QRZ! Ham Radio 5/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 5.iso/digests/policy/940296.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 19.1 KB

Date: Tue,  5 Jul 94 04:30:08 PDT
From: Ham-Policy Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: Ham-Policy Digest V94 #296
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Tue,  5 Jul 94       Volume 94 : Issue  296

Today's Topics:
                           (none) (2 msgs)
                        Copying CW below noise
         Existing regulations limit our advancement. (2 msgs)

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: 4 Jul 94 13:52:36 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (none)
To: [e-mail]

Jim, WK1V inquires:

>>Probably 80 percent of the time I am copying code I have a
>>pencil in hand and am either taking notes or writing verbatum.
>>However, when I run mobile cw I have to depend completely on
>>the gray matter entrapped within my skull.

To which I respond:

No need any more.  Heck, back in the 70s, when CW mobile (usually during
QSO parties and other county hunting expeditions in my old Jeep,) I
would have a CW keyboard bungi-corded to my steering wheel.  Even back
then, paper and pencil was taboo, at least in MY mind.

Nowadays, with old RS Model 100s being so ridiculously available,
strapping one to the steering wheel is duck soup.  Voila! A very cheap
computer right in front of your face while zipping down the road.
Guaranteed to bring your code speed real close to your speedometer
indication!

Which brings up the next point...

>Wonder what others think here...wouldn't it be best to learn code
>by head copy and not paper & pencil copy?

A resounding "NAH!" would be in order here.  Head copy is OK for SOME
aspects of Amateur Radio operation.  But durned few!  Let me list some
examples of where head copy does NOT suffice:


1.  Taking an Amateur Radio or commercial CW exam.
2.  Handling message traffic for the public.
3.  Contests
4.  DX'ing

In the latter two instances, of course, you can get away with SOME head
copy, but eventually you'll need to get the important details onto some
sort of record format.  Why not do it 100% of the time as I do?

And, well, the SOLE  use I can think of for copying in your head
would be rag-chews.  I GUESS there's still some of that going on.
(Jess kiddin, folks...)

Come to think of it, I  KNOW I couldn't do 60 wpm without getting it down,
letter-for-letter, at the precise time of receipt.  I used to work
for a super-secret three-letter gummint agency, copying CW for eight
hours a day, and many years later as a commercial (ship to shore)

CW operator.  In neither case could I possibly afford to copy "behind"
for one very important reason which also applies to today's Amateur
Radio CW traffic handling methodology.  Namely because, there I'd be,
merrily copying away, sometimes at better than 50 wpm, when BLAM!, the
sending operator would realize he'd made an error, back up (using any
number of strange procedures) and (try to) correct himself.  If you
think that's hard for the receive operator to contend with at slow
speeds, try it at 50 - 60 wpm.  Point being that if you learn it
"right" in advance (according to the Luck Hurder, you-better-dewit-MY-way
theory of instruction!), you'll be better off.  It's MUCH easier to
get where you wanna go (unusually high speed capability -- at least
for CW circuits).


This is SO wierd!  I'm sitting here trying to ruminate and cogitate to
myself about how to get a couple of thousand-character-per-second modems
to talk to each other properly over the radio, while at the same time
trying to explain to people methods of learning a skill that will net
people together at a paltry 10 - 60 WORDS per MINUTE.  Sheesh!  Aint
the diversity of Amateur Radio grand?  Short answer: YES!


-------------------------------------------------------------
Luck Hurder, KY1T     [e-mail]  [e-mail]
53 Broadview St.      "The Amateur Radio Service opens doors
Newington CT 06111    to the world for EVERYONE!"
-------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 4 Jul 94 13:34:20 -0500
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!ulowell!woods.uml.edu![e-mail]
Subject: (none)
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:

> This is SO wierd!  I'm sitting here trying to ruminate and cogitate to
> myself about how to get a couple of thousand-character-per-second modems
> to talk to each other properly over the radio, while at the same time
> trying to explain to people methods of learning a skill that will net
> people together at a paltry 10 - 60 WORDS per MINUTE.  Sheesh!  Aint
> the diversity of Amateur Radio grand?  Short answer: YES!

Yes it is!  Now if we could only convince the multitude of others that it is
okay to maintain a diversity within this hobby.  Seems like many are wanting
everything for free or for little or no effort.  If they had it their way ('an
this ain't Burger King) they would suck the diversity out of amateur radio, give
everyone the same class of ticket and have everyone operate via the same mode.
Am I going a little overboard here?  To keep pace with this and other threads
via this medium seems one has to step over a little bit. :)

Anyhoo Luck, don't know if you recall or not I had the pleasure of meeting you
at the Alamogordo, New Mexico Hamfest in September of '92.  Wish I was back
there now.  I appreciate the wide open spaces that don't seem to be too
available in New England.  Well, gotta go help with the grill...I can smell
the steaks a cookin'....it's the 4th don't ya know...

73 de Jim
WK1V

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

Date: 4 Jul 1994 17:10:33 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!news.kei.com!ssd.intel.com!chnews![e-mail]
Subject: Copying CW below noise
To: [e-mail]

Ken A. Nishimura ([e-mail]) wrote:

: Why then can you follow along?  Because you are doing a correlated
: reception.  You KNOW the song.  You KNOW what the next note
: -Ken

Hi Ken, I can be driving down the hiway in my truck and start thinking
about a song and do a "correlated reception" right out of the white
noise... what do you think that SNR is?

73, KG7BK, [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 4 Jul 1994 14:28:30 GMT
From: world![e-mail]
Subject: Existing regulations limit our advancement.
To: [e-mail]

: The 'USER' making a 'forward' patch is NOT a control operator of the
: repeater. The AUTOMATIC CONTROL OPERATOR is in control of the REPEATER
: STATION during a 'forward' autopatch.

All true, but if the user is making an autopatch while the repeater is
automatically controlled, that's plain illegal, and the trustee gets
the pink slip.

This is important.  Someone left the open 911 patch turned on the
other day on one of the local machines, and sure enough, some jokester
decided that repeated calls to the State Police would be great good
fun.  Troopers take a dim view of that, so I took to disconnecting him
with the "#" sign until he got tired, which didn't take long,
fortunately.  Someone turned it off eventually, because the same trick
didn't work the next night (they tried).

You have to have someone around to cut these things off.

: This is true, however I believe you could argue the repeater section
: (97.205) allows it irrespective of 97.109 (e)

I don't see how.  .205 says a repeater station may be automatically
controlled.  Or not.  .109(e) says that, with the important exception
of packet on VHF and up under specific conditions, NO OTHER STATION
may pass third party traffic under automatic control.  There must be a
control operator at the control point.  No exception for repeaters is
hinted at, so I'm having trouble imagining the argument.

-drt

------------------------------------------------------------------------
|David R. Tucker     KG2S         8P9CL            [e-mail]|
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Mon, 4 Jul 1994 13:15:33 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!emory!rsiatl!ke4zv![e-mail]
Subject: Existing regulations limit our advancement.
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan Pickersgill) writes:
>[e-mail] (Bob Wilkins  n6fri) writes:
>>
>>I have yet to see any discussion that allows a third party to control a
>>repeater in automatic control.
>
>How is that? Who is in control the third party or the Automatic Control
>Operator? (Hint: The Automatic Control Operator is in control of the
>repeater station the whole time.)

Hint, there is no such thing under the amateur rules as an automatic
control *operator*. The FCC doesn't send NAIs to machines. The live,
human, licensed, control operator *may* allow the machine to operate
automatically under some conditions, but third party communications
is definitely not one of those conditions as is clearly spelled out
in 97.109(e) which was written *specifically* to address repeater
operation.

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: Mon, 04 Jul 1994 14:12:00 EST
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!caen!malgudi.oar.net!wariat.org!amcomp![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <2v6tu4$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Existing regulations limit our advancement.

[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>Hint, there is no such thing under the amateur rules as an automatic
>control *operator*. The FCC doesn't send NAIs to machines. The live,
>human, licensed, control operator *may* allow the machine to operate
>automatically under some conditions, but third party communications
>is definitely not one of those conditions as is clearly spelled out
>in 97.109(e) which was written *specifically* to address repeater
>operation.

Where did you get the information that it was *specifically* to address
repeater operations? It is not in the text of the section.

Dan
--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price
of chains and slavery?  Forbid it, Almighty God!  I know not what
course others may take, but as for me, GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME
DEATH!"   -Patrick Henry, Virginia House of Burgesses on March 23,1775
=+=+=> Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun! - Me

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

Date: 4 Jul 94 15:19:27 -0500
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!ulowell!woods.uml.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <2v6tu4$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>well
Subject : Re: Existing regulations limit our advancement.

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David R Tucker)
writes:

[snip, snip]...

> You have to have someone around to cut these things off.
>
> : This is true, however I believe you could argue the repeater section
> : (97.205) allows it irrespective of 97.109 (e)
>
> I don't see how.  .205 says a repeater station may be automatically
> controlled.  Or not.  .109(e) says that, with the important exception
> of packet on VHF and up under specific conditions, NO OTHER STATION
> may pass third party traffic under automatic control.  There must be a
> control operator at the control point.  No exception for repeaters is
> hinted at, so I'm having trouble imagining the argument.

There are several groups I am familiar with who shut the autopatch off from
23:00 to 06:00 or somewhere thereabouts.  The appointed control operators
besides the trustee have access to the codes that turn the autopatch back on
anytime it is needed.  I know someone will ask, "What about someone who needs
to use the autopatch for an emergency but doesn't have the code(s) or access
to the control link to bring the autopatch up?"  My reply..."What about the
non-ham who has the same problem?"  Logical response:  Find a public phone or
go to the nearest emergency agency and report the incident.  For a ham, try
calling a control op on the repeater (or anyone for that matter), if that
doesn't work try using another repeater, other band, etc.  If all else fails
become like a non-ham and do what comes logically.  If you have a problem with
that, you have my sympathy for being so narrow minded.

Shutting off a device, capable of transmitting third party communications,
during the hours a control op is not likely to be present is the most logical
thing to do (I asked Mr. Spock and he agrees).  Can't get into trouble with
the FCC by abiding with the rules.

I have no trouble imagining any argument here.  There is no argument.  .109(e)
is pretty specific about automatic control while transmitting third-party comm.
It MAY NOT be done except from 6 meters and shorter wavelength bands and that
is for stations retransmitting digital packet radio communications.

.205(d) only says that a repeater may be automatically controlled.  Sorry I
neglected to get the name of the party you were replying to Dave but I too
do not see where this party could argue anything about either one of these
two paragraphs cancelling each other out.  That is what he implies.  One states
the condition the other qualifies it.  There's no argument...period.

We are dealing with a different breed of person nowadays.  He only sees what
*he* WANTS to see and if an interpretation does not go along with *his* line
of thinking he'll create an argument and stand by it until death.  He won't
even believe the people who wrote the rule when they state what their original
intention was.  No biggie though, he'll get the pink slips and the fines and
we'll learn from him.  He is one of our best teachers.  Hi hi.

73 de WK1V
Jim

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

Date: Mon, 4 Jul 1994 23:18:53 GMT
From: news.Hawaii.Edu!kahuna![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>■«
Subject : Re: CW ... My view.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeffrey Herman) writes:
>>
>>Well, *my* soldering iron is hot for at least an hour per day [and that's
>>NOT due to the climate: it only gets to about 85F here in Manoa each
>>day with nice cooling 15 knot Tradewinds; drops to 75F nights]. It
>>doesn't matter what a ham is building, just as long as (s)he is
>>building *something*. I choose to be cheap about it and will only work
>>with discrete parts that I salvage from old radios and TV sets.
>
>Well I suppose Og felt the same way while chipping his Nth stone axe.
>What you are saying is equivalent to saying "I don't care what a punk
>is writing as long as he's writing", even though what he's writing is
>obscenities spray painted on your house wall. That doesn't wash, or (sic)
>wash off. It matters very much what an amateur is building. Amateur
>radio is not supposed to be The Society for Creative Anachronism.

You must be  a  riot on the local repeaters, taking the opposite
viewpoint just for sake of arguing:

``Hey Gary - it's daytime''
``No it's not - it's night time at our antipode.''

Comparing hams furthering themselves by building even the smallest of
projects such as wave traps for a multiband dipole, a low pass filter,
an antenna tuner, a PL encoder, a J-pole antenna, etcetera, to
criminal youths vandalizing property is utterly ridiculous.

Be specific - show us a ham-project that's ``equivalent'' (your choice
of word) to the act of gang graffiti.


Jeff NH6IL

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

Date: 4 Jul 94 20:08:41 -0500
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!emory!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!ulowell!woods.uml.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>á
Subject : Re: CW ... My view.

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Jeffrey Herman) writes:

> Be specific - show us a ham-project that's ``equivalent'' (your choice
> of word) to the act of gang graffiti.

Uhhhh scuze me for buttin in here >I'm interrupt driven<...

How 'bout spray paintin' ur callsign across the boom of ur newly homebrewed
tri-bander?

Jez kiddin Jeff...:)

73 de WK1V
Jim

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

Date: Mon, 4 Jul 1994 21:56:49 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!emory!rsiatl!ke4zv![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Reply-To : [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject : Re: Existing regulations limit our advancement.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan Pickersgill) writes:
>[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>Hint, there is no such thing under the amateur rules as an automatic
>>control *operator*. The FCC doesn't send NAIs to machines. The live,
>>human, licensed, control operator *may* allow the machine to operate
>>automatically under some conditions, but third party communications
>>is definitely not one of those conditions as is clearly spelled out
>>in 97.109(e) which was written *specifically* to address repeater
>>operation.
>
>Where did you get the information that it was *specifically* to address
>repeater operations? It is not in the text of the section.

The ARRL says so, the FCC field bureaus say so, and Part 97 says so.
A bit of logic would also say so. Consider; what classes of stations
can operate automatically? Repeaters, packet, and beacons. Now can
beacons transmit third party traffic? No, so 97.109(e) wasn't written
for them. Can packet do third party traffic? Yes, and 97.109(e)
*specifically exempts* packet on the 6 m and up bands from the
prohibition against automatic control of a station transmitting
third party traffic. That only leaves repeaters that the rule could
be designed to address. And indeed, that's exactly why it's there,
and exactly what it means, no automatic control during third party
traffic on repeaters. What part of NO don't you understand?

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     |                     |

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

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #296
******************************