorm.

73, John
AE7P

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

Date: 25 Oct 1994 11:37:52 +0200
From: [e-mail] (Kein{nen Paul)

References<383ppl$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Kindness and ham radio



Mike Gathergood ([e-mail]) wrote:

> 1/ I was questioning the need to work DX through repeaters, period.

Basically, what is wrong to say hello to someone you don't meet
every day ? _If_ either operator is interested in a simplex-QSO then
they can QSY to a free simplex frequency (if they can find any).

However, if neither operator is interested in collecting countries
or grid squares then why QSY ? Of course, courteous operators will
keep their QSOs short allowing others to use the limited resource
at times of high demand.

> 2/ I was questioning the need to work DX through repeaters during the sort
>    of tropo conditions we had in NW Europe last week.

Why not ? The repeaters where anyway useless for any meaningfull local
communication is a such propagation conditions (see below).

> 3/ I was questioning the concept of exchanging QSL cards for repeater
>   contacts.

What is wrong with that as long as "via repeater (xx)" is written on
the QSL-card. People exchange cards even if they are not collecting them
for an award.

> 4/ I was questioning the attitude of a base station who hogs a repeater
>    1/2 mile up the street in order to work DX when mobile stations were
>    trying to work through the repeater.

Was this a single case or are you generalizing a bit too much.
Courteous operators (both mobile and non-mobile) keep their QSOs short
allowing others to use the limited resource at times of high demand.

----

In an other message Mike wrote:

> Sorry if that's what was inferred by my message. It certainly isn't what
> I meant. In Europe, repeaters are primarily intended for use by mobile

... and portable ....

> stations.

What makes you assume that all these stations are fixed base stations ?
My guess is that all those even with half decent fixed base stations were
active in the CW, SSB and FM-simplex sub-bands. Those stations you heard
on the repeaters are most likely using their HTs with a rubber duck.

> I was mobile, and I wished to have a QSO (mainly to practice
> my rusty French). I was prevented from doing so by a handful of base
> station operators working DX through a number of the repeaters on route
> from London to Paris.

How did you think to carry out a QSO from your mobile to a local repreater
user even if nobody tried to work DX through repeaters ? If the tropospheric
conditions were as good as described, your signal would be repeated through
a number of repeaters on the same channel and the signal from the local
users of these distant repeaters would be repeated through 'your' repeater.

At close range to 'your' repeater you could override the other users on
the same channel, but the repeater would frequently time-out, since the
squelch could not be closed between overs.

> I was irritated by the fact that nobody apparently even thought of
> checking the input to see if they could QSY to a Simplex channel (which,
> given the record tropo lift conditions, were surprisingly quiet).

Did you call anybody at the FM-simplex calling frequency (in French) ?
Usually different kind of people monitor the calling frequencies than those
who monitor the repeaters.

> I was seriously pissed off when they thought they should swap QSL cards!

What is so special about repeater QSOs ? Some people swap QSL-cards for
satellite QSOs and some people swap cards even for domestic QSOs on the
80 m band. If the prerequisite for swapping QSLs is the required effort,
then why should a repeater QSO be handled in a different way than a 80 m
domestic QSO ?

                        Paul OH3LWR

--
Phone   : [phone]                       Mail: Hameenpuisto 42 A 26
Internet: [e-mail]                      FIN-33200 TAMPERE
Telex   : 58-100 1825 (ATTN: Keinanen Paul)            FINLAND
X.400   : G=Paul S=Keinanen O=Kotiposti A=ELISA C=FI

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

Date: 25 Oct 1994 13:59:44 GMT
From: [e-mail] (William J Turner)

References<phb.782747783@melpar> <[e-mail]>, <38i2lo$[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CW Learning: Going slow. : (

In article <38i2lo$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry B. Smith) writes:
>But then on the other hand, I can tell a lot by a person's "fist".
>For example: I can tell if he is new at this or an old timer; if he is
>using a straight key or a bug; if he is nervous or at ease.
>
>Could we say that CW can have a certain "inflection" in the "fist"
>that can tell us somthing about the individual?

I agree with this.  (I'm not as good telling them apart yet, but I've
definitely recognized a few bugs. :-)

Of course, it doesn't always work.  I've had OTs tell me they were
surprised that I didn't have a W#XXX or K#XXX call.  They thought my
fist was *way* too good for a newbe.


N0RDV

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

Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 14:00:24 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Paul H. Bock)

References<[e-mail]> <phb.782747783@melpar>, <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CW Learning: Going slow. : (

[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>The OSS used natives in Algeria as intercept operators. They were able
>to copy at speeds of 40+ WPM purely on conditioned motor reflex. They
>had no idea what the sounds or symbols meant. Ordinary US intercept
>operators in Alaska and other listening posts around the world operated
>the same way, as did ordinary radiomen on ships and shore stations during
>the war. That's because the message traffic was *encrypted 5 letter blocks*
>with no plaintext "language" meaning whatsoever.

     Since I've never copied at those kinds of speeds I can't refute anything
you say.  However, I have read in several different texts that an *average*
person (whatever that means) begins to have trouble distinguishing
individual characters at around 30 WPM or so.  From that point on, the
operator is allegedly hearing "word sounds" (i.e., short words, syllables,
etc.) which makes copying code more akin to "hearing" spoken English than
merely translating dit-dah combinations into letters.  This is what I
meant when I referred to "language."

     Let me re-emphasize that I have only experienced this phenomenon
myself at a very basic level (trying to copy 35 or 30 WPM; my own speed
is around 20 WPM), i.e., hearing combinations as "words."  However,
my problem is that if what I have read is true (as described in the
preceding paragraph) I am at a loss to understand how someone can copy
*coded groups* at 40+ WPM.  Mind you, I'm not disputing what you say,
it just contradicts what I have read elsewhere.  I'd be happy to provide
a list of references, because I'd like to have the question answered
(and verified) in some definitive way.

     Perhaps I shouldn't have placed so much faith in what I read, but
the concept of not being able to copy strictly characters beyond a certain
speed and thus resorting to a sort of "language-like" mode where one
"hears" strings of characters as syllables and words seemed supported by
the fact that commercial radiotelegraph code tests, which had two parts,
always had the "5-letter groups" part at a slower speed than the "plain
text" part (16 WPM groups/20 WPM text for 2nd Class, 20 WPM groups/25
WPM text for 1st Class).

>The best operator I ever knew could copy 60+ WPM on a typewriter, but had
>no idea what he'd copied until he rolled up the paper and read the text.
>He was trained as a Navy operator in WWII. He always maintained that the
>trick to rapid copy was to never think about it, just let the body do the
>work it was conditioned to do. He said that trying to make sense of text
>while copying was a sure way to make errors. He could carry on an unrelated
>conversation with someone in the radio room while copying. He said that made
>no difference since his conscious mind wasn't involved with copying, that
>it was all conditioned reflexes at work.

     This is all true, and I have anecdotal evidence of railroad telegraph
operators who performed multiple tasks in the station (selling tickets,
etc.) all while copying *and comprehending* by ear, occasionally
interrupting other work to "answer the telegraph" and make a comment to
another operator, answer a question, etc.  I emphsize "anecdotal," however,
so exaggerations may have crept into these "stories."

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Paul H. Bock, Jr.       Principal Systems Engineer      *
* E-Systems/Melpar Div.   Internet: [e-mail] *
* Falls Church, VA        Telephone: [phone] x2062 *
*                                                         *
*   Given two waiting lines of equal length and a 50/50   *
*   chance of choosing the fastest moving one, you will   *
*         choose the slower one 80% of the time.          *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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

End of Info-Hams Digest V94 #1157
******************************