HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: oler@rho.uleth.CA (Cary Oler)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Daily Solar Geophysical Data Broadcast for 10 January
Date: 11 Jan 93 17:53:06 GMT
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu
Originator: daemon@ucsd.edu

!!BEGIN!! (1.0) S.T.D. Solar Geophysical Data Broadcast for DAY 010, 01/10/93
10.7 FLUX=132    90-AVG=140        SSN=142      BKI=2464 3421  BAI=024
BGND-XRAY=B2.7     FLU1=1.6E+07  FLU10=1.0E+04  PKI=2475 4311  PAI=028
  BOU-DEV=012,056,170,053,028,042,018,007   DEV-AVG=048 NT     SWF=00:000
 XRAY-MAX= C6.3   @ 1337UT    XRAY-MIN= B2.2   @ 0305UT   XRAY-AVG= B4.5
NEUTN-MAX= +002%  @ 0500UT   NEUTN-MIN= -003%  @ 1325UT  NEUTN-AVG= -0.2%
  PCA-MAX= +0.1DB @ 1825UT     PCA-MIN= -0.4DB @ 1000UT    PCA-AVG= -0.0DB
BOUTF-MAX=55430NT @ 0406UT   BOUTF-MIN=55403NT @ 1900UT  BOUTF-AVG=55415NT
GOES7-MAX=P:+147NT@ 1851UT   GOES7-MIN=N:+001NT@ 1308UT  G7-AVG=+091,+026,+014
GOES6-MAX=P:+173NT@ 1559UT   GOES6-MIN=E:-016NT@ 1848UT  G6-AVG=+111,-005,+033
 FLUXFCST=STD:130,130,125;SESC:130,130,125 BAI/PAI-FCST=012,010,010/010,010,010
    KFCST=3333 2223 2332 2223  27DAY-AP=007,006   27DAY-KP=2312 2221 3111 1222
 WARNINGS=
   ALERTS=
!!END-DATA!!
From: glusk@mechcad3.esd.sgi.com (Mark Glusker)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Collins R-388 receiver (and 51-J?)
Date: 8 Jan 93 22:53:28 GMT
Reply-To: glusk@mechcad3.esd.sgi.com (Mark Glusker)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.


I am thinking about getting an old tube "boat anchor" 
communications receiver for listening to shortwave 
broadcasts.

Can anyone give me a synopsis of the differences between
the R-388 and the "civilian" versions, i.e. the Collins
51-J3 and 51-J4?  I understand the 51-J4 has mechanical
filters as opposed to the (inferior?) crystal ones on the 
51-J3 (and R-388?).  Are there other major differences?

Also, how does their performance compare to a R-390-A? 
As boat anchors go, I have heard this is the ultimate,
but I don't like the "odometer" frequency readout.  Part
of the appeal of an old radio like this is to get away
from the cold precision of digital readouts.  

Any information (or alternate boat anchor suggestions) 
is appreciated!


Mark Glusker
Silicon Graphics (415)390-2014, glusk@esd.sgi.com
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: rice@ttd.teradyne.com
Subject: Re: 430mhz band under th
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 00:07:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan04.042255.17643@ssc.com>, tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) writes:
> In article <1993Jan2.133936.1@ttd.teradyne.com> rice@ttd.teradyne.com writes:
>>In article <1993Jan02.061920.7115@ssc.com>, tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) writes:
>>> In article <1992Dec30.114623.1@ttd.teradyne.com> rice@ttd.teradyne.com writes:
>>>>
>>>>That's not what I said. What I said was that any Ham has the right by law
>>>>to transmit on any frequency for which he is liscensed. Period. The repeater
>>                                                                   -----------
>>>>operator has the right to turn off the machine. Period. 
>>  ----------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Let me see if I have this straight (!).........     :)
>>> 
>>> I get my 440 MHz link set up, and get a coordinated frequency from
>>> the local coordination council.  Everything works fine, until one
>>> day YOU show up and start transmitting there.
>>> 
>>> And *I* have to turn off my gear??
>>> 
>>> I don't think so!
>>> 
>>Read what I wrote. You don't HAVE to DO anything. But if you don't want 
>>the station to be repeated, you have the right to not do so.
>>
>>But if the frequency is not in use at the time you have no exclusive right
>>to say who can or cannot transmit on that frequency. And nothing in part
>>97 implies that you have that right.
>>
> 
> Nope, you're wrong.  Otherwise, why would we need coordination?
> 

Would you care to cite chapter and verse where part 97 says that anybody
but the FCC can deny use of any frequency simply because they have a radio
receiver on that frequency ?  Have you actually read a rule that says that
party A can prohibit party B from using a frequency at any time, soley because
party A has a repeater sitting on that frquency even if it's not in use at the
time ? If you have I'd sure like to hear about it (and so would the commission,
I think).

   John Rice        K9IJ  
   rice@ttd.teradyne.com
From: brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Who do repeater coordinators represent?
Date: 5 Jan 1993 16:47:30 GMT
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu

Considering how easy and cheap it is to get used trunking equipment
around here (there are a LOT of companies going out of business and
selling off their radios), several of us got together and tried to
interest people in setting up a trunking system in the 900 MHz ham
band (many of the radios should be able to move there).  Couldn't
get a critical mass.

If it goes the way most ham stuff does these days, we hams will be
putting up trunking repeaters about the time that trunking becomes
obsolete and CDMA or something is getting old in commercial service.

Ham radio is a dying hobby.  I wonder if we deserve our frequencies
any more.  We sure as hell aren't doing anything new with them.

Do I sound bitter?
	- Brian
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: feg@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (forrest.e.gehrke)
Subject: Re: Morality vs. THE LAW
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:01:45 GMT

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? (;-)

Forrest Gehrke feg@dodger.att.com   k2bt

>73,
>
>Chuck Harris - WA3UQV
>chuck@eng.umd.edu
>


Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: mjohnsto@jenny.shearson.com (Mike Johnston)
Subject: Antenna recommendations needed
Organization: Lehman Brothers
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:51:25 GMT


I've finally gotten the ok from my landlady to install a rooftop antenna
on my house. (YIPPEE!) The antenna will be used for 2m/440 operation. I'm
a complete newcomer to the field and am impatiently awaiting my tickets 
arrival and I need to do *SOMETHING* to take the edge off my anxiety.
I want to put something up that will offer respectable performance without
making the house look like a CIA substation. I'd like to spend no more
than $100 for a antenna that will accomplish this. (Not counting cable etc).

I've heard good things about the Ringo Ranger dual-band while listening to
the local hams. My Elmer has recommended the Radio Shack Discone, which
also reported makes a decent scanner antenna if used for that purpose.

Can you folks offer me some recommendations along these lines? Please
email and I'll summarize.

Thanks and 73.

MJ
--
Michael R. Johnston, System Administrator	mjohnsto@shearson.com
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress
depends on the unreasonable man." - G.B. Shaw
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: 430mhz band under th
Date: 4 Jan 1993 17:02:17 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

>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.

There's a statement in the national band plan that says that the ARRL
recognizes that it doesn't have all the answers, and that local coordinators,
who know the requirements of a given area, may deviate from the national band
plan if they deem it necessary.

>After all they only speak for the repeater
>owners not the average users.

Not in Texas.

>Just think of how few closed repeaters
>there would be if all hams chose the repeater coordinators.

You mean, like in Texas? (There are more than a few closed repeaters here.)
Once upon a time, someone proposed outlawing closed repeaters on 2 in a Texas
VHF-FM Society meeting. The proposal was voted down overwhelmingly.
-- 
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_
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: hyx1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Harry Y Xu)
Subject: TU All
Reply-To: hyx1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Harry Y Xu)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:18:47 GMT

To every who reads and posts to this group:
Thank you all for the info.
It's been very helpful, informative, and fun.
Cheers,
Harry Xu     | "The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary;
(KB2LHA/AG)  |  men alone are quite capable of every wickedness." --J. Conrad
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: dheisler@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Dave Heisler)
Subject: Re: 1200Mhz is not a microwave band!
Organization: Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems, Purdue University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:07:01 GMT

> 
> Band Designations
> -----------------
> 
>   0 Hz- 20 KHz --- Audio
> 
> Any questions?
> --scott

yeah i do actually, why do they call the above band audio?

Am i supposed to correlate EM waves with sound waves? Why
not low freq. EM?

dave
From: buchanan@cable.utmem.EDU
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Clueless Users
Date: 12 Jan 93 14:49:49 GMT
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu
Originator: daemon@ucsd.edu

>Date: 7 Jan 1993 05:29:12 GMT
>From: ucsd.edu!brian@network.UCSD.EDU
>Subject: SUBSCRIBE info-hams
>To: info-hams@ucsd.edu
>
>From: clueless@mantis.co.uk
>To: clueless@mantis.co.uk
>Subject: Welcome, clueless user!

...Leaving out clever but somewhat obnoxious material which hints at
but does not state the distinction between a mailing list address and
its administrative address.

>If, on the other hand, you simply have no clue how to deal with mailing
>lists, you'd better start reading up on the subject before you go
>blundering around again.  Your attention is cordially drawn to the
>newsgroups news.announce.newusers, news.newusers.questions, and
>news.answers.
:-)
Question 1:  Why do THESE messages get propagated around the mailing
list rather than going to the specific offender?  Is not that
infraction similar to the one being ridiculed?
Question 2:  Since most people who use the Info-Hams mailing list do
not (for one reason or another) have access to usenet news, how are
they supposed to read newsgroups news.announce.newusers,
news.newusers.questions, and news.answers?  If they could read those
groups, would they not subscribe to rec.radio.amateur or whatever the
old net.ham-radio newsgroup is called these days and give the venerable
Info-Hams Digest the boot? Or maybe they can't figure out how to unsubscribe :-).
	73
	Jack K4FRS
	bme1.utmem.edu
	Temporary Info-Hams Digest Captive
Apologies to rec.radio.amateur.misc.repeater.closed,
rec.radio.amateur.misc.faqs, rec.radio.amateur.misc.faqs.pointerstofaqs
and rec.radio.amateur.misc.newamateur.fcc.conspiracyorpecadillo.callemandcussem
for the bandwidth.
From: scott@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: NEED: Manual for SStandard C-500 HT
Date: 8 Jan 93 20:14:54 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

HELP!!!!!  I bought a great HT from a Japanese friend (Standard C500) and the
manual is written only in Japanese.   I called Standard and they said they
don't have that manual.   Does anyone have a manual that they would photocopy
for me (I'll pay for it)????
---Scott---

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: seligman@CS.Stanford.EDU (Scott Seligman)
Subject: Re: Unix Morse Code Program
Cc: bwhite@cobra.camb.inmet.com
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:48:00 GMT

>Someone recently posted the location of sources for a Unix (Sun? X11?)
>program for Morse code learning.  Can some kind soul who was more
>forward thinking than I please remind me of the path?  Thanks in
>advance.  (Email is probably better than posting.)

First try:

hanauma.stanford.edu:pub/SuperiorMorse4Unix

and if that doesn't work, try:

w6yx.stanford.edu:pub/morse/superiormorse.shar


Scott Seligman   KN6EV

Internet:  seligman@CS.Stanford.EDU
UUCP:      {uunet,decwrl,sun}!cs.stanford.edu!seligman
Packet:    kn6ev @ n0ary.#nocal.ca.usa.na
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters
Date: 6 Jan 1993 16:15:49 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <POPOVICH.93Jan5220506@morningside.cs.columbia.edu> popovich@cs.columbia.edu (Steve Popovich) writes:
>The problem is that the road that you are parked in is a wide, modern
>Interstate highway, while the next road over is an ungraded cow path
>that only certain premium-priced four-wheel drive vehicles can use
>productively.  To be more exact:

The Interstate I'm on was just an ungraded cow path when I first got here,
too; I've put a lot of time and money in paving. In fact, I was chased off the
next Interstate over because they told me there wasn't room. Now that I've
paved it, others want to come in and take it away from me.

>And finally, 1200 is a rough, undeveloped dirt track in
>the country with no gas stations, restaurants or support services of
>any kind, requiring a special, premium sort of 4x4 called a Gunnplexer
>in order to make use of it.

Tell that to my Standard C628A 440/1200 dual band handheld.

As for no gas stations, when I got on my little piece of road way back when, I
didn't have those, either. I worked long and hard to build all that. Now
someone wants to take away all my hard work.

>It'll break an axle on any ordinary sedan
>(RF circuitry) that tries to roll over it and go somewhere :-).  And
>face it, your standard mobile repeater user isn't going to be able to
>stick a microwave dish on the roof of his car, aim it at the repeater
>he wants to use, and keep it aimed while he's driving around.  Any
>frequency where your transmission line is a waveguide just isn't going
>to work for mobile use.

1200 isn't that hard. There are mobile rigs, and coax, and gain omni antennas,
that work just fine, and are even available from amateur sources.

>Yes, it's a lot of fun to create analogies, but why would anybody
>think that it could possibly do us any good to do this?

Beats me. I'm just shooting them down.
-- 
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_
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: rice@ttd.teradyne.com
Subject: Re: 430mhz band under th
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 00:12:52 GMT

In article <1993Jan04.042108.17562@ssc.com>, tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) writes:
> In article <1993Jan3.053500.18260@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> laborde@oak.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Gregory R. LaBorde) writes:
>>In article <uJZTwB1w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>>>> 
>>>I would agree with you if I made that assumption. It's certainly possible 
>>>(though careless) to operate simplex unintentionally on a repeater input. 
>>>If you or I inadvertently operate that way, and we had it brought to our 
>>>attention, we'd apologize, and change frequency. 
>>>
>>>The impression I got from the previous poster was that he felt it was his 
>>>right to operate anywhere in the band he felt like, and whether or not it 
>>>brought up a repeater - as long as he couldn't hear anyone else on the 
>>>channel. 
>>>
>>
>>You're right, I would apologize and attempt to change frequency, which might
>>be impossible in Southern California if the single 440 MHz simplex frequency 
>>was in use. I feel like it _*IS*_ the previous poster's right to operate
>>simplex unintentionally on a repeater input. I feel like it is the previous
>>poster's right to operate _*INTENTIONALLY*_ on a repeater's input frequency
>>_PROVIDED_IT_IS_NOT_CAUSING_INTERFERENCE_TO_ANOTHER_QSO_. While I may only
>>be a No-Code, I can read English. All the regulations I have read and seen
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>  Geeze.....I thought we were discussing this with someone who has long
> and distinguished experience with frequency coordination and FM repeaters!
> 
> Not to diminish the talents or abilities of a new ham, but it might
> be a good idea to ask some questions about the subject, rather than
> making all of these dire pronouncements based upon armchair lawyering!
> 

Ahhh, but he can read (and has read) the rules. This certainly makes him as
qualified to discuss the rules as anyone else who has read the rules. Are
you so elitist that you don't undersand that kind of simple fact ?

j.
From: willis@cs.tamu.edu (Willis Marti)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters
Date: 9 Jan 1993 16:53:54 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
NNTP-Posting-Host: neuron.tamu.edu

In article <1993Jan8.021432.8034@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
|> In article <8377@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
|> >In article <1993Jan7.052814.461@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
...
|> >>Coordinators have *no* legal standing to grant exclusive use of frequenies.
|> >>If they wish to *presume* that responsibility in contravention of 97.101(b),
|> >>then I'd be willing to support those who *sue them* to stop such illegal
|> >>actions. Fortunately, most responsible coordinators *know* they don't
|> >>have that legal right, and don't take actions that could be subject to
|> >>suit. Instead they act as advisers and negotiators between repeater owners
|> >>attempting to minimize mutual interference.
|> >
|> >That wasn't what I asked. I asked if you'd pay to defend a coordinator from a
|> >lawsuit against them by someone who the coordinator had coordinated another
|> >repeater on the frequency with. The folks in this discussion have been
|> >demanding that coordinators coordinate multiple repeaters on the same channel
|> >as an existing closed repeater. Doing so WILL generate a lawsuit.
|> 
|> Then they will lose. 97.101(b) is clear. The coordinator does not have
|> the *authority* to grant exclusive use.

Neither do they have the *authority* to grant *shared* use.
 
Frequency coordination is a voluntary and cooperative Amateur activity to help
people enjoy a hobby.  Like band plans, we can have a national suggestion, but
each local group has to set its own rules.  You can abide by the local operating
rules and be part of the hobby, or you can decide to go against the rules,
sometimes "legally", and be a LID.  If you don't like the rules, then you
should work within the system to change them.

I don't think the argument is about frequency ownership or equipment use.  It's
more about whether "closed repeaters are bad".  IMHO, there is no inherent
goodness in closed *or* open repeaters.  There is "goodness" in cooperating 
within the local ham community.  I don't believe there is one single solution
that might say "closed repeaters must share" or
"first-come-first-served forever".  The Net is probably a good place to find
out how various groups do their cooperation; it is probably inappropriate to
say everyone has to do it your way.

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: jreese@NeoSoft.com (Jim Reese)
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 13:17:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.071002.7443@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> laborde@oak.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Gregory R. LaBorde) writes:
>Hmmmmmm.... There are many OPEN repeaters here that are often in use, forcing
>a user to have to wait his or her turn to make a contact. There are also CLOSED
>repeaters here on which users have to wait for other users to finish before they
>can make a contact. It seems that those repeaters are still VERY useful. In fact
>one of the reasons for the wait is BECAUSE they are so useful. 
>
>I bet Jim's system is so busy that users do have to wait to use it. What do you
>say, Jim?

Sometimes, but not always.  As I have said before, I'm not so concerned about
transient use by non-members.  The problem I have is with locals who want to
use the system regularly without contributing to the upkeep...or those who
just want to prove a point by talking on a closed system without being a 
member.

>But being closed doesn't protect the repeater. CLOSED is just a label. It is
>the restrictions to access by requiring use of codes and such that protects
>the repeater. You could protect an open repeater that way too. 

To me, all the "Closed" label means is that there are rules or procedures
for membership in the group.  Closed = ask before using.


-- 
     Jim Reese, WD5IYT            | "Real Texans never refer to trouble
  jreese@sugar.neosoft.com        |  as deep doo-doo"  --Molly Ivins
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters
Date: 6 Jan 1993 20:38:35 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <POPOVICH.93Jan6150922@morningside.cs.columbia.edu> popovich@cs.columbia.edu (Steve Popovich) writes:
>And Mr. Maynard, in his
>capacity as Guardian of the Closed Repeaters ;-), then of course had
>to do me the courtesy of breaking it down for me :-).

Hey...it's a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it... :-)


-- 
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_
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy