Ham Radio/Ham Radio CD-ROM (Emerald Software) (1995).ISO/news/inham08/984

Text File | 1979-12-31 | 12KB | 242 lines

Today's Topics:
                   Bearcat 205xlt and battery whoas
                       dual banders (2m & 70cm)
  Modifiying radios for out of band operation (was Re: ARRL) (long)
                   rec.ham-radio is out of control
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Dec 89 04:54:13 GMT
From: usenet.ins.cwru.edu![e-mail]  (Gary Lee)
Subject: Bearcat 205xlt and battery whoas
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

I recently purchased a used Bearcat model 205XLT and had a few questions
about it that I hope others here may have answers for.

I use this scanner alot, but the nicad packs have a short (5 hour) life.
The person I purchased it from had a modified battery case from ICOM
(model BP-20) that he would use in case his rechargeable batteries went
south. This is a great idea, but I use the scanner quite abit at home and
wish to plug it in to an AC adapter.

I do realise that the nicad pack has a power jack on it, but it is also a
charging jack. My concern is that it will mess up the battery (memories and
all that) if I leave it plugged in all the time. Now, he also sold me a taper
charger for the batteries. Can I safely use this to power the unit too?
       ^
   by Metro West

I actually am looking for a battery type pack that has a separate power jack
in addition to the charge jack (something like the Tandy models have). Can
anyone confirm if the scanner only needs 9vdc to operate. If so, I could
place a jack in the BP-20 to do what I want.

Any useful information will be appreciated.

Gary

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

Date: 7 Dec 89 03:28:01 GMT
From: csusac!mmsac![e-mail]  (Jim Lips Earl)
Subject: dual banders (2m & 70cm)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

I had a Yaesu 4700rh dual band mobile.  It worked ok.  But it got stolen.
I now own a Kenwood 4100.  It has good sides and bad sides.  Bad stuff:

To change PL (an option on both radios) on the Kenwood, you have to hit
the menu button twice, dial to PL you want (it only goes UP, so if you
go past it, you have to go all the way around again - STUPID!), then
push the same button three more times.  A pain when you are trying all
the PLs to "find" a repeater.  On the Yaesu, it is a snap.  You can even
change PLs while you are transmitting!

Good stuff:  On the Kenwood, all you have to do to enable the cross-band
repeater function is add a jumper.  The Yaesu doesn't offer it.

If I could buy any dual-band mobile, I'd get a Kenwood 721.  It has the
cross-band built-in, and it operates much faster and better than on the
4100.  It also allows you to monitor two bands at once.  But I think it
goes for around $650-$700.  Anyone have a current price on a 721?

--
      Jim "Lips" Earl                   UUCP: sun!sacto!mmsac!jim
          KB6KCP                    INTERNET: mmsac![e-mail]
   =======================================================================
              The opinions stated herein are all mine.

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

Date: 6 Dec 89 22:24:04 GMT
From: mirror!necntc!necis![e-mail]  (Rich Bono)
Subject: Modifiying radios for out of band operation (was Re: ARRL) (long)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bob Hardwick) writes:
>
>
> I got the following off of a packet BBS the other day
> and thought the net might like to comment.
>
>
    [deleted headers]

> Several messages are circulating concerning how-to, or want-to, modify
> VHF or UHF amateur gear for out of band operation. Why anyone would be
> so blatant as to tell someone how, or request to violate the law is
> beyond apprehension. We are not talking about MARS frequencies, but
> allowing amateur gear to transmit in the commercial bands. This is
> clearly unacceptable, and sysops should kill those messages when they
> appear. Locally several individuals have been investigated for operating
> amateur equipment in the public safety and commercial bands. Putting
> your 6 meter radio on 47.42 to help the Red Cross is illegal. Operating
> your Kenwood on a GMRS system or commercial UHF box is illegal.
> Locally we provide the FCC enforcement section call signs of anyone
> requesting how to or trying to stimulate a data base on illegal mods.
> FCC type acceptance is the bottom consideration, as well as common sense.
> We hope the FCC will discuss the appropriate aspects with the individuals
> conerned. It is no wonder that others are able to attack our hobby,
> since we provide them the ammunition to do so.
> Thank you for your consideration on this.
>
> Mike N6KZB @ N6KZB Orange Section ARRL ASM.
>                    Telecommunications Engineer II, RCOFD.
>
> If this is what the ARRL is doing with our dues money then
> the ARRL has just lost a member.



I am VERY worried about this type of thing.... Yes there are many valid
MARS/CAP reasons to modify Amateur radios for out of band transmit operation,
and I hope that all that do this have a MARS/CAP license and are ACTIVE in
the respective service.

But, MOST people these days think NOTHING of modifying a radio to transmit
out of the HAM bands... MOST do not know that it is illegal to do so for
use in the commercial bands... and don't realize that radios must be
type accepted for use in a particular service.  MOST are modifying their
radios 'JUST IN CASE'.... Just in case of WHAT????

Some argue that the ham version of many radios are the same as the commercial
versions, so that it is ok to modify for transmit... Technically this may
be so, but LEGALLY it is NOT.  Type accepted does not mean that if a
radio has the same specs or has better specs than a type-accepted unit, then
the non-type accepted radio is ok to use.

Why worry about this????  I am worried because I see it as a technological (SP?)
advancement (synthisized (SP?) radios with wide band coverage) that will get
legislated away from us when some yo-yo (probably not a licensed Amateur) gets
a hold of one of these radios, and starts playing with the local police, fire,
or ambulance services (yes, one of your modified radios COULD get stolen).

I can see the headlines now, "Ham radio equipment is used to disrupt
police/fire/ambulance (choose one) communications and 5 lives were lost".
What will they do??? Of course they will create a new law that says that
broadband technologies and computer controlled PLL's cannot be used in
Amateur gear any longer because it is too easlily modified for use in
services where it does not belong.  Can anyone remember why the cost of
HF amplifiers went up, and why we can't buy production units that include
10 meters anymore??? They claimed that by not allowing manufacturers to sell
amps that could be easliy modified for use on 11 meters (CB) would solve the
problem of the illegal use of amplifiers in the CB service...  Well, all
I can see is that the cost of amp's went up to us hams, and we can't get
a production unit that includes 10 meters, but the illegal use of amplifiers
on the CB band has not stopped at all... Oh yes, I do understand that we
can request a mod for most amps that we can perform to allow 10 meter operation
on most units these days...

I sometimes wonder where this urge to modify radios to transmit in an area
that we are not allowed comes from.  Is it because we have many converts from
the 11 meter (so called HFers) ops that had to modify their radios to get away
from the CBers.  This mentality that it is a good thing to do to a radio
(modify it to expand its transmit range into illegal territory) may be
ingrained.  Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to put down the many good
operators that we have gained from this pool of radio enthusiasts (SP?).
Note that I do consider that there are separate breeds, one who is a CBer:
one who operates a non-modified, legal 40 channel 5watt max, CB radio, and
the other (self acclaimed 'HFers') who illegally operate on non-allocated
frequencies with illegally modified radio equipment or with illegally used
NON-TYPE ACCEPTED radios (usually Amateur radio gear).

So it is up to us licensed operators... If we continue to thoughtlessly (SP?)
modify Amateur gear so that it can transmit on bands where we have no
business transmitting, and that it is illegal to do so with modified amateur
gear, EVEN IF THE USER HAS A COMMERCIAL LICENSE, because that gear is not
type accepted for the particular service, then we should be prepared to pay
the price when we get our hands slapped.

Why can't we be responsible enough to show that we CAN be technological
leaders (SSB, PACKET, ...) and still show that we will not abuse the
technology that we help to create???

So, go ahead, flame the ARRL for their action to protect the Amateur radio
service from being attacked because of some non-thinking hams, or have them
do nothing and wait for some legislative action that takes more priviledges
away from us, and them blame them for not doing something about it.

Oh yes, I understand that MANY netters are into these mods... so I expect
there will be many flames....

If you believe that it is proper to modify a piece of Amateur radio gear
for use on frequencies that it is not designed and type accepted for
(we won't even address the issue of having a license for the frequencies
in question, we can assume that the user has said license), then lets
start a non-emotional discussion pointing out the facts that I am NOT
aware of... Yes, I have been wrong, many times in the past.

I also understand that my spelling is bad, luckily I didn't have to pass
a spelling exam to get my Amateur license :-).


            Flame suit on,

            Rich


--
 /**************************************************************************\
 * Rich Bono (NM1D)    If I could only 'C' forever!!    [e-mail] *
 * [phone]          NEC Technologies Inc.                NM1D@WB1DSW *
 \**************************************************************************/

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

Date: 7 Dec 89 00:19:58 GMT
From: sun-barr!newstop!texsun!pollux!attctc![e-mail]  (Steve Sampson)
Subject: rec.ham-radio is out of control
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Steve Dowman) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (C.E. Piggott) writes...
> {
> {I think rec.ham-radio is *VERY* out of control.
>
>   Quite similar to what you may hear on 14313.
>   I'm not a ham but I find it interesting that this hobby
>   can become so serious, political and create a "I was here first"
>   mentality among grown men.  Perhaps its just human nature.
>

14313 is a war between those who feel that a group of people should not
reserve a frequency for their sole use in the Amateur band, and those that
think their cause is so great and important, that the frequency must be
removed from all other Amateur activity.  This forum has not even discussed
that issue lately, so how can it be similar?  Some people don't like to air
their views, others can't wait.  Some people, like the two above, read the
views and form no opinion either pro or con.  Rather than hit 'n', they leave
no argument, but only garbage.  They want a forum, but damn it, if they don't
talk about what I want, you people are wasting the "bandwidth" and have only
non-issues to talk about.  Why not do us all a favor and unsubscribe?  I'd
rather see heated political discussions than listen to your shit.

Sincerely,
Steve Sampson, N5OWK, S.O.B., etc...

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

End of INFO-HAMS Digest V89 Issue #984
**************************************