QRZ! Ham Radio 3/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 3.iso/digests/infoham/940094.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-06-04 | 28KB

Date: Mon, 31 Jan 94 00:07:42 PST
From: Info-Hams Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: Info-Hams Digest V94 #94
To: Info-Hams


Info-Hams Digest            Mon, 31 Jan 94       Volume 94 : Issue   94

Today's Topics:
                        Art & Millie of K6MYK
                           Callbook Server
                       Code tapes, looking for.
                      Computing antenna coverage
                  CW filters and DSP-9 - morse1.jpg
                    FCC Database Online For Calif.
                          FTP site for Keps
                Help - your Vertical Ant. experences.
             How to "Convert" Ham Radio HyperCard Stack?
       Interesting and unique things people do in Amateur Radio
                New Jersey Tax on Radio Transmitters?
                      Yaesu FT-416 MODS wanted!
                 Your experiences on 40 meter CW QRP

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: 26 Jan 1994 19:18:12 GMT
From: unogate!news.service.uci.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!sgigate.sgi.com!olivea!koriel!male.EBay.Sun.COM!newscast.West.Sun.COM!abyss.West.Sun.@@mvb.saic.com
Subject: Art & Millie of K6MYK
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (arog on BIX) writes:
>I  just talked with Art and Millie Gentry. Art is w6mep and I've forgotten
>Millie's call. These are the folks that put the first Los Angeles two-meter
>repater on the air in the mid.fifties and are very special folks to a lot
>of us that hung out there...
>
>Both are fine and only had modest damage to things... other than the
>kind of mess that happens when racks and such get slammed about by
>an earthquake.

Of course, the W6MEP repeater, known as the "Duck Mountain"
machine, was down for a few days until the site could be reached
and the errant PA fixed :-)

--
 * Dana H. Myers KK6JQ, DoD 466 | Views expressed here are *
 * [phone]   | mine and do not necessarily *
 * [e-mail] | reflect those of my employer *
 * This Extra supports the abolition of the 13 and 20 WPM tests *

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

Date: 28 Jan 1994 20:55:49 GMT
From: agate!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!sgiblab!sgigate.sgi.com!olivea!koriel!news2me.EBay.Sun.COM!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!webrider![e-mail]
Subject: Callbook Server
To: [e-mail]

I heard on a local repeater about a callsign server (also an ".edu" machne)
that would give you information about a callsign by sending email to it
with the callsign in the subject(?) line.  As I wasn't in a position to
jump into the conversation at the time and only caught part of it, does
anyone out there know about this and what the email address would be?

Thanks,

Steve


In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Jesse L Wei) writes:
> Shawn Conahan ([e-mail]) wrote:
> : Willie Smith writes:
>
> : >...Did the internet call book go away,...
>
> : No, it hasn't vanished, it can still be reached by telnet at
>
> : cc.buffalo.edu 2000
>
> : (notice the word "callsign" is omitted from the address).  73
> : --
> : Shawn T. Conahan, Ph.D.
> : N3CGT
> : [e-mail]
>
> Is it just me or does this really not work?   I have always used the other
> one, but I tried this out--
> callsign.cs.buffalo.edu 2000 works much better from here (considering that
> cs.buffalo.edu gives me an "unknown host" reply)
>
>



---
--
-- Steve Bunis,  Sun Microsystems  ***DoD #0795***   93-ST1100
--               Itasca, IL       ***AMA #682049***
--     ***HRCA #HM125617**
--        *** N9VLP ***

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

Date: 29 Jan 94 15:08:53 GMT
From: noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!BIX.com![e-mail]
Subject: Code tapes, looking for.
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Sluggo) writes:

>Am looking for code tapes in Pensacola, FL.  If anyone knows where
>where I can get same, please advise.  Also, is there code on
>instruction on CD?  Thanx.

I heartily recommend the ARRL tapes.  They really work.  They have tapes
for anyone from the rankest beginner (like I was!) to those working on
their Extra licenses.  Each tape progresses slowly, adding a new character
at a time (on the "Your Introduction to Morse Code" tape) or gradually
increasing the speed on the other tapes.  Except for one tape offered
with standard timing, everything is done with Farnsworth timing, meaning
the characters are sent at 18 wpm but spaced to give an overall lower
speed.

I started working with them around the end of December, spending a few
minutes here and few minutes there.  Not what you'd call a rigorous
schedule.  My starting point was knowing almost nothing.  Already, just
a month later, I'm finding I can copy quite solidly up to around 8 wpm
or so (I'm amazed to be able to say 5 wpm actually sounds SLOW now!) and
do pretty well (say 80% or so) copying up to around 10 to 13 wpm.  And
because the tapes have drilled me to recognize 18 wpm character timings,
I find I can even listen to the W1AW code bulletins (at 18 wpm) and
even recognize the characters as they go by (though I can't think fast
enough to translate that to writing them down or recognizing what the
words are at that rate.)

I'll be taking my Novice & Technician exams on the 7th; I'm now _totally_
comfortable knowing I can walk in and do it.

I really didn't expect to make anything like this sort of progress and I
do attribute it to the ARRL tapes.  I should mention I did also buy the
AMECO tapes (to try them also) and they were useless IMHO.  So there
really is a difference.

You can get the ARRL tapes direct from ARRL (look in QST) or from most
ham stores like Ham Radio Outlet.

Regards,
Doug Hamilton    [e-mail]    Ph 508-358-5715

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

Date: 29 Jan 94 20:19:12 GMT
From: psinntp!psinntp!arrl.org![e-mail]
Subject: Computing antenna coverage
To: [e-mail]

Pages 23-8 to 23-10 of the ARRL Antenna Book discuss this
for VHF.  The RSGB Microwave Handbook volume I and the
VHF/UHF DX book also have useful information on coverage.

Actually, coverage area for an antenna is misleading--it
ignores the capability of the equipment and the effect
atmospheric conditions have on propagation.

For example, there are long line of sight paths that
might be too long for the free space range of simple
wide bandwidth microwave gear.  On the other hand,
the coverage with 1500 watt transmitters and narrow
bandwidth sensitive receivers can be considerably
in excess of line of sight.

Matthew B Cravit ([e-mail]) wrote:
: A friend of mine asked me this question, and I do not know the answer.
: If one has an antenna (say a vertical or something, as opposed to a
: beam) that is x feet above ground level, how does one compute the
: approximate coverage area of that antenna (in square miles)? For
: example, see the following diagram
:   _
:   |  |
:   |  |
:   |  |
:   | _|_
:   |x | |
:   | | |
:   | | | Tower
:   | | |
:   | | |
:   | | |
:       ----------------------------------------Ground---------

: If we assume that the distance x is, say, 200 feet and that the ground
: around the antenna is relatively flat, is there a way to estimate the
: area of coverage for that antenna?

--
Zack Lau  KH6CP/1           2 way QRP WAS
                           8 States on 10 GHz
Internet: [e-mail]   10 grids on 2304 MHz

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

Date: Sat, 29 Jan 1994 15:00:48 GMT
From: library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!xlink.net!fauern!lrz-muenchen.de![e-mail]
Subject: CW filters and DSP-9 - morse1.jpg
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Gregory
Salyzyn) writes:
> [e-mail] (Matthias Rosenberger) writes:
>
> >According to the CW fiter discussion, I want to
> >supply some calcualtions shown in two pictures in following postings
> >based on a Fourier analysis of a morse signal of 10 times 'e':
> >00000101010101010101010100000
>
> Back to the drawing board, Matthias, 10 `e's is:
>
> 0001000100010001000100010001000100010001000
>

Ooops! You're right - I was wrong, but perhaps there will remain
some information of interest, however   :^)

Matthias
--
Matthias Rosenberger, Walter Schottky Institut, TU Muenchen
 email: [e-mail] (NeXTmail wellcome)





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

Date: 30 Jan 1994 10:55:25 -0800
From: nntp.crl.com!tcomeng.com!tcomeng.com![e-mail]
Subject: FCC Database Online For Calif.
To: [e-mail]

We're experimenting with providing free public-access to our Informix
database of FCC license information for radio transmitters located in
California.  The information should be accurate as of 09/30/93.  More
than 300,000 records are on file. Microwave, satellite, broadcast, and
cellular records are included as well as business and public safety.

Telnet to: tcomeng.com
Login:  fcc  (no password)

VT-100 terminal terminal emulation is required.  If there is enough
interest, we will enhance the query interface and support other
terminal types. You will need to carefully read the introduction in
order to successfully use the database.

This service is provided in the public interest by Telecommunications
Engineering Associates of South San Francisco, California.  Send comments
to [e-mail].
--
 Daryl Jones                                  [e-mail]
 Telecommunications Engineering Associates    {decwrl}!tcomeng!daryl
 South San Francisco, California              Phone: [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 30 Jan 1994 05:43:47 GMT
From: netcomsv!netcom.com![e-mail]
Subject: FTP site for Keps
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (ALEX LANE) writes:
>Gary R. Smith AA9JS posted a note asking about ftp sites for Keplerian
>elements, and I'd like to go further and ask:
>
>Does anyone know if there is a listserv mailing list one can subscribe
>to in order to obtain this info? My BBS doesn't have ftp capability.
>
>Thanks in advance.
>Cheers...
>+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
> Alex Lane  [phone]         |   [e-mail]
> The SpringsBoard BBS              |   KD6JJA
> Pagosa Springs, Colorado          |   "You *can* get here from there!"
>+----------------------------------------------------------------------+


Everyone is welcome to subscribe to the Boston Amateur Radio Club's
e-mail reflector of the ARRL's Bulletins, which includes Keps.

To subscribe, send a message to: [e-mail]

In the body of your message, type: subscribe w1aw-list

That's it!

For past keps sets, try anonymous ftp into World:
ftp world.std.com, cd pub/hamradio/BARC/w1aw-list/Keplerian-Data

73,
Scott, WY1Z


--
===============================================================================
| Scott Ehrlich         Internet: [e-mail]     BITNET: wy1z@NUHUB  |
| Amateur Radio: wy1z          AX.25: [e-mail]                    |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Maintainer of the Boston Amateur Radio Club hamradio FTP area on      |
|   the World - world.std.com  pub/hamradio               |
===============================================================================

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

Date: 28 Jan 1994 16:26:15 GMT
From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eff!linus!linus.mitre.org!mwvm.mitre.org![e-mail]
Subject: Help - your Vertical Ant. experences.
To: [e-mail]

Dan Bowker writes:
> I'm looking to buy this weekend a ground independent vertical for HF...
> What's your opinion on:
>    Cushcraft R5 (R7 too $)
>    Butternut HF6V ...

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Butternut
is very ground *dependent*. It needs either a very good ground
rod, radials, or both. The R5/R7, on the other hand, works best
when it's up high, away from the ground. A friend has the R7 and
swears by it; says it's the best vert. he's ever used. He runs low
power, and has still worked over 200 countries with it. I've never
heard anything bad about them. A beam is obviously better, but
if you can't hack a beam, an R5/R7 seems like a very good alternative.

Mike, N4PDY

*****************************
* These are my opinions only*
*****************************

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

Date: 27 Jan 1994 19:09:45 GMT
From: lll-winken.llnl.gov!overload.lbl.gov!agate!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!MathWorks.Com!uhog.mit.edu!xn.ll.mit.edu!hsdndev!dartvax.dartmouth.edu![e-mail]
Subject: How to "Convert" Ham Radio HyperCard Stack?
To: [e-mail]

There's an easy solution.  You're right, it does have to do with the
fact that you're using HyperCard (2.1), which is a newer version than
was used to make the original stack.

All you have to do is choose "Convert Stack" from the "File" menu.  If
the "File" menu isn't visible, type the "Apple" key and the spacebar at
the same time to make it show.  If you still have trouble, send me
E-mail and I'll help out.

Dan N1PNE
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jan 1994 15:57:11 GMT
From: ucsnews!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!sgigate.sgi.com!olivea!news.bu.edu!att-in!cbnewsm![e-mail]
Subject: Interesting and unique things people do in Amateur Radio
To: [e-mail]

I was talking to a fellow ham, KC6WYA Barry, and he was telling me
how he uses MIR's packet digipeater to work other hams around the
country. I thought that was kinda unique and started thinking about
other interesting things hams do in amateur radio. I've heard of
hams playing Dungeon and Dragons via packet radio, chess on HF,
weather on packet. Has anyone else heard or seen other interesting
things being done with amateur radio?

Jeff
--
 Jeff Jones  AB6MB         | Vote out those who voted for the North American
 [e-mail]   | Free Trade Agreement!
 Infolinc BBS 510-778-5929 |

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jan 1994 16:19:51 GMT
From: microsoft!wingnut![e-mail]
Subject: New Jersey Tax on Radio Transmitters?
To: [e-mail]

What ever resulted from the public hearing that
New Jersey was to have held a week or to ago?

Prior to the public hearing there was all sorts
of wild stories floating around the net. Now that
we are past the first hearing, what happened?

Ed Mitchell
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
"These opinions are my own and not the property of my
employer who has no responsibility for me or my
mouth."

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

Date: Sun, 30 Jan 1994 05:19:49 GMT
From: netcomsv!netcom.com![e-mail]
Subject: Yaesu FT-416 MODS wanted!
To: [e-mail]

Hello everyone,
    I am desperately trying to find the FT-416 MODS.  Could somebody
please post them here or give me an address where I can FTP them?  I
tried World.std.com, but I don't want to pay to use it.

Any help would be appreciated.
Chris
KC4VTT Tech +

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

Date: Mon, 31 Jan 1994 01:44:39 GMT
From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!iat.holonet.net![e-mail]
Subject: Your experiences on 40 meter CW QRP
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Clark Savage Turner) writes:

>In <2ie8ki$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andrew M. Cohn) writes:

>>If you work 40 meter CW, with 5 watts or less, and use less than ideal
>>antennas (no beams, dipoles or rhombics, etc), I would like to hear about
>>your experiences. No...I'm not writing a book; I just want to know what
>>I can expect before investing in a QRP station!

>Hello Andy:

>It is really hard to predict what sort of experience you will have with
>QRP from your QTH.  Really hard.  I have had a lot of luck, even with
>a mobile whip on the car using QRP.  You muse realistic, but also
>know that things can happen with QRP that others just won't beleve.

[discreet cuts]

>40 CW is really interesting.  The antenna is the key, not really the power.
>5 watts is plenty for most contacts under a lot of circumstances.  My only
>advice to you is to very carefully consider the sort of antenna you will
>use.  A good dipole, even shortened, up 20 feet or more should be fin.

>Clark
>WA3JPG

5 watts really can be a lot of power.  I've been building a rig based on
rick Campbell's R2 receiver (jan. 1993 QST).  I really wasn't so much
interested in QRP as in the pride of homebrew, but along the way I was
surprised to have lots of nice ragchews where I expected to be fighting
for a decent report.  Daytime ragchews with the retired old timers have
been best -- good luck at night also, but folks don't want to ragchew.
I'm feeding a horizontal loop cut for 80 meters -- the more wire the
better, as a general rule!

I will probably still build a 100 watt or so amplifier somewhere along the
way, but it will now be used only when truly needed!

John K0JD

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

Date: Sat, 29 Jan 1994 14:30:04 GMT
From: library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!wa4mei.ping.com!ke4zv![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Reply-To : [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject : Re: why 29.94 fps?

In article <[e-mail]> Ed Ellers <[e-mail]> writes:
><[e-mail]> writes:
>
>>Most every little two-bit local station now has frame synchronizers these days
>>I think the least expensive ones are only a few thousand dollars now.  If so,
>>their colorburst frequency is set by their local reference, and not the
>>network.  Also some cable systems use processing which destroys the burst
>>integrity.  therefore, don't count on this way of calibrating your frequency
>>counter....
>
>Dunno about the others, but NBC provides its OWN frame synchronizers to each
>affiliate as part of their KU-band downlink package.  So that's one item down
>right there.

If this wasn't clear, the NBC provided frame sync uses the local station's
generator as it's reference. However, there is one NBC provided frame sync
and 4 NBC provided receivers, so only one of the downlinks can be using
the frame sync at a time. The local station engineers have control of that
via their Fluke touchscreen terminal. At times they may wish to use the
frame sync for their own purposes while airing network "raw", or through
one of their other in house frame syncs, or from one of the other receiver
channels. For example WXIA-TV delay broadcasts _Friday Night_ an hour
later than the East coast feed on K2-1. So they use the 2E receiver to
pick up the Mountain feed on K2-9 and air that through one of their own
in house frame syncs while leaving the NBC frame sync on the 1R receiver
from which they are taping another program for a different delayed broadcast.

Worse, some stations use a frame sync on their output line as a final
TBC and proc amp. So everything transmitted is referenced to whatever
timing source drives that frame sync's reference input. This is sometimes
done at the transmitter site using a local sync generator. A good reason
to do this is to protect the transmitter from ever being fed a signal
with no sync. (That makes transmitters very unhappy since it sets their
duty cycle to 100% CW. A frame sync always outputs sync, even if it has
no input signal.) A Grass Valley 900 proc amp can do the same thing,
but as has been noted, frame syncs are so cheap now that proc amps
are obsolete.

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: 25 Jan 1994 05:49:58 GMT
From: unogate!news.service.uci.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!sgigate.sgi.com!olivea!koriel!male.EBay.Sun.COM!newscast.West.Sun.COM!abyss.West.Sun.@@mvb.saic.com
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>.reston.
Subject : Re: Ramsey FX Transceivers

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeff Liebermann) writes:
>
>4.  Consistancy is difficult to achieve.  This is because of
>accumulated component tolerances.  Volume manufacturers compensate
>for this with incoming inspection, grading, post-assembly
>component value selection, and statistical performance analysis.
>A small kit manufacturer cannot do any of these economically.
>What it usually done is to use low gain, low impedance, inefficient,
>and broad band design with a large number of adjustments to compensate
>for component and construction variables.  The result is increased
>cost.

C'mon, another way to deal with component and construction variation
is to provide tune-up instructions and methods to compensate for
the tolerances.  Ramsey does neither.

>6.  The Ramsey kits are not state of the art, high quality,
>or a fabulous bargain.  They are adequate for the purpose intended:
>a kit for those that still believe that radio construction is a
>part of ham radio and that believe they may profit from the
>experience.

Yeah, if people just built them for the experience, that would be
one thing.  But people get the impression they can put those radios
on the air and use them like a normal radio, too.

--
 * Dana H. Myers KK6JQ, DoD 466 | Views expressed here are *
 * [phone]   | mine and do not necessarily *
 * [e-mail] | reflect those of my employer *
 * This Extra supports the abolition of the 13 and 20 WPM tests *

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

Date: 25 Jan 1994 05:46:03 GMT
From: unogate!news.service.uci.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!sgigate.sgi.com!olivea!koriel!male.EBay.Sun.COM!newscast.West.Sun.COM!abyss.West.Sun.@@mvb.saic.com
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <2ht0ia$[e-mail]>xa
Subject : Re: Ramsey FX Transceivers

In article <2ht0ia$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes:
>[e-mail] (Jeff Liebermann) writes:
>
>[ Lots of good common sense arguments deleted for brevity ]
>
>>6.  The Ramsey kits are not state of the art, high quality,
>>or a fabulous bargain.  They are adequate for the purpose intended:
>>a kit for those that still believe that radio construction is a
>>part of ham radio and that believe they may profit from the
>>experience.
>
>Exactly. I picked up a pair of Ramsey's (2m, 440) to run on packet. Why?
>For one, it seemed silly to buy an all-singing all-dancing 400 memory PL
>rig just to wire down onto one frequency for packet. The Ramsey kit is
>easily interfaced to a packet modem.

I agree it doesn't make sense to put a general purpose radio on packet.
For one thing. most general purpose radios are too prone to desense
and/or intermod from other radios in the shack (I run VHF packet,
VHF and HF voice/data).  I use a Motorola MCX100 for packet, I have
a Motorola Maxar-80 set up that is on loan to a high-level BBS, I
have a GE Custom MVP with GaAsFET amplifier as a backup radio.
Guess what?  I spent under $60 on each radio, including buying the
manual from the manufacturer.  I had the experience of tinkering
with well-built, high-performance radios.  An FX-440, for example,
is de-sensed by anything transmitting below 440MHz.

>As for price, the Ramsey kit is marginally less expensive than a comparable
>single band radio WITH THE SAME FEATURES. I defy you to find a commercially
>manufactured 2m (or 440) rig, with as few features as the Ramsey, to compare
>the price to. When you do, *then* we'll argue about the relative expense of
>the Ramsey kit.

Well, I've pointed out three radios that are far superior to the
Ramsey FX-146, and I bought all of them for under the cost of one
Ramsey FX-146 and cabinet.

>I agree that the front end on the Ramsey kit is wider than it should be.
>I was aware of this from the outset. Prior to buying it, I asked around
>about it's good and bad points. If you did not do this, that's your problem.
>It should be noted that the 2m kit comes with an addendum that states
>quite plainly that the 2m kit is prone to intermod, and provides alternate
>component values for the front-end filter that will tighten things up. I'm
>not sympathetic at all to the whining about wide front-ends' since this
>whining almost always comes from the same people that want DC-to-daylight
>coverage.

The UHF kit has no warning that normal component tolerances can render
the radio deaf; the one I sampled requires 50mV for a useful quieting
at 446Mhz.

>One thing about the Ramsey kit that does interest me is the PLL design. It
>appears to be able to lock up quickly after large frequency shifts. I'm
>curious to see if this can be exploited to run frequency-hopping spread
>spectrum. Not being an RF guru I might well be on drugs, but that's another
>reason why I bought a kit - there is enough room (and design documentation)
>in the kit that I can get my fat fingers in there and try out my ideas.

The method to generate useful SS is either by DDS frequency hopping
or I/Q modulated carrier.  PLL approach to SS is doomed to relatively
few hops/second and/or considerable "bounce" in the desired frequency.

>It's a shame that the Amateur Experimental Service has turned into the
>Amateur Appliance Service.

It is a shame amateurs won't take advantage of readily available
high-quality surplus to use as a platform for experimentation and spend
considerable effort defending junk radios that don't even come up to the
performance standards of a Part 15 cordlesst telephone. :-)


--
 * Dana H. Myers KK6JQ, DoD 466 | Views expressed here are *
 * [phone]   | mine and do not necessarily *
 * [e-mail] | reflect those of my employer *
 * This Extra supports the abolition of the 13 and 20 WPM tests *

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

End of Info-Hams Digest V94 #94
******************************
******************************