QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/infoham/940129.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 26.0 KB

Date: Wed,  9 Feb 94 22:28:28 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 #129
To: Info-Hams


Info-Hams Digest            Wed,  9 Feb 94       Volume 94 : Issue  129

Today's Topics:
                        A code speed question
                   Anyone Hear from Space Shuttle?
                                 exit
                           FCC.GOV on-line
               Illegal Activities of Dominique Cormann
                            Law changing?
                           QSLing via F6FNU
                        Ramsey FX Transceivers
                               RCLUS...

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: 7 Feb 1994 09:50:53 GMT
From: pacbell.com!sgiblab!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!xlink.net!scsing.switch.ch!swidir.switch.ch!univ-lyon1.fr![e-mail]
Subject: A code speed question
To: [e-mail]

Bob,

Bob Engberg ([e-mail]) wrote:

: When I studied for my Extra and Commercial licenses. I used a PC with
: random code groups.  I pushed it to a speed that I couldn't copy 100%.
: I also listened to W1AW.  There is no way I can write down 30/35 wpm but
: I discovered I could "see it in my mind's eye" .  Just a little at first,
: then more as I continued to practice.  After listening and copying about
: 75% at the high speeds, 20 wpm seemed slow.  One other trick: I recoreded
: W1AW on tape and played it back.  Of course, after a few playbacks, you
[...]

 Ok for copying at high speeds. But what is W1AW ? Unfortunately, first I'm
in France, and second I have yet no decametric transceiver ! So, I guess I'll
try with my computer programs at very fast speeds, but first, I would say
I must finish to learn all letters and signs at 14 wpm !

 Thanks to everybody that replied !

 And 73 from Paris !

 Vince.

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

Date: 08 Feb 1994 18:55:41 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!sdd.hp.com!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!news.bbn.com!news![e-mail]
Subject: Anyone Hear from Space Shuttle?
To: [e-mail]

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

   Has anyone heard the shuttle on 2mtrs? With 3 hams out there and
   a broken satellite, perhaps they have some time on their hands.
   Or just too busy trying to fix it.  Where Do I listen? 145.55?

I've heard them transmitting packet Saturday and Sunday (I'm pretty
sure it was them -- I don't copy 1200 wpm in my head that well -- but
they came in and faded out at the right times).  I didn't hear anything
yesterday or this morning, though.

Listen on 145.55.  Do NOT transmit on that frequency.  If you hear
them on voice, call on one of
  144.91    144.97
  144.93    144.99
  144.95
but you'll have to guess which one.  If you hear them on packet, call
W5RRR-1 on 144.49.  Again, do NOT transmit on .55.

(On the other hand, Russian space station MIR is still up and the hams
on board do use 145.55 for both voice and packet, and they operate
simplex.  Confusing, isn't it?)

Hope this helped

        /JBL KD1ON
=
Nets: [e-mail]  |
pots: [phone]  |                                      "I gotta go."
ARS:  KD1ON          |                                            -- I. Shoales

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

Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 18:19:07 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!sdd.hp.com!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!ukma!rsg1.er.usgs.gov!dgg.cr.usgs.gov![e-mail]
Subject: exit
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
|> help... I think I'm in but ??? Bob, VE7ZP
                                  ^^^
                  Bobbit?

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

Date: 9 Feb 94 05:57:01 GMT
From: psinntp!psinntp!pixar![e-mail]
Subject: FCC.GOV on-line
To: [e-mail]

[I think it bounced the first time I posted this message. Sorry if it repeats.]

I was able to get e-mail through to the system manager at FCC.GOV today.
FCC now has their own system on the Internet. Expect them to be listening,
too :-) .

Since it takes a lot of work to configure a new system on the net,
I suggest we not flood their system manager with mail, but wait a month
or two until he announces what services are available.

    Bruce Perens
--

--
Bruce Perens AB6YM [e-mail] 510-215-3502

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

Date: 8 Feb 1994 13:11:17 -0500
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!sdd.hp.com!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.intercon.com!udel!news.sprintlink.net!news.dorsai.org!news.dorsai.org![e-mail]
Subject: Illegal Activities of Dominique Cormann
To: [e-mail]

I'll admit to not having followed this thread, (not really my fault, the
host was down all weekend and some postings got lost to the cyberspace bit
bucket).

I've seen Ms. Cormann's posting on every net I get here, and I get 5 of
them.  While I really didn't pay attention to it, I did notice the 11 meter
linear, (if there was anything else that was illegal on the list, I don't
remember or care).

It seems that the only place where some selfrighteous individual took
offense to the linear offer was here on the infamous Usenet.  Well to that
person I say, put your money where your mouth is!  If you don't want such
an illegal device sold to an CBer, then outbid for it yourself and modify
the circut back to 10 meter capabilities.  What would it take?  Snapping
off the extenting loops from the coils and reattaching the lead wires?

I get sick and tired of some of the god playing, government enforcing
a--holes around here who think they have to police the spectrum and save
other hams from the temptation of using illegal equipment.

Actually it makes me feel good that a few repliers had the good sense of
satire when replying what looked like surportive statements.  It sort of
makes me remember when back on Prodigy we had a guy who would deliberately
bait those radio-cops with requests for 80Kw linears and dishes large
enough to direct a 2m signal to Europe.  We all knew Scott was puting out
a parody, but we all got reals laughs at the replies he would get from
members who took him seriously.

Now what was this other micro byte of history about a 5kw AM transmitter
for use on the ham bands?  Hell if he keeps the power down below 900 watts
or 2.2Kw P.E.P. on sideband, he's still legal no matter what kind of
transmitter he's got.  Hell, with that modulation transformer, he'd really
sound good on AM, provided he wants to foot the electric bill, (broadcast
transmitters are notoriously inefficient, especially at low power).


 < ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>
 <                         "Big Steve" Coletti                         >
 <         Shortwave Listener, Broadcaster, Computer Consultant        >
 <                      and all around nice guy                        >
 < Internet: [e-mail] ==== [e-mail] >
 <   UUCP: [e-mail] ==== [e-mail]   >
 <    Fidonet: 1:278/712  US Mail: P.O. Box 396, New York, NY 10002    >
 <                        Voice: [phone]                       >
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 18:17:51 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!csn!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!news.csuohio.edu!garfield.csuohio.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Law changing?
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Michael G. Beck) writes:
: When I was perusing the HRO catalog, on the top of a page that was
: advertising Receivers it said "Get Them before the Law changes!"
:
: My question is - What Law, and how is it going to change?
:
Probably referring to the fact that after April (26th.?) 1994
scanners with cellular reception or that are easily cellular-modifiable
will no longer be approved for manufacture by the FCC, and will no
longer be allowed to be imported from outside the US.  Manufacturers
and Retail stores (like Radio Shock) WILL still be allowed to sell their
remaining stock of those scanners after that date, they just cannot
manufacture them.  Also, it is (as I understand it) still NOT illegal
to own such a scanner, or to modify an existing scanner.  It is however
illegal to listen in on cellular phone conversations with such
a scanner.  Beware of the marketing hype as we approach April.  Plenty
of electronics hucksters are more than willing to scare you into
buying a "pre-Law" scanner.  There will be plenty around for some
time after April, I am sure, not to mention used ones for sale.
It will in my opinion be a while till they become a rarity.

Mike

--
^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v
Mike Mayer, Senior Technical Support Engineer       Amateur Radio KB8RJO T+
Visual Numerics, Inc.  32915 Aurora Rd.  Suite 160, Solon OH  44139  USA
Email: [e-mail]   Human: 216-248-4900     Fax: [phone]
v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^ Catch the WAVE v^v^v^

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

Date: 9 Feb 1994 18:41:47 GMT
From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!news.larc.nasa.gov!eos1.larc.nasa.gov![e-mail]
Subject: QSLing via F6FNU
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>F6FNU has been dumped on by many hams regarding his QSL practices, but if
>you follow his rules, he is 100 percent reliable and quick, too. Don't waste
>your time using the bureau with F6FNU, and don't waste your time complaining
>about his rules if you want a card from him! :-)  If it's been more than
>six months and you want a card, try anyway. Others have gotten cards from
>him beyond the six month period. The SAE/US$2/no IRC/no buro is hard and
>fast with him, though.
>
>73,
>Scott WO1G

Nope...I've had 100% return from F6FNU also, but have never enclosed more
than US$1 per card.  He's always returned the cards using reduced-rate
airmail (note the cut corners on the envelope) which costs him well
under $1.00 ($0.40 or so the last time I looked at the exchange rate).
So he's still making a very tidy profit at $1.00 per card.

Rich Eckman  KO4MR
NASA Langley
[e-mail]

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

Date: 10 Feb 1994 01:01:51 GMT
From: autodesk.com![e-mail]
Subject: Ramsey FX Transceivers
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Dana Myers ) writes:
>
> (lots deleted)
>
> call John Lansdale and ask for his price sheet.  He sells VHF Lo-band (for 6m)
> Micors, complete with control group, for $75+shipping.
>
>
Are these retunable for 2m? with the right split, or modifiable to be so?
(as easily as you described)

With a service manual, I wouldn't be afraid to retune an old commercial
rig, the trick (secret?) seems to be in knowing *exactly* what old rigs
will retune without (much) part swapping. Any (further) pointers on
sources and models to look for would be greatly appreciated!

Note - I've built a FX-146, and use it for packet only. It picks up
lots of stuff it shouldn't (I have yet to call and ask for the filter
that'll fix this). I expect it puts out the illegal harmonics that have
been repeatedly mentioned here. If anyone has or knows of a fix for
the transmitter, I'd love to implement it. I also wouldn't mind at
all were I to have a chance to put it on an analyzer and see just how
bad it really is... (Hey Al - Naw, I bet you're too busy....;-)

Dave Duchesneau KD6LSA

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

Date: 9 Feb 94 15:49:45 GMT
From: psinntp!psinntp!relay1!ecdcsvr![e-mail]
Subject: RCLUS...
To: [e-mail]

Anyone know where I can FTP a program called RCLUS? It is a program which
lets you receive PacketCluster stuff without being connected. It is written
by an Hb9 I believe. I know its out there but I don't hv Archie or
Gopher to look. Thanks.

DE KA3PLS... Ken...

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

Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 00:10:53 GMT
From: world![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <2j6hr2$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: 40 meter QRP (cw or ssb)

[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>He says that if you try to copy plaintext behind with a typewriter,
>it's much harder than copying in real time because the actions of
>auditory recognition, conscious evaluation, and mechanical reproduction
>are divorced from each other enough by that intermediate step to cause
>you to make errors if your mind wanders, in the slightest, to thinking
>about what's being sent. He says you should train yourself to *not*
>try to interpret what's being sent as you copy if you want maximum
>speed and accuracy of copy. Try thinking about *anything* but the
>code you're hearing while you practice copying. Let the conditioned
>reflex do the work.

>That's *not* the way most hams do Morse. Most try to force the
>decoding into resembling spoken language, (which it's not, who
>speaks by spelling out each word?) and attempt to copy in their
>heads. At best they write down what they *think* they understood
>of the decoded message rather than just accurately copying the
>characters as received without trying to understand the message
>until it's down on paper. Naturally that impairs the speed and
>accuracy of their copy, but since accurate copy isn't really
>their goal, that's a moot point except for message handling and
>taking tests where accuracy of copy is the critical issue.

Well, Gary, you've verbalized nicely what I've sort-of-felt.
My question then is "Where to go from here?"
I cant write fast enough to go faster than say 25 WPM, I can't hear
words yet (a few only).  I'd like to break the barrier and be able to
(as some buddys do) lean back in the chair and comfortably copy 35+
without writing or tying a thing.
Sounds like I should forget the typewriter, as it appears only good for
code groups, not QSOs.
Any advice for cracking the morse-as-characters to morse-as-words barrier?
Richard Barnaby
AA1IB  WOrcester, Vermont

A
A
TIA

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

Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 23:31:08 GMT
From: ucsnews!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!wa4mei.ping.com!ke4zv![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <2j8m33$[e-mail]>
Reply-To : [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject : Re: 40 meter QRP (cw or ssb)

In article <2j8m33$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rajiv Dewan) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>,
>Gary Coffman <[e-mail]> wrote:
[deleted description of an intercept operator's methods]
>>That's *not* the way most hams do Morse. Most try to force the
>>decoding into resembling spoken language, (which it's not, who
>>speaks by spelling out each word?) and attempt to copy in their
>>heads. At best they write down what they *think* they understood
>>of the decoded message rather than just accurately copying the
>>characters as received without trying to understand the message
>>until it's down on paper. Naturally that impairs the speed and
>>accuracy of their copy, but since accurate copy isn't really
>>their goal, that's a moot point except for message handling and
>>taking tests where accuracy of copy is the critical issue.
>
><snip>
>
>I think that you have this backwards Gary.  All hams use plaintext
>(by law) and you can copy at higher speeds if you can use your
>vocabulary information to speed up.  In all QRQ tests that I have heard/read
>about, the limit for ramdom group copy is always lower than that
>for *correct* plain text copy.

Copying plaintext by filling in holes from context obviously works for
some people with some words/phrases, especially the highly stylized
typical ham contact, however, try copying unfamiliar words that way,
or a word you *think* is mispelled. If you are copying *correctly*,
you'll copy the word as sent, not as you would spell it. But as I
noted, that's not really important if you're just trying to follow
the flow of a conversation rather than striving for perfect copy.

Max says he could copy 60 WPM for an entire watch without his error rate
increasing. Many of the circuits he was intercepting were apparently paper
tape driven. I don't think you can do that trying to consciously understand
words as sent. Your mind would wander for a moment even under the best of
conditions. Only an automatic reflex can keep up that kind of pace for hours
on end.

He says the worst thing about copying on a typewriter is when a right hand
character comes in while you're returning the carriage. He used a manual
typewriter in the Navy of course. He says that with a computer, he uses an
old VIC-20 now, wordwrap has increased his speed noticably over his old best
because he doesn't have to carry a character in his head while the carriage
returns. Though he said it took him several months to break himself of
swatting for the non-existant return lever every 60 characters.

It's remarkable to me that someone 70 years old can beat his own records
set as a 20 year old. I wonder what he could have done if he'd had a
computer then. Note I consider Max something of a prodigy, like a classical
guitarist, or other musician. He has a "gift" as well as having spent, by
now, many tens of thousands of hours of practicing. He said about 10% of
the recruits in his class washed out at less than 20 WPM, about 60% were
gone at 40 WPM, and only a very few ever got to 60 WPM despite having worked
at it for 12 hours a day for the 6 weeks of their training. Obviously Max
was in that elite group. I know I'd be in that initial 10%. My personal
best has been 18 WPM after several hundred hours of practice. OTOH, I
don't have the incentive of being stationed where I'm unlikely to be shot
at if my speed were higher. And I know there are better ways of communicating
without all that drill. That's got to have some effect. Still, I don't have
the "gift" and will be at best only a hacker for the rest of my life no
matter how much I practice. I can't play a guitar worth a damn either, even
though I worked my fingers bloody practicing. At best I can mechanically
reproduce the notes. I just don't have the "ear" for the music. Max has
the "ear" for code. That has nothing much to do with his actual hearing
ability, he's nearly deaf now. It has to do with a certain wiring of the
brain centers I think.

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: 8 Feb 1994 18:36:19 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!csn!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <2j6hr2$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>h.acns.
Subject : Re: 40 meter QRP (cw or ssb)

In article <[e-mail]>,
Gary Coffman <[e-mail]> wrote:

>I also have a friend who was a Navy radio intercept operator in WWII.
>There's no such thing as copying behind in this sort of work. It's all
>five letter groups of encrypted text. He was trained to associate a
>letter sound directly with a finger action on the keyboard, a form
>of Pavlovian conditioning. His conscious mind isn't involved at all.
>He can carry on a conversation with you while copying. When the code
>stops, he has to roll up the paper and read what he typed to see what
>the other operator sent. He's a remarkable code copying machine.
>
>He says that if you try to copy plaintext behind with a typewriter,
>it's much harder than copying in real time because the actions of
>auditory recognition, conscious evaluation, and mechanical reproduction
>are divorced from each other enough by that intermediate step to cause
>you to make errors if your mind wanders, in the slightest, to thinking
>about what's being sent. He says you should train yourself to *not*
>try to interpret what's being sent as you copy if you want maximum
>speed and accuracy of copy. Try thinking about *anything* but the
>code you're hearing while you practice copying. Let the conditioned
>reflex do the work.

I have heard this first-hand from a signal corpsman.

>That's *not* the way most hams do Morse. Most try to force the
>decoding into resembling spoken language, (which it's not, who
>speaks by spelling out each word?) and attempt to copy in their
>heads. At best they write down what they *think* they understood
>of the decoded message rather than just accurately copying the
>characters as received without trying to understand the message
>until it's down on paper. Naturally that impairs the speed and
>accuracy of their copy, but since accurate copy isn't really
>their goal, that's a moot point except for message handling and
>taking tests where accuracy of copy is the critical issue.

<snip>

I think that you have this backwards Gary.  All hams use plaintext
(by law) and you can copy at higher speeds if you can use your
vocabulary information to speed up.  In all QRQ tests that I have heard/read
about, the limit for ramdom group copy is always lower than that
for *correct* plain text copy.

>
>I wish I'd known this when I was learning Morse. I kept futilely
>trying to make sense of what I was hearing, and got nowhere. I

Now this is a difficult task at best of times. :)

>finally hit on a shorthand method of writing down the Code that
>works for me, and which I can sight read nearly as well as ordinary
>text, but I wish I'd conditioned myself to type the text instead
>since it would be much faster.


Rajiv                                      dit  l  dit
aa9ch                                           l
[e-mail]       ********************      =
                     *  rajiv   aa9ch/m    *    =
                    * r-dewan   @nwu.edu    *   l
                   *  j45 str   key on knee  *  l
          *********  kwd ts50   tx bugcatcher * l
        *                                      *l
       *     ***                       ***     *H
       *    *   *                     *   *    *H
        base*   *kenwd850*vert*80mloop*   *kent**
             ***                       ***

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

Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 07:50:56 -0500
From: library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.ans.net!malgudi.oar.net!news.ysu.edu!psuvm!cunyvm!@@nntp.ucsb.edu
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: 40 meter QRP (cw or ssb)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
wrote, in part:

> BTW, how do some of the people key
> so darned fast CW? Its like 30-40 wpm on my computer. Can they really decode
> this by ear or do they use computers for decoding too?
>

Yeah, if you hang in long enough with the practice, you can copy 40 wpm.
That's the ragged edge of my current capability, and I can't get it down on
paper that fast, but when you listen to it for a while, 35 wpm seems
leisurely.

--
73  de  John Taylor    W3ZID
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 07:44:44 -0500
From: nntp.ucsb.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!news.ans.net!malgudi.oar.net!news.ysu.edu!psuvm!cunyvm!rohvm1![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <2ip6he$[e-mail]>psuvm
Subject : Re: Help - your Vertical Ant. experences.

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Gary Coffman) wrote:

> In article <2ip6he$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Terry Burge) writes:
> >Just for the record, I will state it again. A ground plane antenna has higher
> >gain than a vertical dipole. A quarter wave ground plane has a gain of some-
> >where around 6 db over isotropic where a dipole has a gain of 2.14 db over
> >isotropic at it's theoritical best.

> Repeating false statements makes them no less false. A 1/4 wave vertical
> over a *perfect* groundplane has *exactly* the same gain and pattern as
> a 1/2 wave vertical. But alas, there are no perfect groundplanes in the
> real world, so all real 1/4 wave verticals have less gain than 1/2 wave
> verticals because of losses in the imperfect current mirror.

Thanks, Gary.  When I read the original posting, I immediately thought of
ol' Kurt N. Sterba, the nom de plume of the chap who writes the "Aerials"
column in _WorldRadio_, and who delights in debunking antenna mythology.
One wonders where on earth some of these notions arise.

--
73  de  John Taylor   W3ZID
[e-mail]

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

End of Info-Hams Digest V94 #129
******************************