Ham Radio/Ham Radio CD-ROM (Emerald Software) (1995).ISO/news/inham89/1005

Text File | 1980-01-01 | 10.2 KB | 226 lines

INFO-HAMS Digest            Mon, 11 Dec 89       Volume 89 : Issue 100

Today's Topics:
                                 ARRL
                         BUSINESS allocations
                     How old WE are.... (2 msgs)
                   SE Regional scanner mailing list
          Wall Street...cordless...; now cellular encryption
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Dec 89 12:40:27 GMT
From: hpda!hpwala!hpnjld![e-mail]  (Ed Gilbert)
Subject: ARRL
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

> I'll start with question of my own. On 10 meters, from my QTH in
> central Ohio, I can only work stations that are about 2000 miles
> or more away from me, west coast, Europe, SA, Japan, but no south
> east US, New England, etc. I'm using a 2 wavelength dipole that's
> one wavelength above ground. A friend suggested that if I lower the
> antenna, I'll raise the radiation angle and skip in closer. Anyone
> have any experience with this sort of thing? ( I don't intend to
> lower my antenna, but I might build another one near the ground
> if this concept works.)

I think that your experience has a lot more to do with propagation
on 10 meters than with the height of you antenna.  I've used antennas
that are much higher than 1 wavelength on 10m, and haven't had any
trouble working stuff closer than 2000 miles when conditions permitted.
If you lower your antenna, you will just lose more power in heating
up the ground beneath it.

                    Ed Gilbert, WA2SRQ

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

Date: 11 Dec 89   16:01 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: BUSINESS allocations

Date: 11 December 1989, 15:54:18 EST
From: WMLBTAM at UCCCVM1
To:   INFO-HAMS at WSMR-SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL
Subj: BUSINESS allocations

I know this isn't strictly ham-related (how much of the traffic here IS,
nowadays!?) but I figure that HERE'S WHERE THE KNOWLEDGE IS.

My wife's library is trying to use radio modems to link terminals in their book
mobiles to the mini in the main library which handles circulation records.

The company who handled their data communications says the frequencies they're
using (sought and selected by the company on the library's behalf) are o.k. for
both voice and data communications.  They've received a complaint of inter-
ference from a couple of other folks (they were TOLD they had the channel to
themselves in this area!) that, not only are they interfering, but that it's
because they're running data on these channels when they're only authorized
for voice.

Does this make any sense--do the business band allocations have voice-only and
data-allowable sub-allocations?  BTW, her freqs are 461.4/466.4MHz.

Thanks for any info/comments...

Ted

===============================================================================
Theodore Allan Morris                         | 231 Bethesda Avenue, ML# 574
University of Cincinnati Medical Center       | Cincinnati, OH  45267-0574
Medical Center Information and Communications | 513-558-6046 (W), 731-3451 (H)
Information Research and Development          | WMLBTAM@UCCCVM1, NTS WB8VNV,
==============================================| or AppleLink U1091
Call me up and I'll talk data to ya'!         | (you-one-zero-nine-one)
===============================================================================

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

Date: 10 Dec 89 21:47:26 GMT
From: hpda!hpwala!hpnjld![e-mail]  (Ed Gilbert)
Subject: How old WE are....
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Sorry about the last response, I tried incorrectly to abort it.

As long as you're taking a survey, why not get some info on
operating habits, equipment, antennas, %cw vs phone activity,
%hf vs vhf or uhf activity, license class, etc.  I'd find this
info useful (although I'm not volunteering here to collect it :-)


                                         Ed Gilbert, WA2SRQ

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

Date: 8 Dec 89 15:25:34 GMT
From: hpda!hpwala!hpnjld![e-mail]  (Ed Gilbert)
Subject: How old WE are....
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

/ hpnjld:rec.ham-radio / [e-mail] (Mark J. Bailey) /  7:56 am  Dec  6, 1989 /
I got to thinking the other day about Ham Radio and the guys and gals here
in rec.ham-radio.*.  With all the talk (by supposed experts) that the
majority of Ham's are getting older and that there are severe shortages in
the newer generations of Americans coming into the hobby, I started pondering
the question of just who WE are in terms of the age distribution.

Since many of the sites on Usenet are academic sites, one can quickly determine
that there has to be a certain degree of young adults.  But when you start to
examine sites that represent companies, and sites that are public access in
nature, it gets really hard to tell from that line of thinking.  Also, the
obvious know-how to operate computers and software is really no solid indication
either since it seems that most Hams (young and older) are technical (to some
degree) to begin with, and the computer has been mostly more a friend than an
enemy.  It appears that older Hams have adapted very well to using the computer.

Well, I pondered on it some more (not all at once :-) ), and I decided to post
this message here.  What I would like to do, is to take a quick little survey.
The 2 questions are VERY simple.  You can just do a direct email reply.  Here
they are:

    1) How old are you?

    2) How many years have you been a Ham Radio Ooperator?

I have done no prior investigation on this; this is just some spur of the
moment curiosity.  What I would like to do is perform some simple (yet
informative) statistics on the results I get back and post them back here
to the group.  I will keep all responses confidential, ie., no one will know
who is what age, etc. :-)

I just thought it might be interesting to find out who WE are and to see if
the rec.ham-radio.* naturally attracts younger people due to the nature of
its underlying environment (the computer net).  Some of you may not give a
hoot.  Well, that is fine.  I will be taken up very little public bandwidth
(I hope!).  But it seems to me that it IS an important question since there
are reports that do show (I don't have them here, but recall seeing it before
somewhere) Hams as a whole are getting older.  If this median we have here is
condusive to bringing in today's generation, then we should recognize it as
such.  I am not attempting to do that now, just get an idea of where we fall.

Any and all reponses welcome!  Please use direct email as net bandwidth
can be used for better things.

Thanks for your cooperation!

73's,

Mark.

--
Mark J. Bailey, N4XHX                             "Ya'll com bak naw, ya hear!"
USMAIL: 511 Memorial Blvd., Murfreesboro, TN 37129 ___________________________
VOICE:  [phone]                            |         JobSoft
UUCP:   ...!{ames,mit-eddie}!attctc!mjbtn!mjb      | Design & Development Co.
DOMAIN: [e-mail]        CIS: 76314,160 |  Murfreesboro, TN  USA
<KA9Q-UNIX-USERS Mailing List - Subscribe: [e-mail]>
----------

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

Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 17:31:15 EST
From: [e-mail] (Peter St.Wecker)
Subject: SE Regional scanner mailing list
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

TO ALL SCANNER OWNERS IN THE SOUTH-EASTERN STATES:
(and anyone else whose interested)

    I am sending out a "feeler" to see if there is any interest in
setting up a mailing list of scanner-users in the SE U.S.  I could see this
list as a local supplement to SWL-L/rec.radio.shortwave, which appears to
be establishing itself as a national list for all types of monitoring
(150kHz - 800mHz+).  Since much of the scanning hobby has a local appeal,
a regional mailing list might be in order. (other regions may wish to have
the same).
    Gregg Stefancik at Clemson has offered to establish an unmoderated
mailing list if the interest is there.  So if you are interested in having
such a list, drop me a note at:       [e-mail]

              -- Peter St.Wecker (RCMA NC097 [I think!])
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Peter St.Wecker               Internet:[e-mail]
       [phone]                    UUCP:[e-mail]
      Dept. of Physiology, Univ. of North Carolina,  Chapel Hill NC
         If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be research


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

Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 19:19 EST
From: Ed Schwalenberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wall Street...cordless...; now cellular encryption
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

    Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 14:00:50 CST
    From: [e-mail] (DUBE TODD)

    The notion of encrytion of public communications is an oxymoron.  In order
    for encryption to afford security, the method must be known only to a few
    who have a need to know; then it should be changed at irregular intervals.

Not true.  Kerckhoff first enunciated several laws of cryptology, one of which
is that the "enemy" is assumed to know the encryption system in use.  Security
must therefore reside entirely in the encryption key.  If the key is non-random,
or is used more than once, it is theoretically (but often not practically)
possible to break the cipher.  If the key meets the random and one-time tests,
and is kept out of "enemy" hands, it is theoretically and practically impossible
to break a cipher.

The idea that "the method must be known only to those who have a need to know"
is popularly known as "security through obscurity".  It doesn't work.  The
method can be discovered just as easily as the key, if the key is non-random
or non-one-time.  From a military point of view, you can't afford to throw
away all of your cipher machines (or algorithms) just because the enemy gets
his hands on one.  See "The Codebreakers", by David Kahn, ca. 1966.

(In the interest of avoiding flames, I'm not addressing the issue of encrypting
cellular phones, just correcting a common misconception.)

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

End of INFO-HAMS Digest V89 Issue #1005
***************************************