QRZ! Ham Radio 5/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 5.iso/digests/infoham/940671.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 23.1 KB

Date: Thu, 16 Jun 94 09:32:00 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 #671
To: Info-Hams


Info-Hams Digest            Thu, 16 Jun 94       Volume 94 : Issue  671

Today's Topics:
                "Renewal" reusable alkaline batteries
                  AEA IsoLoop - Opinions/Experiences
                       Direction Finding Video
                    FCC Fees (historical) - Update
                      Help:emergency USCG freq?
    IMMEDIATE LICENSING? Bad implementation.  Good idea. (2 msgs)
                        operating from Greece
     You know its time to retire from the hobby when.... (3 msgs)

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: 16 Jun 1994 11:01:02 -0400
From: newstf01.cr1.aol.com!search01.news.aol.com![e-mail]
Subject: "Renewal" reusable alkaline batteries
To: [e-mail]

In article <1994Jun15.221000.3518@eisner>, [e-mail]
(George Cornelius) writes:

>Does anyone have experience with them

I've changed over all my portable gear (2m HT, scanner, CD player,
portable SW, PDA) from nicads to Renewals (AA and AAA).  I've been
getting very good life out of the cells.  What I like best about them
is that they don't have nicad-like memories to worry about.  If I'm
unsure about how much charge is left in a set before heading out, I
simply pop in a fully charged set (they don't drain unused, like
nicads), put the questionable ones in the charger, and exit.

In fact, RayOVac suggests that charging them before they run too far
down will help get more life out of them.  Recharge times for low
batteries can get pretty long (six hours or more occasionally), but
that hasn't been a problem for me so far.

The cells are physically different, with almost no lip on the tubular
case near the positive terminal.  This difference in design makes
sure that only Renewals will fit in their chargers.  And, you must
charge the cells with the Renewal charger--don't use the nicad
chargers that come with your gizmos to recharge inside the gear.

In any case, I'm very pleased with the system, especially being free
of nicad auto discharging and memory worries.

Danny Goodman AE9F/6

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

Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 15:43:59 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!ulowell!wang![e-mail]
Subject: AEA IsoLoop - Opinions/Experiences
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Clay Jackson) writes:

>Ronald H. Bafetti ([e-mail]) wrote:
>: Anyone out there using (or familiar with someone who uses) the AEA IsoLoop
>: antenna?  It's kind of caught my fancy as a reasonable alternative to a
>: full-sized beam.  Is it the urban dweller's answer to casual QSOs in the
>: 10-30MHz world?

>I've got one in my attic, and it works great as far as I can tell.  I've only
>worked 10M, and if I can hear 'em I can work 'em.

I agree - mine is on a ground-mounted tripod on a 10' pole, kind of
hidden in a tall bush.  Last night I busted a pileup on 14.015 and got
him on my first call.  That's sort of unusual, but it gives you an
idea of how well it can perform.

>Tuning it can be a bit of a pain - but once you get used to it, it's not bad
>at all.

I agree with that, too.  It's an acceptable pain, considering that
otherwise I'd be off the air.

73,
Dave, KZ1O

--
Dave Bushong, Wang Laboratories, Inc.

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

Date: 16 Jun 1994 14:23:37 GMT
From: juniper.almaden.ibm.com!ibmboulder!ibmboulder![e-mail]
Subject: Direction Finding Video
To: [e-mail]

Our club is going to have a meeting on DF'ing next month (July). We plan to
have several different types of DF'ing equipment there (mostly home brew).

I was wondering if anyone has or knows where I can get any video on DFing.

Please let me know if you have a source.

73 and Thanks Bob KA5GLX  Houston, Tx   [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 13:03:24 GMT
From: newsgate.melpar.esys.com!melpar![e-mail]
Subject: FCC Fees (historical) - Update
To: [e-mail]

     This is a follow-up to a comment I posted yesterday relative
to FCC fees.  Sorry, but nn isn't being updated here at work so if
you've flamed me I haven't seen it yet.

     My previous post was "off the top of my head" regarding what
kinds of things were subject to FCC fees, so I went home last night
and checked through some old records to clarify the issue of what
the FCC used to charge for license applications.  The excerpt below
is from "The Radio Amateur's License Manual," 69th edition, 1973,
pp. 5-6:

                         "Application Fees"

     "The Federal Communications Commission fee for new or renewed
amateur licenses is $9; for modification, such as change of
address, $4; for duplicate license, $6; and for special call signs
as provided for in Section 97.51, $25.  A check or money order
payable to the Federal Communications Commission must accompany
each application.  Note that this is a filing (emphasized) fee; FCC
keeps the money whether or not a license is issued as a result!"

     "All applications involving new or existing licenses of the
Novice class, of military recreation stations (defined in Section
97.3), of RACES stations or involving reciprocal operating permits,
are exempt from fees.  Procedures for payment of fees are spelled
out in an appendix to the FCC rules, Chapter 10 of this booklet."


     Final comments:  Appendix 6 to the FCC rules, which covers
fees, is contained in the same edition of the "License Manual" on
p. 113.  I checked my 1956 (36th edition) "License Manual" and
there is no mention of any fees in effect at that time.  I really
don't know the dates when fees went into effect or were later done
away with.

     73,

     Paul, K4MSG

(|_|)  * Paul H. Bock, Jr. K4MSG  * Internet: [e-mail]
 | |)  * Senior Systems Engineer  * Telephone: [phone] x2062

   "You can have my bug when you can pry my cold, dead fingers from
    around it....." - anonymous radiotelegraph operator


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

Date: 16 Jun 1994 15:22:45 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Help:emergency USCG freq?
To: [e-mail]

I would like to know the frequency that is monitored by the US CoastGuard
in the range of 150-170 MHz for emergencies.
Which channel # is it? What is the frequency?

Please reply directly to my e-mail address.

Thanks in advance,

anthony aletras
N8/SV2ABQ
[e-mail]

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

Date: 16 Jun 1994 12:48:53 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!haven.umd.edu!cville-srv.wam.umd.edu![e-mail]
Subject: IMMEDIATE LICENSING? Bad implementation.  Good idea.
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,
Robert Casey <[e-mail]> wrote:
>In article <2tmvvu$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Scott Richard Rosenfeld) writes:
>>Immediate licensing was an EXCELLENT idea.  I believe that nearly EVERY
>>ham on the air would have agreed with this.  The VE's giving the exam
>>should have been allowed to call the FCC computer, use a modem, and
>>enter the data directly into the FCC database, at which point a call-
>>sign would have been spit out.  Ideally, THIS is the way it should be.
>>
>How about the FCC giving the VEC's a list of new  callsigns to be given
>to successful examinees on the spot, and the VEC's just fill out a form
>with the new call holder's name and address?  Maybe some VEC's might let
>people pick and choose a little from the list.  "Can I have that one, 'ISE'?"
>Similar security as that with the present paperwork.  Only thing is that
>no callsign should get "lost" (ie, never issued because someone VEC lost
>that particular form with it printed on.).  Shouldn't be any major problem.

Only problem (and I have found this with my own posting) is that the
"Pay-for-license" scam would be that much harder to nip in the bud.

Imagine if one of the corrupt VE crews had a bunch of licenses to
give out to people passing their exams, and some people came along
with a big wad of money and instead of just helping them all PASS,
which HAS happened, \

they were actually issued licenses, too...

Oy, the mess we could have...  At the very most, the VEC should do
the filing electronically.  We'd be reasonably certain to avoid il-
legally given licenses, and the time would still be fairly short.

Scott NF3I

--
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: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 14:29:39 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!news.cac.psu.edu!news.pop.psu.edu!ra![e-mail]
Subject: IMMEDIATE LICENSING? Bad implementation.  Good idea.
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Casey)
writes:
>
> [some stuff deleted here]
>
> How about the FCC giving the VEC's a list of new  callsigns to be given
> to successful examinees on the spot, and the VEC's just fill out a form
> with the new call holder's name and address?  Maybe some VEC's might let
> people pick and choose a little from the list.  "Can I have that one,
> 'ISE'?" Similar security as that with the present paperwork.  Only thing
> is that no callsign should get "lost" (ie, never issued because someone
> VEC lost that particular form with it printed on.).  Shouldn't be any
> major problem.

   Others have made similar suggestions.

   I don't support instant callsign assignment by supplying VE's with a
list of callsigns.  It complicates the assignment and management of
callsigns by the FCC, something that is probably enough of a headache for
the agency as it stands.

   I could agree to instant electronic filing of applications by VE's.  I
agree that this would (could) speed up the licensing cycle by an order of
magnitude.  It would certainly unload much, if not all of the data entry
currently handled by the handful of clerks in Gettysburg.  Given that a
mailing is done once a week, you could get a license well within two weeks
- a very reasonable waiting period.

   However, what are the security issues associated with electronic
filing?  Would it be any less subject to abuse than the current system?

-Dave
--
David Drumheller, KA3QBQ          phone: [phone]
Acoustics Division, Code 7140       fax: [phone]
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington, DC 20375-5350   e-mail: [e-mail]

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

Date: 16 Jun 1994 15:15:16 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu![e-mail]
Subject: operating from Greece
To: [e-mail]

To operate from Greece according to the reciprocal agreement between the
US and Greece you need to present your licence to the Ministry of
Transportation and Telecommunication in Athens, Greece. To my knoledge
this was required some years ago in order to obtain the local licence.
You can also write to ARRL and find out more about it. Usually they have
current info available about reciprocal agreement requirements.

anthony aletras
N8/SV2ABQ
[e-mail]

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

Date: 16 Jun 1994 12:46:50 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!gatech!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!news.duke.edu!solaris.cc.vt.edu![e-mail]
Subject: You know its time to retire from the hobby when....
To: [e-mail]

In article <2tn7jq$[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Mike Gauland) writes:
> You answer your phone, "QRZ?"
>

And, after you find out who the calling party is, you say
"your 59 in Virginia..."


--
Benjy Cline, AC4XO
Virginia Tech Computing Center
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 13:53:26 GMT
From: noc.near.net!das-news.harvard.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!dolphin![e-mail]
Subject: You know its time to retire from the hobby when....
To: [e-mail]

You are in your car, and see somebody you know walking down the street...
instead of going beep-beep and waving...

you pound out CQ on your car horn and wave.

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

Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 15:45:58 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!news.kei.com!wang![e-mail]
Subject: You know its time to retire from the hobby when....
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (John C. Wren) writes:

>you've named your brand new German Shepherd puppy 'Radio Flyer' to combine
>two of your hobbies... (this is true, this is my dog's name...)

Oh, no.... I forgot about our cat, named "CQ", who would think it was
dinnertime whenever I operated 20m SSB.

Dave, KZ1O
--
Dave Bushong, Wang Laboratories, Inc.

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

Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 12:52:01 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

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

Jeffrey Herman ([e-mail]) wrote:

: Roger, every day on the news and  in the newspapers I hear/read of many
: frivolous lawsuits being filed for what  seems  to  me very silly reasons.
: Yet no matter how ridiculous the claim the defendent must spend his/her
: own hard earnied money defending him/herself. I think we all see how
: high emotions are running in this debate and Jay is correct in that
: some hams will certainly file a lawsuit if they can't get their way.
: It's a shame when volunteers, believing they are doing their job properly,
: have to fear lawsuits in carrying out their duties.

Jeff, you are entitled to your opinion.  But Jay is completely off-base
when he takes the approach: "doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong,
because either way, if things are done other than my way, you will be
entangled in a tidal wave of frivolous lawsuits."

That's simply rubbish.  There is no evidence of this other than, I guess,
one or two examples of someone threatening a lawsuit out in Texas.

Go over to Misc.Legal (where I am also active :-) ) if you want to get
into a big discussion about frivolous lawsuits.  Let's leave it out of
this thread. That's all I'm saying.

Jay's argument lacks validity.


--
                                             [e-mail]
                                             Glendale, CA
                                             AB6WR

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

Date: 16 Jun 1994 14:46:29 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!haven.umd.edu!umd5.umd.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <2tmvvu$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <2tphnl$[e-mail]>v
Subject : Re: IMMEDIATE LICENSING? Bad implementation.  Good idea.

In article <2tphnl$[e-mail]>,
Scott Richard Rosenfeld <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>How about the FCC giving the VEC's a list of new  callsigns to be given
>>to successful examinees on the spot, and the VEC's just fill out a form
>>with the new call holder's name and address?
>
>Only problem (and I have found this with my own posting) is that the
>"Pay-for-license" scam would be that much harder to nip in the bud.
>
>Imagine if one of the corrupt VE crews had a bunch of licenses to
>give out to people passing their exams, and some people came along
>with a big wad of money and instead of just helping them all PASS,
>which HAS happened, \

I don't understand how corrupt VEs are more of a problem under
the proposed scheme than under the current one.

Current:
    1. bad guy pays off VE
    2. VE sends paper to FCC
    3. bad guy gets license

Proposed:
    1. bad guy pays off VE
    2. bad guy gets license
    3. VE sends paper to FCC

>Oy, the mess we could have...  At the very most, the VEC should do
>the filing electronically.  We'd be reasonably certain to avoid il-
>legally given licenses, and the time would still be fairly short.

But doesn't that turn in to:
    1. bad guy pays off VE
    2. VE sends computer data instead of paper to FCC
    3. bad guy gets license

So what am I missing?

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 15:56:11 GMT
From: psinntp!arrl.org![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <2ti78m$[e-mail]>, <2tj6rp$[e-mail]>, <2tjr8j$[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Microwave bands (was Re: End of `440 in SoCal' thread )

Kein{nen Paul OH3LWR ([e-mail]) wrote:

: If you want similar omnidirectional (horisontal) coverage as with
: repeaters in lower bands, you need much more ERP. The radation pattern
: at the repeater site can be flattened to a few degrees, the mobile radiation
: pattern to maybe 10-30 degrees and the portable to 40-90 degrees to get some
: antenna gain. Beyond this, you have to use adaptive phased arrays and
: have to forget about round table operation.

In some areas, it may be possible to point the antennas at a common
reflector.  Interestingly, one place where this supposedly works
is Southern California, where you have most of the population living
on one side of a mountain range.

This does make it difficult to use circular polarization, since the
reflection will change the sense.  However, of the 6 stations I worked
on 5760 in the last June VHF contest, I'm pretty sure everyone was
running horizontally polarized horns or dishes.
--
Zack Lau  KH6CP/1           2 way QRP WAS
                           8 States on 10 GHz
Internet: [e-mail]   10 grids on 2304 MHz

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

Date: 16 Jun 1994 14:51:44 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]
To: [e-mail]

References <2tn7jq$[e-mail]>, <2tphjq$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>n
Subject : Re: You know its time to retire from the hobby when....


This has really happened to me:

You're sitting outside somewhere, and you notice you've been hearing
"O  O  O  O  O  O," just a constant string of the letter "O," and
for quite some time.  Not consciously - it just popped into your
head - and you start to listen to the surroundings...

And there's a bird singing "OOOH OOOH OOOH," over and over and over...

--
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: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 11:40:56 GMT
From: world![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <2tknm9$[e-mail]>, <2tlf2n$[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: "73's"

[e-mail] wrote:
: In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dave Bushong) writes:
: >[e-mail] (Teacherjh) writes:
: >
: >>Language is dynamic, not static.  73's (the plural of 73, by many
: >>official accounts) means "Best Wishes".  It didn't used to, but it
: >>does now.
: >
: >>Therefore, 73 means "best wish".

That doesn't follow at all, of course.

So, if you say 73, you are only
: >>wishing the listener one wish.  OK, it's your best one, but it's
: >>still only one.  If you want to be more ebulliant, use 73's.  (Or you
: >>can try 146, 219, or any of the other muliples of 73 to give a fixed
: >>number of wishes.)
: >
: >Didn't you see Aladdin?  You can't wish for more wishes.
: >
: >Sheesh.
: >
: >3333333,
: >Dave
: >--
: >Dave Bushong, Wang Laboratories, Inc.

: 73 means "best regards."  So, 73's must mean "best regardses."

And that doesn't follow, either.

Get used to it: 73 and 73s both mean "best regards."  There's
grammatical logic behind both.  Why does this bug people?  Is it
really so important?  Who cares anymore?  Sheesh.

-drt

------------------------------------------------------------------------
|David R. Tucker     KG2S         8P9CL            [e-mail]|
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 16 Jun 1994 15:54:13 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!haven.umd.edu!cville-srv.wam.umd.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <2tphnl$[e-mail]>, <2tpok5$[e-mail]>md.edu
Subject : Re: IMMEDIATE LICENSING? Bad implementation.  Good idea.

In article <2tpok5$[e-mail]>,
>I don't understand how corrupt VEs are more of a problem under
>the proposed scheme than under the current one.
>
>Current:
>    1. bad guy pays off VE
>    2. VE sends paper to FCC
>    3. bad guy gets license
>
>Proposed:
>    1. bad guy pays off VE
>    2. bad guy gets license
>    3. VE sends paper to FCC
>
>But that turns into:
>
>    1. bad guy pays off VE
>    2. VE sends computer data instead of paper to FCC
>    3. bad guy gets license
>
>So what am I missing?
>

What happens now is that many scams go through the VEC office
and are caught BEFORE licenses are issued.  All that's necessary
is that the EXAMS are nullified - generally, nobody has to go
through the trouble of revoking licenses, either temporarily
or permanently.  If the license were given prior to the VEC
checking of the forms, EVERY scam would result in granting, and
possible revocation of that license.

Who wants to deal with that?  Just let the VEC do the filing for
the licenses, they still do their "double-checking & filtering"
job, and the turnaround time for licenses is STILL greatly
reduced.

Scott NF3I

--
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!

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

End of Info-Hams Digest V94 #671
******************************