QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/infoham/940607.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 26KB

Date: Wed,  1 Jun 94 20:29:29 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 #607
To: Info-Hams


Info-Hams Digest            Wed,  1 Jun 94       Volume 94 : Issue  607

Today's Topics:
                            6146A vs 6146
                       Antennas on Taurus Wagon
                           Dallas Ham fest?
           Fancy testing some Macinosh HyperCard software ?
                              Field Day!
                    Help: FT-5200 LED Replacement
                    IPS Daily Report - 01 June 94
                          Logging software?
                          re;N7RO QSL bureau
            Reality check (was Re: Ham Radio few problem)
                    WANTED: Any Icom IC-3SAT mods

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, 01 Jun 1994 19:26:17 -0400
From: dale.ksc.nasa.gov!algol.ksc.nasa.gov!k4dii.ksc.nasa.gov![e-mail]
Subject: 6146A vs 6146
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (David Adams) wrote:
> which states that only 6146As should be used.  Can anyone enlighten
> me on the specifics of the 6146 family?  I've put together quite a
> collection of spare 6146s and 6146bs and hate to think that it was
> all for naught.

Dave-

There may be differences in plate dissipation and inter-electrode
capicitances, between the members of the 6146 family.

In repeater use, one of the members was reported to have higher noise, but
I can't recall which.

The most significant difference from my point of view, is that the 6146B
(and possibly 6146W?) has a welded plate cap.  The older versions had a
soldered plate cap.  Due to high peak plate currents in a Class C amplifier
used for FM, the solder will eventually crystalize, and the plate cap will
come loose.  This doesn't happen with a welded plate cap.

The loose plate cap was the most frequent failure mode I experienced, using
a pair of 6146's in a GE Prog Line repeater.  On rare occasion, the heat
generated in the loose connection can crack the tube.  Re-soldering with
ordinary solder, is a short-term solution, since it quickly oxidizes again.
 Use of a higher-temperature solder might help, but just for a little
longer!

Considering availability of tubes, you may be eventually forced take what
you can get!

73, Fred, K4DII

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

Date: 1 Jun 1994 21:31:42 -0400
From: news.bu.edu!transfer.stratus.com!jjmhome.jjm.com![e-mail]
Subject: Antennas on Taurus Wagon
To: [e-mail]

I will soon be getting a Ford Taurus wagon.  I'll be installing a 2M rig
and an HF rig.  I'm trying to decide where to install the antennas.

For 2M, I'm leaning towards a permanent, roof-top installation.  For HF,
I'll be using a Hustler mast, and I have no great ideas on how to mount
it.  On my current car, I mounted the HF mast via a heavy aluminum plate
bolted to the underside of the steel bumper.  However, the bumpers on the
Taurus appear to be much flimsier and I'm concerned that the flexing caused
by the mast would be too much stress.  Of course, there's always the option
of having it mounted though the sheet metal on the side... unlike the 2M
installation, however, it can't be later passed off as a cell phone mount.

If anyone has any experiences mounting antennas on Taurus wagons, I'd love
to hear about them.  I can be reached at [e-mail] or
[e-mail].

TNX

--Charlie Ross, NC1N

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

Date: Thu, 2 Jun 1994 01:35:10 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com![e-mail]
Subject: Dallas Ham fest?
To: [e-mail]

I am looking for some information about a Ham fest that will be hold in
the Dallas Tx area in June.  Does anyone know where and when?

Thanks.

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

Date: 1 Jun 94 09:51:57 GMT
From: uchinews!ncar!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!demon![e-mail]
Subject: Fancy testing some Macinosh HyperCard software ?
To: [e-mail]

Hello All,

I have just finished a HyperCard Stack that will allow control of a Yaesu
FT-747GX.

I now need your help.

I am looking for people that have a Macintosh and a FT-747GX
(or perhaps any other Yaesu radio) who can help me beta test
this stack.

If you would like to help just let me have an e-mail or street
address and I'll send you off a copy.

Kind regards, Sean.


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

Date: Thu, 2 Jun 1994 01:46:12 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!srgenprp![e-mail]
Subject: Field Day!
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] ([e-mail]) wrote:
: FD is the funnest thing in AR.

Certainly is a day I look forward to all year (the no sleep hang over is tough,
though!).

I also use marine deep cycle batts that I bought at Sears.  On sale, the smaller
one was < $50 and is about 70 Ah.  Here's the fun part...I bought a 1' x 1'
solar panel, put in a diode and charge the battery with it.  Then I can
get the bonus points for natural power!  You must discharge the battery (a
card came with the battery showing when it is discharge which doesn't
equal totally flat) then charge it with some natural means.  I usually start
6-8 weeks before field day to make sure I have a full charge.  I get about
200-300ma from the panel in sunlight.

Have fun on FD, I hope to work you!

-jim

--
Jim Andrews                                              h
Engineering Productivity Group                          h
Hewlett Packard                                        hhhhh    ppppp
Microwave Instruments Division                        h   h    p   p
Santa Rosa, CA                                       h   h    ppppp
e-mail: [e-mail]                                   p
amateur packet mail: kc6pjw@kc6pjw.#nocal.ca.usa            p

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

Date: Thu, 2 Jun 1994 01:50:31 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!srgenprp![e-mail]
Subject: Help: FT-5200 LED Replacement
To: [e-mail]

Dave Kinzer ([e-mail]) wrote:
: In article <2s2aiq$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Glenn Pearston) writes:
: >
: >I have a YAESU FT-5200 that has one of the LED's used for back-
: >lighting burned out.  I don't want to send it in to have a simple
: >LED replaced, has anyone opened up the face plate of a FT-5200?
: >Any suggestions or comments?

:   There are control head disassembly instructions in the owners manual.
: I've not had to do it, but it looks pretty easy.  Incidently, my
: schematic shows 3 9 volt light bulbs, not LEDs.  This would be consistant
: with the white color of the backlighting.  Perhaps they changed it for
: newer models.

: -dave

Yes, they are light bulbs, and I bought mine direct from Yaesu parts in
Los Angeles, CA, U.S.A.  They weren't too expensive and came very fast.
The back of the control head comes off easy enough, but you need to get
to the fron, which requires the removal of a little nut, if I recall
correctly.  It was under some green locktite, so I didn't see it right away.
I think you also need to take off the nuts around the mike connector jack.

Good Luck!

-jim
--
Jim Andrews                                              h
Engineering Productivity Group                          h
Hewlett Packard                                        hhhhh    ppppp
Microwave Instruments Division                        h   h    p   p
Santa Rosa, CA                                       h   h    ppppp
e-mail: [e-mail]                                   p
amateur packet mail: kc6pjw@kc6pjw.#nocal.ca.usa            p

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

Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 23:29:13 GMT
From: swrinde!emory!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.cac.psu.edu!news.pop.psu.edu!psuvax1!news.cc.swarthmore.edu!netnews.upenn.edu!msuinfo!harbinger.cc.monash.@@ihnp4.ucsd.edu
Subject: IPS Daily Report - 01 June 94
To: [e-mail]

SUBJ: IPS DAILY SOLAR AND GEOPHYSICAL REPORT
ISSUED AT 1/2330Z JUNE 1994 BY IPS RADIO AND SPACE SERVICES
FROM THE REGIONAL WARNING CENTRE (RWC), SYDNEY.
SUMMARY FOR 1 JUNE AND FORECAST UP TO 4 JUNE

IPS Warning 15 was issued on 26 May and is still current.
-----------------------------------------------------------

1A. SOLAR SUMMARY
Activity: very low

Flares: none.

Observed 10.7 cm flux/Equivalent Sunspot Number : 068/002

1B. SOLAR FORECAST
             02 June            03 June            04 June
Activity     Very low           Very low           Very low
Fadeouts     None expected      None expected      None expected

Forecast 10.7 cm flux/Equivalent Sunspot Number : 070/005

1C. SOLAR COMMENT
None.
-----------------------------------------------------------

2A. MAGNETIC SUMMARY
Geomagnetic field at Learmonth: unsettled to active, apart from minor
storm levels 09-12UT.

Estimated Indices : A   K           Observed A Index 31 May
    Learmonth       23  4345 3343
    Fredericksburg  27                          28
    Planetary       25                          32

Observed Kp for 31 May: 4655 3343


2B. MAGNETIC FORECAST
DATE      Ap    CONDITIONS
02 Jun    30    Unsettled to active, with brief minor storm periods.
03 Jun    30    Unsettled to active, with brief minor storm periods.
04 Jun    30    Unsettled to active, with brief minor storm periods.

2C. MAGNETIC COMMENT
Recurrent coronal hole activity remains in progress.
3A. GLOBAL HF PROPAGATION SUMMARY
                LATITUDE BAND
DATE        LOW            MIDDLE         HIGH
01 Jun      normal         fair           poor-fair
PCA Event : None.
3B. GLOBAL HF PROPAGATION FORECAST
                LATITUDE BAND
DATE        LOW            MIDDLE         HIGH
02 Jun      normal         fair           poor-fair
03 Jun      normal         fair           poor-fair
04 Jun      normal         fair           poor-fair
3C. GLOBAL HF PROPAGATION COMMENT
NONE.

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

4A. AUSTRALIAN REGION IONOSPHERIC SUMMARY
MUFs at Sydney were near predicted monthly values

Observed T index for 01 June:  23

Predicted Monthly T Index for June is 30.

4B. AUSTRALIAN REGION IONOSPHERIC FORECAST
DATE   T-index  MUFs
02 Jun    20    Near predicted monthly values.
03 Jun    20    Near predicted monthly values.
04 Jun    20    Near predicted monthly values.


4C. AUSTRALIAN REGION COMMENT
Local propagation conditions may have been degraded due to night-time
Spread F and occasional Sporadic E layer. Similar conditions are
expected for the next three days.
--
IPS Regional Warning Centre, Sydney           |IPS Radio and Space Services
email: [e-mail]  fax: [phone]      |PO Box 5606
RWC Duty Forecaster   tel: [phone]      |West Chatswood NSW 2057
Recorded Message      tel: [phone]      |AUSTRALIA

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

Date: Wed, 01 Jun 1994 19:18:47 -0400
From: dale.ksc.nasa.gov!algol.ksc.nasa.gov!k4dii.ksc.nasa.gov![e-mail]
Subject: Logging software?
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(eric.s.hellman) wrote:
> My teenage son N2WKS (Advanced tested end of Feb --license arrived
> this week) uses the spreadsheet in MicroSoft Works for his logging..
> He tried a few logging programs before deciding to use the spreadsheet.

Shel-

Is it possible to save your spreadsheet in "comma separated", or some other
ASCII format?  If it wasn't too large, you could paste it into a message
here, and we could all give it a try!  Several different spreadsheets have
the ability to import data from others.  It would only be necessary to use
a text editor, to clean it up first.

73, Fred, K4DII

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

Date: 2 Jun 94 01:54:57 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: re;N7RO QSL bureau
To: [e-mail]

One comment on N7RO qsl service.

I've been the QSL manager over 20years. Most of the operations were
made by myself. They were C21/JE1CKA, S21CW, 8Q6AH, DX1TDX, VR1AK,
VR4CW(H44CW), YJ8CW, VR8D in '70s and KH0AM in '90s.

I often received the cards from N7RO for above operations with
a Self Addressed Label and one/two green stamps for the postage.
I replied to all the requests and sent out via seamail. I believe
N7RO *did* the appropriate job. Not too good but not too bad.
You should trust him. All the qsls must be sent out to the manager
with the cover postage. If you did not get the cards through N7RO,
it must not be his responsibility but the managers must be blamed.

Tack JE1CKA/KH0AM(aka JA0CUV) <[e-mail]>

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

Date: 2 Jun 1994 00:46:11 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken.llnl.gov!koriel!newsworthy.West.Sun.COM!abyss.West.Sun.COM!sunspot![e-mail]
Subject: Reality check (was Re: Ham Radio few problem)
To: [e-mail]

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Jeffrey Herman) writes:

[Text edited out, including a note from Roger Bly claiming to jam closed repeaters]

>Who is it that keeps claiming that VHF/UHF is healthy in So. Cal?

Me, Jeff.  Me.  If it makes you sleep better at night to think that VHF/UHF
is all rife with jamming and poor operating in Southern California, then go
ahead and keep ignoring reality.  My experience is, most repeaters in Southern
California are *not* constantly jammed, most operators on VHF/UHF in Southern
California *are* good operators, but we do have a few well known examples of
"trouble".  Nonetheless, in a private conversation with one of the FCC PRB
staffers, it was expressed to me that every major population center in the
USA has at least one "trouble spot", but that somehow Southern California has
gained the most attention.

Heck, in 1978 when I got on 2m, the WR6ABM repeater (later WB6AAE, I recall)
was constantly jammed. This machine was in the Oakland hills, far away from
Southern Calfornia and long before the dropping of the code requirement from
the Technician license.  Guess what?  This machine was just like the MWRA
147.435 machine is today!  Guess what?  This didn't mean that VHF was unhealthy
in Northern California 16 years ago.

>Sure glad we don't regularly have these problems down on HF CW.

Well, if it makes one feel better to think that HF CW is free of jamming and
poor operating, then please continue to ignore reality.  I regularly use HF
CW (on 20m, 17m, 15m, 12m and 10m), and I've heard incidents of jamming and
poor operating. The DX pile-ups are good examples of ill-mannered HF CW
operating.  I've also heard people intentionally jamming, in CW, DX pileups
and SSB nets.  Does this mean HF CW is all bad?  Not any more than VHF/UHF
is all bad.

It is common human nature for insecure, unhappy people to deride others.
Too bad some have to cope with their frailties by condemning others, no?

---
 * Dana H. Myers KK6JQ, DoD#: j    | 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: 02 Jun 1994 02:35:28 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!noc.near.net!chaos.dac.neu.edu!chaos.dac![e-mail]
Subject: WANTED: Any Icom IC-3SAT mods
To: [e-mail]

I recently purchased a new Icom IC-3SAT 220Mhz HT, and was wondering if there
were any mods for it.

As the maintainer of the Boston ARC FTP archives, I did check there before
posting this.  If I do find any mods which work, I will include them in the
archives.

Thanks much for any help you can offer.

73,
Scott

--
===============================================================================
| Scott Ehrlich           Amateur Radio: wy1z      AMPRnet: [e-mail] |
| Internet: [e-mail]   BITnet: wy1z@NUHUB    AX.25: [e-mail] |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|       Maintainer of the Boston Amateur Radio Club hamradio FTP area on      |
|            oak.oakland.edu - /pub/hamradio                |
===============================================================================

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

Date: 1 Jun 1994 09:59:21 -0600
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx10.cs.du.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <2sc592$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>a
Subject : Re: 440 in So. Cal.

In article <[e-mail]>,
Roger Buffington <[e-mail]> wrote:
>What is needed in Southern California is a radical reform of the way 440
>is coordinated, with private and closed repeaters sharply limited with
>respect to coordination.  It has worked wonderfully on 2 meters.

The reason it's worked wonderfully on 2 was that the closed repeater groups
were told to move to 440. Many years ago. They've been there for a LONG time.
Now you want ot change the rules in midstream and destroy their investment in
their equipment and site, just so you can yak on another frequency.

Have you got pockets deep enough to defend coordination groups from the masses
of lawsuits they'd get by implementing the change you want? They're not going
to risk their livelihoods on doing that, and I don't think they should.

Folowups to .policy, where this discussion belongs.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
[e-mail]   | adequately be explained by stupidity.
To Sarah Brady, Howard Metzenbaum, Dianne Feinstein, and Charles Schumer:
Thanks. Without you, I would be neither a gun owner nor an NRA life member.

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

Date: 2 Jun 1994 01:30:27 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!overload.lbl.gov!agate!kabuki.EECS.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <2sih81$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: 440 in So. Cal.

In article <[e-mail]>,
Dave Kinzer <[e-mail]> wrote:
>In article <2sih81$[e-mail]>
>[e-mail] (Ken A. Nishimura) writes:
>>>terms.  I would propose that terms be limited to ten years, long enough
>>>to obtain an adequate return on the equipment investment, and short
>>              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>   (remainder of dribble removed)
>>
>>Since when was Amateur Radio a Financial Investment?  I think you
>[snipped]
>>had time to get things working right.  Yanking the coordination after 10
>>years is stupid -- nobody will want to make a long term investment of
>                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>time and effort and their own money.  This is the same kind of short
>
>  Speaking of dribbling...  I proposed 10 years as long enough, obviously
>you think longer is needed.  You want to tie up the frequency for 50
>years or something?  I say that is too long to allow for changing public
>resource needs.  Incidently, I didn't say your investment would be
>confiscated, just the coordination would be yanked.  I find it funny
>you would chastise me about the investment, then say exactly the same
>thing.  Go buy a clue or something.
>
>-dave
>
Fine -- I am guilty of bad word choice.  But your original message construes
that the repeater owner is trying to recoup his/her initial (monetary --
equipment costs money) investment.  ("long enough to obtain an adequate
return on the equipment investment") Return of what? 10 years to get
back what?  My original point stands...  I hope you aren't implying that people
go into repeater ownership to make money -- plunk down some change, put
up a repeater and in 10 years the dues pay it off plus a tidy little
profit and get out.  Not only would it be illegal, but it would be
totally against the spirit of amateur radio.  Anyhow, on to more
general items -- I was just a bit taken aback at your original suggestion
(which may have been misinterpreted)....

I don't think you would be terribly happy if you had a repeater, well
run and popular, and had the coordination yanked as 10 years came up
and were bumped by someone who really didn't care too much about how
his/her machine performed -- just that he/she was next in line.
Suppose this replacement machine is run closed -- tight as a drum....
I happen to like the machines I use, and would be very unhappy to
see their coordination yanked (therefore forced off the air) just
because 10 years came up.

Like I said earlier, I wouldn't mind a method where after 10 years, a
case could be made that the repeater wasn't being maintained to
current standards, that a notice to show cause be issued by the
coordinating body.  However, a blanket 10 year term gets the good
with the bad.  Some machines should be booted off the next minute,
for some, 50 years may be appropriate.  It all has to do with
individual situation.  I support the following as grounds for
decoordination:  abandonment, modification of repeater to
change the coverage area such that interference occurs, violation
of part 97 including wanton negligence that allows violation of part 97
to occur, not keeping the machine in compliance with contemporary
technical standards (i.e. if the machine drifts across three channels
in the course of the evening).   Transfer of trustee is a trickier
issue.  I have to think about that, but if it is a good machine, why not?

While I don't live in SoCal, I have visited, and worked "closed" machines
as guests.  You just have to ASK.  I assume that many will ask that you
contribute to the costs of maintaining the machine if you are a regular
user -- that is fair.  In fact, in about 2 weeks, I will be in LA again,
and will once again test my theory to see if being nice will get me
kicked off or not...

If I were the trustee of a machine, I would run it as a closed machine.
Why?  To keep some semblance of contact between myself and the users.
Would I chase away visitors? No.  All I would ask for is a howdy,
my name is .....  If you are a lid, then I would ask you to go
away.  Part 97 can be twisted to read that a repeater owner is
REQUIRED to know and grant express permission to use that repeater.
The new FCC 610, which we all will be required to sign in the next
10 years specifically states that as a licensed operator, "the station
to be licensed will be inaccessible to unauthorized persons."  This
implies all repeaters must be closed (which is the FCC's current
pseudo-opinion).  (i.e. the trustee must make sure that all
people on the machine are legally licensed with tech or higher
privs -- lest he/she face a NAL from the FCC -- hope it doesn't
go this far, but it could).  Besides, what makes it so clear that
if you kick someone off, and you replace the machine, you will get
someone who is more "benevolent" than the current owner?

There are repeater owners that only require courtesy, a bit of common
sense and participation as the entry to "membership" -- some will even
refuse to take financial contributions.

I also doubt that the so called "no-codes go away" clubs will let no-codes
in, if asked nicely.  I think most repeater owners know that
courtesy and good operating practices don't correlate well with license
class...

There is bound to be a slow, but sure turnover in the machines anywhere,
SoCal included.  People die, lost interest, tire, run out of $$, you
name it.  People's attitudes change...

I see you totally ignored my comment about 1280.  There is an added subtle,
albeit twisted, advantage to 440 remaining closed -- it forces new machines
up at 1280 and beyond.  Face it, we're gonna lose part of 2400 soon, and 3 GHz
is next.  There is going to be a great re-alignment in the microwave
bands caused in party by PCS and also in part by the mandate to
sell off spectrum.  If we don't populate up there, it'll be gone faster
than you can kerchunk a machine.

I can understand why you forward your idea -- its like term limits.  Very
appealing now, since you are frustrated.  But I cannot condone a system
whereby you automatically kick people off after 10 years.  Not without
some review mechanism.

Finally, a question that donned on me.  Why haven't more people gone
to GMRS?  There are repeaters, and I'm sure the licenses are on terms,
subject to public review...  For those who get into ham radio to
be appliance operators (nothing wrong with them) and chit chat
on the radio, it seems like a good alternative to me.  You even
get full privs without code :-)o

-Ken

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

End of Info-Hams Digest V94 #607
******************************