Ham Radio/Ham Radio CD-ROM (Emerald Software) (1995).ISO/news/inham89/1019

Text File | 1980-01-01 | 10.1 KB | 236 lines

INFO-HAMS Digest            Thu, 14 Dec 89       Volume 89 : Issue 1019

Today's Topics:
                    About the Third-Party List...
                                 ARRL
                             ARRL PFB 48
                              CoCo WEFAX
                             RST (2 msgs)
      What about for us SWL's ? Re: Tuning dipoles and antennas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 11:49:54 CST
From: [e-mail] (Bob West, WA8YCD)
Subject: About the Third-Party List...
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Howdy!

Someone (sorry, I forgot who!) asked me about the current Third-Party List,
and I did not have it on hand at the time. Since I can't remember whether
the inquiry came from external (INFOHAMS) or internal (TIHAMS) I am sending
this to both...

Regards,
Bob WA8YCD
[e-mail]


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

Date: 14 Dec 89 18:24:45 GMT
From: idacrd![e-mail]  (Robert McGwier)
Subject: ARRL
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

>From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Usenet file owner):
> I have been carrying on an e-mail conversation with [e-mail]
> concerning interaction with league officials.  I feel that this letter
> I wrote to stevew is relevant, and would be appropriately posted here.
>
> The ARRL tries to present itself as a general purpose organization which
> represents the broad interests of ALL amateurs.  As such, they (in the
> past) have tried to include a little of everything in QST.  This is as it
> should be for a general purpose organization.  They are now changing
> their tune where microwave coverage in QST is concerned.  It is not
> acceptable to ENTIRELY DROP microwave coverage from QST as they have
> done.  It is also not acceptable to shuttle microwave coverage off to



It is also not acceptable for you to libel the League.  If you will read
the column "The World Above 50 Mhz", they clearly state a change in
emphasis to INCLUDE Microwave coverage.  Bill is an honest, hardworking
valued member of the above 50 Mhz crowd and he would GLADLY include
submissions to the column on topics of interest to Microwave.  If you
are unhappy that you are not getting a column per month is one thing,
to say that you have NO coverage is demonstrably false.

(Bill Tynan, W3XO is a personal friend and a co-director of AMSAT with
 myself.  I for one believe in stating all the facts so that you can
 make your own judgements on the content of my statements.)

Bob

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

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

Date: 14 Dec 89 14:55:09 GMT
From: att!cbnewsh![e-mail]  (robert.switzer)
Subject: ARRL PFB 48
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

>From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Bob Myers):
> are more likely to be absorbed into the noise before you can get enough
> signal back to do any good.  Due to these *two* effects, there is only a
> certain range of frequencies which are suitable for communication over a
> given path at a given time of day (plus other conditions affecting the
> strength/height of the various ionospheric layers).  Above this range,
> the signals punch right through before they get back to the surface; below it,
> of "reflection", you'd get AM broadcast band stations all over the country
> in mid-afternoon!)

One additional fact which should be remembered is that ground wave
communication is much more effective at low and very low frequencies.
If you do some reading, you'll find that the "experts" thought no
long distance communication was possible above a certain frequency.
One of the factors that led "them" to this conclusion was the attenuation
of ground waves at higher frequencies.

At any rate, the improved ground waves is another reason why you don't
notice the skip zone at broadcast frequencies, even with the high
day-time absorbtion, which was pointed out.

Robert S.

--
Robert Switzer
[phone]
AT&T, Crawford Corner Rd.
Rm. HO2K318, Holmdel, NJ 07733

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

Date: 14 Dec 89 15:00:15 GMT
From: att!cbnewsj![e-mail]  (john.ferro..jr)
Subject: CoCo WEFAX
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Mike,
I'm sorry I have to communicate with you this way, but the machine I'm on
does not seem to have a link to either of your E-mail addressses.

Mike I received the WEFAX program this morning via E-mail. I have one problem
though. It seems the machine that I'm on does not have access to listserv
so I'm not able to down load that "cut program". Are there any alternatives
to decodeing WEFAX 105? If you have a copy could you send it to me? Also,
I have a color computer II without a diskdrive or joystick. You mentioned
that a diskdrive was not necessary if you did not plan on saving the pictures.
How do you receive the pictures if you don't have a disk drive to run the
program on? Is the program only necessary for saving the pictures? Is the
cable that is needed available at Radio Shack? If not is it difficult to
build one? Thanks for your time and patience.

                                                     John Ferro mtx5d!jjf


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

Date: 14 Dec 89 19:41:40 GMT
From: victim.dec.com![e-mail]  (Jim -- LTN1-2/H03 -- DTN 226-6905 14-Dec-1989 1443)
Subject: RST
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (James N. Price) writes...

>You need the exchange to get the multipliers (states, countries, zones, or
>whatever), but the signal report is really superfluous.

In fact, in the CQ WW DX contest, all you need is the callsign to figure out
the exchange.  Notice how you never hear a DX station ask you to repeat your
report, but they will ask you to repeat your callsign (maybe it's just me, I
do run 5W on occasion).  The only times this doesn't work is for folks
operating outside of their 'standard' zone (i.e.  AD1C operating from
California).  Then the DX station may ask for a repeat on your zone, since
that's confusing.  In the ARRL contest, you need to get the power, which is
is different for each DX station, and the DX stations need to get your
state.  Are Q rates in the ARRL lower than in the WW (Ken, K1EA, you may
answer this one if you're so inclined ;-).

I ran QRP in the CQ WW DX Contest this past November, and yes, I had to
repeat my call a lot! But I got 599s from he same stations.  Strange! I did
notice this year that some people gave out 559s, about 4 if I remember
correctly.  The rest were 5NN.  In previous years, I got 579s instead of
599s.  Guess it's easier to type the same 2 numbers (i.e.  the two 5s) than
three distinct numbers (579).  But it's easier to write a '7' than a '5' by
hand.

jim, AD1C, AD1C, A-D-1-C, A-D A-D A-D-1C etc. etc. etc.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

"The opinions expressed here in no way represent the views of Digital
 Equipment Corporation."

James J. Reisert                Internet: [e-mail]
Digital Equipment Corp.         UUCP:     ...decwrl!tallis.enet!reisert
295 Foster Street
P.O. Box 1123
Littleton, MA  01460

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

Date: 14 Dec 89 19:19:31 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!larry![e-mail]  (Scott Ellington)
Subject: RST
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Seems to me there isn't much point in having such a totally meaningless
piece of information (such as RST) in the exchange at all.  Contest rules
should either require some information be exchanged which isn't automatically
known,  or drop the exchange requirement.  Why clutter up the bands with
all those "59's" and "599's"?  On the other hand, shouldn't a valid
contact consist of a little more than an exchange of call signs?

Speaking of call signs, shouldn't stations be required to give their own
call at least once per contact?


K9MA

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

Date: 14 Dec 89 17:33:05 GMT
From: cbmvax![e-mail]  (George Robbins)
Subject: What about for us SWL's ? Re: Tuning dipoles and antennas.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Greer) writes:
>
>   Question about grounding:  Just about every antenna-making tutorial says to
> ground to a water-pipe ("no, not the plastic pipe kind") or similar.  If a
> receiver is powered through a 3-conductor power cord, would the antenna
> braid/shield (in coax,e.g.) automatically be connected to a "good" ground,
> assuming that the house electrical wiring is properly installed?  Doesn't
> the chassis frame give you pretty much the same thing, since the ground wire
> in the home wiring goes back to ground anyway at the breaker box/service drop?

There are really two issues.  One is that you want a good DC/low frequency
ground to protect against shocks.  The other is that probably want a good RF
ground, especially if you are using some kind of unbalanced antenna like a
long wire.  The 3-prong cord (assuming correctly wired 3-prong outlets) will
provide a decent DC ground, but for RF, it's another piece of random wire.

For a receiver this is probably not a live or die kind of thing, but you
could try running decent ground and see if the signal level comes up
noticably or the noise level decreases.  Of course you also want a good
ground for your lighting arrestor, so you might as will hook it up to the
radio while you're at it...

--
George Robbins - now working for,    uucp: {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr
but no way officially representing    arpa: cbmvax![e-mail]
Commodore, Engineering Department    fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)

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

End of INFO-HAMS Digest V89 Issue #1019
***************************************