Ham Radio/Ham Radio CD-ROM (Emerald Software) (1995).ISO/news/inham01/772

Text File | 1980-01-01 | 16.3 KB | 405 lines

INFO-HAMS Digest            Tue, 17 Oct 89       Volume 89 : Issue 772

Today's Topics:
         2m amp for sale. Class C (FM), 1.5W in 75W out. New
                  AP Wire story on ham license fees
                ARRL, Good vs. Bad hams, QST .........
                          ARRL and User Fees
                 Building A (Very) Low Cost Repeater
                     DIRECTION FINDING EQUIPMENT
                     Help Repeal NJ Scanner Law!
                        SSTV software for IBM?
                    Starting over - after 30 years
                          the un-net on 10M
                            WEFAX problems
                            YAESU FT-301AD
                    Yaesu solves FT-470 Inter-Mod
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Oct 89 15:47:10 GMT
From: hpl-opus!hpnmdla![e-mail]  (Glenn Elmore)
Subject: 2m amp for sale. Class C (FM), 1.5W in 75W out. New

Bob,

Why not get a Mitsubishi M57727 25W linear brick? The one in my
multiband transverter stack makes 50W out linear and will saturate
above 75W when run from 13.8VDC. I don't have the price list in front
of me, but I'm sure the Japanese price is $40 or under. RF parts can't
get more than double that!

Glenn Elmore -N6GN-

N6GN @ K3MC
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Date: 17 Oct 89 01:01:36 GMT
From: ka9q.bellcore.com![e-mail]  (Phil Karn)
Subject: AP Wire story on ham license fees

Levin Pushes To Delete New Fees From Budget Bill
By JOHN FLESHER
Associated Press Writer
       WASHINGTON (AP) _ Amateur radio operators would be hit with
first-ever registration fees under pending deficit reduction
legislation, a slap at people who perform a valuable service when
disaster strikes, Sen. Carl Levin said Monday.
       Senate leaders will try to remove the fees from the bill during
negotiations with the House over the budget and tax package, said
Levin, d-Mich.
       ``These are people who are critically needed in emergencies.
They ask for nothing and they charge nothing,'' Levon said.
       The House and Senate versions of the budget bill would levy a
$35 fee on amateur radio operators, also known as ``ham''
operators, when they receive their initial licenses, which must be
renewed every 10 years.
       That is not much money, acknowledged Perry Williams, spokesman
for the American Amateur Radio League, which represents about
160,000 of the nation's 450,000 licensed ham operators.
       But he said operators would have to pay the fees each time they
upgrade their licenses.
       ``You get kicked in the teeth for advancing your skills,''
Williams said.
       It costs the Federal Communications Commission about $5 to
process each license, Levin said. Higher fees than that ``would be
like taxing a hobby, which doesn't make sense,'' he said.
       Ham operators have played a vital role in disasters such as
earthquakes in Mexico in 1985 and in El Salvador in 1986, the crash
at Detroit Metropolitan Airport in 1987 and Hurricane Hugo last
month, Levin said.
       It was they who got word to the U.S. government of the need for
troops to quell looting in the Virgin Islands after Hugo, Williams
said.
       The proposed fees are among provisions that would raise $43
million to cover the FCC's administrative costs in licensing radio
stations, although Levin said it is not clear whose idea it was to
apply the charges to ham operators.
       ``I haven't found anyone who defends it,'' he said.
       AP-NR-10-16-89 2047EDT

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

Date: 16 Oct 89 17:21:11 GMT
From: att!cbnewsm!mhgki![e-mail]  (atkins, robert m)
Subject: ARRL, Good vs. Bad hams, QST .........

For those who are tired of overcrowded bands and deliberate
interference, and yearn for the days of "good" hams who built
their own equipment and were acuallly helpful to others, I have
a suggestion. Move up to microwaves. There is plenty of spectrum
space (for now anyway!), most of the equipment is home-brew, people
are tolerant, helpful and knowledgable and there is no QRM.

Regarding "whining" about the changes in QST. I agree that complaining only
here on the net is unproductive, but note that most of the posters have
sent letters to ARRL directors/staff members and much of the complaining
is about the responses. Don't forget that the content of QST is not
determined by any elected officials. It is the choice of the editor,
Paul Rinaldo. No consultation with any elected official is required.
Now I'm sure that if enough complaints were received by the board of
directors that something would be done, but that would be unlikely to
happen. I'm sure they don't want to meddle with editorial policy and I
think thats a good idea. No magazine editor could tolerate micro-managment
by a committee - it would make his job impossible. If you don't like the
content of QST, by all means write to your division director, but also
let the editor know.

Regarding QST coverage of special interest groups, I think that the areas
of emerging technology should be given some special treatment. I don't
operate packet or satellite but they are examples of evolving technology
and deserve REGULAR coverage. The same applies to microwaves. As a
technology matures there is less need for regular coverage and occasional
articles can cover the interest groups (like QRP Tx/Rx for HF or
trap dipoles for 40m). As I have said before, I think it is important thet
the ARRL takes a leadership role in the development of emergent technologies
and right now, I don't think its doing as good a job as it could. Its not
all bad, and I certainly think ham radio would be in a worse state if the
ARRL didn't exist. Constructive criticism is a healthy thing in a democratic
organization and I'm glad to see that there is enough interest to stimulate
debate.
                                        Bob Atkins, KA1GT

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

Date: 17 Oct 89 00:41:31 GMT
From: gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu![e-mail]
Subject: ARRL and User Fees

It should apply to EVERY license change or renewal process.  Renewals
are now 10 years and they COULD be changed to less, but I would not
support it.  I do however still want to make address changes not
require a fee.

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

Date: 16 Oct 89 05:20:34 GMT
From: virgin!ubbs-nh![e-mail]  (N. Del More)
Subject: Building A (Very) Low Cost Repeater

I have it in mind to build a (very) low cost repeater for use here as
well as for use as an "emergency" repeater.

The idea that I have is to use two handhelds, probably two late model
synthesized rigs.

As I envision it one tranciever would be used primarily for the reciever,
while the other would be used as the transmitter.  A homebrew, or kit
controller might be added at a later date as well as a linear amplifier
for extending the range as necessary.

I'd appreciate hearing any comments, suggestions or actual plans for such
a set up, as well as any comments concerning possible low cost antenna
confirgurations.

For the purpose of experimentation I have available an Icom IC-2A and an
IC-02AT,  but  if feasible, I would probably adapt the idea for use with
something like a Tempo One (? is that right, boy its been a  long  time!
?) or one of the older synthesized handhelds such as one of the heathkit
models.

Thanks!

Noel
N2AXI
--
Noel B. Del More             |                             decvax!ubbs-nh!noel
17 Meredith Drive            |                             [e-mail]
Nashua, New Hampshire  03063 | It's unix me son!  `taint spozed tah make cents

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

Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1989 21:04 EDT
From: Dave Colvin <[e-mail]>
Subject: DIRECTION FINDING EQUIPMENT


AT A LOCAL HAMFEST I LOOKED AT A DICK SMITH DIRECTION FINDING UNIT THAT
WAS PURCHASED AS A KIT.  IT LOOKED LIKE QUITE A NICE PACKAGE.

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS FOR SOMEONE THAT IS NOT VERY TECHNICALLY
INCLINED FOR AN EFFECTIVE DF DEVICE SUITABLE FOR INSTALLATION IN A VEHICLE
AND USED FOR AIR PATROL PURPOSES.

I HAVE WRITTEN FOR A BROCHURE FROM L-TRONICS IN CALIFORNIA BUT HOPE TO
SPEND LESS THAT THE $300 US FOR THEIR HANDHELD UNITS.

ANY SUGGESTIONS WELCOMED.

DAVE COLVIN VE3ZDC
UNIV. WESTERN ONTARIO
LONDON, ONTARIO, CAN
PACKET VE3ZDC @ VE3GYQ

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

Date: Mon, 16 Oct 89 17:50:05 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Louis J. Judice  16-Oct-1989 2049)
Subject: Help Repeal NJ Scanner Law!


    For NJ readers ONLY!

    As per Popular Communications, write or Mailgram ASAP to:

            Senator Newton E. Miller
            Chairman, Senate Transportation and Communications
                Subcommitte
            10 Furler St.
            Totowa, NJ 07512

    Urge support passage for Senate Bill No. 3593 to repeal the provisions
    of NJS 2A:127-4.

    Do this TODAY!

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

Date: 17 Oct 89 04:50:35 GMT
From: unmvax!ariel!hydra.unm.edu![e-mail]  (David Oliver Eisman STUDEN)
Subject: SSTV software for IBM?

Hi.  Is there a public domain SSTV software package for the IBM?

What hardware would be required for receive-only?


-----------------------------------------
Ollie Eisman - N6LTJ  [e-mail]
3505 Lafayette Rd. NE #3, Albuq, NM 87107
[phone]       or     [phone]

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

Date: 17 Oct 89 01:11:53 GMT
From: kitty![e-mail]  (Larry Lippman)
Subject: Starting over - after 30 years

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Raymond Rosch) writes:
> I have become interested in ham radio again after talking to a friend of a
> friend who's a ham. I had a Novice license in 1960 - KN1WVG, built my
> transmitter and receiver from kits - HEATHKIT.
> ...
> [ I learned Morse code on some 45rpm records in '59. Naturally
> I've forgotten all of it ].

    Your article tickled my memory...

    I got my license about the same time (I was WA2QNO): 1959, the
"Year of the 45-rpm Record". :-)  The neat part about the 45 rpm code
records is that you could get additional code practice by playing them
at 78 rpm; while the pitch was obviously higher, it was still usable.

    However, I got to 13 wpm by other means.  NOT by records.  NOT by
listening to W1AW.  NOT by belonging to a radio club (although I did in
fact belong to one).

    Nope, I learned code *proficiency* through a borrowed, gen-U-wine
Instuctograph [tm]!

    Real Ham Radio Operators learn code only with an Instructograph [tm].
In fact, only a Real Ham Radio Operator knows what an Instructograph [tm]
*is*.

    :-)

<> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. - Uniquex Corp. - Viatran Corp.
<> UUCP  {allegra|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry
<> TEL [phone] | 716/773-1700  {hplabs|utzoo|uunet}!/      \uniquex!larry
<> FAX [phone] | 716/773-2488      "Have you hugged your cat today?"

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

Date: 16 Oct 89 17:13:19 GMT
From: cadnetix.COM!cadnetix![e-mail]  (Rusty Carruth)
Subject: the un-net on 10M

First, I realized that I should probably make a clarification about
what it is I am expecting the 10m usenet un-net to be.  Its not a
net, and its not a contest.  Sure, I think it would be fun to get
'usenet WAS', but I don't think I'm 'paper chasing' since I would
rather spend some time talking than just saying "UR 5-9 QRZed"
and moving on.

That out of the way, on to a quick review of last weekend (and a
somewhat disjointed review, at that!  today seems to be a pretty
bad day for getting transitions done well...  Must be Monday):

Between 915 and 935 I talked to 3 other usenetters, 2 of them at
once.  The rest of the morning was spent goofing around trying
to contact other people, with marginal success.

I did discover that there appear to be a lot of usenetters 'out
there' who have read-only access to usenet, which I found interesting.
I made the offer to Rick and Dave, and I'll make it to anyone else,
that if they *must* post something (or want to reply to someone), that
I'll be happy to oblige them and post or email for them.

One other thing I discovered is why my rig is not putting out
full power.  So week after next I should be up to full 100 watts
(from around 10 or so) for the un-net, making contacts just a bit
easier :-).

I'm up to 5 states for usenet WAS: NJ (WA2ILB), NY (K2ILH), IN (WN9NBP),
KY (KU4A), and CO (KF0BK)  (pretty sad when it takes 5 weekends to
get someone in your own state! :-).  I enjoyed the contacts this
weekend (and all previous weekends...)

While Rick and I were talking, he mentioned the "CQ Pizza" debate,
and that prompted Dave to realize that we were usenetters and so
to join us.  I commented later to my wife that maybe I should start
calling:

    CQ CQ. CQ Usenet, CQ Pizza, CQ ...

   :-)   :-)

I'm curious.  How many people are getting active on 10 on saturday for
the un-net?  (Email please, and I'll count up the totals and report them.
Of course, if you have read-only access to usenet, then don't worry about
responding :-)

Well, I've rambled pretty badly here, so I'll quit now before

---Join the usenet un-net, 28.410 and/or 28.390, 1500Z to 1600Z saturdays!
Rusty Carruth.                  Radio: N7IKQ              ^^ or later :-)
DOMAIN: [e-mail]      UUCP:{uunet,boulder}!cadnetix!rusty
home: POB. 461, Lafayette 80026

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

Date: 16 Oct 89 14:30:23 GMT
From: att!cbnewsj![e-mail]  (john.ferro..jr)
Subject: WEFAX problems

Does anybody reading this have any experience with a WEFAX demodulator
kit from Software System Consulting? I purchased this kit not to long
ago and must say that I have had a heck of a time producing any type of
intelligible picture on my computer screen. The most i can get out of it
is some type of chart that resembles a spider web. In some cases a white or
black line is dividing the screen in half with small checker board patterns
across the whole screen. As far as I can see I have all of the software
parameters set correctly. I think my problem might be with the Clocks per
pixel setting or the Timing setting. Although I have adjusted these settings,
the picture doesn't seem to get any better.

I would appreciate any comments or suggestions from
people who have used or are using this package and are receiving quality
FAX pictures from it.






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

Date: 16 Oct 89 17:03:41 GMT
From: wa3wbu!ka3adu![e-mail]  (dave hultberg)
Subject: YAESU FT-301AD

I have been offered a fellow ham's entire hf station.  He is tired of hf and
shifting to VHF packet.  The transceiver in the deal is a Yaesu FT-301AD.
Does anyone have any experience with this rig?  Any info pro or con is welcome
including suggested prices.  The package price looks too good to pass up, but
I would like to get a little more info on the rig.  I think it is 10-80m ham
bands only and 100 watts.  That is all I know.  I don't know how old the rig
is or even if it is tube or solid state.
73 de Dave KA3UZR


--
------------------| UUCP: uunet!wa3wbu!ka3adu!dave |-------------------
                        Dave Hultberg   KA3UZR
                           1407 Concord Rd.
                       Mechanicsburg, Pa. 17055

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

Date: 16 Oct 89 20:51:19 GMT
From: pasteur!navajo.berkeley.edu![e-mail]  (Bill Baringer)
Subject: Yaesu solves FT-470 Inter-Mod

This may have already been mentioned in this group, but I just
received a letter from Yaesu informing me that they've solved
the intermod problem with the -470.  Furthermore, if I just
send them the radio, they'll repair the problem and ship it back,
at no charge (I pay shipping to them).  If you didn't receive
such a letter, call them at [phone].

Unfortunately, I don't own a FT-470!  I have a FT-411 with the
same problem.  They haven't come up with a mod for the -411, but
they said they'd let me know as soon as they do.

Hope this is of some help.

Bill        -KI6DG

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

End of INFO-HAMS Digest V89 Issue #772
**************************************