Ham Radio/Ham Radio CD-ROM (Emerald Software) (1995).ISO/news/inham89/1044

Text File | 1980-01-01 | 12.6 KB | 321 lines

INFO-HAMS Digest            Tue, 19 Dec 89       Volume 89 : Issue 1044

Today's Topics:
                  Corrected CAT Interface for FT736R
                   Interception of E-Mail by spies
                   Meaningless information in QSOs?
                     new mailing list:  HAM-UNIV
    pudgy wound helical antenna (60m vertical in my living room!)
                     rec.radio.shortwave "invite"
                                 RST
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Dec 89 01:36:26 GMT
From: soleil![e-mail]  (Rich Gopstein)
Subject: Corrected CAT Interface for FT736R
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

This is the picture of the 6-pin DIN connector (from the manual).
It represents the connector when viewed from the side that the
wires are soldered to.


      3 o     o 1
         6 o
      5 o     o 4
           o
           2

The manual gives the following INCORRECT list:

1 Gnd
2 S. Out
3 S. In
4 Busy
5 NC
6 13.8v

The correct pinout is:

1 Gnd
2 S. In
3 Busy
4 S. Out
5 NC
6 13.8v

"S. In" is the data from the computer to the radio, "S. Out"
is data from the radio.

In addition, the timing spec for the five-byte command seems to
be in error.  I started with an inter-character spacing of about
100ms -- which worked fine.  The time to send a command to the radio
was about 1/2 second, which was too long to do anything interesting
like scanning.  After some experimentation, I completely removed the
delay, and it still worked!  It appears that the five command bytes
can be send nearly back-to-back. I haven't tested it exhaustively, but
it seems to work.  With no added delay, the computer can scan the radio
faster than the built-in scanning.

The interface I used was:

RS-232                                     CAT
                            E
                            /------------  Pin 2
             |\  |     B |/
Pin 2 -------|  >|-------|
             |/  |       |\
                          C \
                             |
Pin 7 -----------------------+------------ Pin 1

The diode is a generic, small, silicon diode.  The transistor
is a generic, small, NPN transistor.

This circuit can only be used to send data to the radio, not
receive data back.  For that you need an RS-232 driver chip.

I have a program to send some simple commands to the radio.  It's
written in Microsoft C.  I anyone wants it, send me a note.

Rich, KD2CQ
--
Rich Gopstein

..!rutgers!soleil!gopstein

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

Date: 20 Dec 89 01:51:24 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Michael C. Berch)
Subject: Interception of E-Mail by spies
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

In the referenced article, [e-mail] (Rich Thomson) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brad Pierce) writes:
> >Which agencies of the government
> >have the right to classify different information as secret
> >and which have the right to review these decisions?
>
> I believe that the NSC has both the right to classify and declassify
> information, but I'm not sure about subordinate groups (FBI, CIA, etc).

Goodness, *lots* of government agencies have the ability to classify
and declassify information.  It's hardly an exclusive club.  (Yes,
there was an edict a few years back to reduce the number of people with
this power, who are known as Authorized Classifiers or Authorized
Derivative Classifiers, but it did not reduce the list of agencies so
authorized.)

The list of agencies includes at least all of DOD (which is broken up
into a lot of pieces and accounts for most of the total), DOE,
Justice (FBI etc.), Treasury (Secret Service, remember), CIA,
NSA, FEMA, NRC, probably HHS (liaison contingency plans with FEMA and
DOD for nuclear war recovery and other disasters, and access to
classified radiological health materials), possibly IRS, possibly
Interior and/or Commerce (those contingency plans, again!), and
undoubtedly others.

--
Michael C. Berch
[e-mail] / uunet!presto.ig.com!mcb

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

Date: 19 Dec 89 03:18:05 GMT
From: yoda![e-mail]
Subject: Meaningless information in QSOs?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

In <15.Dec.89.14:36:50.GMT.#[e-mail]>, Pete Lucas writes:

>Heard during the Ten Meter Contest last weekend:
>>
>>N3xxx:  "KH6xxx 59 Pennsylvania."
>>KH6xxx: "You're 59 Hawaii. QSL?"
>>N3xxx:  "QSL. Thanks for Hawaii!  How's my signal out there?"
>>
>>   :-)
>
>Question: In the above exchange, does 'QSL?' mean 'I acknowledge receipt of
>your message'  or 'I will send you a QSL card' ???
>
"QSL" can be a question or a promise. It's proper use is in code communications
where a question mark removes any ambiguity. I suppose the inflection of the
voice in voice communications is supposed to take the place of the question
mark, but during contests that isn't even needed since both guys know what to
expect, anyway. What is funny is that the guy asked how his signal was after
getting a signal report (perhaps this was the point of the original posting).

"QSL" really means "acknowledge" I believe. That's why it is used much like
the CB tern 10-4 at times. So N3xxx's QSL really meant that he had received
and was acknowledging KH6xxx's transmission. I suppose he should have asked
"QSL?" if he wanted a card, too. Which would properly have been followed by
a "QSL" from KH6xxx.

Lyle D. Gunderson  N6KSZ          CIS: 73760,2354     GEnie: L.GUNDERSON
[e-mail]          "Any technology without some attendant risk
350 CB / BYU / Provo, UT 84602   of misuse is probably trivial"  --Loise Kohl

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

Date: 20 Dec 89 00:05:00 GMT
From: ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu![e-mail]
Subject: new mailing list:  HAM-UNIV
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
HAM-UNIV (Ham Radio Clubs in Universities and Colleges)
        via LISTSERV@UIUCVMD (vmd.cso.uiuc.edu)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  IMPORTANT     This is an automated mailing list run by the LISTSERV
   NOTICE       software.  Be sure you send your subscription requests
                to the program itself (which is LISTSERV@UIUCVMD or
    READ        [e-mail]).  Don't send your requests
    THIS        to the mailing list, since that will just send a copy
    FIRST       to all the other subscribers, and you will be starting
                out looking like a fool.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This mailing list is an exchange of information between and/or about
College and University based Amateur Radio Clubs.  Duplication of
material from other ham radio mailing lists or news groups should not
be made unless it is of special interest to this category of clubs.

Anyone who is interested in College and University Ham Radio Clubs may
subscribe and participate.  It is not necessary to be a student or a
member of a club, or even a ham radio operator.  I do ask if you have
the information, to supply it with your subscription request so that
others can be more informed.  I'd like to know your call sign and club
affiliation (and office if you are an officer).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe:
        Send the command:

                SUB HAM-UNIV firstname lastname callsign - clubname

        to the list server by either BITNET interactive message or
        by electronic mail.  Put the command where the message text
        is supposed to go.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe:
        Send the command:

                UNSUB HAM-UNIV

        to the same list server the same way.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are on UUCP and the address  [e-mail]  fails,
bug your sysadmin about fixing your system, and in the mean time try
the following:
        uiucuxc!vmd!listserv

List owner and contact person:
        Phil Howard, KA9WGN
        Internet:   [e-mail]
        Bitnet:     phil@uiucvmd
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  IMPORTANT     This is an automated mailing list run by the LISTSERV
   NOTICE       software.  Be sure you send your subscription requests
                to the program itself (which is LISTSERV@UIUCVMD or
    READ        [e-mail]).  Don't send your requests
    THIS        to the mailing list, since that will just send a copy
    AGAIN       to all the other subscribers, and you will be starting
                out looking like a fool.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 19 Dec 89 21:27:02 GMT
From: hpl-opus!hpnmdla![e-mail]  (Alan Bloom)
Subject: pudgy wound helical antenna (60m vertical in my living room!)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

John Moore's comment that effective antenna aperture is not related to
physical size for small antennas is right on.  Gain and aperture are
really just different ways to measure the same thing -- In fact there is
an equation to relate the two:  Aperture = (gain over isotropic) / 4(Pi)
(I think, I don't have a reference book handy).

For example, a dipole (gain = 1.64) has an aperture of about 1/8 square
wavelengths.  I think of a dipole aperture as being 1/2 wavelength long
(the length of the wire) and 1/4 wavelength thick.  If you could make a
100% efficient, physically-small antenna with the same gain, it would
have the same capture area.

The problem, of course, is that this is very difficult (impossible) to do.
Radiation resistance is proportional to the square of the length
(or 4th root of the length for loops!).  A .1 wave vertical is around
.5 ohm or so if I remember correctly, so even a tenth ohm of loss
resistance gives you only 80% efficiency.

Al N1AL

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

Date: 19 Dec 89 23:44:59 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Kok Chen)
Subject: rec.radio.shortwave "invite"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (<wilson>) writes:

>Can anybody explain what a "dweeb" is?  It's not listed in my
>American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.
>Although I can infer a definition from the context in
>which it's used, I prefer to have a precise definition.

The Oxford American Dictionary does not list it either...

BUT!!!!  The Oxford American lists DX (I was looking for dweeb :-) as:

    DX (dee-eks) n. (slang) distance, especially
    in shortwave radio reception.  DXer,
    (slang) a long-distance radio hobbyist.
    DXing, (slang) the hobby of long-distance
    radio transmission and reception.

How about that.


Kok Chen            [e-mail]
Apple Computer, Inc.

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

Date: 19 Dec 89 19:49:26 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!milano!lad-shrike!ut-emx![e-mail]  (Trey Garlough)
Subject: RST
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Steve Wilson xttemp dept303) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Wolff) writes:
> >I give the guy two QSO's to sign, then I either scream WHAT'S YOUR CALL or
> >work him and scream WHAT'S YOUR CALL. I think everyone should do this to
> >train the DX end to sign more often. BTW, we sign our call after every QSO
> >in operations at my house.
>
> Just a quick point about IDing.  The 10 minute/end of every contact rule
> is an FCC rule.  This means it applies to us, not the DX stations.  They
> may have similar rules( I don't really know) Your comments are certainly
> appropriate for US stations but don't necessarily apply to other countries.

I feel that Ken's point has been missed.  Irrespective of the legal
ramifications, it is considered poor operating practice to do otherwise
during a contest.  If the guy has a particularly impressive pileup, it's
probably ok for him to save a little time by announcing his callsign
after every other contact, hence Ken's "two QSO's to sign" rule.

Ken, how about some suggestions for training people to avoid other
poor operating practices, such as not giving the whole callsign when
answering a CQ?

Trey Garlough
Computation Center, University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712
[e-mail] (internet) (512-471-3241)

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

End of INFO-HAMS Digest V89 Issue #1044
***************************************