Ham Radio/Ham Radio CD-ROM (Emerald Software) (1995).ISO/news/inham07/944

Text File | 1980-01-01 | 11.6 KB | 271 lines

Subject: INFO-HAMS Digest V89 #944
To: [e-mail]

INFO-HAMS Digest            Tue, 28 Nov 89       Volume 89 : Issue 944

Today's Topics:
                 A Computing Decision:  Apple vs. IBM
                          FCC monitoring law
                        How to answer CQ TEST
                  Multiband mobile antennas (2 msgs)
                     Need IC-04AT MOD's PLEASE!!!
                             transverters
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 89 23:05:02 GMT
From: csusac!mmsac![e-mail]  (David Kensiski)
Subject: A Computing Decision:  Apple vs. IBM

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] ("Gary F. Kendall") writes:

> My dilemma is whether a Macintosh would *really* be worth the extra $$$
> in comparison to an IBM-compatible system...

> (I have to buy something that my wife can use, too!)

It is for that very reason that I now own a Macintosh (SE/30) instead of
a '386 box.  Of course, if I had the '386, I'd run Unix on it, not DOS.

--
David L. Kensiski, KB6HCN     Martin Marietta Data Systems
Software Engineer             1540 River Park Drive, Suite 213
Phone: [phone]         Sacramento, CA  95815
UUCP: sun!sacto!mmsac!david   INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 28 Nov 89 19:59:03 GMT
From: cbmvax![e-mail]  (Rick Sterling - QA)
Subject: FCC monitoring law

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Nowicki) writes:
>
>   With all the flames on this net about snoops vs. uncurious types I for one
> would like to know EXACTLY what the law says about monitoring various
> communications.
>   I'm familar with the now obselete law of 1934 that says in essence that
> you can receive anything that's out there, just don't pass along anything
> you may hear.
>   Now the law has changed and if I put any stock in the rumors, opinions and
> flames, I would conclude you can only listen to international broadcasters,
> public broadcasters and hams.
>   Does anyone happen to have a copy of the new FCC law so when can all see
> it?
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> |  Michael Nowicki   N6LUU      Atari Corp,Sunnyvale CA      {ames!atari!mn} |
> |............................................................................|
> |  char *disclaimer="Views expressed are my own, not my employer's";         |
> |  char *good_quote="  'Nyuk,nyuk,nyuk,nyuk,nyuk'  -  Curly Howard";         |
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My personal opinion is that anything other than the rules set forth in the
Communications Act of 1934 would be unenforcible and probably unconstitutional.

If some entity using the publicly owned radio spectrum does not want me to
receive their signal in my home then they'll just have to keep the signal
out of my house.

note: Police States work under different rules, so they above would not apply
      in some other countries. ;-)

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

 Rick Sterling                 Commodore Technology Group       (215)-431-9275
 Test Engineering              UUCP ...{uunet,allegra,rutgers}!cbmvax!sterling

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

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

Date: Tue, 28 Nov 89 10:33:17 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: How to answer CQ TEST


>Date: Sun, 26 Nov 89 15:32 CST
>From: "James P. Ley" <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Contests

>On occasion I hear "CQ Contest" on the air.  I do not participate in contests
>myself and wonder whether I should answer the call and give the caller a
>contact or whether I would be a hinderance since I don't know all the numbers
>and things that the contesters use and would thus slow him or here down.

>Any advice from contesters?

>                Jim, NX9F


Definitely call! But, as a minimum, first listen to the guy calling CQ work a
few people and figure out the exchange you should send. If you have enough
time, look in QST or CQ magazine to see if it is a DX or domestic contest
and what the exchange is. But in most contests (the CQ WW CW/SSB contests
the last weekends in October and November and the ARRL DX contest in Feb/March
being the only real exceptions) a contact from the US counts as points for
a US contester.

What to send? If you hear WB2EKK calling CQ TEST, return with your call sent
ONCE. When he sends back NX9F 599 08 (IARU HF contest) you send back the
exchange ONCE (599 07 or whatever) and that is it. You don't have to send
your call again (unless WB2EKK asks for it and he always gets the call right
the first time) and you need only send the exchange once. On CW send at
the highest speed you are comfortable with. A good contester will slow down
to match your rate.

See you in the 10 meter contest weekend after next. 73 John WB2EKK @N4QQ

[e-mail]


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

Date: 25 Nov 89 00:05:28 GMT
From: ogccse!littlei!eagle.hf.intel.com![e-mail]
Subject: Multiband mobile antennas

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>> I have recently purchased a used Yaesu FT-727R handheld, which operates
>> on both 2m and 70cm.  I am quite happy with it, but I have a question
>> about how best to 'antenna' it.  A little quick math shows me that a
>> 1/4 wave 2m antenna is approximately 20 inches long.  This also happens
>> to be 3/4 wavelength on 450MHz (more or less).  What are the impedance
>> and resonant characteristics of a 3/4 wave antenna?  What's the rule:

>This gives you some better broadbandedness on UHF, as 3/4 wave and collinears
>narrow the bandwidth.

I was wondering just how well a 2M 1/4-wave whip would work as a
3/4-wave 450 MHz whip, so I plugged it into my MiniNec-type program.
Turns out that the radiation pattern is pretty strange--like a peak lobe
about 35 degrees in elevation.  Of course, whether this is acceptable or
not depends on your situation...  Antenna seems to load up nicely on 450
MHz, but then again, so does a dummy load...

73's
Collier Chun
NM7B
OEM Microcomputer Platforms Division
Intel Corporation
Hillsboro, Oregon

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

Date: 28 Nov 89 23:24:26 GMT
From: csusac!mmsac![e-mail]  (Jim Lips Earl)
Subject: Multiband mobile antennas

You said you are considering using the 727 in your mobile.  Those things
(along with the 209 and 709) have terrible audio, and unless you have a
very quiet automobile, you aren't going to be able to hear what people
are saying.  I have a 709 myself, and while it is barely adequate in
quiet surroundings, it leaves much to be desired in noisy surroundings.
On the other hand, if you put an external speaker on it, it will be fine.
Seems that little wimpy speaker they put in those things just don't
cut it.  I have a friend who traded his 709 for a 708 (the preceeding
model) because the 708 had much better audio.  Also, the battery on
the 708 lasts all day in rx mode, where the 709 only lasts about 5 or
6 hours.  I have a friend who has a 727, and the battery in that
thing only lasts about 3-4 hours in continuous receive.  When are these
designers going to get rid of all this fancy computer-controlled radio
stuff that draws too much current in rx mode, shortening the charge time
on the radio?  I can't tell you how nice it is to have a radio that I can
just leave on all day, all on one battery.  I realize they have "Battery
save circuits", but they don't do that much, and they end up chopping off
the first few words of someone when they "freshly" key up.

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

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

Date: 28 Nov 89 15:19:17 GMT
From: hpda!hpcuhb!hpscdc![e-mail]  (Mark Espinosa)
Subject: Need IC-04AT MOD's PLEASE!!!

     The subject of "mod's" for the IC-04AT have probably been brought  up
   before here on the NET, but for some reason I have managed to miss them
   all. So, if some kind ol radio amateur could dig in to his or her files
   one more time, and post them for me, it would be muchly apprieciated. I
   am specifically looking for the mod's that pertain to out of band oper-
   ation, and RX audio volume improvement.

     Please post or e-mail, and thanks.

                                                 Mark Espinosa/WA6RGD




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

Date: 28 Nov 89 14:39:59 GMT
From: mirror!necntc!necis![e-mail]  (Rich Bono)
Subject: transverters

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mark J. Bailey) writes:
> Hello,
>
> I am interested in getting more information about transverters that work
> with an HF rig.  What VHF/UHF bands can be used?  What are some of your
> personal experiences and comments on them?  Who makes them and how can I
> get in touch with some of these dealers/manufacturers?  What I really want
> to do is add 2 meters (some form) with my Icom IC-740.  It is capable of
> working with a transverter.  It might also prove convenient to get access
> to 50, 220, and 450 MHz, I don't know.  Right now, I know next to nothing
> about them and have had a hard time finding information.  Any good articles
> in past 73's, CQ's, Ham Radio's, or QST's?
>

    Transverters can get you an just about *any* band, and for a lot
less money than buying a rig that band!!

    A note:   The ICOM (I think the 740 also has the same output)
transverter output (which is REAL handy to have) has an output of 30mv into
50 ohms... (if my math is correct) this is about 18 uw (yes micro-watts)..
The commercial transverters that I have seen need a drive of about 1 mw to
500 mw (milli-watts)... So, some power gain will be needed, and the
transverter will probably not direct connect to the ICOM radio.
By the way, I use an ICOM-735, and have checked the manual for several
of the newer rigs... they *seem* to have the same transverter levels.

    There are several ways that this can be done, a simple gain circuit
would only need to operate at 28 to 30 MHz (considering a 10 meter to whatever
transverter).

    Has anyone done this?  Do you have a simple and proven circuit to
share with the rest of us?

    Another way, would be to attenuate the ouput of the rig, and bring
the 100 Watts down to the 500 mw (milli-watt) level (about 26 Db of
attenuation).  Some have told me to just lower the output of the rig down
to the 10 watt level with the front panel control, and then attenuate that
down to the proper level, but I think this would be UNSAFE!  What would happen
the first time I forget to lower the drive control on the rig, and dumped
100 watts into a circuit that was expecting only 10????


    So.... any working solutions out there in net land????


                Thanks, Rich (NM1D).


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

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

End of INFO-HAMS Digest V89 Issue #944
**************************************