QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/infoham/940788.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 27.1 KB

Date: Wed, 13 Jul 94 13:37:22 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 #788
To: Info-Hams


Info-Hams Digest            Wed, 13 Jul 94       Volume 94 : Issue  788

Today's Topics:
                        900 MHz QRM DX record?
                Anyone experienced with Cushcraft R7?
                    August 73 for Ramsey Watchers
                FCC accepts no data entry volunteers?
                      FCC Delays now at 17 week
                 GPS Magellan....inaccurate readings?
                              Icom 471a
                   Opening up Kenwood battery pack
                Re: Does CW as a pre-req REALLY Work?
                          TOWERS AND GUYS...

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, 13 Jul 1994 15:11:07 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!srgenprp![e-mail]
Subject: 900 MHz QRM DX record?
To: [e-mail]

A follow-up note:

  Well, I guess it may be close but probably no cigar for the DX QRM
record.  I'm quite confident that the radar was coming through the duct
but it looks like it was probably from someone "driving through".  I got
a very useful response from Fred Schader wa7aii, in part:

> One of my co-workers is a Navy ship radar expert.  He said that you
> exactly described an air search radar present on Navy ships [SPS-49(V)].
> He believes that your location is a great circle route to the far east
> where these ships often operate this radar.  He also has heard of this
> type of propagation at these distances before (sorry no DX record!).
> The ERP of these units is 10MW average and 280 MW peak (that's how to
> get good DX!).

It looks like the strong signals are well explained.  Probably, we heard
an SPS-49(V) equipped ship chugging through the duct somewhere between
us and Hawaii.  The nature of the QRM occurrance, high altitude first,
and the fading characteristics make me sure that it was duct
propagation, possibly as the thing was first forming since it preceded
amateur heard reports and QSOs by a couple of days.  It also appears
that I was hearing backscatter off of the duct itself, unless the radar
antenna has a lot dirtier pattern than I'd expect since I was hearing
signal from the entire scan.

  The fact that we haven't observed it before in a couple of years of
monitoring also makes me think it was duct-propagated and that ordinarily
this stuff is not turned on when the ships are near the continent. That's
probably good news for Part 15 devices! I can imagine what a broadband
SS wireless device would think of the main lobe of that thing at close
range. Something tells me it would take more than FEC to reduce the
bit errors (:>).

  I imagine that gathering details about it will take some time, but it
certainly has been an intense and long opening.  I first heard the radar
last Thursday and this morning (Wednesday) the kh6hme 144.170 cw beacon
is still pounding in at my interior valley QTH with very little fade.
At this rate, I'm going to hear radar from the Navy ship on its return
trip!

Glenn Elmore n6gn

amateur IP:    [e-mail]
Internet:    [e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Jul 1994 14:25:30 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!ceylon!news2.near.net!noc.near.net!jericho.mc.com!fugu![e-mail]
Subject: Anyone experienced with Cushcraft R7?
To: [e-mail]

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Daniel T Senie) writes:
-->In article <[e-mail]>,
-->Roger Buffington <[e-mail]> wrote:
-->>Herb Rosenberg ([e-mail]) wrote:
-->>: Subject: Anyone experienced with Cushcraft R7?
-->>: Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
-->>: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
-->>: Summary:
-->>: Keywords:
-->>
-->>The Cushcraft antennas are wonderful with one caveat:  the R-7 has a
-->>propensity to blow traps if you use any power level over perhaps 100
-->>watts.  This is a very well-known problem with the R-7, and is apparently
-->>inherent in the design.
-->
-->Interesting. I guess the only thing I can disagree with you on is it being
-->a "well known" problem. I have not experienced any such problems with
-->my R7, but I have not run high power through it either. I guess the
-->problem may not be commonly known on this coast...
-->

I have run several RTTY contests with 300-400 QSOs on my R7 pushing
my AL811 amplifier to it's limits (500W or so) with never having lost
a trap.  Thats 10-15-20-40 meters.  To compensate for it's number of
traps (read heat instead of RF) I almost always use 500-600 W pep on
SSB when I use it.  It has been in use 2 years, prior to that an R5.

-->>
-->>The R-5, which is identical except that it does not cover 40 meters and
-->>has better 20 meter bandwidth, does not have this problem.

My R7 has 2:1 SWR bw from 14.090 - 14.290.  I use tuner for anything less than
14.050. No biggie.

-->>
-->>Both antennas perform very very well.
-->>
-->>In my opinion the best system is to go with an R-5, and string a dipole,
-->>shortened if necessary, for 40 meters.  Except for dxing, often a dipole
-->>does better on 40 due to polarization and angle of radiation (higher).

I often find the R7 is better on 40 to Europe than my inverted V with the
apex around 50'.

-->and -->>The R-5 is a truly wonderful antenna.  I've worked the world with mine,
-->>using only 100 watts.
-->>
-->>The R-7 is probably OK if you won't be running over 100 watts.  I still
-->>would go with the r-5 due to the foregoing.

The R7 is rated full power.  I have never had any problem with my 600w pep
or 500w key down RTTY.

-->
-->I've worked the world with my R7, and find it works very well on 30 meters.
-->on 40 it is too narrow to be useful outside a selected subband.

True, but since RTTY section is so small, no problem.  Are there other signals on
that band?!

-->
-->--
-->---------------------------------------------------------------
-->Daniel Senie                 Internet:     [e-mail]
-->Daniel Senie Consulting                    [e-mail]
-->508-779-0439                 Compuserve:   74176,1347



---
------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Levine  KD1GG 7J1AIS VK2GYN               formerly KA1JFP
[e-mail]   <--Internet email    Phone[phone] x247
[e-mail] <--Packet Mail         FAX[phone]
------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 13 Jul 1994 14:24:33 GMT
From: netcomsv!netcom.com![e-mail]
Subject: August 73 for Ramsey Watchers
To: [e-mail]

Those interested in the progress of Ramsey kits will enjoy August's
edition of 73.

Reviewed is the fox-hunt transmitter which uses the same RF section
as the FM transceiver. The review pretty much confirms what QST said
about the transceiver and what has been said here, before: if you
try to put it on the air, it's a REAL good idea to use a spectrum
analyzer to see that it's legal. The reviewer's kit-built version,
apparently through no fault of his own, was *WAY* out of legal
specs. Translation: not a good purchase for the new ham trying
to get on the air economically, if s/he doesn't have access to an
excellent test-bench.

Also making its first appearance is the ad for the 20m transceiver.
Looking at the price, NOT buying the kit seems like a good deal (built
isn't all that much more). The copy reads to me like the warranty
applies to the 'Assembled and Tested' version only. However, given
prices, features, and vendor track-record, I'd look hard at the Ten-Tec
Scout in its stead. The very interesting features of the Ramsey rig
will appeal to many, however.

Greg

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

Date: 13 Jul 1994 15:16:17 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!haven.umd.edu!cville-srv.wam.umd.edu![e-mail]
Subject: FCC accepts no data entry volunteers?
To: [e-mail]

Apparently, there's a clause in somebody's law book that prohibits the
FCC from accepting volunteer help in doing data entry.  Apparently the
Gettysburg people would love the help, but CAN'T accept it.  Looks like
well, I don't know what it looks like...

Purdy ridiculous, eh?


--
73,                            _________   _________  The
                            \ /  Long   Original
Scott Rosenfeld  Amateur Radio NF3I  Burtonsville, MD     |   Live    $5.00
  WAC-CW/SSB  WAS  DXCC - 125 QSLed on dipoles __________| Dipoles! Antenna!

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

Date: 13 Jul 1994 14:30:54 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!cs.uoregon.edu!usenet.ee.pdx.edu!fastrac.llnl.gov!lll-winken.llnl.gov!noc.near.net!jericho.mc.com!fugu![e-mail]
Subject: FCC Delays now at 17 week
To: [e-mail]

Darryl,

How much did you pay towards that persons

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Darryl Linkow) writes:
-->SRR>ASE READ!!!
-->SRR>Message-ID: <2vs6gk$[e-mail]>
-->SRR>Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
-->SRR>Organization: University of Maryland College Park
-->
-->SRR>To all of you who are awaiting licenses from the FCC:
-->
-->SRR>This word from my buddy John Creel, WB3GXW, the contact for Laurel, MD VEC:
-->
-->SRR>DO NOT CALL THE FCC FOR INFORMATION ON YOUR LICENSE STATUS!
-->SRR>DO NOT CALL THE FCC FOR INFORMATION ON YOUR LICENSE STATUS!
-->SRR>DO NOT CALL THE FCC FOR INFORMATION ON YOUR LICENSE STATUS!
-->
-->SRR>He said that upon his tour of the FCC license processing facility last week,
-->SRR>they now have SIX computer terminals, but only ONE person processing
-->SRR>licenses (this is, sadly, true).  The FCC may actually consider volunteers
-->SRR>at some point, but there are certain legalities involved with this that
-->SRR>have not been circumvented yet.
-->
-->SRR>He also said that the FCC is receiving upwards of 50 calls a DAY!  And that
-->SRR>in the time it takes to receive a phone call, TWO licenses could be proces-
-->SRR>sed!  The backlog is now at 15,000 Form 610s!!!
-->
-->SRR>If your application has taken over 26 weeks, contact your testing team, or
-->SRR>your VEC - but let THEM call the FCC, if necessary.
-->
-->SRR>Supposedly, the delay is growing BECAUSE so much time is being spent on
-->SRR>fielding these phone calls (guess who answers them?  The person doing the
-->SRR>data entry, who has to leave the computer to get the damned phone!).
-->
-->SRR>I do have a question though - haven't they ever heard of answering machines?
-->
-->I have a question for you.  I have heard that there were a group of
-->volunteers in the Gettysburg, PA area, all of whom are volunteer
-->examiners, who have volunteered, at no cost to the FCC, to come in
-->and do data entry, to get rid of this backlog.  The FCC turned down
-->this offer!  Doesn't make too much sense.  They have VE's and VEC's
-->handling the testing, so why not VDEP's (Volunteer Data Entry
-->People!)??  I've been waiting 14.5 weeks now and it's getting
-->ridiculous.  When I took my test, they told me it would be 8 weeks
-->until I got my license.  Then when I had waited 8 weeks, I was told
-->10 weeks.  After 10 weeks, I was told 12 weeks.  At 12 weeks,
-->people were telling me 14 weeks.  Now at 14.5 weeks of waiting,
-->people are saying anywhere from 16 to 17 weeks!!  Absolutely
-->ridiculous!!  BTW, in case you and others are not aware, this same
-->ONE PERSON enetering data into the computer also has to do the
-->commercial licenses as well!  Just think how pissed you would be if
-->your job and/or livelyhood depended on getting a license that you
-->have to wait 17 or 20 or 26 or who knows how many weeks for??!!
-->
-->---
--> │ OLX 2.2 │ Darryl Linkow [phone]  9 am - 5 pm PDT



---
------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Levine  KD1GG 7J1AIS VK2GYN               formerly KA1JFP
[e-mail]   <--Internet email    Phone[phone] x247
[e-mail] <--Packet Mail         FAX[phone]
------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 13 Jul 1994 14:29:05 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!ceylon!news2.near.net!noc.near.net!jericho.mc.com!fugu![e-mail]
Subject: GPS Magellan....inaccurate readings?
To: [e-mail]

In article [e-mail], <[e-mail]> () writes:
-->Magellan reports readings that are several hundred meters
-->off in elevation as well as location.  The elevation wanders
-->as thou it can't decide.  Is this normal for GPS equip?
-->Thanx in advance
-->Alan
-->N1QWT

There is random error purposely introduced into the GPS system.
I dont know the magnitude for sure, but a few hundred meters
sounds about right.

Dont want our enemies using our GPS system for their smart
bombers.

---
------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Levine  KD1GG 7J1AIS VK2GYN               formerly KA1JFP
[e-mail]   <--Internet email    Phone[phone] x247
[e-mail] <--Packet Mail         FAX[phone]
------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 12 Jul 1994 18:03:00 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!iat.holonet.net!michaelr![e-mail]
Subject: Icom 471a
To: [e-mail]

 On 07-11-94 KATZ, TED J TJK wrote to ALL...

 KT> From: [e-mail] (Katz,
 KT> Ted J TJ
 KT> K)
 KT> Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
 KT> Subject: Icom 471a
 KT> Date: 11 Jul 94 15:09:11 GMT
 KT> Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
 KT> Organization: ucsd usenet gateway
 KT>
 KT> I would like to mod a ic471a (UHF MULTI MODE) to recieve at 421
 KT> MHZ (ATV Repeater output). This rig is not listed in any book I
 KT> can find.
 KT> Any info would help
 KT>
 KT> Email [e-mail]
 KT> 73 de N3OWM :->
 KT>

Forget it. ATV signals are 600 Khz wide. The audio subcarrier is 50 Khz
(wideband FM). If you COULD tune to the ATV signal, all you could get is
an S meter reading. You radio is narrow band FM, 5 Khz.

K5JCM



 * OFFLINE 1.56 * Bad command or filename. Go stand in the corner.
....................................................

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

Date: 12 Jul 1994 20:03:51 GMT
From: olivea!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!csusac.ecs.csus.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Opening up Kenwood battery pack
To: [e-mail]

Michael White ([e-mail]) wrote:
> J.D. Cronin wrote:

> > I'd like to replace the NiCad cells in the battery pack...
> >There are no screws visible...It looks like the entire thing was glued.

> Either glued or sonic welded, which amounts to the same thing. The only way
> I"ve found is to cut the case apart using a very sharp hobby knife. Be
> very, very careful, as you have to exert a lot of force, and one slip could
> cost you a finger. The case can be reassembled with glue pretty well, but
> it will never be perfect. Good luck.

> Mike, N4PDY

I have been able to open some battery packs by breaking them open.  The
advantage is that there is no kerf, that is, gap caused by the cutting
instrument.  I have found the best way to break the case is to put it into
the vise and apply pressure in the right spots.  It usually breaks, or cracks
along the glue seams.  You may have to do some additional prying with a
screwdriver to completely open the case.  Some battery packs use very strange
cells that I have not been able to locate.

Hope this helps.

James Holtzman kc6ncg ([e-mail])

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

Date: Wed, 13 Jul 94 13:27:57 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!pipex!ibmpcug!ibmpcug!rcp![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Does CW as a pre-req REALLY Work?
To: [e-mail]

I hate to get involved in these CW/no-CW arguments, as they crop up everywhere, but
this mail is probably the first one I have ever agreed with ENTIRELY.

I got my class B UK license (no code, VHF and up only) in 1990, and since then
wanted to get on HF, to find out what all this DX stuff was. The licensing conditions
state that to operate below 30MHz, you have to demonstrate the ability to send and
receive Morse Code. That's the rule, and so I started to learn the Morse code.

Towards the end of 1992 I thought to myself 'Hang on - I've been trying to learn
this darn code for nearly two years, and I'm still nowhere near the 12wpm required
to get a class A license', and I telephoned the Radio Society of Great Britain (RSGB)
to get the application form to book a place in the next Morse test, which was three
weeks from when I telephoned.

In the next three weeks I did more CW practise than I had ever done in the previous
two years, because I had *paid* for the test, and did _not_ want to fail it!

I passed the test, and posted the pass slip to the licensing organisation on Christmas
Eve (now that was a nice Christmas present!). On the 9th of January I had my new class
A callsign.

I think it was worth it, and although I don't use CW much as a mode, I feel better
knowing that I could use it, so when that rare DX appears on CW I would at least stand
a good chance of working him/her! (Although I have tried to work TN0CW for 4 days now!!)

The point I am making is that to operate on HF, you need to pass a morse test. Although
this test varies considerably from country to country, you still have to take a Morse
test.

If you want to operate on HF, take the test. If you are happy not to use HF, then you
don't need to take it. If you don't want to learn CW, then get used to using VHF. These
are the rules.

    Scott

P.S. I didn't want to operate on CW, I wanted to use SSB and digital modes.

In <77396187534n12@131.168.114.12> Earl=Morse%EMC=Srvc%Eng=[e-mail] writes:
>>>
>>>I don't care if I have to learn 13 WPM for my general upgrade.
>>>I don't care if it's 20 WPM.  I'll learn it if that's what the FCC
>>>says I gotta do.  >Matt Rupert

>That's the right attitude!

>>
>>Hi Matt, I have a hypothetical question for you. What would you do if
>>you tried for hundreds of hours to learn to receive Morse code at 13
>>wpm and just could not do it? I can force my brain to function as a
>>modem but I know somebody who cannot, and he is otherwise a very
>>knowledgable, intelligent person and an asset to the ham community.
>>

>What if......

>I couldn't pass the BAR because I didn't know anything about criminal law, should I be allowed to practice any law?
>I couldn't back up a tractor/trailer rig, should I be given an over the road truck driver's license?
>I couldn't name all the bones in the body, should I be allowed to practice medicine?
>I couldn't learn to receive Morse code, should I be allowed to get a ham license that would require the code?


>But I only wanted to......

>practice divorce law.
>drive forward.
>do brain surgery.
>talk on the radio.

>And I'm a real nice/knowledgeable/intelligent person and would be an
>asset to the legal/truck driving/medical/ham community.

>Everything in life has its requirements, we meet those requirements or don't participate.

>Earl Morse
>KZ8E
>[e-mail]

--
======================================================================
| Scott Earle,                | Internet  : [e-mail]          |
| Senior Software Engineer,   | AMPRnet   : [e-mail]     |
| RCP Ltd,                    | NTS BBS   : G0SWG@GB7AVM             |
| Dales,                      |                                      |
| High Street,                | Tel (work): [phone]           |
| Didcot, Oxon. OX11 8EQ      | FAX (work): [phone]           |
======================================================================

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

Date: Tue, 12 Jul 1994 17:51:00 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!iat.holonet.net!michaelr![e-mail]
Subject: TOWERS AND GUYS...
To: [e-mail]

 On 07-10-94 SEAN R. STEPANEK wrote to ALL...

 SR> Subject: TOWERS AND GUYS...
 SR> Date: 10 Jul 94 23:31:20 -0500
 SR>
 SR> Hello,
 SR>
 SR>     I have just aquired about 85 feet of tower and am anxious to get
 SR> it up,
 SR> but I need to ask a few questions first....
 SR>
 SR>     1)  What is the recommended placement of the guy wires?  Something
 SR>         along the lines of 45%, 75%, and 100%?
 SR>
 SR>     2)  What is the recommended number or guys per foot?  I know this
 SR> and
 SR>         the previous question also relate to windloading, but at this
 SR>         point I am looking for general starter guides.
 SR>
 SR>     3)  What is the maximum height before the FAA must be notified?
 SR>         I am NOT near any airports.
 SR>
 SR>     4)  What is the maximum height I can go without needing a light?
 SR>
 SR>     5)  Anything else that I am forgetting and needing to know?
 SR>
 SR> Thanks for your help.... you can E-mail to the following address...
 SR>
 SR>
 SR> Sean / N0PBA                    DJ1 @ VAX1.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU

Better get yourself a handbook on this subject. For example, Rohn
manufacturing has one for their towers. Your questions cannot be
answered from the sketchy information you furnished.

Two things affect the strength of any tower. Vertical loading (a result
of weight and forces transfered into a down direction, like guy tension)
and horizontal loading (the result of wind force). As an example, an
86.6 mph wind "pushes" on every square inch of the exposed (above
ground) tower/antennas/rotor/coax/etc with a force of 30 pounds per
square foot. And every square inch of EVERYTHING must be included in
the calculations.

For towers under 300 feet, most areas of the US are in the 30 PSF
(A) zone, according to data (50 year mean reoccurrence interval
charts) subscribed to by reputable tower manufacturers. No area of the
US has ANY less expected loading. Some areas of the US can expect 40 (B)
and 50 (C) PSF loading. 40 PSF = 100 MPH. 50 PSF = 111.8 MPH. Its
exponential. You may note that many crank-up/telescopic tower
manufacturers list some number of square feet of antennas that can be
used on their towers based on "50 MPH windloading". A 50 MPH wind is
nothing. It represents 13 PSF.

If you want to see just how severe windloading is, I suggest you simply
look at the elaborate structure supporting any information sign on any
highway.

NO tower should EVER be erected without knowing what windload/weigh can
safely be resisted by the structure. 85 feet is a serious height and
deserves serious study. 200 feet is the limit without special permit
from the FAA and that is reduced as you get closer to an airport.

K5JCM

 * OFFLINE 1.56 * He who dies with the most toys is dead.
...............................................................................

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

Date: Wed, 13 Jul 1994 14:09:41 GMT
From: netcomsv!netcom.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <2vrslk$[e-mail]>, <2vs5rm$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: IARU Contest

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joe Salemi) writes:
>
>In article <2vs5rm$[e-mail]>, Scott Richard Rosenfeld ([e-mail]) writes:
>>This was, by far, the worst conditions I have EVER seen in my 8 years of
>>contesting!  As you'll see in my .signature, I run a dipole antenna.  Most
>>of the time, there's at least SOMETHING above 20 meters to speak of.
>>
>>
>Yea, the only ones who seemed to rack up the high scores were the
>contesters with beams and at least kW amps.  I made a few contacts on
>10m and 15m with my Butternut vertical and 100W, but nothing to write
>home about, and all but one (OA4EI on 15m) in the Eastern portion of
>North America.  Even 20m wasn't that hot, though the Russian stations
>did seem to finally start coming in after around 0300z.

Funny how impressions differ. I jumped in around 2300Z, just to see
what could be done with 20m. With the TR7 barefoot and a 90-foot wire
on an SGC-230, I worked 'em as fast as I could tune 'em. Only one or
two state-side stations. I did just about 30 countries in 4+ hours,
all on 20. Mostly worked stations on the second or third call.

Agreed, though, that the land above 14Mhz was mostly waste-land. Look
at it this way... ...it saves that nagging feeling that 'I really ought
to be changing bands.' :-)

So for me, at least, the number of available DX stations overcame the
terrible propagation. The only bad thing was that it seemed like the
peak conditions on 20m led to really tough band crowding, since there
was hardly anyplace to spread out.

Greg

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

Date: Wed, 13 Jul 1994 15:19:23 GMT
From: netcomsv!netcom.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>ⁿ
Subject : Re: Anyone experienced with Cushcraft R7?

Roger Buffington ([e-mail]) wrote:
: Daniel T Senie ([e-mail]) wrote:

: : Interesting. I guess the only thing I can disagree with you on is it being
: : a "well known" problem. I have not experienced any such problems with
: : my R7, but I have not run high power through it either. I guess the
: : problem may not be commonly known on this coast...

: A friend of mine (local) who had an R-5 eventually sold it due to the
: trap problem.  He did an informal on-the-air survey of something like 25
: hams with R-5 whom he worked on the air.  All but one had had to request
: at least one new trap from Cushcraft.  But out here in Southern Cal, yes,
: the problem is well known and widly discussed.

: : >

Folks, I screwed up in this post.  Hadn't had my morning coffee! :-)

IT IS THE R-7, NOT THE R-5, WHICH HAS THE PROBLEMS WITH THE TRAPS.

SORRY ABOUT THE SCREWUP.  THE R-5 TO MY KNOWLEDGE HAS ***NO*** PROBLEMS
WITH TRAPS.

PLEASE SUBSTITUTE R7 FOR R5 IN MY EARLIER POST.

There.  I feel better.
--
                                             [e-mail]
                                             Glendale, CA
                                             AB6WR

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

End of Info-Hams Digest V94 #788
******************************