HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gws@n8emr.cmhnet.org (Gary Sanders)
Subject: Re: 430mhz band under th
Organization: HAM BBS, 614-895-2553 (1200/2400/v.32/pep)
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 12:41:28 GMT

In article <1hm407INNqjn@network.ucsd.edu> brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes:
>Think of it this way: if you were to buy a trout fishing outfit and
>then found out that you weren't allowed to fish for trout in the local
>lake, whose fault would it be?  And if you buy a radio without first
>inquiring of your local operating situation, who do you have to blame
>if you can't use it much?

And if that was a public lake I would be pissed as well. I dont mind
paying to rent the boat, but being to to stay clear of the lake
is a little silly.

While I do see a reason to encourage user to pay for a system I do have
problem with closed systems. If you do want a closed system dont
put it up as a high profile system and take the freq for a majority of
a state or region.

Locally we are pretty lucky. Most sites are open systems,  open autopatches 
and have good hand held coverage. They also have a reasonable number
of paying members. New users and travlers are welcomed on almost all 
the systems. While in SoCA I attempted to chat with folks on several 
repeaters and was cold sholdered big time. There seems to be a lot 
of repeater freq space used up but lille in actual use.

-- 
Gary W. Sanders gws@n8emr.cmhnet.org, 72277,1325
N8EMR @ N8JYV (ip addr) 44.70.0.1 [Ohio AMPR address coordinator]
HAM BBS 614-895-2553 (1200/2400/V.32/PEP) Voice: 614-895-2552 (eves/weekends)
From: milewski@oregon.uoregon.edu (Steve Milewski)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Strange transmission on 80 meters (a beacon?)
Date: 28 Dec 92 23:28:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: fp2-st-a.milewski-281292152513
Followup-To: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Oregon
NNTP-Posting-Host: fp2-st-affairs-3.uoregon.edu

In article <ljus5eINNdlt@news.bbn.com>, levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) wrote:
> 
> Tuning through the novice bands on 80 meters (the only place where
> there seems to be anything useful to do on HF at night if you've not a
> general class ticket or higher), I frequently notice a signal at about
> 3712 Khz which seems to repeat continuously in CW as follows:
> 
>     VVV VVV VVV DE SXA33 SXA33 SXA33 K
> 
> It ends with K but doesn't seem to wait for any response (or at least
> it doesn't seem to notice one). 

As long as we're asking about beacons and odd transmissions on 80 meters...

I've been wondering about a CW signal from RC2?? (forget the call) in the
phone subband at about 3.780. I noticed it about a month and a half ago and
don't recall hearing it since then (but then, here on the west coast I
don't copy that area of the world very much on 80). It was a genuine
amateur callsign because I worked the guy on 20 and 15 meters. He was also
signing "K" but not coming back to anyone. The time was approximately 0400
UTC.

Also, in the mornings, about 1500 UTC, I start to hear a single tone
constantly repeated at about 3.002 or so (FT101B analog readout). I only
hear it when conditions are good to Asia. I'm wondering where it's from.

Thanks for any info...
Steve/AA7FL
From: randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: 6 Meter Radio Shack HTs!
Date: 23 Dec 92 23:59:28 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

maessm@rs6312.ecs.rpi.edu (Mathieu J. Maessen) writes:

>One of the hams im my local area (Northern New Jersey) has done this to a cou-
>ple of crystal-controlled walkie-talkies.  According to him, it only involves 
>a crystal swap and retuning of the tuned circuits.  He put in crystals for 
>52.525, and he uses it for communications when he is at a hamfest.  Not sure 
>how much range he gets out of them, though.
>-- 

At 49MHz, they barely make it to the other side of the house. 


-- 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Randall Rhea                                        Informix Software, Inc. 
Project Manager, MIS Sales/Marketing Systems    uunet!pyramid!infmx!randall
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Online Repeater Directory! Watch For It!
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:36:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.161041.5123@ms.uky.edu> johnr@mik.uky.edu (John S. Roberts, Jr.) writes:
>=>Just allow the program to talk the NMEA 0183 protocol on a serial
>=>port. GPS or Loran receivers will then be able to tell it exactly
>=>where you are. That's what I'm doing with my Loran. The geographical
>=>database you need is available on a single CDROM. Add in a gyrocompass
>=>and a doppler DF unit and you'll have a complete autoresolving auto-DF
>=>system. It will continually tighten the position box as you establish
>=>a baseline by driving along and will sound the bell when the box reaches
>=>a preset delta and show it to you on the map.
>=>
>=>Gary
>
>Yeah right!  99% of the ham radio operators I know expect programmers to  
>distribute their software as public domain.  Ham's (including myself) are too  
>cheap to have this type of setup.  Just watch for a nice windows (and NT)  
>version of the software to allow people to find repeaters relative to their  
>location.

John, most hams aren't cheap. They think nothing of dropping $3,000 on
a new TS950, or a new 120 foot tower, or stacked 6 element monobanders.
They find their Visa cards burning holes in their pockets when a new
HT that plays Donkey Kong hits the market. Many have 486 computers dedicated
to feeding 3 or more TNCs and radios. Surely a $199 Loran unit or a $60
directional gyro isn't beyond their means. It's cheaper, and a lot less
frustrating than trying to run Windoze.

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: randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Tandy Bashing
Date: 23 Dec 92 23:37:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

gpmh@pool.info.sunyit.edu (Patrick Hurley) writes:

>[...] >I recently had the privilege of
>visiting a local Radio Shack and receiving assistance from a
>rude, unprofessional, discourteous, and technically
>incompetent salesperson.  The mere fact that this person was
>incompetent did not bother me as much as the fact that he
>insisted on proving it to me in a rather boisterous fashion.
>All of this in front of a co-worker and a store full of
>people.... at no additional charge!!!


Your criticism is not limited to RS alone.   I very rarely receive
competent, knowledgeable help at retail stores.  I am thankful
if the person helping me is at least courteous.  The only store
that provides consistently good service for me is Norstrom, but
their prices are quite high.  You get what you pay for.

Solution #1 is to talk to the store manager.  This did not
work for you, probably because you were right in front
of the employee who offended you.  If that does not work,
call the district manager.   Just call information and ask
for the district office.   That will get you an acceptable
response almost always.   A letter to John Roach (Tandy CEO)
always gets a response.  

I worked for RS for 5 years.  When customers complained regularly about
certain employees, they always got fired.   District managers are not
willing to tolerate employees who offend customers.  

Tandy provides little or no training to its salespeople.  Only 
the store managers receive training.  The pay for salespeople
is low.  (minimum wage plus a small commission)  Tandy figures
that you will either become a store manager or leave the company
after a few months.  Like fast food places, they mainly hire students
for sales positions.  We can argue about whether this is a good
approach.  It keeps costs (and prices) low, but does not give
customers the best service.  

-- 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Randall Rhea                                        Informix Software, Inc. 
Project Manager, MIS Sales/Marketing Systems    uunet!pyramid!infmx!randall
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: carranti@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Frederick Joseph Carranti)
Subject: PLEASE HELP WITH KNIGHT 2-m X-CEIVER
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 09:56:07 EST


I am new to amateur radio, having passed the tests for TECH in 
October, (so i'm probably one of the poor souls that will have to 
wait 16 weeks).
I recently acquired a 

KNIGHT TR-108  2-METER TRANSCEIVER

built from a kit. I'm guessing that it's late 60's vintage.

It seems to work, i.e. when I turn it on, it warms up, the lights come 
on, and noise comes from the speaker.  I have received an occasional 
phone signal, but very rarely.
It has sockets for three crystals and a VFO, and controls for:
LOAD, PLATE, MULT, SPOT/OFF, RF GAIN, AF GAIN, and an S-meter.
I have it hooked up to a 5/8 wave vertical.

PLEASE HELP, (what follows may be extremely dumb questions):

1) What is this thing? (i.e.  FM, SSB, what?)

2) How can I readjust the meter?

3) Do I need crystals to receive?

4) What will calibration do for me?

5) There is a mike and a place for it, and the mike can control 
   when I transmit, but there seems to be no way to hook up a key.
   Can I also use this for CW, assuming I can rig up a key to the 
   mike socket?

6) How do I know that I'm transmitting on the same freq. on which 
   I'm receiving? (Should I be?)

7) Assuming I could operate this unit with a local repeater, how do 
   I do that (knowing that repeaters input and output on different 
   frequencies)?

8) If I had one of the modern HT's, would it be compatible with this 
   unit?


PLEASE HELP.  Any and all information will be greatly appreciated 
and more than I have now.


Frederick J. Carranti  (carranti@rodan.acs.syr.edu)

Many thanks.
From: paul@n3eop.pgh.pa.us (paul)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Need help w/ARRL HB gel-cell charger problem
Date: 20 Dec 92 23:53:34 GMT
Organization: CrossRoads in Elizabeth, PA

heacock@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Doug Heacock) writes:

> I recently built the gel-cell/charger project from the 1991 ARRL
> Handbook (from chapter 27), to go with a couple of gel cells I bought
> at a hamfest a few months ago.  The cells specified in the project are
> 6-volt 4Ah units--mine are 6-volt 5Ah units.  My cells were new when I
> bought them (as nearly as I can tell), but the measured voltage of
> each was less than one volt when I purchased them--I'm not sure if
> this figures into the problem I'm having or not.

You saying that the 6v batteries were only reading 1v?  Or the component 
cells were reading 1v each?  There is a big difference...

If the battery was reading 1v, rather than 6v, then you might as well 
find a stack of papers that need a weight, because that's what you have.

Typically, when a gel cell's voltage drops that low, the cell is shot.  
There may be ways to breathe some life into them, but the results are 
usually less than poor.

de N3EOP
From: grund@pyrite.SOM.CWRU.edu (Victor Grund)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Alinco DJ-580 HT
Date: 26 Dec 92 01:46:36
Organization: International Business Machines, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: calypso.som.cwru.edu
In-reply-to: dbushong@wang.com's message of Thu, 24 Dec 1992 12:45:36 GMT


In article <BzrKs1.HwE@wang.com> dbushong@wang.com (Dave Bushong) writes:

   I've heard that some of them have a problem with the PLL losing
   lock (you can tell by the fact that the displayed frequenct has
   an extra decimal point displayed).  I haven't had a bit of
   trouble with mine, by the way.

Funny you should mention it.  The radio I'm returning displays the
extra decimal point.  Just part of the small percentage of bad
production, I assume.  I'll bet the new one HRO is sending won't give
me a lick of trouble, either.  I'm not usually inspired to be so
confindent about a product that fails me initially.  The Alinco is
overwhelmingly the exception.  The radio has a basic quality that is
apparent from the moment you open the box.

I'll post again when I receive the replacement radio.

--
Victor D. Grund  (WA1TING)  | grund@pyrite.som.cwru.edu 
IBM Cleveland               | grund@vnet.ibm.com        
RISC System/6000 & AIX      | DETVMIC1(VGRUND)          
(216) 664-7381              | FAX: (216) 664-7348       
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: pat@POMONA.CLAREMONT.EDU (Pat Flannery (714) 621-8061)
Subject: ICOM 901 vs Kenwood TM-741
Reply-To: pat@POMONA.CLAREMONT.EDU
Organization: Pomona College
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 06:35:54 GMT

Hello all,

I am interested in an comments on which radio would be the better way to go
for my mobile station barring any costs.  I want to start with the basic 
2 meter 440 and have 1.2 gigs.  Down the road I would like to be able to have
220 and 6 meters as well.   Being a RACES member I will need to be able to
utilize all the bands at any time " The big one hits".  But I do have limited
creature space in my rice burner truck and these do both offer detached heads.

Thanks for any comments either to me or this newsgroup

73's

Pat Flannery
KC6TDR
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: bwilkins@iat.holonet.net (Bob Wilkins n6fri)
Subject: Re: 430mhz band under th
Organization: the cAVe group 
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 00:37:40 GMT

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

: 
: I don't know what gives a repeater frequency coordinator the right to
: disregard the accepted national band plan and assign repeaters to
: simplex frequencies.  After all they only speak for the repeater
: owners not the average users.  Just think of how few closed repeaters
: there would be if all hams chose the repeater coordinators.
: 
: Rod Anderson      N0NZO on ao-16      rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu
: 
If you were in northern california you would be able to sit on the board
od directors of the local coordinating body. You would have a vote and
could formulate policy as to repeater coordination. You would also assist
in problem resolution between repeater groups. Northern Amateur Relay
Council of California has recently had three of ten board members elected
from the ranks of users. These gentlemen are quite perceptive of the
problems of the repeater owners... as they are the whole reason to put up a
repeater...to serve the users.

If you were to examin your local policy and proceedure for coordination of
repeaters and auxilliary frequencies you would be surprised to see that it
is usually the users of the spectrum that are given the first
consideration. 

Local band plans allways prevail as they are formulated by local
conditions and are agreed on by a vote of the coordinating councils
membership. National band plans serve as a general guideline for
formulating local plans. In california and other metro areas the 440
sub-band starts at 440.000 not 442.000 as in the national plan. This
allows 80 more 440 repeater pairs in our area. The 220 band plan is now
befor the commission because in southern california it is now compleatly
repeaters with no spectrum for ssb moonbounce etc..yeh they got 10khz.
Most areas of the country provide the first 150 khz to these operations.
The six meter band plan is still in formulation and no one can agree as to
input output spacing. In california we have agreed to 500 khz spacing.
There are plans of 1 MHz 1.6 MHz 600 khz from different parts of the
country as the needs of the area are different. One could say it is far
cheaper to do a wide spaced 6meter repeater .. but fewer repeaters can
operate in the band. 2meters has several different regional band plans.

Does your local coordinating body allow you to directly partisipate ?

-- 
Bob Wilkins    n6fri          voice 440.250+ 100pl san francisco bay area
bwilkins@holonet.net          packet n6fri @ w6pw.#nocal.ca.us
From: jpp@tornado (Joseph Piazza)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Ringo Ranger Mods?
Date: 2 Jan 93 17:13:53 GMT
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co., Sys Integration & S/W Development
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]


Does anyone know if a 2-Meter Ringo Ranger antenna might be modified to be
used on 10-Meters. I have one on the roof but want to use it not for 2 but
for ten. Could it be shortened or lengthened to resonate at ten? Any ideas?

					Thanks,
					Joe,N2MSG

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: martin@datacomm.ucc.okstate.edu (Martin McCormick)
Subject: Re: 430mhz band under th
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 15:54:01 GMT

In article <725469777.AA00000@therose.pdx.com> Larry.Lund@p12.f97.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Larry Lund) writes:
>Like someone else said in a previous message, it kinda defeats the purpose of
>what HAM radio is all about. Personally, I wish all those involved in charging
>fellow hams for using the repeater (excluding autopatches) would just get out
>of the hobby. We don't need them! I talk on HF and I paid a lot for my HF gear

I totally agree with the above statements.  Every so often, somebody with
more money than good sense thinks that they need to run a ham version of a
commercial radio common carrier system.  The problem is that there is a
finite amount of frequency space available, especially in highly populated
areas  so the spectrum needs to be used as efficiently as possible. 
	Running a quasi-commercial system on a conjested ham band is the
sort of display of geekdome that gives rise to the ill will and rudeness
that is getting to be almost acceptable on some bands.
	There is something really wrong when somebody uses the claim that
it costs X amount of Dollars to keep a system on the air so that is why we
charge X amount of money to use it.  Some of the best systems I have ever
seen were wide open with even the autopatch costs so diluted by the number
of users that it was virtually free. The amateur bands are more like
national parks or public highways in that they are there for the common good
and definitely not for private business use.
	Ham radio frequencies should be as accessable as practical.  We would
all love to be able to have our own little channel with unlimited range and
no QRM, but that just isn't possible, most of the time.  I don't care one
bit how much money somebody wants to spend on a system.  If they want to
get it back, then they  need to take their game into the commercial bands
where such behavior is perfectly acceptable and understandable.  Just stay
out of the ham bands.

Martin McCormick WB5AGZ   Stillwater, OK
O.S.U. Computer Center Data Communications Group
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: 430 mhz band under th (now private/closed repeaters)
Date: 1 Jan 93 15:11:57 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems

In article <1i0dkmINNk2s@network.ucsd.edu> 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.

Sounds like you haven't done the control system properly if it can
be damaged by a user command.

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: wejones@cbda7.apgea.army.mil (Bill Jones)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re:430 mhz band under th (now repeater costs)
Date: 30 Dec 92 18:56:33 GMT
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu
Originator: daemon@ucsd.edu

   After reading message after message on the subject of closed vs open vs
private repeaters, and the discussion relating to how expensive it is
to put together and maintain a repeater, I thought I should add the following:

*  All this discussion regarding the cost of the repeater is irrelevant! *
   The amateur bands should be open to all amateurs licensed to operate
   at the frequencies involved.  I completely agree with those who stated
   that if all the freqs are assigned, that closed and private repeaters
   should be forced to give up their slot to prospective open repeaters.
   Anything less means that these frequencies can be bought.  For example,
   corporations could buy out a repeater club, raise the fees to the
   extent that no-one could afford it, and then, when all the frequencies 
   are gone, they could petition the fcc for use of the frequencies
   claiming that they are not in use, or they could use them for the exclusive
   use of their executives, etc.  Even if all the frequencies have not
   been assigned, I find this whole practice distasteful.  It resembles
   country clubs that do not permit membership by minorities, or have 
   such high fees that only the rich and famous can belong, but this 
   takes it one step further by putting it on public property, ie the
   amateur bands.  Sort of like some corporation turning Yellowstone into
   a country club for use by its executives and the congress critters they
   want to influence.  I know I am streching reality a bit, but there are
   many repeater "clubs" in the area that won't take just anyone, to join,
   you have to be nominated by a member and then voted on by the other
   members.  This sort of situation is so open for abuse that I refuse
   to even think about ever joining such an organization.  There are
   enough individuals, and "open to all" clubs that are willing to put
   up open repeaters, and are willing to find alternatives to high
   cost systems through public service and/or donations of sites/equipment,
   that I have no sympathy for those crying about how expensive repeaters
   are.  This is "AMATEUR" radio, let's keep it that way.

73   B.J.    N3JLQ

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: 430 mhz band under th (now private/closed repeaters)
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 06:48:45 GMT

    There is no spectrum shortage. Packet has not even began to use the
    frequencies that local coordinators and the arrl spectrum usage committees
    have recommended for packet and digital usage. Look at 902 and 1240 there
    is plenty of spectrum.

I am uncomfortable with the idea of using these bands with portable
equipment because of the additional microwave exposure.  Also, why
should I buy more tranceivers because somebody is tying up channels
with closed repeaters that are for the most part inactive?
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: ker@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (kenneth.roser)
Subject: Kenwood TM-732 remoting
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 15:10:34 GMT

Has anyone separted the front panel of this radio from the main unit
without using the remoting kit that Kenwood sells?

It appears that a standard 8 pin modular phone cable might be usuable?

Has anyone tried this?

Does Kenwood's kit include any active components in the cabling system?
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Roser - WA2VCI - ker@mtgzfs3.att.com - AT&T Bell Laboratories - 908-957-5822
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------