Programmer 7500/MAX_PROGRAMMERS.iso/PROGRAMS/UTILS/HAMRADIO/IH90579.ZIP/IH90579.TXT/text0000.txt

Text File | 1991-01-01 | 26.6 KB | 619 lines

Info-Hams Digest            Mon, 31 Dec 90       Volume 90 : Issue 579

Today's Topics:
                         A few new questions
                  Equipment ideas for the Microsats
                FCC Rumor -- (But what if it is true?)
                     Future Ham needs to know ...
                           HTs and Die Hard
                   Info Request (beverage antennas)
                   Letter to ARRL Pac Div Director
                Open Letter to ARRL Pres. Larry Price
                      RF and the outer limits...
                   Rumors of ARRL appeal on No-Code
The comming no-code newbies... What has the FCC done to us this time?
                  TS-440 automatic tuner experience?

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: 31 Dec 90 20:31:53 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Kok Chen)
Subject: A few new questions
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Eric Olson) writes:

>2.  Can I sign up to take the Tech class _with_ code, fail the code, and get
>    a no-code tech license?  This is a very enticing (win-win) scenario for me,
>    and would probably be an attractive option for a lot of the people
>    lured in by the promise of no-code (e.g., those that like a challenge
>    but don't like to _fail_ :-).


I don't see a reason why not.  When I took my tests the first time,
I asked to take the whole sheebang, but I flunked 1c (20 wpm) after
passing the written exams.  The grand OM giving the code tests simply
kept me seated and played the 1b (13 wpm) tape to me.  They then
submitted the Form 610 for an advanced license.

I am sure they will do the same come February for those who passes
Elements 2 and 3a, tries 1a but flunks it.

For those of you edgy and nervous about the tests, don't be.  The
Volunteer Examiners couldn't be a friendlier bunch of folks who
*wants* to find every legitimate reason to *pass* you.  After
flunking the 20 wpm 10-questions test, the examiner plowed over
and over through my illegible handwriting to try hard as heck to
see if I had 1-minute solid-copy. At least, that was my experience
with the ARRL VEC in Cupertino here.  Absolutely super people.
(See? I don't *always* bash the League. :-)


73,

Kok Chen, AA6TY            [e-mail]
Apple Computer, Inc.

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

Date: 31 Dec 90 18:48:37 GMT
From: idacrd![e-mail]  (Robert McGwier)
Subject: Equipment ideas for the Microsats
To: [e-mail]



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

Date: 31 Dec 90 21:11:11 GMT
From: w8grt![e-mail]  (Jim Grubs)
Subject: FCC Rumor -- (But what if it is true?)
To: [e-mail]

 > From: [e-mail] (Dave Heller)
 > Date: 31 Dec 90 06:44:51 GMT
 > Organization: Wells Computer Systems Corp., Levittown, Pa. 19058
 > Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
 > Newsgroups: rec.ham-radio
 >
 > If you noticed, I mentioned that as I understand the farcial waiver
 > business

But you called it bullshit...

 > What does Frank Spicer - totally blind and deaf, and no youngster either
 > - thinkof it?  Ask him.  He EARNED his Extra.
 > Do you remember Clif Korne, K9EAB, now S.K., the ultra proficient ham in
 > the
 > iron lung?  He didn't need a waiver;  probably couldn't have got one
 > because
 > he could pass the test without.

So did I, remember? That still doesn't justify the disgusting jokes about
druggies and being dropped on the head.

 > The real answer is:  It's true that -maybe- some handicapped persons
 > can't pass
 > the code test because of some physical failing.

Maybe? What about dyslexics who can't tell the difference between dots and
dashes no matter how they are transmitted - sound, light, vibrations, etc.

 > And the whole thing started because Pres. Bush got a bug up his ass and
 > sent
 > a memo to FCC.

Bush got bugged because it took a Arab king to make him aware of the
insensitivity of his own administration.

 > What credentials does the average MD or DO have for deciding whether you
 > or I
 > can't pass the CW test "because of ***"?

Depends on how well they have the problem explained to them, I guess. If you
tell a neurologist you're having trouble telling the difference between short
tones and long tones, he'd probably be able to handle that. If you tell him
you can't tell the difference between .-.. and ..-. he'd understand that.

 >         I will repeat:  it's a farce.  Is your muscular distrophy
 > limiting you
 > more than Frank Spicer's blindness/deafness?  Or maybe K3KTH.  I haven't

Ding bust it, we're not talking about sensory or motor handicaps. We're
talking about neurological handicaps that make PERCEPTION and INTERPRETATION
of sensory input difficult or impossible.

 > Incidentally, about the no-code:  It's an elegant solution;  it should
 > work.

Well, there I agree with you. Elegant is the word.

--
Jim Grubs - via the friendly folks at UUNET
UUCP: ...!uunet!w8grt!jim.grubs
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 31 Dec 90 16:37:08 GMT
From: ogicse!emory!wa4mei!ke4zv![e-mail]  (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Future Ham needs to know ...
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kim Greer -- rjj) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>Get a current copy of "The Radio Amateur's Handbook" published by the
>>ARRL. ....... Pick up a copy of
>>the "FCC Rulebook" also by the ARRL and read through the regulations.
>...... Then get a copy of one of the Q&A manuals and read through it
>
>>Gary KE4ZV
>
>Gary,
>
>  Thanks for this useful info.  Would someone supply an address to write to
>for a price list and ordering information for ARRL publications?

The American Radio Relay League, Inc.
225 Main Street
Newington, CT 06111

Or try any ham radio dealer. Most carry a selection of ARRL publications.

Gary KE4ZV

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

Date: 31 Dec 90 18:05:39 GMT
From: netcom![e-mail]  (Morris Jones)
Subject: HTs and Die Hard
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] writes:
>Does anyone know which model(s) HT(s) were used in the movies Die Hard 1 and
>2?  And, what can you tell me about their performance and price?

I have no idea what they were, but you can be assured that any real HT you
find won't work like those did.  The scriptwriter obviously didn't have
the slightest idea how a personal communication device works in the real
world.

The HTs were pretty obviously half-duplex devices (they had a PTT switch),
and yet people were able to break in while someone else was transmitting.
Other people could "hang-up" on you (huh?).  And his call to police
dispatch was a little outrageous.

I know you knew all that.  :)  The devices they used in the movie may have
been built by the prop department.

73, Mojo AA4KB
--
[e-mail]          Site Coordinating Instructor, San Jose South
Morris "Mojo" Jones       Skilled Motorcycling And Rider Training (S.M.A.R.T.)
Campbell, CA              800-675-5559 ... 800-CC-RIDER ...  408-423-2212
AA4KB @ N6LDL.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NA / aa4kb.ampr.org / netcom![e-mail]

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

Date: 31 Dec 90 18:24:19 GMT
From: ogicse!emory!wa4mei!ke4zv![e-mail]  (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Info Request (beverage antennas)
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James R. Duncan) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Marthouse N2AAM) writes:
>>
>>I am interested in finding out technical information on beverage antennas.
>>I know that a beverage is a long wire, a few wavelengths long, about 6 or 7
>>inches above the ground. I think that the antenna is terminated somehow. I
>>heard that they are used in broadcast band dxing and that people have had
>>fantastic dx usine the antennas. I would be interested in any technical info-
>
>The Beverage antenna was conceived decades ago as a transmitting
>antenna (primarily) which provided a low angle, unidirectional pattern.
>Ham radio books such as the ARRL Antenna Book will have more
>information about this design.  It appears to me to be a somewhat
>specialized, dedicated purpose type antenna setup that wouldn't be
>useful for dx reception from diverse directions.  Also, an antenna
>several wavelengths long at broadcast AM frequencies could begin to be
>a mile in length.

The Beverage is primarily used as a receiving antenna. It suffers heavy
ground losses as a transmit antenna and requires large non-inductive
resistors for it's termination if used in transmit service. Many 160
meter operators use a vertical for transmiting and multiple Beverages
for receiving.

>The all time best AM broadcast band DX antenna would be an active loop
>antenna located some distance from the house, electrical wires, etc.
>The loop would of course be remotely rotatable.  The gain of this setup
>would be such that the baseline atmospheric noise it picked up on the
>quietest night would just override the receiver's internal noise.  The
>long antenna you propose would tend to cause a receiver dynamic range
>problem without any real DX benefit.

The major advantage of the Beverage over the loop is that the Beverage
has a very narrow angle of acceptance while the loop receives over a
nearly 360 azimuth with a narrow, but very sharp, bidirectional null.
The Beverage, on the other hand, is truely unidirectional with a major
lobe of about 15 degrees for an eight wavelength model. This means that
it strongly rejects signals and atmospheric noise from nearly 345 degrees
of the compass. This results in a very quiet antenna that can separate
two stations operating on the same frequency if they are more than 15
degrees apart at your location. This is very useful for Broadcast Band
DX.

The major disadvantage of the Beverage is physical size. You really need
access to 300+ acres of property to properly install a system with one
Beverage wire every 15 degrees. If your house is back in the woods, this
is not generally a problem except at timber harvesting time.

Gary KE4ZV

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

Date: 31 Dec 90 20:39:25 GMT
From: agate!shelby!ptolemy![e-mail]  (Gary B. Fariss)
Subject: Letter to ARRL Pac Div Director
To: [e-mail]

Charles P. McConnell, W6DPD
ARRL Pacific Division Director
1658 W. Mesa Ave.
Fresno, CA  93711

Charles,

I was (and still am) against the creation of a no-code amateur radio license.
I am convinced that the code separated the serious from the mildly curious.
It provided a balance to the test; balancing a mechanical skill against
theoretical "book" knowledge.  It engendered a pride of accomplishment that
fostered a respect for the privileges granted, and led to more mature
on-the-air behavior.

However, the game has been played and we now have a no-code license.  The
challenge now is to integrate the new hams.  We have a greater need than
before to educate the new folks to the "ham way" of on-the-air behavior.

The more opportunities that we have to interact and show by example, the more
successful we can be.

   PLEASE DO NOT ASK THE FCC TO RESTRICT THE NEW HAMS TO 220MHZ AND UP.

I want the opportunity to interact with the new hams on 2 meters.  That's
where the common ground is.  That's where the community can provide its
example and exert its pressure to conform.

Please notice that the FCC took special pains to "hide" the new hams in the
crowd.  They are not "Communicators", they are "Technicians"; there are no
special callsigns and no other obvious distinctions.  The FCC realizes that
the new hams should be smoothly integrated, even if we don't!

We should look upon this change as just making the Technician test easier.
I remember an earlier time when the Technician test got easier, and hardly
anyone noticed!  If we see the change this way, it should help us to view the
new hams as "just hams".

I mourn the passing of an era when you could assume that all hams knew the
code.... it's fun to honk HI at a car with a ham plate......   I hope that we
can successfully integrate the new hams instead of splitting hamdom into the
code's and the nocode's.  I hope I won't have to mourn the passing of the
camaraderie that sets ham radio apart from other hobbies.

73,
  Gary Fariss, W6KYF

CC:
  Steve Wilson, KA6S, SCV Section Manager
  Internet Newsgroup:  rec.ham-radio

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

Date: 31 Dec 90 18:56:27 GMT
From: idacrd![e-mail]  (Robert McGwier)
Subject: Open Letter to ARRL Pres. Larry Price
To: [e-mail]



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

Date: 31 Dec 90 18:08:17 GMT
From: vaxeline!bootsie![e-mail]  (Eric Olson)
Subject: RF and the outer limits...
To: [e-mail]

In a recent article [e-mail] (CAL-LAB (MS:JER2-85 TEL:7589)) writes:
>Ever wonder why after all the billions of dollars and countless man-hours
>spent on searching for extra-terrestrial RF signals that we've come up with
>NOTHING ! ? I don't have the answer either.
>...

It's because they're trying to talk to us on 60 Hz.

Just kidding. :-) (60 Hz doesn't get through the atmosphere, does it?)

-Eric

--
Eric K. Olson, Editor, Prepare()       NOTE: [e-mail] will not work!
Lexington Software Design              Internet: [e-mail]
72A Lowell St., Lexington, MA 02173    Usenet:   harvard!endor!olson
[phone]                         Bitnet:   OLSON@HARVARD

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

Date: 31 Dec 90 17:54:44 GMT
From: ogicse!emory!wa4mei!ke4zv![e-mail]  (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Rumors of ARRL appeal on No-Code
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Paul W. SCHLECK") writes:
>
>In previous conversations with Hugh, he expressed a concern over
>potential TVI problems between 6m and fringe-area Channel 2 reception.
>This was a key factor in the ARRL not asking the FCC for 6m
>privileges.  There was also concern about excessive band loading on
>2m.
>
>Hugh says that comments on the issue have been split right down the
>middle.  He is very concerned that the new regulations will divide
>amateur radio.  He brought up 3 key goals of license restucturing, and
>why he felt that the new license might not be of significant
>impact:
>
>1.  An influx of new, quality hams.  Any new restructuring in and of
>itself will not dramatically increase our ranks.  No-Code is not a panacea
>and it should not be though of as such.  Any serious effort to recruit new
>hams with this new license should be accompanied by an appropriate
>recruting/PR effort.  VE's turning in their accredidation over disagreement
>with the new license will not achieve this goal.

A reasonable view.

>2.  A dramatic increase in amateurs on the UHF and Microwave bands,
>to prevent licensed and unlicensed encroachment on our bands from Part 15
>devices, HDTV, cellular phone, satellite communications, etc.  Giving
>away the lower VHF bands to new hams might give us the same band
>loading problems, only more so.  The ARRL felt (whether you agree with
>it or not) that a 220-and-up license would force new hams to break new
>ground on the upper bands.

A dramatic increase in activity on UHF+ must await a critical mass of
users. These users should be socialized to amateur radio operations
rather than being left to invent a new service on their own. Thus
"ghettoizing" the newcomer is not a good way to achieve critical
mass. By mixing the newcomers with the old timers at the "watering hole"
on two meters at first, the end result will be a gradual migration
of *one* culture to the higher bands.

>3.  Acceptance and assimilation of these new hams into the mainstream
>of the hobby.  Again, bitter divisiveness, shunning, old Tech's using
>a /C suffix, and other childish games will not make these new hams feel
>welcome.  If this new license, as sensible and well though out as it may be,
>causes more divisiveness and infighting (possibly played out on the ham
>bands), then it may hurt more than help amateur radio.

This type of "one upsmanship" attitude of "I'm better than you" is already
prevalent on the ham bands and has been since at least 1968. The General
looks down on the Tech (he's not a real ham because he can't work 20 meters).
The Advanced looks down on the General and the Extra lords it over them
all. Removing the Morse requirement from a class that rarely uses it
anyway should not make the caste system much worse.

>As was stated previously, the stream of comments coming in to League
>officials on the issue have been split 50/50.  If you write the ARRL, and I
>encourage you to do so, please consider the following in your letter:
>
>1.  Will 6m TVI be a problem?  Why/Why not?

No. Reasons. Six is not presently a very popular band. There is little
commercial equipment available for Six. Our ranks are not likely to soon
explode with Six meter DXers. Our new techs are likely to follow the herd
and emulate current tech operating habits, at least until they gain some
experience. Since the only difference between current Techs and the new
Techs is 5 wpm Morse, and knowledge of Morse doesn't help one solve TVI
problems, the new Techs should cause no more problems than the current
Techs do. Cable TV.

>2.  Will 2m band loading be a problem? Why/Why not?

No. First of all, 2 meters is not overloaded now with anything but mostly
silent repeaters. Operating patterns may have to change somewhat. The
luxury of one repeater for every two amateurs may have to give way. And
some users may wish to permanently migrate to UHF in an attempt to maintain
that ratio. But, the band is in no danger of congestive collapse.

>3.  What recruitment efforts do you and/or your club have in place to
>test, train, and accept these new hams?

The club(s) that I belong to intend to welcome these people with open
arms. Many members are already sounding out likely prospects and our
clubs intend to modify our present training classes to include the
codeless technicians. We hope to boost our middle school program with
the codeless tech option.

>4.  What kind of impact will this new license have on use of the UHF
>and Microwave bands?

I expect the impact to be modest at first. We need to build a critical
mass of socialized users before interesting services will develop on the
upper bands. A combination of the experimental interests of the new
licensees and increasing pressure on traditional hams operating primarily
at 2 meters will slowly build the critical mass to make the higher bands
take off.

>5.  Will the new license cause a splitting of hams into code/no-code
>camps?  What can you and/or your club do to make these hams feel
>welcome and smooth over ruffled feathers among existing hams?

There are bound to be some traditional hams who will resent the newcomers,
much the same way they resent current newcomers. Trying to be inclusive
rather than exclusive should reduce the fragmentation that plagued amateur
radio in the post '68 decline of the service brought on by Incentive
Licensing. At least in the clubs I frequent, I find a large number of
active amateurs who are excited about the prospects of new technologies
and who welcome *anyone* who shares their interests. Naturally I don't
frequent those mortibund clubs that spend all their time arguing about
increasing the CW IDer's speed on their tube type repeater, or who endlessly
haggle about Robert's Rules of Order. One of my favorite groups specifically
eschews Robert in our charter, and we don't charge dues. We find that passing
the hat when we need to do something works very well. We don't have a
President either, preferring a Lord of Chaos as our leader.

Gary KE4ZV

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

Date: 31 Dec 90 17:57:16 GMT
From: vaxeline!bootsie![e-mail]  (Eric Olson)
Subject: The comming no-code newbies... What has the FCC done to us this time?
To: [e-mail]

Excuses for posting:  I have a feeling there are a lot of hams-to-be reading
rec-ham.radio these days; I'm not flaming; There's a question at the end
of this reply.

In a recent article [e-mail] ( Charles J. Guest ) writes:
>A) I have been away from the ham side of things for so long that I am
>even in a quandry as to what to look for as far as books on the subject.
>I suspect that ARRL still puts out quite a library, but I am more
>interested in something to help get the license that is less stilted in
>the ways (and pockets) of the ARRL.
>...

Radio Shack sells Novice, Technician, and General class study guides.
(They also actually still sell a Ham radio!  Boy was I suprised
about that! [10m mobile-- you can't operate it as a no-code tech :-( ]).
They list for $19.95, $4.95, and $19.95, respectively (the higher
priced ones come with code cassettes).  The ARRL book "Tune in the World"
book alone is $14, $19 with code cassettes.  The Tech manual is
$6.  For my money, I'd rather support a group of friendly technically
oriented people than rude idiot salemen.  If you really want to save
money, sign the ARRL books out of your local library (but get the most
recent ones you can find-- I've found some pretty out-of-date info!).
Note:  I was suprised that the ARRL Handbook doesn't contain any study
guides (but just about everything else).  That's the book most likely
for your library to have.

>C) One of the big draws, asside from helping others, to the ham hobby
>was the ability to talk across the country and overseas.  Since this is
>not going to be possible for me on the HF bands, have there been any
>developments in the last ten years that could be of interest to me in
>this regard?

I'm told that there are networks of 2m->10m repeaters that will let
you DX from a Handheld (albeit a limited choice of frequencies).  If
this is incorrect, I'm sure someone will chime in.  A lot of the
activity in Ham radio of late seems to be aimed at reducing the
amount of equipment you need to be a well-connected Ham (for instance,
I believe there are various gateways coming online between different
types of packet radio).

>D) Keeping a budget in mind, if you had to start all over again buying
>new equipment for your shack what would you consider buying.

I don't own much equipment yet (I'm not licensed either), but I will
probably look for it at Ham Swapfests.  I think they are listed in
QST (a good reason for joining the AARL).  Ham equipment is pretty
inexpensive used (unfortunately, the best price/performance bargain
is all old 10m equipment-- I've a few offers for _free_ stuff like
that, which is one reason I'm tempted to go for the coded tech license).
A problem for me is knowing what a Whizbang TQ-500 All band _is_!
Another good reason to get QST...

Along these lines, are there any used-ham-equipment catalog publications?

Cheers!

-Eric
--
Eric K. Olson, Editor, Prepare()       NOTE: [e-mail] will not work!
Lexington Software Design              Internet: [e-mail]
72A Lowell St., Lexington, MA 02173    Usenet:   harvard!endor!olson
[phone]                         Bitnet:   OLSON@HARVARD

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

Date: 31 Dec 90 19:11:21 GMT
From: infonode![e-mail]  (Terry Kurtz)
Subject: TS-440 automatic tuner experience?
To: [e-mail]

Has anyone had experience with the automatic antenna tuner(s) for the
Kenwood TS-440? I have a Butternut HF6V and would like to hear if anyone
has had good or bad experience with either the AT440 built in automatic
tuner or the AT250 external tuner with this or other verticals.

Terry Kurtz (waiting on Novice ticket and have already upgraded to General)
uunet!ingr!kurtz

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

Date: (null)
From: (null)
I have a TS-790A and I use it only as an IF for my S band gear.  I took it
out of satellite service within one week of putting it on the air and
went back to using my IC-271 and IC-471.  Satellite operation was
strictly an add on option at the last minute and without input from
a satellite user is what I fear happened.  After DOVE gets reloaded,
I am going to do something else about a 2 meter IF for DOVE since the
thing is not suitable in any way for data.  I hope some day the JA
rig companies will realize that 50000 plus tnc owners (at least) need
support as well.


Bob
N4HY
--
____________________________________________________________________________
    My opinions are my own no matter    |    Robert W. McGwier, N4HY
    who I work for! ;-)            |    CCR, AMSAT, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: (null)
From: (null)
Even dumber now Jim.  Please see the latest ARRL bulletins.  The FCC gave
them no time to react.  It is a fait accompli.  The commission ordered
it into effect on February 14.  No appeals allowed.  If the ARRL wants
to waste money on another lawsuit, possibly they can do something.  It
is really time to put this decision into our pipe and smoke it.  It can be
a success or failure or simply a ripple into amateur radio's not so
long decent into senility.  We have been given a recruiting tool.  I
suggest that we go out and make use of it.  If you do not like the nocode
tech, then recruit your people from those to whom learning the code is
not a deterrent into getting into amateur radio.  It seems that Jim and
I (and many others) have found potentially valuable recruits for whom the
morse code requirement was sufficiently daunting to force refusal of
amateur radio as a hobby.  We must make amateur radio relevant to the
21-st century US citizens now, or there will not be such a hobby then.
(I only talk about relevance to US citizens since this is an FCC action
and not a UN one ;-).

Bob
N4HY
--
____________________________________________________________________________
    My opinions are my own no matter    |    Robert W. McGwier, N4HY
    who I work for! ;-)            |    CCR, AMSAT, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

End of Info-Hams Digest
******************************