QRZ! Ham Radio 5/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 5.iso/digests/infoham/940162.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 28KB

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 18:42:16 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 #162
To: Info-Hams


Info-Hams Digest            Wed, 16 Feb 94       Volume 94 : Issue  162

Today's Topics:
             Amelia Earheart was Codeless, unfortunately
                      Club Stn. U of Illinois??
                             John Ramsey
                  MFJ speaker/mics for Yaesu FT530
                          My HAMBLASTER note
           Need Info. on exam schedules in New Delhi, India
                 which is better qrp band--30 or 40?
                     wireless cable frequencies.

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: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 20:51:31 GMT
From: news.Hawaii.Edu!uhunix3.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu![e-mail]
Subject: Amelia Earheart was Codeless, unfortunately
To: [e-mail]

In article <2jo50h$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rajiv Dewan) writes:
>From: The DX reflector
>Subject: Amelia Earhart
>From: [e-mail] (Ron Chester)
>Date: Sat, 12 Feb 94 23:30:00 -0800
>
>Tonight I saw the last half of a PBS show on Amelia Earhart which I
>believe most DXers would find interesting. (I missed the beginning, so
>don't know the name of the program).
>
>According to the show, Earhart did not especially like radio
>communication, and did not get properly trained up on radio navigation.
>For her final around-the-world flight in 1937, she left her Morse Code key
>at home, as she had never managed to master the code.
.........

I'd state the obvious moral of this story, but we're not on .policy ....
[See? I'm able to muster a bit of restraint periodically (once a year).]


===============================================================================
Jeffrey Herman, NH6IL, [e-mail], who, in his spare time, cannibalizes
old TV sets to make QRP transmitters (CW of course).

Previously: WA6QIJ, WH6AEQ, NMO (U.S. Coast Guard Radio Honolulu: 500kc CW)

It is said that CW is the second most popular mode on HF, but scanning the
bands I frequently count more CW QSOs than SSB QSOs.
==============================================================================

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

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 13:49:28 GMT
From: mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx10![e-mail]
Subject: Club Stn. U of Illinois??
To: [e-mail]

Keith Poole <[e-mail]> writes:

>Is there an amateur radio club station at the University of Illinois at
>Urbana-Champaign?  If so, is it possible for visitors to use it on HF?

>Thanks.

>Keith Poole K7MOA/3

Yes, the name of the club is the Synton Amateur Radio Club, and their
E-mail address is [e-mail]. They used to have (still do ?) Friday
night informal get togethers and work some HF, so that would be a good
time to stop by and see the club. Otherwise you'd need to organize a
sched with a club member to use the station.

Warren Kinninger, N9MLK
[e-mail]

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

Date: 15 Feb 1994 14:41:47 -0600
From: ucsnews!newshub.sdsu.edu!usc!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu![e-mail]
Subject: John Ramsey
To: [e-mail]

Well I will say it flat out: John Ramsey is a liar. I caught him at it
first hand and won't go near any of their products anymore.

I purchased one of the original 2 meter transceiver kits. I really like
the way the instruction book was organized and you get to test one
section before proceeding with the next. I did a real careful job with
mine.

It didn't work correctly when I finished. I got a graduate student from
the EE program here at the University who is a ham to help me. He found
that the crystals weren't cut correctly (while building I noticed some
of the components were fine.. many were trash.. the wire kept falling
apart).

I called tech support .. spent a bunch of long distance time with a nice
gentleman who seemed to know what he was talking about. He informed me
that they had received a batch of bad crystals (think he said 400 or so)
and they were forced to use them up (couldn't understand this). He told
me some procedures to "pad" the crystals to bring them on frequency. My
friend helped me get the rig going.. not perfectly..but I have been
using it for packet for about 2 years now.. only had to mess with it 3
or for times.

Well I got so mad at this concept that I wrote Mr. Ramsey a nice letter.
It was strong enough so that he paid for the phone call to call me. He
wanted to know who the tech. was.. (sounded like he was going to fire
him).. and INSISTED the tech lied and there was absolutely nothing wrong
with the crystals.. he stated the extra instructions tell you how to pad
the crystals... and in very technical terms proceeded to tell me this
was normal.. I was a new ham with no background in electronics at the
time.. he sure sounded full of it. I decided not to press the matter and
told him I thought he should have just replaced the crystals.

At the time there were long discussions about MANY people exeperiencing
the same difficulties I had... some people got their's to work right
away (probably lucked out and got good crystals). There was also all
types of problems in the alignment with having to stretch some of the
coils way out of shape to get power out of the TX.

I recently heard that John Ramsey said some pretty bad things about me
to a customer over the phone.. don't know where that came from.. think
this guy is VERY disreputable.

Anyway, Ten Tec is suppose to come out with a nice 2 meter fm
transceiver kit in the near future.

73

Jeff, AC4HF

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

Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 18:02:42 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: MFJ speaker/mics for Yaesu FT530
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]> writes:
> Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
> Path:
lanl!ncar!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.n
et!agate!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!wy1z
> From: [e-mail] (Scott Ehrlich)
> Subject: MFJ speaker/mics for Yaesu FT530
> Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
> Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
> Distribution: usa
> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 11:40:05 GMT
> Lines: 21
>
>
> I am considering getting an MFJ speaker/mic for my FT530 mainly due to
> the price.
>
> How is the performance?  I'm concentrating on the models which offer an
> earphone jack in the plug itself and some sort of alligator (sp?) clip
> for the belt.  I'm also going for compactness.  (Basically, a clip like
> Radio Shack mics in the size of the standard Yaesu MH-18A2B mics).
>
Forget the price save your money and buy the digital speaker for the 530
It in itself is reason to buy the 530 over an Icom or Kenwood. It is the
most convient handheld accessory I have ever owned.
> Keeping all of this in mind, how the does the net respond?
>
> Thank much.
>
> Scott
>
>
> --
>
===============================================================================
> | Scott Ehrlich            Internet: [e-mail]     BITNET: wy1z@NUHUB  |
> | Amateur Radio: wy1z          AX.25: [e-mail]
 |
>
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> |    Maintainer of the Boston Amateur Radio Club hamradio FTP area on      |
> |            the World - world.std.com  pub/hamradio               |
>
===============================================================================

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

Date: 15 Feb 94 12:54:38
From: idacrd.ccr-p.ida.org!idacrd![e-mail]
Subject: My HAMBLASTER note
To: [e-mail]

The response to my note on the Soundblaster and Hamblaster cards has been
overwhelming.  The notes number in the hundred.  I had no idea there was
so much interest.  I cannot possibly hope to answer all of these notes
and I hope you will accept my apologies for not doing so.


I will keep the news groups posted as to what becomes available when.

Bob
--
Robert W. McGwier                  | [e-mail] Interests: ham radio,
Center for Communications Research | scouts, astronomy, golf (o yea, & math!)
Princeton, N.J. 08520              | ASM Troop 5700, ACM Pack 53 Hightstown
(609)-279-6240(v) (609)-924-3061(f)| I used to be a Buffalo . . . NE III-120

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

Date: 16 Feb 1994 13:29:02 GMT
From: pacbell.com!sgiblab!sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!news.dtc.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!hpuerca.atl.hp.com![e-mail]
Subject: Need Info. on exam schedules in New Delhi, India
To: [e-mail]

A friend of mine would like to get his first Amateur Radio license in
New Delhi, India. He requested the Amateur Radio Institute, Hyderabad, India
to send him the information. He only received study materials but no exam
schedule. Since Amateur Radio exams are held very infrequently and location
varies every year. He would like to get in touch with Amateur Radio operators
in New Delhi area. If someone on the net has an International Call Sign direct-
ory and can look up 3-4 names, addresses, phonenumbers and callsigns and email
it to, will help my friend get one step closer to becoming a HAM.

Best Regards,
Kaushik Mehta (KE4IHB)

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

Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 21:00:10 GMT
From: news.Hawaii.Edu!uhunix3.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu![e-mail]
Subject: which is better qrp band--30 or 40?
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruno Bienenfeld) writes:
>You will be much better off by using 30m for followin reasons.
>
>40 is segmentaized e.m. different ITU zones can operate only on certain
>freq. or segments of the 40m band.
>40 has Broadcasts and other QRM working against QRP.
>On 40 "other" station can use 1KW so ham to ham QRM is a factor.
>
>30 is 'NEW' and same freq. for all ITU.
>Very little QRM
>On the edge of muf
>Max power is 100w

Or 200w output - more folks probably measure their output power than their
input...

>Beam fix or rotatebl is feasable and in my opinion a must for QRP.
>
>Try it you may like it!!!!!

And you can use the 10.00000000000000000000000000000000000 MHz beacons (all
those  frequency/time standard broadcasts) to check openings!

>from the log of AA6AD


=============================================================================
Jeffrey Herman NH6IL [e-mail], who, in his spare time, cannibalizes
old TV sets to make QRP transmitters (CW, of course).

Previously: WA6QIJ, WH6AEQ, NMO (U.S. Coast Guard Radio Honolulu: 500 kc CW)

Vietnamese Proverb: If you study you will become what you wish
                    If you do not study you will never become anything.
=============================================================================

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

Date: 16 Feb 94 20:04:53 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: wireless cable frequencies.
To: [e-mail]

somewhere i thought i had info on where the wireless cable guys were supposed
to be located.  can't find it now -- certainly someone here has the
information - more out of curiosity than anything else -- we know the format
of transmission to be relatively secure.

the wireless catv guys are using a wide variety of antennas around here and
we're trying to figure out exactly why 2 houses side by side would need vastly
different antennas...unless there's more to it that just that.

early reports indicate that the wireless cable guys are beating the local CATV
outlet (time-warner) on both quality of delivered picture (we have yet to see
how it looks in the rain) & on price (free disney, no junk shopping channels
and a minimum of bible thumpers for about a buck less).

thanks,

bill [e-mail]

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

Date: 15 Feb 1994 17:34:44 GMT
From: koriel!newsworthy.West.Sun.COM!abyss.West.Sun.COM!pongo![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <2jqu8k$[e-mail]>
Subject : Ramsey slams ARRL (was Re: RAMSEY FX TRANSCEIVER)

In article <2jqu8k$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rajiv Dewan) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>,  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>Jon Bloom (KE3Z) <[e-mail]> writes:
>>
>>>harmonic spectral purity requirements.) They promised to send us one of
>>>the new units as soon as it became available.  (Normally, we only
>>>*purchase* Product Review items, but we decided that it would be hard
>>>for them to fine-tune a kit :-)
>>>   We waited a couple of months, then called Ramsey.  To make a long
>>>story short, we called *every* couple of months, but we never received
>>>the promised radio.  Finally, we just bought one (through a third
>>>party).  This is the unit we reviewed.  In March of 1993, we contacted
>>
>>And one wonders why we don't advertise in QST, it's the attitude of
>>history re-writers such as J.B. I was there, and the facts just ain't so.
>>I'd rather talk on the phone! But I had to respond to such talk. You see, the
>>ARRL couldn't get their kit to work! So we sent them an assembled unit.
>
>I do not know how you read this, but to me it looks like bad news for
>buildability of Ramsey Kits.

>>Yes it did not meet the FCC specs for spurious - missing by about a db or
>>two ( I'm at home and don't have notes handy). The ARRL missed the whole
>>point of the kit which was to promote kit building, etc,etc. Now. I'm
>>sure you are thinking, "but it didn't meet FCC!" True, but for a fascinating
>>contrast, look at the GLOWING review of the MFJ regen receiver! Guess it
>>doesn't spray RF.I do believe that MFJ has been quite a big QST advertiser, too.
>>No, you'll not see a Ramsey ad in QST. It was years ago that I was approached
>>by a QST ad director to advertise. He expounded how QST was looking out for the
>>amateur, requiring test units before accepting ads. I responded that they had
>>plenty of ad pages from DSI, a since defunct freq ctr mfg who sold trash and
>>was openly taking $$ for products they had no intention of shipping! Of this is
>>the virtue you speak? Well, DSI closed shop, took QST readers for hundreds of
>>thousands of dollars and even stuck that nice old ad director too!
>>Yes, I'm hot and seeing this kangoroo (sp?) court makes me long for my work-
>>bench rather than this CRT. I don't have the luxury of getting paid to
>>read and respond to everything here - but I do welcome phone calls to myself
>>at the office [phone]. Just ask for me.

>I do not know about others, but talking of follies and foibles of DSI and MFJ
>does not make Ramsey kits seem any better in my mind.

When I returned John's call, he spent some time bad-mouthing the ARRL
and one other individual *by name*.  I asked John not to use names, but
he insisted.  I mean, a couple of high-profile customers have trouble
with his product, John's response is "they can't build kits".  To
actually mention people by name and say they can't build kits is poor
customer relations.  I contacted the other individual John bad-mouthed
and asked for his side of the story; for what it is worth, this
gentleman was at least as credible as John.  It seems that, if you
have nice things to say about Ramsey kits, John will say nice things
about you.  If you have any kind of trouble with Ramsey kits, you run
the risk of being slandered.


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

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

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 10:21:21 GMT
From: pacbell.com!sgiblab!swrinde!emory!wa4mei.ping.com!ke4zv![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <2jqi1t$[e-mail]>
Reply-To : [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject : Re: Nude amateur radio clubs

In article <2jqi1t$[e-mail]> jm6033@pegasus (John W. Meaker) writes:
>
>   I'm curious about nude QSL cards.  Would anyone be offended if they
>received a QSL card in the mail with nude people on it?  Would it be
>better to mail the card in an envelope?  The envelope increases the
>cost of mailing a QSL considerably, and cost a consideration when you
>mail many cards.

It rather much depends on what the nude people look like. Some people
shouldn't appear in public nude. Ugh!

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: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 21:07:48 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>ng.gtefs
Subject : Re: FCC Daily Digests for the

In article <[e-mail]> posted to the Usenet Newsgroup(s)
rec.radio.amateur.misc
[e-mail] (Bob Parnass, AJ9S) writes:
>
>Bruce:
>
>Thanks for the FCC postings.  I share them with other people
>on my project.  If there is a better way to obtain them, please
>let me know.

Yes, I found them informative as well.

Maybe the other poster is partly right about them having "nothing"
(Not MUCH... see the Vanity Call Signs?) to do with Amateur Radio...
But I don't believe that a separate newsgroup needs to be created.

REC.RADIO.INFO  might be fine for this purpose in that it can cater
to the entire rec.radio.* subdivisions.

       [e-mail]  [e-mail]  WWIVNet 1@511  DoD #MCMLX
          I'd rather get my cable service from the phone company,
                than my phone service from the cable company.

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

Date: 16 Feb 1994 14:03:26 GMT
From: agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <2jqi1t$[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Nude amateur radio clubs

In article <2jqi1t$[e-mail]>,
John W. Meaker <jm6033@pegasus> wrote:

>   I'm curious about nude QSL cards.  Would anyone be offended if they
>received a QSL card in the mail with nude people on it?  Would it be
>better to mail the card in an envelope?  The envelope increases the
>cost of mailing a QSL considerably, and cost a consideration when you
>mail many cards.

Even the *thought* of receiving a QSL card with a nude picture of the average
ham on it is enough to offend me.  I mean, seriously, folks.  Leaf through
any QST of recent (or even ancient) vintage, look at the pictures of the
hams and imagine seeing them nude.

It's enough to make one take up needlepoint.

---Bill VanHorne

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

Date: 16 Feb 94 14:05:08 GMT
From: slinky.cs.nyu.edu!slinky.cs.nyu.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <2j63p1$[e-mail]>, <2jp6ie$[e-mail]>l
Subject : Re: A code speed question

In article <2jp6ie$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jesse L Wei) writes:

>Here's a question for you. . .after copying by keyboard, can you copy
>by hand still????

I have actually never copied a single character by hand yet. I am still
very new to learning the code and every second has been spent on the
computer.  I received my first bad mark for handwriting in the second
grade and was programming computers by the sixth.  The writing has only
gotten worse and the typing has moved to 70wpm since then.

Maybe I'll bring a notebook computer with me, accompanied by a little
begging. :-)

Steve
--
Steven Jackson                                              New York University
Assistant to the Chair of Comp Sci       Courant Inst. of Mathematical Sciences
[e-mail], jcksnste@acfcluster        251 Mercer St, Room 411,NY 10012
         "Not in my head.. so I don't have to think.." --  Nik Fiend

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

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 19:45:35 GMT
From: library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>│·
Subject : Re: RAMSEY FX TRANSCEIVER

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>And one wonders why we don't advertise in QST, it's the attitude of
>history re-writers such as J.B. I was there, and the facts just ain't so.

I have no doubt that there was some mis-communication. Only a very
stupid business would snub *the* trade publication, on purpose. Seems
to me that *BOTH* John and Jon have a bit of a tendency to handle
negative feed-back defensively, as opposed to trying to figure out
why someone got the impression they did from their respective organizations.

>I'd rather talk on the phone!


Actually, John, there have been a couple of stories related concerning
phone conversations that net.hams have had with you. Some have been
satisfactory to your customers. Others apparently have not.


>                             But I had to respond to such talk. You see, the
>ARRL couldn't get their kit to work!

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the product, or a reason to recommend
it to a newcomer, is it?

>                                     So we sent them an assembled unit.

...which ought to have worked perfectly...

>Yes it did not meet the FCC specs for spurious - missing by about a db or
>two ( I'm at home and don't have notes handy).

The point is, what is (by your account) your best effort yielded a
rig which was illegal to use on the air. That (by your account) it
was a Ramsey-completed unit only makes the company look worse.

>                                         The ARRL missed the whole
>point of the kit which was to promote kit building, etc,etc.


I don't think I understand... ...do you mean that you intend for
us to build your products, but not USE them? Or do you feel that your
service to the amateur community in providing kits for hands-on
training overrides your obligation to provide a legal and
functional product? I mean, generally, when I see an ad for an
'Amateur 2-meter Transceiver' and that is a new item, I expect
that it will meet the standards for use on that band. Is that
an unreasonable expectation?

>                                                               Now. I'm
>sure you are thinking, "but it didn't meet FCC!"

Yes. Correct. Damn straight. Because that, John, is the bottom line. It
is not QST's responsibility that your product didn't come up to the
standards that *ALL* amateur equipment is measured against. And they
have not wronged you by pointing it out. On the contrary, they have done
more than they had to by giving you the opportunity to take corrective
action, and offering a limited endorsement, rather than outright panning
it. And, it is worth noting, they held back on reviewing your initial
product, which also showed some defects. They've really been pretty good
to you. Not a few of us would have preferred them *NOT* to cut Ramsey
such slack.

>                                            True, but for a fascinating
>contrast, look at the GLOWING review of the MFJ regen receiver! Guess it
>doesn't spray RF.I do believe that MFJ has been quite a big QST advertiser, too.
Interesting question, but I can't help thinking that you're trying to
distract from the issue of *your* product. And of course I would note
that I have seen at least one 'GLOWING' review of your product in a
magazine in which YOU advertise. A review/article which, by the way,
missed some of the pitfalls.

>No, you'll not see a Ramsey ad in QST. It was years ago that I was approached
>by a QST ad director to advertise. He expounded how QST was looking out for the
>amateur, requiring test units before accepting ads. I responded that they had
>plenty of ad pages from DSI, a since defunct freq ctr mfg who sold trash and
>was openly taking $$ for products they had no intention of shipping! Of this is
>the virtue you speak? Well, DSI closed shop, took QST readers for hundreds of
>thousands of dollars and even stuck that nice old ad director too!

So how does all of that explain why *your* ads aren't there? Have you
refused to cooperate? What does DSI have to do with your company?

>Yes, I'm hot and seeing this kangoroo (sp?) court

Indeed. Seems as though you don't have much of a regard for your
customers' opinions. My impression is that the FX kits have been
described here as sometimes problematic, and sometimes very good.
Note has been taken of hard data supplied by the ARRL. And subjective
performance evaluations have been shared. And you yourself seem to
hint that you regard them as more educational than functional (the
'point' above).

The only time it got really personal seems to have been in the
descriptions of a couple of individuals' encounters with you by
telephone.

Unfortunately, the manner of your posting tends to lend credence to
the implication that your resonse to concerns about the quality
of the FM transceiver lines is a bit on the, well, 'defensive'
side.


>                                        makes me long for my work-
>bench rather than this CRT.

Probably not a bad idea. While you're there, perhaps you might
look into the challenge of producing a kit from which it is
possible for average (or lesser) builders to get consistent
results. If it were me, I guess I'd look into offering the
option of pre-assembled rf sections,

Admittedly, this is a tough problem, tougher than it was at
the time Heathkit had to face it. But if the kit industry is
to be viable as more than a curiosity, face it it must.

> I don't have the luxury of getting paid to
>read and respond to everything here - but I do welcome phone calls to myself
>at the office [phone]. Just ask for me.

John, you seem to want things... ...the reviews, how you talk to customers,
how your products are discussed, to be on your terms. With respect, I
don't think that's a realistic expectation.

Greg

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

End of Info-Hams Digest V94 #162
******************************