HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mikef@pacifier.rain.com (Mike Freeman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: writing out -- --- .-. ... . in order to pass your exam
Date: 23 Dec 92 18:07:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: pacifier.1992Dec23.180726.18713
Organization: Pacifier BBS

In article <1992Dec21.134915.17956@wam.umd.edu> ham@wam.umd.edu (Scott Richard Rosenfeld) writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.124858.20615@news.columbia.edu> hyx1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Harry Y Xu) writes:
>>After I passed the general, the VE noticed that I wrote the .'s and -'s
>>for a couple of pro-signs and numbers.  Then all 3 VE's got together to 
>>discuss the matter for nearly 10 minutes before deciding to pass me.
>>They said something like:  "We'll let you go this time.  But we'll have 
>>to fail you next time if you write down any dits and dahs."
>>They are ARRL.
>>Happy Holidays.
>
>I have had people copy an entire exam with just dots and dashes.  Now, I 
>inform examinees before giving the test that this is unacceptable.  People
>even ask if this is OK when they call me on the phone...
>
>Interesting point:
>    This brings up those people who copy Morse on typewriters.  I guess the
>only difference is that there IS some cognizance of the character that was
>sent, not just a series of dots and dashes.  I have also seen a blind man
>copy Morse on a Braille typewriter at 30+ wpm.  Absolutely AMAZING...
>
>73, Scott  NF3I


Being a blind person who took many ham exams before an FCC
examiner using a typewriter and who has, in the past, worked
QRQ CW traffic nets copying on a Braillewriter, I must comment
that, from my point of view, it isn't amazing; anyone can do it
with practice.

As to the di-dah vs. character debate, the salient point is that
for both a typewriter and Braillewriter, the examinee must know
which key(s) to press in order for the correct characters to
be transcribed.

As a sidelight on all this, there were times when I used to
work CW traffic nets without a Braillewriter; I'd tape the CW
messages.  Then, when it was time to relay them, I'd send several
characters behind the CW in the received message.

Have Happy Holidays, all!

-- 
Mike Freeman <K7UIJ>    |       Internet: mikef@pacifier.rain.com
301 N.E. 107th Street   |         or freeman@watsun.cc.columbia.edu
Vancouver, WA 98685 USA |       GEnie: M.FREEMAN11
Telephone (206)574-8221 |       I doubt, therefore I might be!
From: bmehlman@trirex.COM (Ben Mehlman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: PC Board Layout Software
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:01:37 GMT
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu
Originator: daemon@ucsd.edu

> I recommend PADS.  It's available in a demo version that has full
> functionality for designs up to something like 75 parts.  They  
fully
> recommend that you use it for small designs and then buy it when  
your
> needs increase.
> 

> I think they're in Boston.
> 

> brian
> 


Brian, Jim:  Sounds wonderful.  If/When you find out how to get a  
copy of this software, would you please email me, and post to the  
net?  I'm very interested and I know a lot of other hams would like  
to get this software.

I have used Douglas CAD/CAM on the Mac, which is an excellent, fully  
professional package for multilayer, silkscreened boards.  It is also  
very expensive to buy for amateur use - about $900 for the full  
package last I checked, for the Schematic, Layout, and Router  
packages which work incredibly well together.  It's well worth the  
money but that doesn't help if you don't HAVE the money :)

-Ben, KB2ERP
---
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

    \|/        Ben Mehlman                      Indigo..
   ^   ^       Trirex Systems Inc      

   #   #       bmehlman@trirex.com                   Indigoing..
     @
   \___/       >NeXTMail Welcome<                           Indigone.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: 6 Meter Radio Shack HTs!
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
	<1hibcmINNsaa@rave.larc.nasa.gov>
Date: 26 Dec 92 21:29:32

    I don't know about the RS units, but I have a pair of Teenage Mutant Ninja
    Turtles rigs, which have a four-transistor FM transmitter and one of the
    worst receivers I have ever seen.  About 10 mW output on 6M; I changed the
    crystal and tweaked the output coil on the transmitter and fiddled with the
    LC constant on the receiver to get it to the right general frequency. 

I wonder if there's a way to increase the transmit power, perhaps
by adding an extra transistor.  People have been known to do this
with the Ramsey FM-10 (fm broadcast xmtr) kit, using an MPS2222-type
transistor tack soldered onto the bottom of the circuit board to
increase output power from about 8mw to maybe 75 mw.
See the FM-10 FAQ on alt.radio.pirate for more info.
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: 430mhz band under th
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 14:35:08 GMT

In article <Bzxv6p.K7u@NeoSoft.com> jreese@NeoSoft.com (Jim Reese) writes:
>In article <1992Dec27.155154.20108@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>Excuse me, but $15 a month *is* outrageous. Around here, repeater clubs
>>charge $15 a *year* to support the repeater. The machine I operate isn't
>>club supported. I've hit the regular users 3 times for donations since
>>it's been on the air. They've come through with more than enough money
>>to keep the system going. There's currently less than $800 tied up in the 
>>widest coverage 440 MHz machine in Georgia. It is an *open* machine by 
>>user request.
>>
>
>Sounds like you get a free site that doesn't require you to pay for power,
>telephone, or liability insurance.  It also sounds like you have a kerchunk
>box that is fairly simple.  The guys who are charging $15 per month are 
>supporting an entirely different kind of system.
>
>My repeater system is part of a large inter-city linked system.  Our group
>spent about $5,000 last year on control systems alone.  
>
>Several of our sites require us to pay for power at 15-20 dollars per month, 
>and all of the sites require liability insurance which costs about 500 dollars
>per year.  I haven't even touched touched the radio equipment yet, and I've 
>spent more than you have in your entire system ANNUALLY.  The Houston group 
>supports six sites.  There are 22 in the system.
>
>For a system like this, $15 per month is *NOT* outrageous...besides, we only
>charge $10 per month. :)

Yes, our little repeater is just that, a bent pipe to extend range. It's
not a network switching center for AT&T. :-)

It fits in a small GE repeater cabinet 970 feet up a friendly local TV
station's tower, my employers, so there's no site rental or electric
charges. We do have a 600 kw emergency power system with 2 weeks worth
of diesel in the ground. Now that sounds like an exceptional deal, but
it's really a rather common arrangement. *Most* of the major repeaters
in the area get free sites from the employer of one of the members. 

The only major machine that I know of that has site rental pays $150
a year to be in an air conditioned building on a mountaintop. *But*
the hams put up one of the towers on that mountaintop and let the 
commercial users have antenna space.  

Our repeater was designed to be simple and robust. It does it's job of
extending range nicely, and we visit it once a year or so just to remind
ourselves what it looks like.

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     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
From: abelson@isaac.its.rpi.edu (Mike (KB2KYZ) Abelson)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Exploding Air Bags? Locking Anti-Lock Brakes?
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:09:40 GMT
Reply-To: abelson@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.

In article <1992Dec21.151315.1663@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h) writes:
 
|> Anyone know if there are any other such manufacturer's stipulations
|> against transmitters in their vehicle product line.  This might be a
|> good "consumer report" item that ARRL should write-up for a future QST
|> issue.

Bill, I recently went in to a GEO dealer, picked out the car of my dreams, negotiated the price, then finally inquired about stipultions in the warranty regarding transmitting equipment.  The salesperson said that there was nothing specific about it in the warranty, but if I install transmitting  equipment which causes a problem with the car, the warranty coverage will end there.
So did our negotiations :-)

mla
-- 
.............................................................................
Mike Abelson - Information Technology Services       abelson@rpi.edu
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute                
Troy, New York 12180-3590           Amateur Packet:  KB2KYZ @ WA2UMX
.............................................................................
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: wtm@uhura.neoucom.edu (Bill Mayhew)
Subject: Re: Yaesu FT-530 and Intermod
Organization: Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1993 23:49:26 GMT

Ditto!  My buddy bought an FT-530 a couple of weeks ago.  I
borrowed it for a while to try it out.  Loads of pager intermod on
the 70 cm section.  It was unbearable when I plugged the HT into
the Diamond SG-5200NMO dual band antenna on my car.  The 530 is
sensative enough on receive that the puny little antenna that comes
with the rig does a pretty decent job, avoiding intermod --
however, you can hear OK, but if you expect anybody else to hear
you, then you really have to use a better antenna than what comes
with the unit.  The Larsen 2m/70cm shortie (forget the model number
at the moment) makes a nice transmit antenna, but makes the 530
much more susceptible to intermod on receive.

Looks to me like the intermod problem is in the IF strip somewhere,
as the intermod is uniform all the way from 430-450 MHz.

The 530 is a really nice little rig with good styling, easy
controls, wonderful display/keyboard illumination and nifty
optional remote mic.  I was wondering if the 530 I got a chance to
use had a problem to itself, but it looks from the posting that the
problem is general to the model.  I think I'll hang on to my Icom
24AT for now.

Happy new year,
Bill


-- 
Bill Mayhew      NEOUCOM Computer Services Department
Rootstown, OH  44272-9995  USA    phone: 216-325-2511
wtm@uhura.neoucom.edu (140.220.1.1)    146.580: N8WED
From: bobw@col.hp.com (Bob Witte)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: 430 mhz band under th (now private/closed repeaters)
Date: 1 Jan 1993 18:35:11 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: la.col.hp.com

brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes:
> One of the repeater/remote systems I've recently built consists of
> 80-6m SSB, 6, 2, 220, 440, and 1200 MHz duplex fm transceivers, a
> control system with 5 microprocessors, a telephone interface, remote
> antenna switching, power control, battery power, and building security
> system.
> 
> This kind of a system must inherently remain closed simply because of
> the training required to operate it properly.  Yes, it's possible to
> damage it if you tell it to do the wrong things.
>
  [ snip ]

  One thing that some coordinating bodies have implemented to try
  to allow for some experimentation is the "Shared Nonprotected Pair".
  Basically, anyone can use the pair as long as the machine is DTMF or
  CTCSS operated (and you get to tolerate any interference problems).
  This accomodates the Garage Repeater, the experimental repeater and
  the "I just want to hear my callsign on a repeater" repeater with
  minimal coordination hassle. 

  (This may not apply to Brian's situation. It only works for relatively
   low usage machines. )

  This scheme is in place in Colorado, but we don't have severe crowding
  on yet? Has this been implemented in more crowded areas and does it
  work or does the shared pair just get crammed with repeaters?

   
 Bob Witte  /  HP Colo Springs  /  bobw@col.hp.com   /  KB0CY   
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: carlson@linac.fnal.gov (Kermit Carlson)
Subject: Re: 829 Tube caps
Organization: Fermilab, Batavia, IL
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:15:31 GMT

In article <1h7fdnINN3k@rave.larc.nasa.gov> kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov (Scott Dorsey) writes:

>I am building a VHF amp using an 829 tube (for various reasons having to
>do with having a lot of them around), but I can't seem to find appropriate
>plate caps.  These things have very small pins on the top for each of the
>plates, which won't fit the standard sizes of caps which I have found.
>--scott
>
>   (Yes, I considered using alligator clips, but since the tube itself is
>exposed frequently I would rather not risk the chance of someone putting
>their hand on top and touching the 2KV B+.
>


     Several commercial amplifiers that used this tube employed
 Fanstock-type spring clips for the plate connection and braided
 type plate leads. Fanstock clips are still available from several
 vendors and are made by SPC tech. One problem might be acquiring
 only two - Newark stocks (#32F633) bags of 100....
      Also, I would seriously reconsider any design that does allow
access to high voltage compartments without grounding the HV leads
through interlocks. Even ceramic insulated plate caps should never
be considered adequate insulation at HV. Fanstock clips are made
of exposed metal...  
       Although most designs get between 50 and 75 watts out of
 this tube, when I was in high school I was getting 175 watts of
 clean power CW/FM at 2 meters; until one day during a particularly
 long winded transmittion (longer than 20 seconds on FM) I managed
 to burn dime-size holes in the plates..... 

                                          73

                                            Kermit W9XA
From: enge@almaden.ibm.com (Roy Engehausen)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: RACES Bulletin #254
Date: 25 Dec 92 20:42:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: ucsd.9212252044.AA05084
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu
Originator: daemon@ucsd.edu

BID : $RACESBUL.254


From: W6WWW@KD6XZ.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NA
To  : RACES@ALLUS

TO:  ALL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCIES VIA AMATEUR RADIO
INFO:  ALL RACES OPERATORS IN CA (ALLCA: OFFICIAL)
       ALL AMATEURS U.S.         (@ USA: INFORMATION)
FROM:  CA STATE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES (W6HIR @ WA6NWE.CA)
       2800 Meadowview Rd., Sacramento, CA  95832  (916)262-1600
       Landline BBS open to all: (916) 262-1657
RACESBUL.254                                DATE: Dec. 28, 1992
SUBJECT:  OPS - How hams didn't use ham radio

ATTENTION: Administrators

     Many of you have asked how your volunteers might help without
using ham radio? The following is an actual and typical case:
     During a major forest fire a government radio repeater truck was
requested to fill in dead spots along one part of a fire. A forestry fire
captain drove the vehicle 206 miles to the fire base camp, where it was
met by the RACES personnel. Their assignment was to accompany the
repeater truck to a 6100-foot mountaintop and set up the generator,
antenna masts, and antennas and make the public safety radio repeater
operational. They bought the necessary materials at a nearby hardware
store and were subsequently reimbursed by the government.
     The first problem was the fire communications van at the base
camp could not reach its repeater with its 33 Megahertz mobile whip.
This required an expedient and low cost antenna to be designed and
fabricated out of coaxial cable, PVC pipe, TV mast sections and nylon
rope. They then proceeded to the mountaintop to set up the fill-in
repeater.
     Amateur Radio was used only for personnel resource
coordination, assignment, intercom, and travel channel purposes.
     This is another example of how your communications volunteers
in government service can knowledgeably, cheerfully, and effectively
serve without necessarily using Amateur Radio.
     If you have questions, suggestions, comments, or more examples:
please contact us! Thank you.
/sgd/Stanly Harter, Auxiliary Communications Service program
coordinator, KH6GBX                       [kh6gbx@wa6nwe.#nocal.ca.usa.na]

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU ALL FROM ALL OF THE STAFF OF THE
CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES!
                ---Dr. Richard A. Andrews, Director

EOM



-----------------
RACES Bulletins are archived on the Internet at ucsd.edu in hamradio/races
and can be retrieved using FTP.
-----------------
Happy Holiday Season to all from Roy, AA4RE, your RACES bulletin poster.
Xref: sparky rec.radio.amateur.misc:21134 rec.radio.amateur.packet:3291
Organisation: European Space Operation Centre (E.S.O.C)
Date: Wednesday, 23 Dec 1992 16:29:07 CET
From: <WKOEHLER@ESOC.BITNET>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: Satellite Call Signs?

In article <acornwal.4.724983001@fox.nstn.ns.ca>, acornwal@fox.nstn.ns.ca (andy
cornwall) says:
>............................. The info. I have available refers to
>the acronyms UO-22, KO-23, UO-14, LO-19, FO-20, AO-16, which do not
>seem to be call signs.
>      If you know what the call signs of these satellites are, will you
>please tell me about them.

Satellites (military, commericial or amateur) do not have callsigns.
They have names, IDs, ASWs and the lot but no callsigns.

Wolf, DL3ZBJ, AB6EL, VK6BGV.
From: steve@presoft.com (Steve Kohlenberger)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: diy uncoordinated repeater
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 11:33:53 PST
Distribution: world
Organization: Presoft Architects

rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Rod Anderson) writes:

> 
> 
> Thanks to the improvements in technology there is no longer any reason
> for repeaters to not share frequency pairs.  To set up a uncoordinated
> repeater I would suggest the doing the following:

Great idea. (being an almost newcommer, I can say this)

[snip]

> 1.  If you think that a repeater frequency pair is under used set up a

[snip]

> 2.  Set up your repeater on this frequency.  It will be necessary to

[snip]

> 3.  Check with a lawyer, I don't think that a state court would have
> jurisdiction, the FCC preempts local laws, but find out first.  Then
> if you are sued in a state court you can clam that they don't have
> jurisdiction on the matter.

Any legal types out there that can shed some light on the subject?

Any sue types out there that would want to retaliate to such a use
on 'their' exclusive frequency?  Your defense posture?

> 4.  Send a petition to the FCC to require repeaters to share
> frequencies as much as possible.  Also lobby the ARRL and the local
> coordinator to not have frequency assignments exclusive.
>  
> Only share the frequency of the private ego repeaters which have _VERY_
> little traffic.  If all the frequency pairs are used up and they all
> are used heavily then don't try the above.
>  
> Rod Anderson            N0NZO            rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu

Steve
   
 Steve Kohlenberger, PreSoft Architects      Internet: steve@presoft.com
 Novell Professional Developer
 Specialists in NLM and Disk/Tape Driver development for NetWare 3.X/4.X
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: rice@ttd.teradyne.com
Subject: Re: writing out -- --- .-. ... . in order to pass your exam
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 17:25:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.20549.6534@ms.uky.edu>, miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) writes:
> at a recent W5YI VEC testing, a female wrote down all .'s and -'s and
> was allowed to do so. she got her general (while 4 others struggled).
> i was going to use this "cheat" method myself. is it legal or not?
> i'm confused.
> 

When I took my last License Exam at an FCC office, we were given 1 minute after
the code stopped. Writing down the dots and dashes and then deciphering it is
not "copying" the code at the given speed. An exaiminer 'passing' an applicant
using this method is not giving a proper exam.

K9IJ



Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Exploding Air Bags? Locking Anti-Lock Brakes?
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:48:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.172917.3652@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h) writes:
>In article <1992Dec20.140732.987@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>
>>It's a violation of federal regulations, OSHA? BATF?, one of those, to
>>transmit within 500 feet of a wired explosive charge. Since airbags are
>>deployed by a wired explosive charge, lead azide, it would seem that you
>>can't legally transmit on an amateur radio in an airbag equipped car.
>>Gary KE4ZV
[deleted]
>I think there must be some clarification on this as the motor
>vehicle manufacturers and/or the sellers of radio
>equipment are obviously in exact opposite possitions as to
>the viability, use, etc. of their respective products.

It wouldn't be the first time that regulations from one department
were in direct contradiction to those of another. As an example,
the company where I work had a custom made wheelchair lift constructed
for a stairwell to come into compliance with the Federal handicap
access regulations. When they went to get a permit to install it,
they found that it was forbidden by the fire code to install such
a device in a stairwell that could be used as an emergency exit. So 
one regulation said that they *must* install the device, and another
regulation *forbade* it's installation. Meanwhile they were stuck
with a $30,000 lift and the prospect of fines. Figuring that the
Federal government was bigger than the city building inspection
department, they installed the lift anyway and are fighting the
city in court.

Gary KE4ZV
From: trsnyder@mcs.drexel.edu (Bob Snyder)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: 430mhz band under th
Date: 30 Dec 92 21:06:19 GMT
	<1992Dec29.161631.1@ttd.teradyne.com> <8245@lib.tmc.edu>
Organization: ASCI

In article <8245@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

   It is simply not good amateur practice to hold a conversation on
   the repeater's input frequency if you do not intend to use the
   repeater. Folks have been held to be maliciously interfering with
   the users of the repeater for doing so.

Interesting.  I assume you have details on people being held to be maliciously
interfering?

Bob N2KGO
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: rice@ttd.teradyne.com
Subject: Re: 430mhz band under th
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 05:43:33 GMT

In article <1hm378INNp0g@network.ucsd.edu>, brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes:
> If you have to pay for the site, $100/rack/month would be real cheap
> here in SoCal.  Typically tower space ($50/antenna/month) and power
> (~$20/month are extra.  If you've only got a few users, it's expensive!
> 	- Brian

If you've only got a few users, then you're not making very efficient
use of the spectrum, are you?  Does the fact that you've got $$$ give
you the right to lock up a piece of the scarce spectrum resource for
a 'closed' repeater ?




Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc