QRZ! Ham Radio 5/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 5.iso/digests/policy/940050.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 18.7 KB

Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 04:30:15 PST
From: Ham-Policy Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: Ham-Policy Digest V94 #50
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Fri, 11 Feb 94       Volume 94 : Issue   50

Today's Topics:
                           Antenna Lawsuit
                    Any other pirate "DX" bands...
                   ARRL's Lifetime Amateur licenses
                          Exams are Trivial?
  I just HAD to. WAS: The 10-meters band - No CW required ? (3 msgs)
                The 10-meters band - No CW required ?
          Unbelievable: Pirates on air-to-ground frequencies

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 Ham-Policy Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/ham-policy".

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: Mon, 07 Feb 94 01:39:39 EST
From: pacbell.com!sgiblab!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!wariat.org!mystis![e-mail]
Subject: Antenna Lawsuit
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Jeff Herman) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Tiller) w
> >
> >Actually radios in the hands of private citizens do pose a threat to
> >govermnents run amok.  They certainly don't provide the immediate protection
> >a gun does, but they do serve to alert those in other localities or countrie
> >as to what may be going on.  Remember, that might be a _state_ government
> >running amok - my radios could contact other state or federal authorities
> >in such an emergency.
>
> We notice when a country's government quickly changes power bases by force
> their first mission is to disable ALL radio transmitters (an interesting
> study is what the Khmer Rouge did upon taking over Cambodia back in 1975 -
> amateur and government radios were immediately targeted so as to seal off
> Cambodia from the rest of the world; you know the rest of the sad story...).
>
> Jeff NH6IL

Didn't they take old TV sets and beep the rest of the world?

You are slipping Jeff...     :-)


Dan Pickersgill  N8PKV  |   Pots have handles,    | 'Climage is what we
[e-mail]   |Magazines have personals,|  expect, weather is
[e-mail]       |    Hams have names.     | what we get.' -L. Long

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

Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 10:39:40 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Peter Kittler)
Subject: Any other pirate "DX" bands...
In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (FREDRIK VANG) writes:
> A question to those of us who do DX work on 26 & 27 MHz:
> what's going to happen now that the MUF is falling as the number of
> sunsposts is on the decrease? I have heard rumours of activity on
> 6.670 MHz, but have picked up nothing there. Does anybody know
> of any other DX bands except the amateur bands and then those centered
> around 26.285 MHz and 27.555 MHz?
>
>     Fred, LF410.

Yes there is some other pirate activity on other non-ham bands:
Here are some frequencies over Europe for 18:30 to 24:00 GMT:

On the 45 meter air/ground commercial band:
6.615Mhz LSB Italian call frequency.
6.660Mhz LSB French call frequency.
6.670Mhz LSB German call frequency.
6.680Mhz LSB Packet BBS all over Europe.

On the 90 meter band: around 3.3Mhz.
I don't have any list...

Using this frequencies is illegal and dangerous because of the commercial and
military traffic on the band.

All best. Peter.

*****************************end*of*included*message***********************

Well Gang, any comments?

Jeff NH6IL

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

Date: Mon, 07 Feb 94 00:57:59 EST
From: pacbell.com!sgiblab!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!wariat.org!mystis![e-mail]
Subject: ARRL's Lifetime Amateur licenses
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Jeff Herman) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andy Nourse) wri
> >I was lucky to pass 13wpm the first time, I don't think I'll ever get that
> >lucky again.  It doesn't get any easier with age, and it doesn't get
> >any easier with practice (any amount of practice) unless you have some
> >aptitude for it in the first place.
> >
>
> This is such nonsense - where do you people get your ideas from? Doesn't
> get easier with practice? Oh boy! Even if you just spent a few minutes per
> day it would get easier. Aptitude? Nuts. Every 2 weeks of the year the
> Coast Guard Radioman School in Petaluma would take in a new group of
> recruits for their 20 week course; 20 students per group. At the
> end of the 20 weeks usually 18 of the 20 graduated at 22 WPM. An
> hour per day was devoted to code (the rest of the day was filled
> with procedure, radio theory, propagation, shipboard repairs,
> voice/RTTY comms, distress comms, etc.) None of these Coasties
> had any special aptitude for code. They just studied (unlike so
> many of the `want-it-without-having-to-work-for-it' people who post
> on here). You can get ANYTHING you want with just study and practice.
>
> Andy, how do you think you got to 13 wpm in the first place? Through
> practice, of course. If practice didn't make it easier you'd still
> be at 5wpm!
>
> Vietnamese proverb: If you study you will become what you wish; if
> you do not study you will never become anything.
>
> Jeff NH6IL

Jeff, this personal assult really unwarented. OBVIOUSLY he had to study
to pass the 13 WPM test. Maybe he just can't progress. How can you,
without knowing anything about him, claim that he can he is just lazy.
You have no idea WHY he can't, you just blast him as being to lazy to
study.

And that with-out-having-to work-for-it bull. I know several people that
can not distinguish a-n-m-i one from the other. How can you learn Morse
if you can't tell t from e or a from n, m or i? Don't tell me there
aren't, I know one. I have tested him myself. He can't.

Your Eliteist attitude is not helping your arguement. I will get my
Extra by the current rules, simply because they are the current rules.
However, I don't have to agree with them. And they are NOT RELEVENT to
the purposes of the Service. Besides, just making someone 'work for it'
is NOT A PURPOSE OF THE AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE. You STILL haven't shown
how it meets the purposes of the service.

The arguement that some are not willing to work for it boils down to one
simple statement. "I had to so you have to." Hazing. No matter how much
you argue it does not meet the definition, it does. You argue the work
ethic to death but never mention relevence. Or you argue the history of
the service (again not a purpose). Or you argue getting thru when other
signals can not (not true any more, other modes BEAT manual Morse). You
argue the ease of building QRP CW rigs (again NOT a purpose). What
PURPOSE is served by morse TESTING. NOT MORSE USE, MORSE TESTING?!

Increased testing levels, particulary in the area of RULES, as I have
suggested, DOES meet the purposes. The tests, as I have said many times,
are very lacking in the rules area. (I do not me what freq. is in what
subband. Let's face it, if you don't know you will have a chart in the
shack. I mean RULES! of operation.)



Dan Pickersgill  N8PKV  |   Pots have handles,    | 'Climage is what we
[e-mail]   |Magazines have personals,|  expect, weather is
[e-mail]       |    Hams have names.     | what we get.' -L. Long

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

Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 19:02:41 EST
From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!wariat.org!mystis![e-mail]
Subject: Exams are Trivial?
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (David R Tucker) writes:

> Michael P. Deignan ([e-mail]) wrote:
>
> : The mistake was that while the code requirement was dropped, the
> : theory portion of the licensing structure was also "dumbed down" to
> : meet the current education standards of the US population. This was
> : where the mistake was made. The theory should have been beefed up,
> : which would have provided no difficulty for these "highly technical"
> : people the no-code license was supposed to attract.
>
> Exactly!  Having a no-code entry-level license with elements 2 and 3A
> might be a good idea, but failing to require 3B for full privileges
> above 30 MHz probably means that the Technician license currently has
> the most privileges for the least demonstated ability of any license
> in the world.  Surely those who are authorized to put up repeaters,
> set up control links, and put out 1500 W PEP with linears they build
> themselves ought to demonstrate a bit more theory than is tested in
> 3A!  3B is not that tough - even that is pretty lenient.  For those
> things, 4A is a more reasonable requirement.  We have given away the
> store.

David,

1) Why then, is the addition of a mere 5 WPM code test make the above ok?

2) I agree in part, however as has been pointed out before the tests
should be an ENTRANCE exam, not the FINAL.



Dan Pickersgill  N8PKV  |   Pots have handles,    | 'Climage is what we
[e-mail]   |Magazines have personals,|  expect, weather is
[e-mail]       |    Hams have names.     | what we get.' -L. Long

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

Date: Mon, 07 Feb 94 01:27:33 EST
From: pacbell.com!sgiblab!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!wariat.org!mystis![e-mail]
Subject: I just HAD to. WAS: The 10-meters band - No CW required ?
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Jeff Herman) writes:

> Oh my! Dan, don't get mad but I think you might not have built much
> gear. These QRP CW xmtrs I put together can take days to assemble -
> collecting the parts, repeated calculations with various L&C choices,
> winding the coils (heck - I've been looking for something I can use
> as a 1/2 inch coil form for 2 days now). I keep hving to run up to
> the library to check the transistor manual as I `discover' various
> x-sistors in these old TV sets.
> A SSB rig would be a killer to build from scratch; also, it needs
> specialized parts that one cannot fabricate. FM? What's that?
> Definitely, CW xmtrs are the easiest to build and require no
> special-hard-to-find components. Heck, one can even make their own
> key from a paper clip and two thumbtacks! It'd be very difficult
> to make a microphone, though.
>
> Oops - the cat just knocked over the soldering iron!

Kill it, that is my solution when my cat does that stuff.   :-)

Jeff, it is great that you do that, however you still didn't answer my
question. Why can't a person START building a SSB rig? Or is that more than
you are willing to work for? If a person wants to put forth the EFFORT
to build a SSB rig why not let them start there. Maybe we don't want to
build stuff from old TV sets (that is not a purpose of amateur radio).

73, Jeff


Dan Pickersgill  N8PKV  |   Pots have handles,    | 'Climage is what we
[e-mail]   |Magazines have personals,|  expect, weather is
[e-mail]       |    Hams have names.     | what we get.' -L. Long

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

Date: Mon, 07 Feb 94 01:43:10 EST
From: pacbell.com!sgiblab!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!caen!malgudi.oar.net!wariat.org!mystis![e-mail]
Subject: I just HAD to. WAS: The 10-meters band - No CW required ?
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Jeff Herman) writes:

> I wondered where you've been, Dan! Now,
>
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan Picker
>
> >>In some article from last week I worte:
> >> Hmmm, testing for gun ownership might be a very good idea.
> >
> >Ever hear of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United
> >States of America? It's in a MINOR document called the
> >"BILL OF RIGHTS".
> >
>
> I keep seeing reference to the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership. If you read
> it you will see that all it does is guarantee each state the right to keep
> an armed militia. Now, militia refers to citizen-soldiers; today we call
> them a state's national guard (``weekend warriors'' [I used to be one so it's
> okay for me to that disliked term!]). No where does it guarantee private
> gun ownership to those not in a militia.
>
> Now, back to the ongoing debate...

You are wrong Jeff. That is the typical Liberal misinterpretation of
what was written. If you review the notes of the debates prior to the
enactment of the bill of rights, you will see the intent was to apply to
all citizens. And the National Guard/Reserve is the REGULATED militia,
the UNREGULATED militia is all able bodied males between 18 and 35.
(According to Mr. Webster that you quoted before.)

The second amemdment reads;

'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.' [emphs. added]

It states we need a militia, that being necessary, the right of the
people to keep... It does not say the right of the militia. It says
the PEOPLE! All the people! The debates of the time CLEARLY prove
that was the intent.

Where in that sentance does it say that 'all it does is guarantee
each state the right to keep an armed militia'? I don't see that in
there ANYWHERE. Please quote the approiate place. I mean it can't be
that hard, it is ONLY ONE SENTANCE.

Is all your reading of rules and such that much in error? Could this be
the reason you do not fully understand the arguement against morse
testing?


Dan Pickersgill  N8PKV  |   Pots have handles,    | 'Climage is what we
[e-mail]   |Magazines have personals,|  expect, weather is
[e-mail]       |    Hams have names.     | what we get.' -L. Long

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

Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 02:12:06 GMT
From: news.Hawaii.Edu!uhunix3.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu![e-mail]
Subject: I just HAD to. WAS: The 10-meters band - No CW required ?
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan Pickersgill  N8PKV) writes:
>[e-mail] (Jeff Herman) writes:
>
>> >You are wrong Jeff.

Huh? Did I really tell myself that I was wrong? But I've never been wrong....
so it was wrong of me to tell myself that I was wrong - but that means
I was wrong...  It good that 2 wrongs make a right.

>
>> Luckily, those hams gathered here on usenet are only a small percentage
>> of the ham community in our country and world-wide (come to think of it
>> I don't recall any non-U.S. hams on here complaining about their country's
>> code requirements!) so the vocal no-code group probably represents
>> a tiny number of all hams.
>
>Japan has more hams than the US in raw NUMBERS let alone per capita.

But Dan, I don't/didn't hear the Japanese hams complaining on here
about the code prior to their codeless license class. This is something
very unique to a very small % of U.S. internet hams.

>
>73 pal, (hope it rains, you bum, probably _only_ 78 there?),
>

We're having a lousy winter: low 80s daytime, mid 60s at night (brrrrr).
Oh: Hail stones fell yesterday in Waipahu! Imagine that - it's 80 degrees
and hail is falling! The weather in the tropics is crazy sometimes. ``If
you don't like the weather where your at, just cross the street - it'll be
different''  (a tropical weather service quote)

Oh, latest project: the older sythesized cb radios contained a 10.140 mhz xtal -
I just happen to have one so of course I need to build a xmtr for it. Oh boy!
I'll finally be able to get on 30 meters. So if any of you need Hawaii
for your WAS or county hunter (Oahu County) email me and we'll set
up a sked.

===========================================================================
Jeffrey NH6IL  [e-mail], who, in his spare time, cannibalizes
old TV sets to make QRP transmitters (CW, of course).

Previously: WA6QIJ, WH6AEQ, NMO (U.S. Coast Guard Radio Honolulu: 500 kc CW)

Vietnamese Proverb: If you study you will become what you wish
                    If you do not study you will never become anything.
===========================================================================

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

Date: Mon, 07 Feb 94 02:07:09 EST
From: pacbell.com!sgiblab!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!wariat.org!mystis![e-mail]
Subject: The 10-meters band - No CW required ?
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Daniel D. Todd) writes:

> Jeff Herman ([e-mail]) wrote:
>
> : [Shame on you Dianne! That one simple question ``Why?'' can lead to
> : a rise of hundreds of folks' blood pressure for weeks on end!]
>
> Nice to know i'm not the only one wo screwed up the obscure .sig !
> :-)
>
>
> : Jeffrey NH6IL  [e-mail]
>
> Dan

Can't you guys see it is Robert, back again, hiding under a Handle?
Like I treat all Lids/Jammers I now ignore him...

/kill


Dan Pickersgill  N8PKV  |   Pots have handles,    | 'Climage is what we
[e-mail]   |Magazines have personals,|  expect, weather is
[e-mail]       |    Hams have names.     | what we get.' -L. Long

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

Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 10:06:36 GMT
From: news.Hawaii.Edu!uhunix3.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu![e-mail]
Subject: Unbelievable: Pirates on air-to-ground frequencies
To: [e-mail]

Gang,
   Here's something I just found on rec.radio.cb you might be interested
in reading. But remember that Dana says we shouldn't play hamster cop.
A few gentle words and these guys will change their ways....


**********************begin*included*message********************************

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

Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 13:56:48 GMT
From: library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!brunix!maxcy2.maxcy.brown.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <2j3hst$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <2j76gd$[e-mail]>■¬
Subject : Re: Just Robert baiting

In article <2j76gd$[e-mail]>,
    [e-mail] (A great x ray technician!) writes:

|> Hummm....now who was it who posted twenty-two articles to USENET,
|> whining about Morse code?

Do you have an amateur radio callsign? What is it? If not, why bother
posting here?


MD
--
-- Michael P. Deignan
-- Population Studies & Training Center
-- Brown University, Box 1916, Providence, RI  02912
-- [phone]

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

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #50
******************************