home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Date: Sat, 29 Oct 94 04:30:08 PDT
- From: Info-Hams Mailing List and Newsgroup <info-hams@ucsd.edu>
- Errors-To: Info-Hams-Errors@UCSD.Edu
- Reply-To: Info-Hams@UCSD.Edu
- Precedence: List
- Subject: Info-Hams Digest V94 #1170
- To: Info-Hams
-
-
- Info-Hams Digest Sat, 29 Oct 94 Volume 94 : Issue 1170
-
- Today's Topics:
- FT-530 vs. TH-79A?
- low power fm short range xmitter
- Subject: Keeping in touch by Ham radio: round the world
- Subject: W1AW steps on others?
- What is my CQ zone number
-
- Send Replies or notes for publication to: <Info-Hams@UCSD.Edu>
- Send subscription requests to: <Info-Hams-REQUEST@UCSD.Edu>
- Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu.
-
- 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: 28 Oct 1994 16:48:35 GMT
- From: smitty@azol.com (Bruce Smith)
- Subject: FT-530 vs. TH-79A?
-
- Hello everyone,
-
- Lately Ive been thinking about getting the new TH-79A and selling my
- FT-530. It appears to be a very nice HT from what Ive read. I would like
- to hear any comments from TH-79A users on how they feel about that HT
- since they've owned it. The only complaint I would have with the FT-530
- would be the receive audio. Other than that I have really enjoyed it. Its
- nice to hear from users of a particular rig before spending the money and
- finding out certain pros and cons about it later. Please send any replys
- directly to me. Thank you very much...
-
- 73, Smitty / KB7QEY smitty@azol.com
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 14:09:49 GMT
- From: gary@ke4zv.atl.ga.us (Gary Coffman)
- Subject: low power fm short range xmitter
-
- In article <gradyCyD6zy.Jup@netcom.com> grady@netcom.com (Grady Ward) writes:
- >
- >Part 15 was rewritten a few years ago to change the low power
- >definition to one of field strength rather than ERP. Rec.radio.pirate
- >has a lot of information about operating fm stations outside the
- >FCC rules.
-
- Part 15 was rewritten to change the power definition to one *of* ERP,
- which is equivalent to field strength, rather than one of specifying
- a 100 mW *input* power limit and an antenna length restriction as was
- the case with the old rules.
-
- Rec.radio.pirate does indeed discuss illegal operation counter to
- FCC rules. Even they don't normally countenance jamming, however.
-
- Gary
- --
- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
- Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
- 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | gary@ke4zv.atl.ga.us
- Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | |
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: 28 Oct 1994 13:01:21 GMT
- From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
- Subject: Subject: Keeping in touch by Ham radio: round the world
-
- In article <2EB0A8EE@smtp>
- pve@dg13.cec.BE (VEKINIS Peter) writes:
-
- > If he lands on a
- > country not under FCC jurisdiction, he then must have the permission of the
- > host country (exception: Canada it is automatic) or a reciprocal agreement
- > with that country. Since he is not going to land, this isnt necessary.
-
- Sorry, I didn't mean to imply he would not be landing. This is not
- another Voyager like attempt, this is a high speed race around the
- world and many stops will be necessary. Actually that's why the need
- for weather reports, if he was not landing he could simply divert
- around the weather but since he will have to land to refuel and
- reprovision he will have to be making stops at Hawaii, Guam,
- Phillipines, Seychelles, East Africa, West Africa etc.
-
- What I'm interested in at this point in the planning would be the
- difficulties in setting up a network of people who could report the
- weather at those various locations so that up to the minute weather
- information could be relayed to the pilot. This may be redundant in
- that he will have a strike finder (indicates direction and intensity of
- lightning strikes) and will be intercepting satelite weather
- transmissions which will overlay his moving map display but things, on
- attempts like this, have a habit of going wrong so having a certain
- amount of redundancy is considered prudent. Besides the weather
- information overlay doesn't give actual conditions it just shows cloud
- patterns and weather fronts. Real up to the minute weather observation
- and the ability to transmit this could be an important part of the
- success of the attempt.
-
- But I gather from your post that transmission from the aircraft is
- possible which would allow him to be in direct contact with the next
- stop.
-
- Thanks for this information.
-
- Corky Scott
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: 28 Oct 94 13:18:33 GMT
- From: hamilton@BIX.com (hamilton on BIX)
- Subject: Subject: W1AW steps on others?
-
- scott@rcp.co.uk (Scott Earle) writes:
-
-
- >In fact, you could say that it was not an amateur broadcast at all, since it
- >was a *broadcast* and not a two-way communication. And they were certainly
- >not operating in the *spirit* of amateur radio (stepping on an existing pileup,
- >and not checking that the frequency is not in use).
-
- >Why, therefore, should they make the *broadcast* in the amateur bands at all?
-
- The FCC regs do allow broadcasts for very specific purposes including
- code practice and bulletins. Don't have my FCC rules book handy (packed
- away in preparation for a move) but perhaps someone else can cite the
- paragraph that applies. You can be sure that W1AW operates within the
- rules.
-
- Regards,
- Doug Hamilton KD1UJ hamilton@bix.com Ph 508-358-5715 FAX 508-358-1113
- Hamilton Laboratories, 13 Old Farm Road, Wayland, MA 01778-3117, USA
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Thu, 27 Oct 94 23:44:10 -0500
- From: Leland Van Koten <leevankoten@delphi.com>
- Subject: What is my CQ zone number
-
- David Adams <dave@flowserver.stem.com> writes:
-
- >Greetings! I'm not planning on actively participating in the CQ WW
- >contest, but I thought if I heard a CQ from a needed local whilst
- >tooling through the bands, I might pop in with the appropriate
- >exchange...However, the rules specify giving one's CQ Zone Number...
- >I don't know mine (I live in the south bay area in california) if
- >anyone could help, I'd appreciate it.
-
- You're in CQ Zone 3 (as is the entire US west coast and British Columbia). You
- might even try an occasional CQ of your own. Although domestic contacts don't
- count for points, they do count for multipliers, so everybody needs at least
- one contact on each band they're operating, in each zone and country. I don't
- know about other people, but I hesitate to call a domstic station that sounds
- like they're real serious about the contest just to get the multiplier, since I
- might keep them from getting a contact they need for points (and a multiplier).
- Also, calling someone in your own country who is calling "CQ contest" like
- they're real serious about it tends to result in lectures about how it's a
- "DX-only" contest, which is ALMOST, but not quite, true.
-
- Lee, KE3FB in Md.
-
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 19:21:52 GMT
- From: jeffrey@kahuna.tmc.edu (Jeffrey Herman)
-
- References<2EAB50FC@smtp> <DfsruAVPBh107h@rcp.co.uk>, <1994Oct28.151924.5430@ke4zv.atl.ga.us>
- Reply-To: jeffrey@math.hawaii.edu
- Subject: Re: Subject: W1AW steps on others?
-
- gary@ke4zv.atl.ga.us (Gary Coffman) writes:
-
-
- >this, and neither does K1MAN. K1MAN does other things, such as threatening
- >people who transmit on "his" frequency during his broadcasts, which the
-
- I've never heard his bcsts from my Hawaii QTH - who is he and what
- does he bcst?
-
- Jeff NH6IL
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 14:35:28 GMT
- From: gary@ke4zv.atl.ga.us (Gary Coffman)
-
- References<phb.783093624@melpar> <1994Oct26.125110.6229@ke4zv.atl.ga.us>, <phb.783199163@melpar>
- Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.atl.ga.us (Gary Coffman)
- Subject: Re: CW Learning: Going slow. : (
-
- In article <phb.783199163@melpar> phb@syseng1.melpar.esys.com (Paul H. Bock) writes:
- > I talked to some former (i.e., retired) intercept operators here at work,
- >and they all said that the *best* operators could copy groups at 40 WPM.
- >Many could not, and since they all had demonstrated rapid typing ability,
- >the problem was thought to be in the brain's ability to interpret discrete
- >characters. By contrast, many could copy plain text at higher speeds,
- >an since they were trained operators who copied by typewriter "automatically"
- >I can only surmise that somehow their brains processed and interpreted
- >text differently somehow than coded groups. In fact, one of the operators
- >I talked to laughingly said that "trying to copy groups at 45 WPM was
- >like trying to copy a tone."
-
- Well the retired intercept operator I knew (he's passed on now) could
- do 60 WPM, but I did say he was the best I'd ever met. I'd tend to
- agree that most operators probably run out of steam nearer to 40 WPM.
- The book on the OSS that I read said the native intercept operators
- were in the 40 WPM range.
-
- >>The limitation is not an aural one. Typically it's a mechanical
- >>limitation in transcribing the information onto the paper. Most
- >>people can't handwrite clearly at speeds above about 30 WPM, and
- >>"copying behind" with crypto text is an extremely difficult test
- >>of short term memory. Use of a typewriter is key to achieving very
- >>high copy speeds.
- >
- > Again, I'm really referring to *skilled* operators who use
- >typrewriters efficiently and copy subconsciously. Evidence suggests
- >that even these operators are limited in character-copying ability
- >but can copy plain text at faster speeds. I'm just trying to under-
- >stand what the mechanism is that allows this to happen, and the
- >only explanation I've ever read elsewhere is the "syllable/word/
- >phrase direct interpretation" one; that is, the brain goes
- >into a "higher-level" interpretive mode even though the operator
- >may be copying subconsciously, and that's the only way that plain
- >text can be copied faster than coded groups.
-
- I suspect that some researcher has looked into this, but I can't
- point to a paper on the subject. However, I would note that you
- say one of the intercept operators you talked to said trying to
- copy above 45 WPM would be like copying a pure tone. Now I don't
- think that can be true, since that would apply to plain text
- as well. The ear still has to be able to distinguish the code
- elements to allow any copy at all. A pure tone would convey no
- information.
-
- It seems paradoxical that interposing an intermediate step,
- that of word interpretation, between hearing the code elements
- and writing them down, would *increase* an operator's correct
- copy speed. I would have been of the opinion that the reverse
- would be true. That's what my friend maintained. He said thinking
- about the message spoiled copy.
-
- That would indicate to me that there may be two distinct ways
- of "copying" code. One is the faithful character by character
- method demanded of crypto copy, and the other would be writing
- down from memory interpreted translations of what was heard. The
- latter would only work if the text was in a language interpretable
- by the operator, IE plain text in a language that he spoke, and
- delivered in bursts short enough to be retained verbatim in short
- term memory.
-
- It seems to me that the speed limit is still set by how fast you
- can put the information on paper, IE a mechanical limitation.
- The brain would only be serving as a short term buffer for the
- text until you could transcribe it. For continous text copy,
- it seems to me that you would fall further and further behind
- until the buffer overflowed.
-
- Gary
- --
- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
- Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
- 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | gary@ke4zv.atl.ga.us
- Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | |
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: 28 Oct 1994 12:34:09 GMT
- From: bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
-
- References<Cy8J1v.3wA@wang.com> <1994Oct26.114636.5713@ke4zv.atl.ga.us>, <CyCEKB.7Hq@wang.com>
- Subject: Re: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins
-
- In article <CyCEKB.7Hq@wang.com>, dbushong@wang.com (Dave Bushong) writes:
- |>
- |> >As to wasting resources, 99% of what we do as amateurs could be
- |> >considered wasting resources by that standard. We're certainly
- |> >not going to be able to save up spectrum for later use, once the
- |> >moment is gone, it's gone whether we send anything or not.
- |>
- |> True, perhaps, but my time is limited, and if I can't log onto the
- |> local BBS because cookie recipes are being uploaded/downloaded, then I
- |> see it as a waste of resources.
-
- Yes, and if I can't log onto the local BBS because ARRL Bulletins or DX BS
- is being uploaded/downloaded, then I see it as a waste of time.
-
- So what's your point??
-
- bill KB3YV
-
- --
- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
- bill@cs.uofs.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
- University of Scranton |
- Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
-
- ------------------------------
-
- End of Info-Hams Digest V94 #1170
- ******************************
-