HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: edw@sequent.com (Ed Wright)
Subject: Re: Exploding Air Bags? Locking Anti-Lock Brakes?
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 18:44:01 GMT

In article <9212201929.AA03222@ucsd.edu> William=E.=Newkirk%Pubs%GenAv.Mlb@ns14.cca.CR.rockwell.COM writes:
>>I have read messages from time about auto computers frying, ignitions
>
>i suspect the FCC doesn't see an automobile as a "radio" yet.  maybe it should
>be the department of transportation that looks at various specs available 
>(such as for aircraft) and be the responsible body.

                        Certificate
This here attached Toyopet Rice Grinder is Part 15 Compliant.
If it disturbs your airbag or TV just call the FCC.
Do not remove this sticker, or any of the stuffing under
penalty of law.


-- 
-- I think I've got the hang of it now .... :w  :q  :wq  :wq! ^d  X exit ^X^C ~.
 ^[x  X Q  :quitbye  CtrlAltDel   ~~q  :~q  logout  save/quit :!QUIT ^[zz ^[ZZ 
 ZZZZ  ^H  ^@  ^L  ^[c $q ^# ^E ^X ^I ^T  ?  help  helpquit ^D  ^d ^C ^c help 
 ^]q  exit ?Quit ?q  anybackbone!sequent!edw edw@sequent.COM  KA9AHQ 28.340
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: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 23:42:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.062020.24365@ssc.com> tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) writes:
>
>Maybe the following has some bearing here:
>
>97.205  Repeater station.
> 
>     (c) Where the transmissions of a repeater cause harmful
>interference to another repeater, the two station licensees are
>equally and fully responsible for resolving the interference UNLESS
>THE OPERATION OF ONE STATION IS RECOMMENDED BY A FREQUENCY
>COORDINATOR AND THE OPERATION OF THE OTHER STATION IS NOT.  In that
>case, the licensee of the non-coordinated repeater has primary
>responsibility to resolve the interference.
>     (d) A repeater may be automatically controlled.
>     (e) Ancillary functions of a repeater that are available to
>users on the input channel are not considered remotely controlled
>functions of the station.  LIMITING THE USE OF A REPEATER TO ONLY
>CERTAIN USER STATIONS IS PERMISSIBLE.
> 
>(CAPITALIZED EMPHASIS IS MINE)

Two things to note here. First, section (c) only applies to interference
from one repeater to another repeater and says nothing about individual
non-repeater station transmissions. Second, section (e) refers to
*ancillary* functions of repeaters and the ability to limit access to
those *ancillary* functions to certain user stations. This doesn't
address closed repeaters where the *primary* function of the repeater
is restricted.

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: brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: 430 mhz band under th (now private/closed repeaters)
Date: 1 Jan 93 03:26:14 GMT
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu

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.

And by the way, a few of the radios in it are homebrew.  Not type
accepted, not made in Japan, not bought over the counter at the local
toy store.  The controller is homebrew too, since NOTHING on the market
can even come close to managing this complex of a system, even an ACC
pinball machine.  It was a hell of a lot of fun to design, build, and
make it work.  We keep improving it too.

Of course, such a system is so far beyond the comprehension of most ham
appliance operators, it's not surprising people arguing here aren't
taking this kind of experimentation into consideration.  To most
of these people, a repeater is just a range extender that has beeps,
boops, and maybe has a poor substitute for a cell-phone.

You can't do this kind of experimentation in any of the commercial services.
Are we really supposed to take those suggestions seriously?

Cutting everyone down to the same size is one way to achieve equality.
Is that really what you want to do ham radio?
	- Brian
From: brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Soldering radials to SO-239's
Date: 31 Dec 1992 13:45:26 GMT
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu

little@nuts2u.enet.dec.com (nuts2u::little) writes:
>This brings up a related question.  How do you get the chassis mount SO-239
>to take solder at the mounting holes? ... I almost always melt the
>insulation before getting the body to take solder. :-(

First step, stop buying SO239s with polystyrene plastic insulators in
them.  Get the kind with nylon, Teflon, or phenolic insulation.

Typically the plating on the connector is the problem - it's not real
easy to solder it.  I find that running a drillbit or rat-tail file
through the holes is the cure.  That removes the plating and allows you
to solder to the copper alloy underneath.

Be sure to use enough heat.  I often use a propane torch to solder
SO239s and PL259s.  If you can get it hot enough fast enough, you stand
less chance of melting the insulation.

Best is to hunt around the military surplus houses and find old SO239s
you can salvage off equipment.  A lot of those were silver plated over
copper and even today, 50 years after manufacture, they solder like a
dream.  And used connectors are CHEAP!
	- Brian
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: paulf@umunhum.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty)
Subject: Keyer and Paddle Recos Wanted
Organization: The Three Packeteers
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:01:53 GMT

I'm in the market for a keyer / paddle combination, so I'd like to get an
idea of what people are using.  My only criteria are that I'd like something
compact and rugged (nee well built) that sends nice crisp Morse.


--
-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX/5W1JX  | "Just name a hero, and I'll prove he's a bum."
->paulf@Stanford.EDU          |  -- Col. Gregory "Pappy" Boyington, USMC (ret)
From: kc6sss@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Kissing Cousin Six Sugar Sugar Sugar)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Repeaters: A Question
Date: 21 Dec 92 15:34:20 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: The People's Number Four Cat Farm, Berkeley CA, USA

paulb@harley.tti.com (Paul Blumstein) writes:

[Wants to use HTs for "I'm late due to an accident" traffic and
not bother the other folks in the vanpool]

>I've noticed that some units have DTMF squelch control: I assume
>that means that one unit hits a few numbers on the keypad and the
>other unit "wakes up".  Is this true?  Would repeaters filter
>this nonsense out?  Is this the solution?

Yes.  Yes and no.  Possibly.  

No doubt the easiest solution would be to pick a time and turn the HTs
on at that time.  Ta-da!

To clarify my "Yes and no." answer: the controllers on most of the
repeaters I've heard squelch out DMTF tones.  However, there is usually
a delay for that first tone.  On the Kenwood HTs, when your unit is
programmed for DMTF squelch, it also rapidly sends out your squelch
code whenever you key down.  Experiments have shown that they can get
the tones out and open up the squelch on the other end before the
repeater's cover tones kick in.  You will have to experiment to see if
this approach would work with the repeater[s] of interest.
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: 430mhz band under th
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 93 18:31:53 PST
Distribution: world
Organization: Robert Smits

laborde@oak.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Gregory R. LaBorde) writes:

> In article <kPJqwB2w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
> >
> >There's no excuse for not knowing what part of the band in your area is 
> >used for repeater inputs, and as far as I'm concerned, operating simplex 
> >on a repeater input is nothing short of MALICIOUS INTERFERENCE. 
> 
> Then it's a good thing you're not making the rules. Mailcious is intended
> to mean INTENTIONAL, and I did not read anything about intentionally using
> a repeater input in Bill's post. In fact, it seemed like he was making a case
> for the situation where one might unknowingly be transmitting on a repeater's
> input. 
> 
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. 

My point is that a: he ought to KNOW where the repeater inputs are in his 
area, b: That he may well be causing interference to repeater users even 
though he can't hear others on the input that the repeater can, and c: if 
he's doing it intentionally (operating on what he kNOWS is a repeater 
input), he IS causing malacious interference.

> Would be nice if I could arbitrarily describe my neighbours objectional but
> entirely legal activites as illegal in order to exact retribution and maintai
> absolute control of the neighbourhood. I'd kind of like to use his driveway t
> park a few extra cars on....
> 

Intentionally and maliciously causing interference may or may not be 
legal, depending on where you are. It's still not very nice (or smart) to 
do it.

> -grl.
> -----


Robert Smits  VE7EMD Ladysmith B.C. 
Ph (604) 245-2553 e-mail: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca 
PACKET VE7EMD@VE7KIT.#VANC.BC.CAN.NA
From: steve@presoft.com (Steve Kohlenberger)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Online Repeater Directory! Watch For It!
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 16:25:24 PST
Distribution: world
Organization: Presoft Architects

robinson@stout.geo.brown.edu (Darrin Robinson) writes:

> In article <ieLkwB1w165w@presoft.com> steve@presoft.com (Steve Kohlenberger) 
> >
> >My vote (if I have to choose only one) is DOS.
> >
> >Second vote would be C source routines along with it so that we could
> >all get to the data in interesting forms.  I would like to be able to
> >search by Long/Lat as well as city, repeater freqs, radius in mi/km,
> >etc..  Might be real fun in a laptop on the road.
> >
> >Steve
> >   
> 
> Oh... and the indexing should be B-Tree!
> 
> Darrin
>  .  Darrin E. Robinson (DER31)         Hamnet   N1LLV  146.700-, 146.880- MHz
> /|  Systems Programmer II              Internet darrin@MIT.EDU
> \|  Dist. Computing & Network Services          robinson@Planetary.Brown.EDU
>  |\ MIT Information Systems            ICBMnet  41 29 24 N  71 18 48 W (NPT)
>  |/ 1 Amherst St. - Rm E40-338         NASAmail derobinson@nasamail.nasa.gov
>  .  Cambridge, MA 02139, USA           AT&Tnet  (617) 253-0131 

No. Actually I would recommend DBASE because of its popularity.

We don't work for Novell.  We are doing Spread Spectrum LAN drivers on
900 Mhz (500 mw) among other things.

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: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Soldering radials to SO-239's
Keywords: antenna construction soldering
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:23:19 GMT

In article <1htdmvINNmrn@life.ai.mit.edu> moisan@silver.lcs.mit.edu (David Moisan) writes:
>As some of you are aware, there are many designs for 1/4-wave VHF
>antennas that use an SO239, BNC or N chassis-mount connector upon
>which the radials are soldered (to the mounting holes).
>
>I've tried to build one such antenna using coathangers as the elements.
>But try as I might, as hot as I get the connector (with a 100-watt gun
>newly-purchased), the coathanger will not take solder.
>
>It's occurred to me that some coathangers are aluminum (don't work,
> do they?! :))  Yet the coathanger I tried _was_ steel, or so I thought.
>
>Has anyone had actual experience?  What materials, if not coathangers, do 
>you use in *your* designs?

Coathangers work, but you have to file off the rustproofing and get down
to bare metal if you want the solder to take. They're also good heatsinks,
I normally use a torch instead of an iron, but a 300 watt American Beauty
*will* work. A 100 watt gun is a little marginal, especially for N and UHF
connectors. An alternative rod stock is brazing rod. It takes solder well 
and is more conductive than steel.  You still need a lot of heat to get a 
good joint. Tin the rod and connector, assemble, then sweat the joint.
For a BNC, go by the hobby shop and get some hobby tubing that will slip
over the center lug of the connector. Sweat it on as described above.
That'll be stronger than any rod you can fit into the BNC lug. For a
handheld antenna, get a 1/4 wave of piano wire from the hobby shop and 
install it in a male BNC. Turn a tight loop in the other end to keep you 
from sticking yourself in the eye, and you have a nice replacement for the
rubber duck that will extend your range.

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: steve@wattres.SJ.CA.US (Steve Watt -- KD6GGD)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Online Repeater Directory?
Date: 30 Dec 92 05:30:54 GMT
Organization: Steven Watt, Consultant   San Jose, CA, USA

In article <1992Dec24.213956.2579@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <johnr.725165552@mik.uky.edu> johnr@nx22.mik.uky.edu (john s roberts) writes:
>>I'm the dude who said I would maintain an on-line directory (for those of
>>you who don't read headers).

Wait!!!  I'm already doing it!

Just been out of touch for a week or two.  The e-mail address to send your
entries to is 'repeaters@wattres.sj.ca.us'.

(Note to Paul S.:  My last name is "Watt", not "wattres"... ;) )

>Well I support you John. To get the ball rolling, here's the data on
>the KE4ZV 440 repeater in Atlanta.

I've snatched up this entry, and put it into my format.

Here's his proposal:
>CALL:			KE4ZV
>INPUT:			448.650
>OUTPUT:			443.650
>CITY:			Atlanta
>STATE:			Georgia
>ACCESS CODES:		COR or enhanced CTCSS 118.8
>POWER OUTPUT:		40 watts ERP
>ANTENNA HAAT:		980
>ANTENNA HAMSL:		1985
>ANTENNA PATTERN:	Omni
>GRID:			EM73
>
>ACTUAL REPEATER LOC:
>TRANSMITTER:		
>	LATITUDE:	33 deg 45 min 54 sec
>	LONGITUDE:	84 deg 31 min 36 sec
>RECEIVER:
>	LATITUDE:	33 deg 45 min 54 sec
>	LONGITUDE:	84 deg 31 min 36 sec
>LINKS:
>	NUMBER:		0
>	FREQ:		NA
>CONTROL FREQ:		Restricted
>
>ADDITIONAL FACILITIES:	Emergency power
>
>TRUSTEE:
>	NAME:		Gary Coffman
>	CALL:		KE4ZV
>	ADDRESS:	534 Shannon Way
>	CITY:		Lawrenceville
>	STATE:		Georgia
>	ZIP:		30244
>	PHONE:		restricted
>
>SPONSOR ORGANIZATION:	None

Here's the same thing, in the format that my program understands:

#CALL KE4ZV
#OUTP 443.650
#INPT 448.650
#LOCA 84W 31' 36" / 33N 45' 54" / 980
#GRID EM73
#SEND steve@wattres.sj.ca.us (Steve Watt)
#UPDT Sun Dec 27 16:54:59 PST 1992
#TONE 118.8 (optional)
#COVG Atlanta area
#SPON KE4ZV
#CONT Gary Coffman, 534 Shannon Way, Lawrenceville, GA, 30244
#COMM Emergency power

>There, that should be a start. If people follow a standard format on
>data entry, searches by field should be easy.

Voila!  One standard.  Just like Sun likes to make ("Ours _is_ the
standard!" ;-) Send mail to repeaters@wattres.sj.ca.us with a body of

help

to get a more detailed description.

Oh yeah, Gary:  Thanks for the thought of adding grid sqare.  That seems like
a useful bit of info, for those who don't grok LAT/LON quite as much as
grids.

73 de KD6GGD
-- 
Steve Watt KD6GGD                       Packet: KD6GGD @ N0ARY.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NA
ICBM: 122W 01' 9.2" / 37N 18' 30.1"            Internet: steve@wattres.SJ.CA.US
Left to his own devices, he'd be /dev/null. ..!{apple,mips,decwrl!gigo}!wattres
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: dbushong@wang.com (Dave Bushong)
Subject: Re: Alinco DJ-580 HT
Organization: Wang Labs, Lowell MA, USA
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 12:45:36 GMT

grund@calypso.som.cwru.edu (Victor Grund) writes:


>I received my new (and first) radio yesterday, an Alinco DJ-580T.
>Generally a great radio packed with features at the right price.
>But... I could receive local repeaters with no problem the first
>evening after charging the battery for a few minutes just so I could
>quickly check it out.  Today, after a full 14hr initial charge, I
>cannot receive a single transmission on either band.  Strange.  I
>drove around with it in my car to be sure it wasn't a location
>problem.  Anyways, after much experimentation with the radio and a

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.

>Could some hams out there suggest a third-party replacement HT
>antenna?  I'm looking for better gain than the standard antenna and am
>considering the Comet CH-72S (15" dual band).  I prefer a flexible
>antenna.

I use a Diamond RH77B, which seems adequate.  It's a 1/4 wave on
both bands, and is flexible.

>By the way, the dealer (Ham Radio Outlet) was quite friendly and
>helpful with my problem.  The didn't hesitate to agree to ship a new
>radio out immediately and have UPS pick up the original radio (thus
>saving me shipping charges).

No surprise there!  They're a good company to deal with.  The only
thing I don't like about them is that their store is 15 minutes from
where I live, and they take credit cards :)

Dave, kz1o
-- 
Dave Bushong, Wang Laboratories, Inc.   Amateur Radio Callsign KZ1O
Project Leader, OCR products            kz1o@n0ary.#noca.ca.na
Internet: dbushong@wang.com
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: skaggs@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu (Gary Skaggs)
Subject: re-Programming an Icom U-16
Originator: usenet@kittyhawk.ecn.uoknor.edu
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 21:37:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: National Severe Storms Laboratory

E-mail appreciated.  My desk is deep and I won't be able to look here as
often as I'd like.

Thanks...
______________________________________________________________________________
Gary Skaggs - WB5ULK				skaggs@nssl.nssl.uoknor.edu
	"Neither my employer, The University of Oklahoma,
	 nor The National Severe Storms Laboratory, where I work,
	 know that I even have any opinion, much less this one."
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: johnr@nx22.mik.uky.edu (john s roberts)
Subject: Re: Online Repeater Directory?
    <1992Dec19.162320.1790@netcom.com> <1992Dec19.234033.26504@panix.com> 
    <1992Dec23.173922.18314@pacifier.rain.com>
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
X-Path: nx22.mik.uky.edu!johnr
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 02:52:32 GMT

I'm the dude who said I would maintain an on-line directory (for those of
you who don't read headers).

Okay so if I started doing this, do you think that there would be enough
people here on the net that care enough to send me freqs for repeaters
that they know of.  The issue of the repeater directory being copywrited  
came up, but I'm not so sure how this applies.

Anyway, I might not even scan in the repeater directory, but just start
from scratc with what you guys give me.  Also, what fields should I 
include about each repeater.  Obviously city, state, and in/out freqs,
but what about elevation, operator, and other non-essential info?

John
--
-=+ John S. Roberts, Jr.       FACTS Center  McVey Hall  Room 100  +=-
-=+ Communications Consultant  Work: (606)257-2275  Home: 272-1417 +=-
-=+ University of Kentucky     Ham: KD4UBM   DoD: 727   '85 Shadow +=-
-=+ Computing Center           HomeUUCP: johnr%agnostic@ms.uky.edu +=-
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: mark@lenti.med.umn.edu (Mark Olson (CDC))
Subject: Kenwood TM-741 vs ICOM IC-2410H?
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 16:41:52 GMT


    Hello,
  
  A while back I posted a question about intermod problems with using
a dual-band HT on a base antenna.  Thanks to everyone that responded.

  I have come to the conclusion that the tradeoffs involved with getting
a HT to work acceptably on a base antenna in an urban RF environment
are unacceptable.  Thus, I am trying to find a mobile (I want to use
it in the car, too) dual-bander rig that is relatively free of intermod
problems.
  
  Asking around at the local ham store a couple of rigs were recommended -
the Kenwood TM-741a and the ICOM IC-2410H.  Both are rather expensive,
but have a lot of features. 

  My questions are these: Do I need to spend this much $$ to get a dual-band rig
that doesn't get totally unusable in a "hostile" RF environment?  Or,
will a rig such as the Kenwood TM-732 work acceptably.  And, if I really
have no choice but to look at the 741 or the 2410, I'd like to hear any 
experiences that net people have had with these rigs...  I'd hate to part
with the cash only to find that I can't use one of these with a base
antenna! 
  
  So many choices, so little $$.
  
Maybe I haven't looked in the right place, but it seems intermod rejection
cannot really be deduced from spec sheets.  I had thought that adjacent
channel rejection would be a good measure but I don't see any correlation,
admittedly I have a small sample size...
  
  If anyone is interested I would be glad to post a summary of responses
I receive...
  
Thanks!
  
mark olson
mark@lenti.med.umn.edu
From: R0264@vmcms.csuohio.edu
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Best QRP Band?
Date: 29 Dec 92 22:47:08 GMT
Organization: CSU

In article <1992Dec28.054720.20480@news.columbia.edu>
hyx1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Harry Y Xu) writes:
 
>
>Happy Holidays.
>
>Is there such thing as the BEST HF QRP band?  One with good propagation
>and the least QRM/QRN?
>
>Tnx,
>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
No.  It depends on too many things, such as equipment, conditions, etc.
I like 15 meters, and 21.045 Mhz in particular.
   Phil, WD8IZA
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc