QRZ! Ham Radio 3/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 3.iso/digests/infoham/940385.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-06-04 | 24KB

Date: Wed,  6 Apr 94 16:07:20 PDT
From: Info-Hams Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: Info-Hams Digest V94 #385
To: Info-Hams


Info-Hams Digest            Wed,  6 Apr 94       Volume 94 : Issue  385

Today's Topics:
                             73 (2 msgs)
          [News]  NOAA/NWS To Expand Weather Radio Coverage
                          Cable channel 18..
          Conn. Commission: ARRL Discriminates Against Gays
            Forwarding: PCBoard Artwork and LASER Printers
                         FT-530 DC CONNECTOR
                         Gammer and speeling
                      heinous operating (2 msgs)
                Heinous operating techniques (AGAIN!)
       How phasing SSB Exciters Work (Was:  RF and AF speech pr
           Password=?/for callsign.cs.buffalo.edu (2 msgs)
                 STOP SENDING HAMS ON USENET CRAP !!!

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: 6 Apr 94 17:00:34 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!charnel!psgrain!news.tek.com!gvgpsa.gvg.tek.com!gold.gvg.tek.com!gold![e-mail]
Subject: 73
To: [e-mail]

Recently
>|David R. Tucker         KG2S        8P9CL            [e-mail]|
replied to the "73's" war thread:

>It's not confusing or ambiguous.  If you don't like it, don't use it.  But
>if someone foregoes the simple substitution you happen to use, and
>says "seventy-threes" on a repeater, what's the big deal?

Oh David, poor David,

You really do miss the point don't you.
It's not a linguistic issue at all,
it's a religious issue, and you'll never
win that one by using logic.

73

Grover


************************************************************************
* Grover Cleveland                                WT6P@KE6LW.#NOCAL.CA *
* Instructional Designer                               v(916) 478-3153 *
* The Grass Valley Group Inc. - A Tektronix Company    f(916) 478-3831 *
* Grass Valley, California                                    DoD 7388 *
************************************************************************

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

Date: Wed, 6 Apr 94 17:25:39 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!nott!dgbt!clark.dgim.doc.ca![e-mail]
Subject: 73
To: [e-mail]

Russell Lee ([e-mail]) wrote:

: Yes, I think you are quite correct. *73* should not have an *s* nor a
: *best* or *very*.  Whats all this nonsense with *KN* when *K* is
: all thats needed?   73
: --
: Russell Lee     G6GL

There is a difference between "K" and "KN".  "KN" signifies 'over to you
only' whereas "K" signifies "over to you' and any other station is invited
to break in.

Jim, VE3XJ

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

Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 17:00:59 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!darwin.sura.net!rsg1.er.usgs.gov!dgg.cr.usgs.gov![e-mail]
Subject: [News]  NOAA/NWS To Expand Weather Radio Coverage
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
|> Since I live in the area of the tornados, I'll say that Al Gore doesn't
|> know what he's talking about. (no surprise) The area of the tornados
|> is served well by 3 NWS stations, and numerous broadcast stations tied
|> to the EBS system. The problem is that people weren't listening to the
|> warnings being issued.
|>...
|> (When some regional reporting station relayed over your local
|> NWS automated transmitter is saying partly cloudy, and you've
|> got 4 inches of partly cloudy on the ground and more falling,
|> you begin to lose confidence in the system.)
|>
|> Gary

More people should buy weather alert weather radios.  In tornado weather,
I monitor TV, weather radio (NOAA) and the ham/civil defense spotters.  It
is scary sometimes when you consider the delays.  The typical delay between
when the spotter(s) verify the tornado on the ground and when the NOAA
station sounds the alert can be 1-2 minutes.  I have seen 10 minute delays
between when it is sighted and when a tornado warning is broadcast on TV.

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

Date: Wed, 6 Apr 94 13:29:22 -0500
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!gatech!news.byu.edu!news.mtholyoke.edu!nic.umass.edu!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com![e-mail]
Subject: Cable channel 18..
To: [e-mail]

Aaron Smith <[e-mail]> writes:

> I don't know how much this has been discussed here, but I would like to
>know what I can do about our cable system. There is a real bad cable leak
>in our town. If I tune to 145.25 while in my car, I can even hear their
>continuous carrier, thats how bad it is.. Who do I talke to or contact
>about getting this problem fixed? Whenever someone transmits they get
>into everyones channel 18 in about a half mile radius. Noone has really
>complained to the cable company yet, probably because here it's a pay
>station (PASS.. joy) and I don't think many people subscribe to it..

I agree with Tony -- cable systems these days are positively paranoid about
"egress" problems because the FCC has been cracking down hard on operators
that don't fix their leaks.  When you call be sure to ask for the chief
technician (they say "technician" in the cable biz, not "engineer" as in
broadcasting) and tell him whatever you can about where you heard the carrier.

-- Ed Ellers, KD4AWQ

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

Date: 6 Apr 1994 15:30:03 -0400
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.ans.net!hp81.prod.aol.net!search01.news.aol.com![e-mail]
Subject: Conn. Commission: ARRL Discriminates Against Gays
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:

Too long to reprint, but the article said that the ARRL discriminates against
gays.

Well good for the ARRL!  Ham radio is not about somebody's sexual orientation.
It is about a radio hobby.  I am getting sick and tired to the gays throwing
their lifestyle in my face.  I sure don't want them pushing their lifestyle
into my hobby.  I don't push my lifestyle into theirs.

ARRL, thanks for standing up to the radicals!  Keep up the fight!

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

Date: 6 Apr 94 17:36:32 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Forwarding: PCBoard Artwork and LASER Printers
To: [e-mail]

From: David Shalita:ES AE:Xerox
Sender: D.R. Shalita:ES AE:Xerox
Subject: PCBoard Artwork and LASER Printers
Date: 6-April-94 (Wednesday) 8:17:55 PDT
Answer to: David Shalita:ES AE:Xerox
In reply to: D.R. Shalita:ES AE:Xerox

Note: Hi,
I'm attempting to make at home, small PCBoard artwork for QRP
and Homebrew projects using TONER TRANSFER IRON-ON mylar
film products. I am a PADS Shareware User, and now will also
try using EASYTRAX to generate the PCBoard artwork files.

Just as I am getting started;
My old dot matrix printer died, so MUST purchase a replacement
printer. This will be my personal printer, so on small budget,
am trying to purchase the most capable compatible printer
my dollars will buy.

A Laser Printer is a must since I will be using the IRON-ON toner
transfer materials. Am I correct in assuming that less costly
INKJET printers are not usable, unless I copied every PCBoard
image onto the IRON-ON sheets on a plain paper copier....knowing
that there will be inaccuracies from copying?

An HP 4L (1 mbyte ram) or an EPSON ACTION LASER 1500 (1 mbyte ram)
seem to be 2 possible affordable printers. I am concerned that
both printers may not have enough ram memory for PCBoard
artwork and GIF files for fun.

My PCBoard files from PADS seem to be around 240 kbytes when
output using the HPIIP mode. GIF files seem to be from 80 to
700 kbytes. Ram memory versus file size....?

Is anyone out there doing PCBoard artwork on either of these LASERS
or an other brand that is equivalent or less expensive and equally
usable?

Another question.
What software will work to do the INVERTING of the arwork image?
I do not see that capability in PADS and am not sure with EASYTRAX.
Some Shareware Paint program?

Any thoughts will be very helpful.

Thanks and 73
Dave w6mik

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

Date: 6 Apr 94 21:31:10 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: FT-530 DC CONNECTOR
To: [e-mail]

I made a mistake in my previous post...
The part number for the connector is E-DC-6
And Yeasu's phone number is [phone]

Sorry for any inconvenience...

Pierre

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

Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 13:54:21 GMT
From: emba-news.uvm.edu!griffin.emba.uvm.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Gammer and speeling
To: [e-mail]

Yes, yoous guys are right on. Yous see I have a bad editor and just
am not eble to make me postings come out right.

Besudes yous can't persecute me.. I got A in enish at collage.

I steel think hams cant speel to gud.

--
            ******** Gary E. Davis***** WQ1F *****
 The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the
 palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.-H.L.Mencken

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

Date: 6 Apr 94 18:45:21 GMT
From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!pacbell.com!att-out!cbnewsh![e-mail]
Subject: heinous operating
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (John Boteler) wrote:
>[e-mail] (Dan Ostroy ) writes:
>>One alternative, simply keying up and making a transmission,
>>more often than not,
>>results in even more wasted time.

>Why? I have heard an argument similar to yours for
>using "Here is" or a variant, but I need to know
>why transmitting only a callsign results in
>more wasted time than a transmission, a pause,
>and another transmission.

Well, I'll take a shot at an explanation.  Try this scenario: 4 stations
(A through D) each want to check in and each has 2 or 3 traffic items to
list.

A and B both key up at the same time, give their calls, and go straight
into listing their traffic.  Both are about equal signal strength, so
no one really gets through.  A only had 2 to list so he stops first.
Then the tail end of B is heard, listing his third piece of traffic, but
no one knows who he was.  When he is done,  C and D commence, and the same
thing happens.  After them, maybe a few more stations would try to checkin.
To prevent chaos, the Net control would have to step in after every few
stations to get repeats on what he had missed.  This is the scenario
I had in mind by "more often than not, ...even more wasted time."

The argument was given that the stronger station will be heard
over the weaker.  My observation has been that the dueling stations
are evenly matched nearly half the time, and neither is intelligible.

Don't get me wrong.  I don't want to be in the position of defending
the practice, but I have observed that "here is" seems to work.
It appears to enable more stations to check in before the net control
has to come back, and that makes for better efficiency.

One net I know of has developed the practice of saying "good evening Joe",
dropping the carrier, then proceeding with callsign and traffic list.
(Assuming Joe is the name of the net control station.)  Hard to believe
how annoying it is to hear "good evening Joe" thirty or forty times.

I'm not sure how your net works on 147.18; does each station check in
with only a callsign, then wait for the net control to come back later and
ask if he has anything to list?  If this is the case, then certainly it
makes no sense to put "here is" before the call, if the call is all you
are sending.   But if the initial call also includes an info list of
some variable length, then my A-D scenario above seems like a real strong
possibility.

--
Dan Ostroy                                                         - K2UL -
AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ  USA  908-949-5922             [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Apr 94 21:03:31 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!fc.hp.com![e-mail]
Subject: heinous operating
To: [e-mail]

Dan Ostroy ([e-mail]) wrote:

> Well, I'll take a shot at an explanation.  Try this scenario: 4 stations
> (A through D) each want to check in and each has 2 or 3 traffic items to
> list.

So what's wrong with using the method I mentioned earlier (check-in via
suffix), plus adding either "with traffic" or "no traffic"?

You SHOULD NOT be listing each and every piece of traffic separately at
check-in; this DOES waste time, possibly delaying someone with more important
traffic than yours (which would be flagged at check-in something like, "EW,
emergency traffic" and presumably net control is enough on the ball to drop
everything else and take your traffic first).  Only after the stations are
recognized and net control is trying to get the traffic routing sorted
out would you be asked for the gory details.

Our local traffic net uses a slight modification of this; since local traffic
that is outbound almost always is being sent to a regional net (in our case,
the Twelfth Region Net), a station with such traffic is encouraged to simply
use something like "EW, for Twelfth Region Net" or even better "EW, for TWN"
when checking in.

If your net control prefers to know how big a load he or she is dealing with,
then your check-in might be "EW with 2" or some such in place of the
simple "with traffic".  But in any event, I've always though that the
"This is" practice is an utter abomination.  If they can hear the "This is",
they would also hear your suffix; if they don't hear it, you still haven't
prevented doubling.  The goal is to use the time/bandwidth EFFICIENTLY.


Bob Myers  KC0EW   Hewlett-Packard Co.     |Opinions expressed here are not
                   Advanced Systems Div.   |those of my employer or any other
[e-mail]    Fort Collins, Colorado  |sentient life-form on this planet.

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

Date: 6 Apr 94 13:58:28
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Heinous operating techniques (AGAIN!)
To: [e-mail]

>Thank you for elegantly proving my argument for me.

>Why double the check-in time in the first place
>with an extraneous phrase? Efficient communications
>demand deleting extraneous verbiage and cutting
>to the core of the message.

Efficiaent communications also demands standardization. This works quite
well for our net. I guess your mileage may vary. It doesn't double the
check-in time. On the Southeastern Michigan Traffic Net, stations checking
in have additional information beyond their callsigns to give NCS (no traffic,
traffic for so-and-so, etc.). If we didn't require this little check for
doubling, there would be many more repeats on information needed. We've had
people do it both ways, and the "this is" method has proven to be the better
method.

I guess you should use whatever works. This works for us.

--Steve, N8HSC
  Retired Net Manager, SEMTN.

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

Date: 6 Apr 94 19:02:30 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!srgenprp![e-mail]
Subject: How phasing SSB Exciters Work (Was:  RF and AF speech pr
To: [e-mail]

David Hough ([e-mail]) wrote:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alan Bloom) writes:

> >I have often thought, though, that the Weaver method would be well-suited
> >to implementation in a DSP, since you can get mathematically perfect
> >carrier suppression.

> Not sure if it is the most efficient way though, and you are limited in your
> output frequency - or were you only thinking of doing the audio stages in the
> DSP and converting the 'mixed' output back to analogue for injection into
> the RF mixers?

I figured you could do it at a low "RF" frequency of a few 10's of kHz
and then heterodyne it up to the radio's IF frequency.

David Stockton ([e-mail]) wrote:

: David Hough ([e-mail]) wrote:
: : Why not use a Weaver (Third Method) exciter?   ...

:    This avoids the need for broadband (multi-octave) phase shifters but
: still leaves the need for precise amplitude matching to get accurate
: cancellation of the unwanted sideband. The required amplitude and phase
: matching to get comparable suppression to a reasonable quality filter
: exciter are both severe. You can adjust to get best cancellation, but
: this still needs it to be stable and for all frequencies to cancel at
: the same position of the adjuster.

Except that the "unwanted sideband" does not fall into an adjacent
channel as it does with the "first" and "second" methods of SSB generation.
Since the unwanted sideband folds back into the wanted sideband, poor
rejection shows up as audio distortion, rather than adjacent-channel
interference.  A Weaver SSB generator should achieve around 40 dB
suppression which amounts to around 1% distortion.  I think that's
rather better than most SSB rigs currently achieve.

:    An attractive compromise is to use a phasing source (polyphase
: network, weaver or whatever) to get modest suppression of the unwanted
: sideband, the clipper section of the RF speech processor, and finally a
: wide-ish lower than usual filter.  We get the sum of the suppression
: factors of the two systems,
         ... less the amount of clipping used.
If the phasing generator has 30 dB suppression, there is 20 dB of clipping,
and the post-clipping filter has 30 dB suppression, you get a total of
40 dB suppression, not 60.  However I agree it shouldn't be hard to get
such a system to be plenty good enough.

AL N1AL

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

Date: 6 Apr 1994 18:52:08 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!emory!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!haven.umd.edu!cs.umd.edu!newsfeed.gsfc.nasa.gov!bolt.gsfc.nasa.gov![e-mail]
Subject: Password=?/for callsign.cs.buffalo.edu
To: [e-mail]

Got in, but then did not know password! Not welcome! Dick

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

Date: 6 Apr 1994 19:25:15 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!news.uiowa.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Password=?/for callsign.cs.buffalo.edu
To: [e-mail]

In note <[e-mail]>, RICHARD_BOLT@CCMAIL.
GSFC.NASA.GOV (Dick Bolt) writes:
>Got in, but then did not know password! Not welcome! Dick
If you just want the callsign server telnet to callsign.cs.buffalo.edu 2000.
No password is required on that port. However the 'buffalo' callsign server is
from April 1993 and is out of date. There is a more up to date server (October
1993) at pc.usl.edu 2000. Both servers work exactly the same.

---
_________________________________________
The opinions in this post are mine and my cat's, not my employer's.
[e-mail]  (Scott F. Migaldi)

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

Date: 31 Mar 1994 16:18:11 +1000
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!munnari.oz.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!news.adelaide.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!metro!news.ci.com.au!eram.esi.com.au![e-mail]
Subject: STOP SENDING HAMS ON USENET CRAP !!!
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,
    [e-mail] (Dick Hissink) writes:

| It happens again and again. Every couple of weeks six tremendous large
| files with AMATEURS ON USENET. This times each part from the six even

Every couple of weeks?  I doubt it.

| AMATEURS ON USENET: Those interested can download the latest updated
| version by ftp form server....

Excuse me, but USENET does not necessarily imply access to FTP etc.

| What do Y'all think of my idea??

I could go along with reducing the frequency of the postings, or perhaps
confining them to rec.radio.info.  I guess you get this via a mailing list,
right?

--
Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU)    VK2KFU @ VK2AAB.NSW.AUS.OC     PGP 2.3
[e-mail]           ...munnari!esi.COM.AU!dave    available

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

Date: 6 Apr 94 18:21:28 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!fc.hp.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <bote.765267957@access1>, <[e-mail]>, <bote.765611050@access3>
Subject : Re: Heinous operating techniques (AGAIN!)

John Boteler ([e-mail]) wrote:
> Yes, the smart operator knows how to eliminate
> inefficient practices such as "This is" and
> get right to the job at hand. He does not
> need to vary the length of "This is" because
> such a mechanism is already in place: his
> callsign, which could require less time to say,
> such as "NF3I", or more time to say, such as
> "KA6WWY".

Even in the latter case, there's no need to take the longer time; the
practice only shows up in such situations as net check-in, in which case
the full legal ID isn't needed.  KA6WWY could just check in as "WWY" on the
first go-round, and when net control gets back around to acknowledging
the check-ins either note the full call (if recognized) or ask for the
full call (if it wasn't).  For example, I might participate in the
following exchange when checking into the local traffic net:

"N0XXX, net control, now taking check-ins for the Northern Colorado Traffic
Net...."

"EW"

"EW, net control"

"KC0EW, Bob, Loveland, no traffic"

Or if net control recognizes the call (or maybe just my voice):

"Recognize KC0EW...Bob, any traffic?"

"No traffic"

...since control already in this case knows who and where I am.  If I had
emergency traffic, of course, I would certainly state that as early
as possible - probably when first checking in.

There's NOTHING more frustrating than trying to sort out three overlapping
attempts at checking in, each of which consisted solely of "This is"! :-)


Bob Myers  KC0EW   Hewlett-Packard Co.     |Opinions expressed here are not
                   Advanced Systems Div.   |those of my employer or any other
[e-mail]    Fort Collins, Colorado  |sentient life-form on this planet.

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

Date: (null)
From: (null)
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ 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       +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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

End of Info-Hams Digest V94 #385
******************************
******************************