HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: root@jackatak.raider.NET (Jack GF Hill - Sysop [HOME])
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Origin of "73's"(_sic_) and "88's"(_sic_)
Date: 9 Jan 93 15:51:02 GMT
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu
Originator: daemon@ucsd.edu

In Info-Hams Digest V93 #38
idacrd!tang!n4hy@uunet.uu.net (BMc) says:>

>>Thanks, Bob, for reiterating the obvious. Seems far too many folks, intent
>                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>on fracturing the English language, and now focusing on abbreviations and CW
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>shorthand.
>^^^^^^^^^^
>I love it when people blast other peoples grammar, sentence structure,
>misuse of words, etc. and do it in something that isn't even a sentence.
>Do not throw stones if you live in a glass house.
>BMc

Just to throw some gasoline on the fire, I think there is a distinct 
difference between "Best regardses" and "Hugs(es) and kisseses" and what 
is an obvious typo...
Bob's point is well taken. Seems like BMc wants to flame, so have at it!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Jack GF Hill       Voice: (615)459-2636   root@jackatak.raidernet.com |
| P. O. Box 1685     modem: (615)377-5980           Compu$erve 76427,31 |
| Brentwood, TN  37024   Bicycling and SCUBA Diving     Ham Call: W4PPT |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant)
Subject: Re: Morality vs. THE LAW
    <1993Jan07.183938.8340@eng.umd.edu> <1993Jan7.200145.9952@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 02:12:53 GMT
Organization: University of Kentucky, USA. -5 GMT

feg@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (forrest.e.gehrke) writes:

>In article <1993Jan07.183938.8340@eng.umd.edu> chuck@eng.umd.edu (Chuck Harris - WA3UQV) writes:
>>We would much rather that these closed "vanity" repeaters be on shared
>>frequency pairs, so as to free up space for other more effective public uses.
>>
>>>there are ASSHOLES.   I personally would like to be remembered as a nice
>>
>>Remember!  Nice people don't call other people "assholes".
>>
>Have you a more discreet appellation to suggest which conveys
>the same measure of disdain? (;-)


	Nothing quite as satisfying. ;)


>Forrest Gehrke feg@dodger.att.com   k2bt
>>
>>Chuck Harris - WA3UQV
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: 430mhz band under th
Organization: very little
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 04:25:44 GMT

In article <C09tnA.8vA@iat.holonet.net> bwilkins@iat.holonet.net (Bob Wilkins n6fri) writes:
>In california we generally talk simplex on repeater outputs in the 440
>band. This is done to minimise interference. Our repeaters can cover
>distances in the hundreds of miles due to high elevation sites. Most
>repeater users monitor the output not the input. We had a couple of new
>hams 100 miles away using our input as a secret channel. Funny that they
>used the same pl we used...we heard them quite clearly...provided lots of
>amusement. They could not hear any of us on their portables so we had a
>ham in their community call them on frequency. He asked them to switch
>modes and operate duplex. They were properly embarresed when they realized
>that their private comms were being carried in a large area. When told
>that they could operate on our output they were quite happy. 
>
>As gentlemen we have agreed in concept that when operating on a repeater
>output we have a secondary use. If the repeater comes up, we stand by ,
>the user of the repeater who is 100 miles away cant hear us. The bands are
>divided up into sub-bands simplex ssb packet repeater etc. When operating
>simplex in the repeater sub-bands we are a secondary use to the coordinated
>use. New users of the 440 band dont realize that their radios only cover a
>third of the band! most of the simplex use is in the 431 - 433 MHz spectrum.
> 

I noticed this type of operation on 2 meters when I was visiting AH6BK's
place on Kalepa Point on Maui a few years ago.  The locals would chat
on simplex on the repeater output, and then move to duplex when
they got out of range.  It was an interesting way of doing things.

> 


-- 
 Tad Cook     |  Phone:  206-527-4089  (home)     |   MCI Mail: 3288544   
 Seattle, WA  |  Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA   |   3288544@mcimail.com 
              |  Internet: tad@ssc.com           or...sumax!ole!ssc!tad
From: randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Intermod vs. Spurious Signals (Re: Yaesu FT530 HT first impressions)
Date: 6 Jan 93 02:51:36 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

acm139@ccs.northeastern.edu (Scott Ehrlich) writes:

>  The 70cm transmit side is HEAVILY susseptable (sp?) to intermod.
>This is the right side of the display.  It can also act as receive for
>2m, which is also susseptable to the intermod.  It is not safe to say
>70cm alone is the problem, but rather 70cm transmit/2m receive (the
>VFO on the right side of the display) is not tight enough for intermod.

I believe you mean "spurious signals", not "intermod".   Intermod
happens when signals from two or more stations at different
frequencies mix to form another signal on another frequency, which is 
then detected by your receiver.  "Spurious signals" are signals
that don't belong where the receiver is detecting them.  (e.g.
police signals appearing at 145 MHz)  Intermod is one, but not the
only, cause of spurious signals.

Spurious signals are a problem on all reasonably priced handheld 
DC-to-daylight receivers I've ever used, including handheld scanners,
HTs, and multiband radios.  When you get something, you give up
something.  If you want the extended receive, you get spurious
signals along with it.  Some receivers are worse than others
though.

-- 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Randall Rhea                                        Informix Software, Inc. 
Project Manager, MIS Sales/Marketing Systems    uunet!pyramid!infmx!randall
From: ccoprfm@prism.gatech.EDU (Monte Freeman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: New ACC mailing list ready to go
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:00:52 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

Hello,

  After much wating on my end, the Advanced Computer Controlls discussion list
is finally ready to go.

  It is being hosted by the listserver on our IBM ES/9000 here at Georgia Tech.
To subscribe to the list, simply send a mail message to:

listserv@gitvm1.gatech.edu

 in the body of the message, just say:

subscribe acc-l

  That's it. You should then be subscribed to the list.

  To post messages to the list, send your mail message to:

acc-l@gitvm1.gatech.edu

  If you have any problems getting any of this to work, then you can send me
mail and I'll try to help out. I'm the list owner, so any questions/comments/
concearns should be directed to me.

   Enjoy,


-- 
Monte Freeman  --  Operations Department / Information Technology
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
Internet: ccoprfm@prism.gatech.edu
Bitnet:   ccoprfm@gitvm1.bitnet
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: Jeff.Anderson@launchpad.unc.edu (Jeffrey Brian Anderoson)
Subject: newsletters
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 23:41:44 GMT

Ham club newsletter editors:
I publish the monthly newsletter for Orange County Radio Amateurs
(OCRA) here in central NC and would like to exchange newsletters
with other clubs around the U.S., the idea being to swap ideas and
possibly even material. I would be happy to send a copy of our
newsletter to anyone who sends me a copy of thiers to the
following address.

ARS KD4JIA
Jeff Anderson
2258 Sandy Lane
Mebane, NC 27302

Thanks! 


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: blw7149@tamsun.tamu.edu (Brandon Lee White)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Yaesu FT-990 mods, etc.
Date: 9 Jan 1993 16:54:04 -0600
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: tamsun.tamu.edu

Does anyone have any mods or undocumented features for the FT-990?  Also, any
general comments, suggestions, hints, etc. would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks and 73,

Brandon KB5WDR

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: stevej@pillock.moron.vware.mn.org (Steven Jarosh, KA0VYB)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Converting 49Mhz Toys to 6 meters
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 17:40:15 CST
Organization: 11th Hour Contest Group (North American Chapter)

dave@eram.esi.COM.AU (Dave Horsfall) writes:

> In article <Tk1uwB2w164w@pillock.moron.vware.mn.org>,
>     stevej@pillock.moron.vware.mn.org (Steven Jarosh, KA0VYB) writes:
> 
> | > No wonder Tandy (RS) have a reputation here for over-priced junk...
> | 
> | Tandy can't take all the blame.  Don't forget about Australia's user 
> | unfriendly Customs Ministry for those of us not associated with the 
> | Commonwealth.
> 
> Perhaps, but that does not detract from the popular view that Tandy (Aus)
> sell over-priced junk...  I am always amused at their resistors, packed
> in individual blister packs, for about 20 cents each...

Here in the US they are 29 cents(US) for two.
> 
> Evidently the Tandy in Australia is nothing like the Radio Shack in USA.
> 
Possibly, but the popularity or tolerance of RS in the USA is due to the 
fact that you can find those resistors no matter what part of the country 
you are in.  With 8500 outlets in the US, you can find a RS in some very 
rural settings.  Our labor(labour) ;-) prices being what they are in the US
means either fix it yourself or trash it and buy a new one.

Steve KA0VYB
From: flloyd@l1-a.West.Sun.COM (Fred Lloyd [Phoenix SE])
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Info-Hams-Trash-Relay
Date: 5 Jan 1993 22:54:55 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Phoenix, AZ
NNTP-Posting-Host: l1-a.west.sun.com

Would mister info-hams-relay@ucsd please get a grip on this 
monster???  You're trashing the newsgroup at least twice a day
with this junk, wasting bandwidth and serving no purpose.

info-hams-relay MUST NOT relay bounced material back into the newsgroup.

Fix it.  Please.


In article <9301051949.AA06942@lonestar.utsa.edu> info-hams-relay@ucsd writes:
>***** UNDELIVERABLE MAIL sent to sbooth, being returned by lonestar!sbooth *****
>mail: Error # 2 'Problem with mailfile' encountered on system lonestar
>
>Received: from ucsd.edu by lonestar.utsa.edu via SMTP (920330.SGI/920502.SGI)
>	for sbooth id AA06934; Tue, 5 Jan 93 13:49:39 -0600
>Received: by ucsd.edu; id AA27628
>	sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun
>	Tue, 5 Jan 93 09:06:43 -0800
>Received: by ucsd.edu; id AA27511
>	sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun
>	Tue, 5 Jan 93 09:06:11 -0800 for /usr/lib/sendmail -oc -odb -oQ/var/spool/lqueue -oi -finfo-hams-relay info-hams-list
>Message-Id: <9301051706.AA27511@ucsd.edu>
>Date: Tue,  5 Jan 93 09:06:06 PST
>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: Bulk
>Subject: Info-Hams Digest V93 #18
>To: Info-Hams@UCSD.EDU
>
>
>Info-Hams Digest            Tue,  5 Jan 93       Volume 93 : Issue   18
>
>Today's Topics:

-- 
[ Fred Lloyd, AA7BQ                             Fred.Lloyd@West.Sun.COM ]
[ Sun Microsystems,           Southwest Area Solaris Transition Manager ]
[ Phoenix, AZ                                            (602) 275-4242 ]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: n1mpq@anomaly.sbs.risc.net
Subject: Yaesu FT-5100 Help
 
 
Organization: Small Business Systems, Incorporated, Smithfield, RI 02917
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1993 22:16:14 GMT

I just got a new Yaesu FT-5100 and was wondering why in all the ads for
it Yaesu says it has cross-band repeat built in but there's no mention
of it whatsoever. Weird stuff. Anyone know anything about this?


Tony
From: rc@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (Robert Carpenter)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: [Re:] Sony SWL Receiver
Date: 6 Jan 93 13:09:17 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu
Originator: daemon@ucsd.edu

Thanks to the posters who pointed out how behind I was about this unit. I
feared such a response, but posted anyway to elicit comments.
Considering the complaints about BFO instability in earlier Sony SWL gear,
I'm surprised they didn't get it right in this one.
73, Bob W3OTC
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: forozco@nmsu.edu (OROZCO)
Subject: To Mark,  VE6MGS
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:55:39 GMT


 I received a message from Mark, VE6MGS, regarding the ad I posted a
few days ago in this newsgroup.  I tried replying to him by email, but
I can't get the message to the address he sent me his message from, so
here goes the reply:

  Mark, first of all, a big I'm sorry! Since I've seen some other ads
here, and also, since it is legal to put this kind of ads on the ham bands,
I thought it was ok.  But now that I know about it, you can be sure
that it won't happen again.  I've tried posting to rec.radio.swap two
times, but but looks like my message never really gets posted, I don't
know why.  So, if you could re-post my ad on rec.radio.swap, I would
really appreciate it.
                                  Thanks and 73's de Luis

--


                               	
Luis F. Orozco                 N  5  U  H  B     
forozco@dante.nmsu.edu               g  o  o  
forozco@freedom.nmsu.edu             l  m  y 
                                     y  e
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: 1200Mhz is not a microwave band!
Date: 12 Jan 1993 17:19:45 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1iupd8INNor9@rave.larc.nasa.gov> kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>Band Designations
>-----------------
>  0 Hz- 20 KHz --- Audio
> 20KHz- 540KHz --- VLF
>540KHz-  30MHz --- Radio
> 30MHz-   up   --- Voodoo

Naw...you're incomplete:

   0 Hz-  20KHz: audio
  20KHz- 540KHz: VLF
 540KHz-  30MHz: slow waves
  30MHz- 512MHz: radio
 512MHz-1300MHz: nosebleed
1300MHz-  10GHz: voodoo
  10GHz- 300GHz: pixie dust and mirrors
 300GHz up: daylight
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
      "Science is all in the public domain, and allows few secrets."
              -- Tom Clancy, _The Sum of All Fears_
From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov (Scott Dorsey)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: 1200Mhz is not a microwave band!
Date: 12 Jan 1993 15:51:04 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center and Reptile Farm
NNTP-Posting-Host: grissom.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1993Jan12.134250.5062@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1052@vk2bea.UUCP> michael@vk2bea.UUCP (Michael G. Katzmann) writes:
>>In article <9301051454.AA02438@tix.timeplex.com> taylor@tix.timeplex.COM (Seth Taylor) writes:
>>>Since so called "microwave ovens" operate in the UHF designation
>>>frequency range why don't we call them a "UHF" ? Think about that
>>>one.
>>
>>Eh?  2450 MHz sounds like S-band microwave to me!
>
>Ah, but the ARRL still clings to the 1947 Atlantic City nomenclature
>which says anything between 300-3000 Megacycles is UHF. The CCIR doesn't
>consider that correct nomenclature anymore, but so it goes. S band microwave
>is an even older nomenclature used by the military. It's not acceptable
>either. The CCIR says they should be called "band 6" or "hectometric"
>waves, or the really preferred nomenclature is to simply spell out the
>Megahertz frequency span.


Band Designations
-----------------

  0 Hz- 20 KHz --- Audio
 20KHz- 540KHz --- VLF
540KHz-  30MHz --- Radio
 30MHz-   up   --- Voodoo

Any questions?
--scott
From: jdelancy@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: [ANS] Boatanchors of old
Date: 13 Jan 93 04:01:21 GMT
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu
Originator: daemon@ucsd.edu


Ya'll know that there is a "mailing list" just for "boatanchors"?
Send your "subscription" to  BOATANCHORS@ACIDQUEEN.ENG.SUN.COM

Cheerios...jd-k1zat
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: 430 mhz band under th (now private/closed repeaters)
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 14:29:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.045245.1386@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> gcreager@gothamcity.uucp ([Gerry Creager [I-NET]) writes:
>In article <1993Jan1.151157.23852@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>In article <1i0dkmINNk2s@network.ucsd.edu> brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes:
>>>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.
>
>Bzzzzzzzzzzzt.  Wrong answer.  The technologist is NOT responsible for user
>stupidity, and NOWHERE in the rules, nor in my dog-eared Operating Practices
>ca. 1967 is anything about making software so "user friendly" that it's
>intuituvely obvious to the most casual twit!

BZZZZZZT! Very wrong answer. The engineer is *completely* responsible
for the robustness and usability of the system. Designing a remote
control system so that any user command can cause equipment damage
is simply unacceptable engineering. That's why interlocks, limit switches,
and overload trips were invented.

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
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Converting 49Mhz Toys to 6 meters
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:48:16 GMT

In article <2993@eram.esi.COM.AU> dave@eram.esi.COM.AU (Dave Horsfall) writes:
>
>Perhaps, but that does not detract from the popular view that Tandy (Aus)
>sell over-priced junk...  I am always amused at their resistors, packed
>in individual blister packs, for about 20 cents each...
>
>Evidently the Tandy in Australia is nothing like the Radio Shack in USA.

Rat Shack sells the blister packed resistors here too. They may be
over-priced for a company purchasing department who needs thousands
of resistors, but for the ham who needs *one* to repair a radio on a
Sunday afternoon, they aren't over-priced. With most of the large
wholesalers requiring a $25 minimum and a company purchase order,
those 20 cent Rat Shack resistors begin to look awfully cheap.

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
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: rich@troll1.msfc.nasa.gov (Rich Krum)
Subject: Re: Boatanchors of old
Reply-To: rich@troll1.msfc.nasa.gov
Organization: Boeing Computer Support Services
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:21:30 GMT

In article AA07798@tilde.csc.ti.com, dube@cpdvax.CSc.ti.COM () writes:
>
>Subj:	Boatanchors of old
>Those old specs weren't bad, either.  The -20 boasted 50 watts from a
>6DQ6A, the -35 ran 65 watts from a 6146, and the -100 claimed 140 watts 
>(CW) from a pair of 6146s.  For the newer Hams, these were straight 
>transmitters.  You had to have a separate receiver.  
>

My old DX-100 would crank out about 185, continuous key-down--sure
wish I still had that beast.  I think it weighed about 1 pound per watt, too!

>Here are the advertising bullets for the -100:
>   o  Phone or CW on 160,80,40,20,15,11,and 10 meters.
>   o  Built-in VFO, modulator, and power supplies.
>   o  Kit includes all parts-tubes-hardware-cabinet, etc.
>   o  Coils are pre-wound and cables pre-harnessed.
>   o  High-quality components used throughout for reliable performance.
>   o  Features 5-point TVI suppression.
>   o  Easy to build from complete instructions and pictorial diagrams 
>      enclosed.
>
>Don't you just wish they still offered a kit like this?
>Naaaah!  No bells and whistles!  And ya gotta know how to tune the finals!
>
Hey, bring the old beasts on, I still can tune finals--

Rich, working on getting back into Hamming--last on the air in the '60's


---
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"My opinions are my own, and my employer (Boeing Computer Support Services)
 denies any responsibility for me, all opinions in general, and anything 
 I may say, do, or be otherwise associated with outside of work for them.
 -- Use at your own risk, your mileage may vary, no news is good news."

 E-MAIL REPLY TO:  rich@troll1.msfc.nasa.gov     PLEASE KEEP IT "G" RATED
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: stevej@pillock.moron.vware.mn.org (Steven Jarosh, KA0VYB)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: 1200Mhz is not a microwave band!
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 01:47:07 CST
Organization: 11th Hour Contest Group (North American Chapter)

rrgd50@email.sps.mot.com (Chris Terwilliger) writes:

> by the way...has anyone ever used tried to modulate old oven parts???
> Seems like a good project for someone with an oven they don't use any
> more...
> 
This has actually already been done.  I can't find the article at the moment 
but I believe it was documented about two years ago in 73mag, QST, qnd the 
ATV mag.

This is quite funny because several years ago I joked with a friend about 
modulating the magnetron in a microwave.  About a year or two later I read
a very tonge and cheek article in the British ATV mag. about the same thing. 
 Two years later someone had stablized a magnetron enough to use it to
create a 2.4ghz AM TV transmitter with about 250 watts RF output.  I 
personally think this is a good way to get birds off the antenna. Instant 
lunch too ;-)

Steve KA0VYB
From: marshall@hplsla.hp.com (Marshall Lollis)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:08:11 GMT
Subject: Re: Does anyone still have the Alinco 580 HT Edited Manual?
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc


My sincere Thanks to all of you who took the time to save our marriage. I have
a copy of the 580 Operating manual......once again.

Well OF COURSE I will keep an electronic copy of it this time.  ;-)

Happy New Year
From: asqp-nbf@zama-emh1.army.mil (ASQP-NBF)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: AA4RE
Date: 6 Jan 93 23:02:56 GMT
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu
Originator: daemon@ucsd.edu

Hello net.

Is AA4RE on the net? If so I have a question about his software.
If he is not, I still have the question.
Is there a AA4RE user/sysop out there?

Thanks 73
de Roland 7j1aki@7j1aaa.10.jnet1.jpn.as

or asqp-nbf@zama-emh1.army.mil
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc