QRZ! Ham Radio 3/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 3.iso/digests/infoham/931524.txt

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

Date: Thu, 30 Dec 93 13:59:49 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 #1524
To: Info-Hams


Info-Hams Digest            Thu, 30 Dec 93       Volume 93 : Issue 1524

Today's Topics:
          Anyone here familiar with extended-play recorders?
                              CW WAIVERS
                   Info sought on FT480 2m All-mode
                 Need help with the numbers in Morse
                  Ramsey kits not too good? (3 msgs)
                          Repeater database?
                         RFI into telephones
                          UK scanner & Cops
                UK scanner listeners arrested; called
             UK scanner listeners arrested; called "hams"

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: Wed, 29 DEC 93 00:12:17 EST
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news.tamu.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com![e-mail]
Subject: Anyone here familiar with extended-play recorders?
To: [e-mail]

 I saw an ad for Viking International, 150 Executive Park Blvd #4600,
  SF CA 94134, PH 415-468-2066, FX 415 468 2067, they say, 10 Hr recorder $159.
  Now, note that I know nothing more than what the ad sez, have not usedone
 nor contacted them yet, so am not suitability for your exact purpose, but
thought I would be remiss by not mentioning it.
   de n6WR

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

Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1993 20:07:56 GMT
From: galaxy.ucr.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!darwin.sura.net!ra![e-mail]
Subject: CW WAIVERS
To: [e-mail]

>
>>I recognize it as a nearly obsolete mode that is primarily still alive
>>for sentimental reasons.
>
I have given this a great deal of thought and have formed the following opinion.

The original purpose of Ham Radio was to provide a cadre of experienced
radio operators to be available in times of local and/or national emergencies.
I can envision times and situations where some crude form of code (morse)
would be the only mode available. For this reason alone code should be a
requirement.

Another purpose was to promote innovation and experimentation. To forever
write off any idea (or mode of operation) is to lose a thread that may
someday lead
to greater things.

Third is enjoyment. I don't know if enjoyement is can really be considered a
purpose but it certaily is a reason. You shouldn't force someone to enjoy a
certain thing simply because you do, however. One against the code requirement.

A fourth reason, though not one you here about very much today, is to preserve
the history of radio. In this morse code most definitely has a place.

There you have it 3 against 4 for code being an important part of ham radio.

I believe important parts should be requirements. I realize that in America
today everything is right given at birth but I believe that no
accomplishment has meaning if it did not require EFFORT. Ham radio has grown
in NUMBERS as a
result of the no code license but how about QUALITY ?

                    Joe Gregor, WA3WRN

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

Date: Wed, 29 DEC 93 12:50:10 EST
From: sdd.hp.com!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eff!news.kei.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com![e-mail]
Subject: Info sought on FT480 2m All-mode
To: [e-mail]

Harry, welcome to "the gentlemen's part of 2 meters"!  No repeaters to time out
or clubs to join. "Just you, me, and the FCC".

Back to the yaesu...the price seems about right.  The construction seemed solid
one one that I helped a friend work on.  Typically, that vintage was fine for
stand alone, but weak with regard to special FM type scannine and PL features.
I know that for the price difference, I can live without them.

For practical means, the receivers are quite usable.  Today's rigs have higher
dynamic range, and a lower noise figure, but a good GaAs FET preamp will give
you a sensitive reciever, and unless you are near a big gun, then dynamic range
might be acceptable.

Bottom line.....I think it would be good for starters.  I personally use an
HF rig with transverters, but I started with an Icom IC-260A in the same vintage
and it had it's shortcomings too.

Best 73, and will look for you "on the bottom of the band"...Woody AK2F

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

Date: Wed, 29 DEC 93 23:47:59 EST
From: agate!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!paladin.american.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com![e-mail]
Subject: Need help with the numbers in Morse
To: [e-mail]


   This may sound dumb, but it worked for me. When those numbers blazed past,
    I snagged the back part as in....."Whew, what was all that going by?"
    Well, if three dits at the end......it must be a "7"   "a freight train
   of stuff just went by!" with one dit at the end...it must be a "9".
    The same approach works for the 1-5 except with dahs.

   de N6WR


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

Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1993 15:58:38 GMT
From: newsgate.watson.ibm.com!watnews.watson.ibm.com!yktnews.watson.ibm.com!rs47445![e-mail]
Subject: Ramsey kits not too good?
To: [e-mail]

> I don't think I will get anymore Ramsey kits, performance and quality
> to me isn't good enough.  The TNC kit should be designed to work under
> a wide variation of audio quality, not be excessively fussy.


It never cease to amaze me how Ramsey continues to thrive. I guess
there are a lot of masochists. I have never seen a Ramsey kit that
was worth 10% of its' price.



[e-mail]    email here only
"Bailar es vivir"

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

Date: 30 Dec 93 18:06:20 GMT
From: galaxy.ucr.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!convex!convex.com![e-mail]
Subject: Ramsey kits not too good?
To: [e-mail]

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gilbert Baron) writes:


>> I don't think I will get anymore Ramsey kits, performance and quality
>> to me isn't good enough.  The TNC kit should be designed to work under
>> a wide variation of audio quality, not be excessively fussy.


>It never cease to amaze me how Ramsey continues to thrive. I guess
>there are a lot of masochists. I have never seen a Ramsey kit that
>was worth 10% of its' price.

I bought the speech scrambler/descrambler and had to change one part
value, add another part, drill two holes in the case and enlarge one
hole for the clarifier pot access.  I also added a switch.  Now, it
works.  From my experience and from what I've heard, some of Ramsey's
kits are real junk.

David

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

Date: Thu, 30 Dec 93 15:01:29 GMT
From: netcon!bongo!skyld![e-mail]
Subject: Ramsey kits not too good?
To: [e-mail]

 Gee, it never fails to amaze me.

 "Why doesn't this kit I paid $15.00 for not perform like the
 $400.00 thing I should have bought instead?"

 Ask a repair shop to show you the innards of a hand held and
 then see if there is only 2 ics and a dozen parts in there.

 Look inside a KAM or PK-232 and count the parts.

 Even the commercially assembled BAYCOM modems by TigerTronics
 at least have quality parts, pc boards and were soldered properly.

 Ramsey Kits (and others) are for the entertainment value of playing
 with something on the bench. They are NOT a substitue/alternative to
 paying for a quality item that works properly.

 Yeah, I can hear the old farts now, "What about HeathKit?" I bought them
 and built them myself. They worked. Some of them worked pretty good. None
 of them was a direct replacement for a expensive commercial product.

 If you're buying a Ramsey kit to play with, fine. Beats hacking around
 inside an expensive radio. If you're buying a kit to substitute for an
 expensive radio, you get what you pay for.



 Amateur: WA6FWI@WA6FWI.#SOCA.CA.USA.NA  |  "It is difficult to imagine our
Internet: [e-mail]          |  universe run by a single omni-
 US Mail: PO Box 4425 Carson, CA 90749   |  potent god. I see it more as a
   Phone: [phone]               |  badly run corporation."

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

Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1993 16:17:51 GMT
From: swrinde!emory!kd4nc!ke4zv![e-mail]
Subject: Repeater database?
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob Wilkins n6fri) writes:
>[e-mail] (Mike Blackwell) after my editing writes:
>:
>: Suppose I write a geographical database with a really whizzy graphical
>: front end, searching and planning capabilities, made to run on a
>: laptop or PDA. It includes the ARRL repeater directory database. Just
>: what I want while travelling,
>
>You don't propose any thing different than already exists...in the paper
>edition. Lets make this a new and real product.
>
>I really don't care where the repeater is located...I want to know the
>geographic areas that I can reliably communicate either on my
>handy-scratchy or my 30 watt mobile. Sinse you are offering a graphic
>interface you could show coverage maps of repeaters overlaid on a good
>highway map. An interface to gps could enhance your product. How about a
>descripter file of the type of use , times of local nets and news broadcasts.

The coverage data could be really hard to obtain. Most repeater trustees
don't have an accurate mapping of their grade A and B coverage zones.
And theoretical calculations are, at best, only a crude approximation.

It should be possible to calibrate the S meter readings of a radio
and log them to a laptop, along with GPS information, in order to
generate real coverage maps. I bet you could sell this to repeater
groups as a product. In fact, since I just got the GPS working in
the truck, and I have an A/D interface board that works on a parallel
port, I think I may give this a try as soon as I get a new laptop.

Of course the data would only map the repeater transmitter coverage,
and that's rarely reciprocal with it's receive coverage. But a fudge
factor for each repeater to allow for different repeater duplexer and
receiver characteristics could fix that.

>Your listing of the 250 repeaters in the San Francisco Bay Area is
>meaningless if it just reflects what is in the ARRL Directory. Many of the
>local repeaters are listed as closed but are in fact quite open to the
>travelling amateur. Some repeaters are low level 25 mile coverage machines
>that can be quite popular. Other repeaters are high level 150 mile
>repeaters that have no usage at all. I have seen repeaters go from vary
>active to next to nothing in a matter of months. In essence we do not have
>the user base to support 250 repeaters in this area.
>
>When ever I travel I scan the bands for activity and key words so I know
>that I can add something to the discussion. Maybe you could add the voice
>recognician feature as well as the active scan feature to your interface.
>
>With out the added features I think your product would only appeal to
>statistitions and wanabe repeater coordinators...certainly not to any of
>us that want to find a good QSO on the bands or make an emergency call.

I think you may be asking a bit much, Bob. :-)

A directory can limit the number of channels we need to scan, but as
you note, activity can change so rapidly that other information will
have to be gleaned by actually listening to the repeater. A listing
of CTCSS frequencies, general interest groups on the machine, availability
of patches, etc would be of interest, but hard to keep up to date. I'd
be delighted just to get some hard coverage data on a map display.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: Wed, 29 DEC 93 12:53:29 EST
From: mvb.saic.com!unogate!news.service.uci.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eff!news.kei.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com![e-mail]
Subject: RFI into telephones
To: [e-mail]

You might also want to try some .001 uF bypass capacitor on the telephone
microphone, earpeice, and possibly at any diodes if it has the tip/ring
reverse polarity bridge.  73...Woody AK2F

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

Date: 30 Dec 93 09:06:02 EDT
From: caen!malgudi.oar.net!mercury.wright.edu!desire.wright.edu!matrix.cs.wright.edu![e-mail]
Subject: UK scanner & Cops
To: [e-mail]

> Well I have recently heard news accounts where federal agents sent announcements
> in the mail to the last known addresses of a list of criminals saying,
> "Congradulations, you are the lucky winner in our drawing..."  A whole swarm
> of these guys showed up, produced ID, and were immediately handcuffed.
>
> There is something in all this that really bothers me about a system that
> would allow it's police force, those we hire to enforce laws dealing with
> honesty, to lie, to commit fraud, to do what ever beyond the law, in order
> to catch criminals, or even to pursuade people to commit a crime so that
> they can be arrested.
>
> --David C. Adams
>


The problem I have with you argument in the case cited above is 1. the people
targeted in the sting were those who by deceit concealed their where abouts to
the courts. 2. The courts issued legal affidavits ordering these people to be
located, and arrested by any authorized law enforcement officer. 3. If the
law enforcement officers call upon the residence listed on the court document
the people with whom the person named on the warrant will conceal the wanted
person presences to avoid capture (read this as aiding/abeting a criminal to
escape from justice). 4. No crime was commited by the law enforcement officers
operating the sting as they did not force a person by use of physical threat
to show up at the sting (the criminals made decision to be greedy, ie: obtain
a product either by chance or pick it up in person for personal gain rather
than coerion).

If you have a better idea that would locate criminals wanted by warrant, or in
act of commiting a crime (ie: fencing stolen property, etc.) by deceit without
employing the same methods, I am certain the law enforcement community would
be glad to listen. However, if what you are stating is based upon the "Monday
Night Quarterback" syndrome then go out and join your local police dept as
an Auxiliary Police Officer to see what being a cop is about. I do not agree
with what happened in Britian over the scanner users arrests but, however I
would rather see a Charles Manson type caught by deceit than have him on the
streets atlarge killing people.

73, Wes

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

Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1993 18:53:04 GMT
From: galaxy.ucr.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!ukma!rsg1.er.usgs.gov!dgg.cr.usgs.gov![e-mail]
Subject: UK scanner listeners arrested; called
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Adams) writes:
|> Well I have recently heard news accounts where federal agents sent announcements
|> in the mail to the last known addresses of a list of criminals saying,
|> "Congradulations, you are the lucky winner in our drawing..."  A whole swarm
|> of these guys showed up, produced ID, and were immediately handcuffed.
|>
|> There is something in all this that really bothers me about a system that
|> would allow it's police force, those we hire to enforce laws dealing with
|> honesty, to lie, to commit fraud, to do what ever beyond the law, in order
|> to catch criminals, or even to pursuade people to commit a crime so that
|> they can be arrested.

I see a clear difference between enticing an unknown criminal to turn
themselves in for a crime which is proven by the act of showing up someplace
(as in the UK incident) and getting evasive known criminals (for which there
are warrants) to turn themselves in.  What the US cops have been doing is
creatively capturing known and wanted criminals who have been evading
arrest in such a way that there is less liklihood of someone being shot.  I
suppose it ticks criminals off, but I am all for it since it reduces the
danger to the criminal, the police and the public - and it is effective...
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Tom Bodoh - Sr. systems software engineer, Hughes STX, N0YGT                +
+ USGS/EROS Data Center, Sioux Falls, SD, USA 57198     [phone]      +
+ Internet; [e-mail] (152.61.192.66)         +
+ "Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends!" EL&P       +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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

Date: Thu, 30 Dec 93 02:38:30 EST
From: library.ucla.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!nigel.msen.com!ilium!sycom!p-cove![e-mail]
Subject: UK scanner listeners arrested; called "hams"
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (slm) writes:

>
> I read the following "Guardian" report, via Reuters news service, and was rat
> irked. I would imagine that all the folks involved in this were
> NOT necessarily ham-radio operators :-(
> ......<deleted text>.......
> necessary steps to crack down on it,'' one officer in South
> Yorkshire, a northern English county, was quoted as saying.

 Now this was obviously NOT ham radio operators... Something has to be
done to let these "stuipid" people know what the difference is between
hams and other people.



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

                 [e-mail] (Aaron Smith KB8PFZ)
                     System Operator of Pirate's Cove.
                      [phone], Port Huron, Mi

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

Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1993 18:17:31 GMT
From: sgiblab!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!mstar!n8emr!yaub![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>star
Subject : Re: Repeater database?

>Do we really need the data from the cordinaters? If each of us would send in
>the repeaters in his own area in a standard format using grid squares for
>location should be close enough for this project, it would make a data base
>in short order. We could also include other freqauencies of interest and it
>would be a pretty neat deal. Just submit a list of grid square you intend to
>pass through and it will give you back a list of frequencies in the order
>of the grid squares you sent.

Forget the grid squares crap. Pretty useless for most people. If I am
VHF dxing then grids are fine, but a repeater directory is most
likley going to be used by traveling hams. The current ARRL directory
in many states is worthless. Take ohio's entrys. They are listed by
county. How in the world is a traveler suppose to know what county
he is in. List by major citys are much more informative.
--
Gary W. Sanders [e-mail], 72277,1325
N8EMR @ N8JYV (ip addr) 44.70.0.1 [Ohio AMPR address coordinator]
HAM BBS 614-895-2553 (1200/2400/V.32/PEP) Voice: 614-895-2552 (eves/weekends)

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

Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1993 15:50:44 GMT
From: swrinde!emory!kd4nc!ke4zv![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

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

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jack Hamilton) writes:
>
>My understanding is that the international treaty specifies neither the
>speed nor the method of testing.  If the FCC wants to give us a printed
>copy of a code sample to translate at our leisure, that's probably within
>the letter of the law.

Unfortunately no. The treaty language specifies "receive by ear" and
"send by hand" texts in the International Code. There are no speed
requirements though. The US is technically out of compliance already
since we dropped the sending test. And accomodations for deaf or paralyzed
applicants are also out of technical compliance with the treaty language.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1993 20:19:28 GMT
From: qualcomm.com!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!server![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>acs
Subject : Re: Ramsey kits not too good?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Horak) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gilbert Baron) writes:
>
>>> I don't think I will get anymore Ramsey kits, performance and quality
>>> to me isn't good enough.  The TNC kit should be designed to work under
>>> a wide variation of audio quality, not be excessively fussy.
>
>>It never cease to amaze me how Ramsey continues to thrive. I guess
>>there are a lot of masochists. I have never seen a Ramsey kit that
>>was worth 10% of its' price.
>
>I bought the speech scrambler/descrambler and had to change one part
>value, add another part, drill two holes in the case and enlarge one
>hole for the clarifier pot access.  I also added a switch.  Now, it
>works.  From my experience and from what I've heard, some of Ramsey's
>kits are real junk.
>
It always amazes me when I hear stories like these.  Look guys, you get
what you pay for.  Things that work correctly are usually assembled,
tested and guaranteed by the manufacturer.  These items, contrary to
popular belief, cost money, and more than just parts cost.....
SO:  Stop your whining!   or/
Pay full for a real box.....

:-)  :-)
de George,  W1XE      email  [e-mail]


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

Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1993 18:38:10 GMT
From: galaxy.ucr.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!gateway-gw!newshost![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>ear
Subject : Re: Repeater database?

[e-mail] (Daniel T Senie) writes:
>The repeater directory does NOT list evrey frequency in use. Many frequencies
>are used for other purposes than repeaters, yet are sensitive to interference.
>When you pick a simplex frequency, please keep this in mind!

Wait a minute!  You're saying that the co-ordination data isn't
readily available, but be careful about picking simplex frequencies?
Should I check with my local co-ordination body each time I select a
simplex frequency?  Sure would drop the occupied bandwidth, last time
I tried to contact the co-ordinators to figure out where to put a
dedicated packet link they all gave me the NIMBY (Not In My Band ...)
response.  Of course, they took the better part of a year to even
respond...


--
Willie Smith [e-mail]  [e-mail]
She's writing a formal letter of complaint to the Internet Administration!

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

End of Info-Hams Digest V93 #1524
******************************
******************************