QRZ! Ham Radio 5/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 5.iso/digests/infoham/941170.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 14KB

Date: Sat, 29 Oct 94 04:30:08 PDT
From: Info-Hams Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
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: <[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: 28 Oct 1994 16:48:35 GMT
From: [e-mail] (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                            [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 14:09:49 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject: low power fm short range xmitter

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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!      | [e-mail]
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: 28 Oct 1994 13:01:21 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Charles K. Scott)
Subject: Subject: Keeping in touch by Ham radio: round the world

In article <2EB0A8EE@smtp>
[e-mail] (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: [e-mail] (hamilton on BIX)
Subject: Subject: W1AW steps on others?

[e-mail] (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  [e-mail]  Ph 508-358-5715  FAX [phone]
Hamilton Laboratories, 13 Old Farm Road, Wayland, MA  01778-3117, USA

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

Date: Thu, 27 Oct 94 23:44:10 -0500
From: Leland Van Koten <[e-mail]>
Subject: What is my CQ zone number

David Adams <[e-mail]> 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: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Herman)

References<2EAB50FC@smtp> <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Subject: W1AW steps on others?

[e-mail] (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: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)

References<phb.783093624@melpar> <[e-mail]>, <phb.783199163@melpar>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: CW Learning: Going slow. : (

In article <phb.783199163@melpar> [e-mail] (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!      | [e-mail]
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: 28 Oct 1994 12:34:09 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Bill Gunshannon)

References<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (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
[e-mail]         |  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
******************************