Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 21:00:35 PST From: Info-Hams Mailing List and Newsgroup Errors-To: Info-Hams-Errors@UCSD.Edu Reply-To: Info-Hams@UCSD.Edu Precedence: Bulk Subject: Info-Hams Digest V94 #209 To: Info-Hams Info-Hams Digest Fri, 25 Feb 94 Volume 94 : Issue 209 Today's Topics: ARLB021 FCC call sign update Electric Fence RFI (2 msgs) Getting Coax Seal OFF? Hams on Usenet INTERNET -- PACKET gateway!!! Money grabbing SOB's at STD.COM (was Re: ftp for files) Nude Radio Amateurs On-line Repeater Directory (4 msgs) online rpt idea Software for DOS-PC for decoding Morse This Week on Spectrum 02/26/94 Send Replies or notes for publication to: Send subscription requests to: Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu. 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: 24 Feb 94 15:24:17 GMT From: nprdc!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!eff!news.kei.com!yeshua.marcam.com!zip.eecs.umich.edu!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!@ Subject: ARLB021 FCC call sign update To: info-hams@ucsd.edu SB QST @ ARL $ARLB021 ARLB021 FCC call sign update ZCZC AG85 QST de W1AW ARRL Bulletin 21 ARLB021 ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 94 14:30:04 GMT From: nprdc!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!hpuerca.atl.hp.com!hpuerca!edh@network.ucsd.edu Subject: Electric Fence RFI To: info-hams@ucsd.edu In clh6w@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Carole L. Hamilton) writes: >I've got some bad interference on 80 through 10 >meter bands from an electric fence about 500 >feet away. The effect is very sharp clicks >about 3-4 per second. Analog noise blanker >works some but not 100%. >Anyone have any cures? Try a 100 watt carbon resister between the positive and negative terminals of the battery powering the fence. A _large_ resister, preferably with lot's of cooling fins. Failing that, judiciously applied diagonal cutters work. Er.. it _is_ YOUR fence isn't it? :-) Cheers & 73 Ed Humphries N5RCK Hewlett Packard Atlanta GA ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 94 20:29:27 GMT From: news.tek.com!cascade.ens.tek.com!not-for-mail@uunet.uu.net Subject: Electric Fence RFI To: info-hams@ucsd.edu In article <2kl3h8$6dh@solaris.cc.vt.edu> benjy@benjy.cc.vt.edu (Ben E. Cline) writes: > >In clh6w@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU >(Carole L. Hamilton) writes: > >>I've got some bad interference on 80 through 10 >>meter bands from an electric fence about 500 >>feet away. The effect is very sharp clicks >>about 3-4 per second. Analog noise blanker >>works some but not 100%. > >>Anyone have any cures? > I have the same problem. But my noise blanker in the FT-980 takes it out, even on the lowest setting. If you want something to build, you might pick up some op amps and start with the standard noise blanker circuits found in the ARRL books and op am cook books. I believe it would be fairly easy to make a blanker to take out the tic-tic-tic of an electric fence. All you should need is a quick enough time constant I believe. Terry Burge KI7M ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 94 15:27:02 GMT From: nprdc!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news.tamu.edu!TAYLOR.TAMU.EDU!gtaylor@network.ucsd.edu Subject: Getting Coax Seal OFF? To: info-hams@ucsd.edu > When using co-ax seal or other goopy sealers, it pays to wrap >the connectors with PVC tape first, then apply the goop. Then when you >remove the goop, you take off the tape and everything is clean. Now they tell me.... Greg Taylor, KD4HZ // g-taylor4@tamu.edu // 409-845-4445 // Fax-847-8744 ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 94 14:33:21 GMT From: nprdc!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!hpuerca.atl.hp.com!hpuerca!edh@network.ucsd.edu Subject: Hams on Usenet To: info-hams@ucsd.edu In <2kjb2o$s6h@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> oo7@astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) writes: >>I have need to contact a number of hams, many whom may be >>USENET members. At one point we used to see a 4 (or more) >>part index of Hams on Usenet. Is that listing still published >>and available somewhere? >Uh-oh, your name isn't Dave Rhodes, is it? >Derek "pass it on" Wills (AA5BT, G3NMX) No, Derek, his name is not Dave; but he does know a little boy in England who is trying to set a Guiness record and wants your QSL card! Ed "mine's already in the mail" Humphries N5RCK Hewlett Packard Atlanta GA ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 94 02:33:51 GMT From: news-mail-gateway@ucsd.edu Subject: INTERNET -- PACKET gateway!!! To: info-hams@ucsd.edu > >Please forgive me, if my question is stupid but I wanted to know! > >Thanks. > >Yvan Dupont, (VE2YDU) > Someone once said (maybe it was my dad) "the only stupid question is the one that isn't asked". jd ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 94 15:34:57 GMT From: nprdc!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!lerc.nasa.gov!news.larc.nasa.gov!eos1.larc.nasa.gov!eckman@network.ucsd.edu Subject: Money grabbing SOB's at STD.COM (was Re: ftp for files) To: info-hams@ucsd.edu In article <2kl5bf$egl@news.udel.edu> walt@diusys.cms.udel.edu (Walt Dabell) writes: >Scott Ehrlich (wy1z@netcom.com) wrote: > >: You are more than welcome to venture through the mod archives on World: >: anonymously ftp into: ftp.std.com:/pub/hamradio/mods > >[...] > >: Please let me know what you think. > >I think it's a goddamn shame those cheap sons-a-bitches at std.com now >want to charge us internetters for accessing their system! Anybody got >any info on a system where there aren't a bunch of money-grabbing .com >types running it? >-- > ________________________________________________________________ > Walt Dabell KD3GS (302)645-4225 walt@diusys.cms.udel.edu > What are you talking about? ftp.std.com works fine for me. Their logon message is related to charges for accounts directly on their system. Their anonymous ftp access still appears to be open and free. Richard Eckman KO4MR NASA Langley eckman@eos1.larc.nasa.gov ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 07:41:15 GMT From: mvb.saic.com!unogate!news.service.uci.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!netcomsv!bongo!julian@network.ucsd.edu Subject: Nude Radio Amateurs To: info-hams@ucsd.edu I find the whole concept of nude radio amateurs somewhat offensive. The very thought of all those geezers, Morris key in hand, sitting there, testicles swinging in time to their fists. Even if they are wearing their callsign baseball caps, it is a pretty disgusting thing to do. I belong to a group with higher purposes. We would never transmit naked. Furthermore, we would never send QSL cards depicting members in the buff. The Conservative radio amateurs always make sure they are properly attired before engaging in QSOs. I always make sure I have on a cute bra and matching pair of clean panties when I pick up the mike. It is important to be properly dressed and have on clean underwear when in the shack. You wouldn't want to get electrocuted and be taken to hospital wearing a pair of knickers that are less than fresh. That would start them talking down at the ham club. -- Julian Macassey, N6ARE julian@bongo.tele.com Voice: (310) 659-3366 Paper Mail: Apt 225, 975 Hancock Ave, West Hollywood, California 90069-4074 ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 94 20:20:52 GMT From: hp-cv!hp-pcd!hpcvsnz!tomb@hplabs.hp.com Subject: On-line Repeater Directory To: info-hams@ucsd.edu Daniel D. Todd (ez006683@chip.ucdavis.edu) wrote: : I hope so! But I'll bet if we get together and pout our own out it would ^^^^ Oh, dear, I do hope we don't have to start pouting about all this. ;-) K7ITM ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 94 14:44:47 GMT From: agate!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!jfh@ames.arpa Subject: On-line Repeater Directory To: info-hams@ucsd.edu marcbg@netcom.com (Marc B. Grant) wrote: >SO .... it's not like the ARRL is protecting something very sacred, it's >just that they have alot of man-hours involved in the repeater directory >project, and if there's anyone that can't understand why they don't want >to give the information away, well, then, I guess you just don't >understand business. The ARRL isn't a for-profit organization, and its purpose isn't to make money. They provide many free services, such as the reciprocal operating information, the file server, etc. They also distribute the net directory in electronic form. There may be good reasons for keeping the repeater directory under their control, but "we have to make money off of it" isn't one of them. Perhaps they're working on their own electronic version? -- ------------------------------------------------------ Jack Hamilton Postal: POB 281107 SF CA 94128 USA jfh@netcom.com Packet: kd6ttl@w6pw.#nocal.ca.us.na ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 94 20:26:29 GMT From: nprdc!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!sdd.hp.com!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!jericho.mc.com!fugu!levine@network.ucsd.edu Subject: On-line Repeater Directory To: info-hams@ucsd.edu In article GK9@netcom.com, marcbg@netcom.com (Marc B. Grant) writes: -->Yes, the information in the repeater directory is public information, but -->the ARRL compiles the information, and puts it into the format that you -->buy at the stores. .........--> -->SO .... it's not like the ARRL is protecting something very sacred, it's -->just that they have alot of man-hours involved in the repeater directory -->project, and if there's anyone that can't understand why they don't want -->to give the information away, well, then, I guess you just don't -->understand business. --> --> -->-- -->================================================ --> Marc B. Grant Voice Mail: 214-246-1150 --> marcbg@netcom.com Amateur Radio N5MEI --> marcbg@esy.com -->================================================ Well put Mark. Anyway, it is pretty inconvenient to log into an FTP site while you're doing 55 ;-) to find the local repeater frequency. BFD to shell out $6 per year? --- ------------------------------------------------------------ || // ||\\ //|| //\\ //\\ || // || \\ // || // // ||// || \\ || // // ||\\ || || || \\ === \\ === || \\ || // || \\ // \\ // || \\ || // || \\// \\// ---------------------------------------------------------FTAC Bob Levine KD1GG 7J1AIS VK2GYN formerly KA1JFP levine@mc.com <--Internet email Phone(508) 256-1300 x247 kd1gg@wa1phy.ma <--Packet Mail FAX(508) 256-3599 ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 94 17:41:55 GMT From: pacbell.com!att-out!walter!dancer.cc.bellcore.com!not-for-mail@ames.arpa Subject: On-line Repeater Directory To: info-hams@ucsd.edu In article , Marc B. Grant wrote: >Yes, the information in the repeater directory is public information, but >the ARRL compiles the information, and puts it into the format that you >buy at the stores. > >The key here is that this information, unlike the callboopk info, isnot >simply available from any other source outside the ARRL, unless you want >to compile the listings yourself. > >SO .... it's not like the ARRL is protecting something very sacred, it's >just that they have alot of man-hours involved in the repeater directory >project, and if there's anyone that can't understand why they don't want >to give the information away, well, then, I guess you just don't >understand business. But the recent Supreme Court decision (telephone white pages) specifically rejected the notion that time, money, effort constituted a valid reason to be protected by copyright (for factual data that is). The court said that the overall presentation of the data had to constitute a "creative" presentation. Even if the ARRL directory has a valid copyright protection, that copyright would (IMHO) only protect the overall presentation of the data as it appears in the directory today... that is it being arranged bu band, state, area. The copyright would not (again IMHO) protect any individual details (the factual aspects of a repeater...callsign, frequency in/out, location, etc.) I agree with others that have said ARRL should not be opposed to an online version, regardless of where the source data comes from. I feel that way because I see little threat to ARRL Directory sales from an online capability because the ARRL Directory is targeted towards mobile use (store in the glovebox) as opposed to an online directory which can provide sorted outputs to help coordination, etc. I sure wouldn't want a bunch of 8.5x11 paper sheets of repeater listings in my car's glovebox....would you? Again, as an ARRL member, I strongly support the league's overall goals, but I disagree with them on this issue. ARRL should be encouraging such on-line capability, indeed the online capability would be even better if I could send a packet request for info and then have an autoreply sent back with the data I requested. That'd be a great way to expand interest in packet. Cheers, Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.) Morristown, NJ email via UUCP bcr!cc!whs70 201-829-2879 Weekdays email via Internet whs70@cc.bellcore.com ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 94 14:40:32 GMT From: agate!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!ab5sm@ames.arpa Subject: online rpt idea To: info-hams@ucsd.edu Conway Yee (yee@mipg.upenn.edu) wrote: : Tom Servo writes: : #What about a different approach, one worthy of usenet? If there were : #a newgroup called say, rec.radio.amateur.repeater dedicated to : #providing assistance and information about repeaters, people would : #provide info, ask questions, and somewhere, an archive site would : #accumulate repeater listings. The whole process happens naturally : #by itself, with no monitary interests involved (and no "leader" : #to lynch :-). : Not a bad idea at all except for one slight problem. The ftp site : would be a point of vulnerability. I think it is a grand idea also .. information collected this way would be in the public domain and acessible by anyone .. how information collected at the site is used by others is left to individual creativity. I have an on-line scanner database on my land-line bbs .. the object is scanner buffs can call in and add new listings .. other callers can either earch for specific listings, by state, frequency, city, organization, etc or download a companion program and the database information to use as they see fit on a stand-a-lone pc. No one owns the information placed there and it is for all to share and use. I have had this running for a couple of years now .. There is no reason this would not work for repeater frequencies too. lee - ab5sm ab5sm@txnp.uscourts.gov -- ab5sm@netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 94 13:52:58 GMT From: nprdc!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!EU.net!Germany.EU.net!netmbx.de!zib-berlin.de!fauern!news.dlr.de!dv.st.dlr.de!tt1h@network.ucsd.edu Subject: Software for DOS-PC for decoding Morse To: info-hams@ucsd.edu I am no radio amateur but enjoy listening to world radio. I am looking for software to decode Morse with (DOS). Who can help? ------------------------------ Date: 24 Feb 1994 11:07:48 -0500 From: kb2ear.ampr.org!starcomm.overleaf.com!not-for-mail@princeton.edu Subject: This Week on Spectrum 02/26/94 To: info-hams@ucsd.edu If you ever wanted to build a radio station from the ground up, listen to Spectrum this week. Our guest is Mike Venditti. Over the years he has built 51 radio stations. Mike has a wealth of stories about the broadcast business to share with everyone. In addition he is an antique radio collector and broadcast historian. -- Spectrum airs live Sunday at 0300 UTC (2200 EST Saturday) on: WWCR, 5810 KHz, Nashville, TN (World Wide) WIFI, 1460 AM, Philadelphia, PA (Philadelphia Area) Omega Radio Network, Galaxy III, X17, 5.8 MHz WIDE audio. (Satellite) Spectrum is rebroadcast: Sunday at 1500 EST, on WIFI, 1460 AM, Philadelphia, PA (Philadelphia Area) Monday at 0400 UTC (2300 EST Sunday), on WWCR, 7435 KHz, Nashville, TN (World Wide) -- Spectrum, "The Communications Magazine You Read With Your Ears." Box 722, Holmdel, NJ, 07733-0722, USA spectrum@overleaf.com, askspectrum@attmail.com, spectrumshow@genie.geis.com +1 800-787-SPECTRUM, +1 908-671-4209 ------------------------------ Date: (null) From: (null) SB QST ARL ARLB021 ARLB021 FCC call sign update FCC ISSUED CALL SIGN UPDATE The following is a list of the FCC's most recently issued call signs as of February 1. District Group A Group B Group C Group D Extra Advanced Tech/Gen Novice 0 AA0QC KG0LB ++ KB0LQM 1 AA1IL KD1TP N1RGM KB1BFT 2 AA2RC KF2TQ N2XUK KB2QVZ 3 AA3GZ KE3LY N3RKG KB3BAU 4 AD4PJ KR4MI ++ KE4JKD 5 AB5SS KJ5UR ++ KC5FFG 6 AC6AC KN6XZ ++ KE6FCN 7 AB7BD KI7VO ++ KC7ANO 8 AA8NZ KG8GR ++ KB8RKQ 9 AA9KB KF9TV N9WBZ KB9IWX Hawaii ++ AH6NF WH6SG WH6CRC Alaska ++ AL7PM WL7QG WL7CHL Virgin Is. WP2F KP2CC NP2HG WP2AHU Puerto Rico ++ KP4WG ++ WP4MNB ++All call signs in this group have been issued in this area. NNNN /EX ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 07:17:48 GMT From: portal!kgh@uunet.uu.net To: info-hams@ucsd.edu References , <2kietb$9bb@dancer.cc.bellcore.com>, <2kij3j$h2e@news.acns.nwu.edu> Subject : Re: ARRL Repeater Directory Both sides of this question present good arguments, but I have a different slant on it, stemming from something a lawyer once told me. The saying is: "The law is what you boldly maintain and cautiously defend." It seems to me that the ARRL is doing some bold maintaining. If someone calls their bluff, they may then have to do some cautious defending, but ONLY if someone calls their bluff. So from that standpoint also, the ARRL is taking a perfectly reasonable course. Kim rdewan@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Rajiv Dewan) writes: >In article <2kietb$9bb@dancer.cc.bellcore.com>, >sohl,william h wrote: >>In article , Tom Bruhns wrote: >>>William=E.=Newkirk%Pubs%GenAv.Mlb@ns14.cca.CR.rockwell.COM wrote: >>> >>>: I have a real big problem with the idea that there are deliberate errors >>>: purposely induced into what should be a reference book. Maybe we should start >>>: a "repeater directory accuracy project" to confirm all the listings in the >>>: ARRL directory to see if content errors exist. >> >>My following post includes a layman's set of interpretations/opinions >>relative to some legal issues...Bottom line, I'm not a lawyer, but >>here's my opinion, treat it accordingly. >> >>First, I'm an ARRL member and a Local Gov't Liason (LGL) in the ARRL field >>organization, but that doesn't mean I agree with all positions of ARRL. >>I missed the initial thread of this discussion,but from the two recent >>posts it appears ARRL has threatened legal action against someone >>providing (or intending to provide) an "online" version of a repeater >>directory. It also appears that ARRL has determined that some of >>the data included in this "online" directory must have been taken >>from the ARRL Repeater Directory because there are certain >>identical pieces of data that were created (e.g. a deliberate >>misspelling of a town name, callsign, etc.) as such in the ARRL >>publlished directory to use as a means of identifying data from >>the ARRL directory which has been used to create other databases. >>The ARRL then claims that using that information is a violation of >>their copyright on their Repeater Directory. > >Instead of getting hung up on legalities, let us look at from a >rational/economic view point. >Consider the following scenario. Assume that there is no method of enforcing >copyright on lists of facts. Also assume that it costs money to get a list >together. In absence of copyright, no one will be willing to compile the >list as they will surely lose money. This is because the moment they get >the list together, others will rip them off. The end result will be no >handy-dandy list for us to use. We will be worse off for sure. >So, what seems to be desirable is: > - to let copyright be used to ensure that people who invest in collecting > data get a fair return on their investment and > - yet, do not let copyright be used to prevent any one else from investing > money in compiling the facts. >These two seem to be in conflict. Salting the list with false entries >is a great way out as the presence of these erroneous entries in some one >else's list is prima facia evidence that they have not gathered data >independently and are just ripping off the list. >So, in my opinion, ARRL is following the best strategy possible. If >Yee's list is independently gathered then there should be and will be >no problem whatsoever. >Rajiv >aa9ch >r-dewan@nwu.edu ------------------------------ End of Info-Hams Digest V94 #209 ******************************