QRZ! Ham Radio 3/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 3.iso/digests/infoham/931415.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-06-04 | 25KB

Date: Thu,  2 Dec 93 07:02:23 PST
From: Info-Hams Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: Info-Hams Digest V93 #1415
To: Info-Hams


Info-Hams Digest            Thu,  2 Dec 93       Volume 93 : Issue 1415

Today's Topics:
                           API for HAM CALL
                     Help on Kenwood 2m all mode
                           Instant Licenses
                 Logging program for casual contacts
                 Modem Software to Alert Many Pagers?
                           Pyramid Schemes
         using a radio off frequency in emergencies (2 msgs)
                        VHF in Virgin Islands
          W5YI's coverage of "temporary callsigns" (2 msgs)
                        YHelp with Yaesu FT11R

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <[e-mail]>
Send subscription requests to: <[e-mail]>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to [e-mail].

Archives of past issues of the Info-Hams Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/info-hams".

We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text
herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official
policies or positions of any party.  Your mileage may vary.  So there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Dec 93 00:25:17 GMT
From: uswnvg![e-mail]
Subject: API for HAM CALL
To: [e-mail]

Dan Bowker [x 6587] ([e-mail]) wrote:
: I'm about to buy the new HAMCALL CD.

: Is there an API for the database, or is there a way to read it directly?

Dunno for sure about HAMCALL, but have you looked at 'QRZ Hamradio' from
Walnut Creek? It's significantly cheaper ($20 as opposed to $50+ the
last time I checked) and comes with a "reader" program, as well as the
(C) source for rolling your own.  Also, in a few weeks I'll have (will
post somewhere, probably on Compu$erve) an ACCESS BASIC module that will
look up the offset of a call and then return you all of the data for
a given call.


--
Clay Jackson - N7QNM
US WEST NewVector Group Inc
Bellevue, WA
uunet!uswnvg!cjackso

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

Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 16:00:11 GMT
From: pacbell.com!sgiblab!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!news.inesc.pt!animal.inescn.pt!bart![e-mail]
Subject: Help on Kenwood 2m all mode
To: [e-mail]

Hello,

I have one Kenwood TR751E  all mode 2m, and I need use the
tone encoder TU-7 that I already have.
In the schematic and tecnical manual do not refer what to do with the config.
diodes D3, D4, D5, D6 and D7 on the Control Unit. What are the individual funcion
of each other. The D14 is on the owner manual and is to config. the step, but
the others!? I only need to inform the unit that he has the TU-7 installed.

If anyone of you have this kind of information, or the email/internet of Kenwood,
I will thank you a lot.

73, Antonio (CT1DZY)     E-mail:  [e-mail]

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

Date: 2 Dec 93 14:20:57 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Instant Licenses
To: [e-mail]

Here are my thoughts on the 'instant' license proposal.
I am an Extra Class Ham, been licensed for 14 year, am a VE,
co-founder of our local club and our repeater trustee/licensee.

* Our monthly VE sessions bring in around 20 new hams a month,
  all excited and eager to get on the air. When they realize that
  they have to wait 2 to 3 months (or more sometimes) their energy
  wanes. The instant license will get them on the air, get them
  involved in club/area events, get them trained.

* Use of VE assigned callsigns will result in some confusion,
  for instance both my wife and I are hams and have the same
  initials. So what, is it a big deal to hear WZ5REB  talking
  to WZ5REB? Sure, you don't hear it now, but you never used to
  hear AB5ZZ or KC5XYZ either and now it's commonplace. Plus
  it will only be for 6 months (probably a lot less, like 2 to 3).
  Again, no problem from my perspective.

* I can't tell what class these WZ# calls hold. HA! Can you tell
  by my call (KA5GLX) what class I am? Hmmm, that's a novice call
  isn't it. Yup, but I'm an extra! Oops, there goes that arguement.

* I can't verify who belongs to WZ# calls by calling the FCC. That's
  true, have you ever tried to call the FCC to verify a 'real'
  callsign? Good luck. There are some repeaters in town that refuse
  to let the new Technicians use their repeaters until the call shows
  up in the callbook. That's really a warm welcome to ham radio isn't
  it. Guess the WZ#'s will face the same problem. Your choice. I welcome
  everyone to use the KA5GLX/R repeater. If you are a ham with the
  proper license, have a good time.

* What is a ham? Aha, maybe we have all lost sight of this. You are
  a ham when you PASS the VE exams. You hold a valid CSCE saying
  you have 'earned' your license. Therefore, why should you not
  be able to get on the air? When you turned 16 and passed your
  driver's license test, did you have to wait to drive until your
  'real' license was issued from your state? You can kill someone
  with a car... what's the worst you can do with a radio?

I think that many people over react to change, of any kind. Yes,
it would be nice if the FCC could let the VECs assign via computer
a 'real' call from the appropriate callsign group. That day will
come soon (so be ready!) This is a very simple method for letting
people ENJOY the privilages they have earned. Hey folks, there was
a time when you had to wait for the FCC to issue you a new license
before you could use your new privilages when you upgraded. How
many of you have upgraded and instantly been on your new HF or VHF
frequencies with your old call?

I look forward to issuing WZ5XYZ at a future VE session and then
hearing that person on the KA5GLX repeater. Welcome to ham radio.
We are a friendly group of people just trying to have FUN!

We aren't disarming nuclear weapons here folks, we are just trying
to enjoy our hobby.

73 de Bob KA5GLX

KA5GLX@KA5KTH.#SETX.TX.USA.NOAM
[e-mail]    Internet

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

Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1993 00:45:53 GMT
From: crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!e2big.mko.dec.com!peavax.mlo.dec.com![e-mail]
Subject: Logging program for casual contacts
To: [e-mail]

I've been using DXbase by Scientific Solutions for several years.  You
can download a slide-show demo off their BBS (sorry, don't have the #
here).  It has a fast and powerful database, tracks DXCC, WAS, WAZ,
Oblast and IOTA, and has interfaces to PacketCluster, radio and DVP.

--
Jim Reisert AD1C                Internet:  [e-mail]
Digital Equipment Corp.         UUCP:      ...decwrl!mlo.dec.com!reisert
146 Main Street - MLO3-6/C9 Voice:     508-493-5747
Maynard, MA  01754  FAX:       [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 05:41:16 GMT
From: bruce.cs.monash.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!yeshua.marcam.com!news.kei.com!eff!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!sdd.hp.com![e-mail]
Subject: Modem Software to Alert Many Pagers?
To: [e-mail]

There are several packages that do this. Notify! from
Ex Machina knows pager protocols and can work through
the pager companies paging computer or call each of them
directly as a normal call. It can handle both numeric
pagers and alphanumeric ones. They have a version for
both the Mac and for Windows.
Ex Machina is at 45 East 89th St #39A,
New York, NY 10128

There is also a company called Information Radio Technology
in Cleveland at 800-228-8998. Bob Grohol also markets
several paging solutions there including one called
AlphaPage.

Brian

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

Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 23:28:49 GMT
From: news.Hawaii.Edu!uhunix3.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu![e-mail]
Subject: Pyramid Schemes
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Macpherson) writes:
>
>When you see this crap on the net, everyone of you should reply E-mail to
>the originators account, with the entire message intact. Maybe his local
>node will boot him off the air. Maybe they'll catch wind and turn him in.
>What do you think.
>
>--
>Bill VE3NJW      Advanced Amateur
>Packet Address : VE3NJW@VE3KYT.#EON.ON.CAN
>Freenet Address: [e-mail]

Not to worry, for Julf at anon said he would pull the guy's plug
if those posts continue.

Jeff NH6IL

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

Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 00:31:01 GMT
From: bruce.cs.monash.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!yeshua.marcam.com!news.kei.com!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!@@munnari.oz.au
Subject: using a radio off frequency in emergencies
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,
Steve Holland <[e-mail]> wrote:
>I was looking at the Amateur radio news postings and came across an
>article about an amateur that was in a remote area who had an injured
>friend.  The story went that after trying several repeaters without
>success and trying to use a cellular phone without success, he called
>for help on a police frequency.  He was forced to forfeit his radio
>when the sherriffs department complained.  The story goes on from there,
>and the FCC, the ham, and the Sherriffs office will be meeting in court.

I have a feeling that there is more to this than has met your eye. Perhaps
it wasn't really an 'emergency' but rather just a difficult situation and
at least in the eyes of the Sheriffs office (and perhaps soon the FCC's)
it was not acceptable. As for being forced to forfeit a radio, that seems
highly suspicious. You don't even need a license to own a radio.

>I was wondering what is the correct thing to do if one has a radio that
>can transmit outside of amateur bands and a real, life threatening
>emergency arises.  I thought there was a rule about amateurs being
>authorized to use any radio at their disposal if normal communications
>were not available when there was a life threatening emergency.  Has
>anyone any advice on what one should do if a similar event happened to
>me?  No legal advice expected, just interested on what the folks on
>the net may have to say.

I don't believe you need to be an amateur. I think that ANYONE can use
ANY  frequency to call for help in a bona fide emergency.

Just be prepared to prove that it was necessary. Emergencies like needing
a tow are not as extreme as someone with life threatening injuries or
the threat of large scale property damage (like a house on fire, etc)
and of course you'll need to prove there was no other reasonable means
of communication available.

Probably a pretty difficult thing to do...

--
Any opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of The University.
__________________________________________________________________________
\ \  /  Jon Gefaell, Computer Systems Engineer    | Amateur Radio, KD4CQY
 \/\/  A UNIX guy doing Netware - ITC/Carruthers  | -Will chmod for Food-
  \/  The University of Virginia, Charlottesville |  [e-mail]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 21:02:48 GMT
From: spsgate!mogate!newsgate![e-mail]
Subject: using a radio off frequency in emergencies
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> Steve Holland,
[e-mail] writes:
>I was wondering what is the correct thing to do if one has a radio that
>can transmit outside of amateur bands and a real, life threatening
>emergency arises.  I thought there was a rule about amateurs being
>authorized to use any radio at their disposal if normal communications
>were not available when there was a life threatening emergency.  Has
>anyone any advice on what one should do if a similar event happened to
>me?  No legal advice expected, just interested on what the folks on
>the net may have to say.

    This seems to just the kind of subject that an organization of hams
would champion.  Lets face it, the San Diego Sheriff's Office hasn't
gotten the publicity from this it deserves.  A man's life may have been
at stake, and a resourceful individual did the responsible thing.  He
ASKED for permission, passed the traffic, and cleared the frequency when
completed.  We as hams and as CITIZENS need to speak out loudly and give
the San Diego Sheriff's Office the attention the have been seeking.  I
would recommend the ARRL publicly stand tall and be counted.  If this
issue is put to bed properly in San Diego, we might not need to address
it anywhere else.

Rick Aldom

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

Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 22:12:43 GMT
From: bruce.cs.monash.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!uwm.edu!news.moneng.mei.com!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!das-news.harvard.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!@munnari.oz.au
Subject: VHF in Virgin Islands
To: [e-mail]

I'll be in the British Virgin Islands for a week next month. I'm not
planning on any HFing, but I was thinking of bring along a VHF/UHF HT.
I was wondering:

Will there be anyone to talk to? Repeaters?

If so, and if you have been (or are) there, is it worthwhile (and $20)
to get a reciprocal license and bring my radio? (Obviously subjective
- what's your opinion?)

Are the frequency allocations the same as for the US?

 thanks, Mike Blackwell  -  ke3ig  -  [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 18:23:08 GMT
From: brunix!maxcy2.maxcy.brown.edu![e-mail]
Subject: W5YI's coverage of "temporary callsigns"
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Dan Pickersgill  N8PKV) writes:

> I could not agree more.

Gee, will wonders never cease? :-)

> As I have stated, I feel that one of the major
> reasons for ham radio being as "clean" as it is, is accountability.
> Remove the accountability and the system WILL breakdown (as some falsely
> clain it has).

The system has broken down somewhat. When the FCC stopped monitoring
amateur bands except in cases of gross misconduct, alot of what goes
on today went on in much lesser amounts years ago. Today, someone
can cuss on the air with little, if any, concern over what they've
done. 15 years ago this was not the case.


> And it makes self policing almost impossible.

But Dan, only a ham-cop would be interested in self-policing. Self-policing
means each ham polices themselves. (as some others have appeared to
indicate.)

MD
--
-- Michael P. Deignan
-- Population Studies & Training Center
-- Brown University, Box 1916, Providence, RI  02912
-- [phone]

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

Date: 2 Dec 93 01:21:02 GMT
From: ogicse!emory!kd4nc!ke4zv![e-mail]
Subject: W5YI's coverage of "temporary callsigns"
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>[e-mail] (Dan Pickersgill  N8PKV) writes:
>
>> I could not agree more.
>
>Gee, will wonders never cease? :-)

You'll be thrilled to note that I also agree that instant licensing,
as proposed, is a bad idea. I do have an idea how to handle the problem
that I'll mention at the end.

>> As I have stated, I feel that one of the major
>> reasons for ham radio being as "clean" as it is, is accountability.
>> Remove the accountability and the system WILL breakdown (as some falsely
>> clain it has).
>
>The system has broken down somewhat. When the FCC stopped monitoring
>amateur bands except in cases of gross misconduct, alot of what goes
>on today went on in much lesser amounts years ago. Today, someone
>can cuss on the air with little, if any, concern over what they've
>done. 15 years ago this was not the case.

In reality, the FCC never heavily monitored the amateur bands. The FCC
did do somewhat more monitoring in the past, but that was for all services,
not just amateur. They've slacked off mainly for financial reasons. One of
the two broadcast monitoring vans in the country has been parked now for
over a year because the engineers needed to run it retired and new
ones were not hired. The language and behavior we hear on the bands,
however, is more a reflection of changing community standards in society
as a whole than it is a reflection of lack of enforcement. Even in the
old days the FCC concentrated mainly on technical violations rather than
content violations. But the general respect for authority in society
was so much higher then that people acted as if Big Brother was watching
even when he wasn't.

>> And it makes self policing almost impossible.
>
>But Dan, only a ham-cop would be interested in self-policing. Self-policing
>means each ham polices themselves. (as some others have appeared to
>indicate.)

You probably are being sarcastic, but you're right that self policing
means the policing of *self* with respect to the rules. It doesn't mean
playing cop wannabe. That's not to say that we shouldn't be good citizens
and report illegal activity we observe to the proper authorities. But just
as we don't report every person we see going 56 MPH in a 55 zone, we shouldn't
be zealous ham-cops on the bands.

Now here's my modest proposal to solve the instant license "crisis", and
incidentally to solve the upgrade problem at the same time. Digital signature
systems are now available that are as admissible as hand written signatures
on paper forms. With the new computer system the FCC is getting, it should
be possible to allow VEs to log on directly, transmit the completed exam
information complete with validating digital signature, and receive an
automatic callsign assignment in real time, including a Postscript license
that laser prints just like the ones the FCC now mails out. This would be
the real permanent license of the freshly examined candidate. The old
paper mail system could remain in place for instances where the VEs are
technically impoverished. I don't think those VEs would get many exam
candidates after a while though.

To prevent hacking, public key encryption could be used in both directions
with the FCC having a list of the public keys of all acredited VE teams.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          | Where my job's going,  | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems | I don't know. It might | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             | wind up in Mexico.     | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |          -NAFTA Blues  |

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

Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 02:57:54 GMT
From: netcomsv!netcomsv!xyzoom![e-mail]
Subject: YHelp with Yaesu FT11R
To: [e-mail]

Can anyone give me some feedback on the Yaesu FT11R HT?  Specifically,
what you like/don't like, and are there any modifications published
for the radio?  Is the extended receive fairly sensitive?

Thanks.
--Rob


--
Rob Lingelbach KB6CUN | 2660 Hollyridge Dr LA CA 90068 213 464 6266 (voice)
[e-mail]   | "I care not much for a man's religion whose dog or
[e-mail]       |  cat are not the better for it."  --Abraham Lincoln

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

Date: 2 Dec 93 00:53:22 GMT
From: ogicse!emory!kd4nc!ke4zv![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Reply-To : [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject : Re: Calculating SWR

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles R. Hohenstein) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dave Horsfall)
>wrote:
>>     [e-mail] (Galen Watts) writes:
>> | >I am not trying to be mean, but did you sit a radio theory test for your
>> | >amateur license ?
>> Notwithstanding the fact that I distinctly remember seeing that formula
>> on my own exam (in Australia) and no doubt getting it wrong, don't they
>> teach you to look up a reference book over there?
>
>The whole point is that this is NOT an electronics newsgroup, but rather a
>newsgroup for amateur radio operators, not all of whom have--or even need
>to have--a detailed understanding of how the equipment they operate
>actually works.

>In this same vein, I will admit my surprise, after sitting for all the U.S.
>amateur radio examination elements, that there was such an emphasis on
>electronics, and so very little concerning public service, disaster
>readiness, first aid procedures, emergeny traffic handling, and so on. If
>we are really intended to be a provider of alternative communications
>services in times of national emergencies or local disasters, surely such
>knowledge is at least as important as the ability to homebrew a radio. But
>for some odd reason these topics are left almost entirely to specific
>organizations, while EVERYONE is required to have a general knowledge of
>electronics. Surely both are important. And maybe we could do more to test
>normal operating procedures as well.

I must disagree with your contention that amateur radio is not a technical
service. It most certainly is. The primary difference between the amateur
radio service and all other services *is* the technical skills we're supposed
to be able to bring to bear for electronic communications.

Two of the purposes of the service are to advance the radio art and to
develop a pool of trained technicians. And all radio is electronics based,
so the skill sets we need are primarily electronic skills. Amateurs are
unique in being allowed to operate non-Type Accepted radios, in being
allowed to repair them, and in being allowed to manufacture novel circuits
for their own use. That certainly requires technical knowledge and skills.

As to the public service, emergency communications, and international
goodwill parts of our charter, the rules are clear that we are to act
as a *backup* to ordinary communications systems licensed for public
and emergency services purposes, such as GMRS, common carrier, land
mobile, and government. *Anyone*, amateur or not, is permitted to use
radio equipment in emergencies where there is an immediate threat to
life, and there is no other means of communications available. We aren't
unique in that respect. We are to bring our technical expertise to bear
in situations where ordinary communications systems are overloaded,
inoperative, or unavailable. In all other respects, we're to restrict
ourselves to comments of a technical nature, or so unimportant that
resort to common carriers is not warranted, IE Dxing.

Since the international treaties say our communications are to be
either technical in nature, or unimportant, the exams stress only
the important part.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          | Where my job's going,  | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems | I don't know. It might | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             | wind up in Mexico.     | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |          -NAFTA Blues  |

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

Date: 2 Dec 93 05:04:28 GMT
From: mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx10![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <williams.754643364@maui>, <bote.754781001@access>
Subject : Re: Repeater calling procedure (Was: Elm

In article <bote.754781001@access>, John Boteler <[e-mail]> wrote:
>[e-mail] (Paul Williamson) writes:
>>There's no substitute for understanding the local lingo, even when it
>>doesn't seem to make sense.
>That's why a national organization like the ARRL should
>get us all signing off the same songsheet so that
>when we travel we don't have this problem.

Sorry, won't happen.

If the ARRL can't even impose a national band plan, what makes you think they
could impose national operating procedures?

(BTW, I consider their inability to impose a national band plan to be a
feature, not a bug; if they could do so, we'd be stuck with a technically
inferior plan on 2 meters.)
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
[e-mail]      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
    "The road to Usenet is littered with dead horses." -- Jack Hamilton

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

End of Info-Hams Digest V93 #1415
******************************
******************************