HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: flloyd@l1-a.West.Sun.COM (Fred Lloyd [Phoenix SE])
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: writing out -- --- .-. ... . in order to pass your exam
Date: 21 Dec 1992 18:36:09 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Phoenix, AZ
NNTP-Posting-Host: l1-a.west.sun.com

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

This question comes up every few months or so.  Although
there is always heated debate (so what else is new?)
regarding any and all CW topics, the answers to this
question usually include the following:

1. It's acceptable.  Since there is no requirement that you write 
anything at all on the copy sheet, then there can be no rules
as to _what_ you write.

2. It's unacceptable.  The ARRL VEC (but not necessarily the other
VEC's) have ruled it unacceptable according to their interpretation
of the FCC rules.


The bottom line: call and ask your local VE team whether they 
allow it or not.  Then decide for yourself.

-fred

-- 
[ Fred Lloyd, AA7BQ                             Fred.Lloyd@West.Sun.COM ]
[ Sun Microsystems,           Southwest Area Solaris Transition Manager ]
[ Phoenix, AZ         - The future starts today! -       (602) 275-4242 ]
From: elassley@nde.unl.edu (erin lassley)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Internet Callsign Directory
Date: 23 Dec 1992 13:26:38 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Distribution: all
NNTP-Posting-Host: nde.unl.edu

Does anyone know of a callsign directory available via Internet?  I am 
referring o the  CD-ROM with the over 500K callsigns.  I have an old 1990 
callbook and kinda need to get me some callsigns.  Thanks for any help you 
may send..
ERIN LASSLEY
(Yes I had to shout my name...;)
KB0DMU

--
|      //  //  ONLY AMIGA   *-=>SS<=-*   Imperial Realm: 402-228-2462    |
|  _  //  //   MAKES   IT   **********   Where you going now?  When you  |
|  \\//\\//    POSSIBLE!!   *-KB0DMU-*   get to the top of the hill,     |
|   \/  \/                  **********   gonna be there yes I will. - DY |
From: xile@hardy.u.washington.edu (Roberto Camama)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Any opinions on Alinco Gear?
Date: 29 Dec 1992 04:32:04 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: world
Reply-To: xile@u.washington.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: hardy.u.washington.edu

Does anyone have experiences they
would care to mention about the following
gear:

Alinco DJ-560/A (2m-0.7m(
	DJ-120T (2m)
	DJ-180T (2m)

Can anyone know of where any published 
reviews of the above gear can be found?

Thanx in advance,
R. Camama
KB2CLL/7
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: 430mhz band under th
Date: 29 Dec 1992 15:26:49 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec28.235602.1@ttd.teradyne.com> rice@ttd.teradyne.com writes:
>Excuse Me ? "Invited" to use the spectrum. Where does the FCC say that ANY
>Amateur has to be INVITED to transmit on a frequency? This kind of attitude
>is a good part of What's wrong with ham radio today. Some people think they
>have a god given right to a portion of the spectrum. It's theirs - they 
>paid for it - an no one's going to take it away from them. Pure unadulterated
>BULLSHIT.

This kind of attitude is a good part of What's wrong with ham radio today.
Some people think they have a god given right to use other people's equipment.
It's using ham spectrum and they can use it if they damned well please. Pure
unadulterated BULLSHIT.

Your argument boils down to "If they want to spend $10K on a sophisticated
repeater system, they have to make it a public utility". There are two
problems with this: 1) you're dictating how other folks spend their money,
which is as good as stealing it; 2) you're changing the rules on a lot of
folks who, when they wanted to put up a closed system, were told "put it on
440". Now you're changing that in midstream.
-- 
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.
 "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis
From: tcs@ll.mit.edu (Tom Sefranek)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: military cw
Keywords: surely you jest
Date: 21 Dec 92 17:29:31 GMT
Reply-To: tcs@ll.mit.edu (Tom Sefranek)
Organization: "Group	47"

In article <85639@ut-emx.uucp>, oo7@ut-emx.uucp (Derek Wills) writes:
|> berger@atropa (Mike Berger) claims:
|> 
|> >An individual who trained as a radio operator during WW II said that
|> >they were forbidden to pick up the pencil until 45 seconds of code had
|> >been sent.  They were forced to "copy behind", writing down what had
|> >been sent 30-45 seconds prior.  This technique has been recommended
|> >by various sources over the years as essential for high-speed code
|> >operation.
|> 
|> I can't believe this is right.   Can you be sure he didn't say it
|> was "four *to* five seconds" rather than "forty-five seconds"?
|> 45 seconds is a lo-o-o-o-ong time.

At 2 of our exams so far, I have seen the examinee take the entire 5 minutes
of 20 Words/Minute in his head.  And then write it out CURSIVELY on the paper.
Ofcourse they "do" code for as living at Ft. Devens...
|> 
|> Derek Wills (AA5BT, G3NMX)
|> Department of Astronomy, University of Texas, 
|> Austin TX 78712.  (512-471-1392)
|> oo7@astro.as.utexas.edu 
|> oo7@emx.utexas.edu

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   /-/-/-/-/             |                 Informal Class Sunday's @ 13:00 EST,
   /-/-/-/-/         /---/---/             followed by a N&T VE Session @ 15:00,
       |                 x         |       @ Navy Barracks @ Fort Devens, Ma.
    /--/--/              x     /---/---/   Second & Fourth Mondays of the month.
       x       .       --x--       x       @ Lura A. White School  Shirley, Ma.
      -x       |         x         x       E-Mail or call 617-981-3474 (Work)
       x       |       __x         x       Call in: 145.41, 145.45, 448.625 Mhz.
       x_______|_______||x         x       Ham Radio (Elmer) Night @ 19:00 EST
      /                ||x\      /   \     First, Third, (Fifth) Mondays.
    /-----------------/||x \   /___ ___\   Thomas C. J. Sefranek  WA1RHP
    | [ ] [ ] ## [  ]| ||x  | ||  | |  ||  112 Great Road  Shirley, Ma. 01464
    |         ##     | ||x  | ||  | |  ||  Home Phone: 508-425-6672
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cep4478@ultb.isc.rit.edu (C.E. Piggott )
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: 900 Mhz band
Date: 30 Dec 92 18:43:58 GMT
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Originator: cep4478@ultb

In article <1hsju7INNn4e@early-bird.think.com> bruce@Think.COM (Bruce Walker) writes:
>And I read in EE Times recently of a Fujitsu wireless LAN chip which will use the
>902 band.  Actually sounds like something we could build interesting things
>around!

Not only that, but in the amateur service we aren't required to
follow the 1-watt, 6db-antenna rule.  10- or 15-watt bricks aren't
too hard to come by, and it's easy to get lots of antenna gain at
this frequency - sounds perfect for point-to-point, backbone packet
network links.

>--Bruce Walker


Chris, WZ2B
-- 
Christopher E. Piggott, WZ2B                    cep4478@ultb.isc.rit.edu
President                                       wz2b.ampr [44.69.0.1]
Rochester Institute of Technology               wz2b @ WB2PSI.#WNY.NY.USA.NA
Amateur Radio Club K2GXT                        CEP4478@RITVAXA.BITNET
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Realistic DX-160
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 06:52:55 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.071745.3632@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>In article <1992Dec25.125641.7123@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec25.055513.29834@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>
>>>I own an old Realistic DX-160 reciever that's still in excelent condition
>>>(I've had it about 4 and a half years) but the tuning is way out of
>>>alignment.  There are tuning marks on the main dial that are supposed to
>>>be used for calibrating the fine tuning (band spread) dial but with the
>>>tuner so far out of alignment these are of no use.
>>>
>>>I really can't afford a new radio but I might be able to afford a repair
>>>bill on the DX-160, so:
>>>
>>>Can the tuner be re-aligned, so the main dial and band spread dial are
>>>in synch with each other??
>>
>>This is a common problem with older analog dial radios. The tuner does
>>not need to be re-aligned, radios almost never need re-alignment unless
>>there has been a major component failure. All that's wrong with your
>>radio is that the string that moves the pointer has slipped on the
>>pulleys connecting the tuning knob and the main tuning capacitor. This
>>often happens when you attempt to tune beyond the end of the dial.
>>If you take off the case, it should be obvious what you have to do to
>>slip the string back to make the pointer fall on the calibration marks.
>>This is a simple do it yourself fix, just be careful not to break the
>>string. I

I tried this but had no luck.  When I moved the main dial pointer, the
tuner moved as well.  I couldn't get the tuner to stay put while trying to
move just the needle.

Example: Ituned the radio to WWV on 10 Mhz with the band spread dial,
then moved the main dial needle.  The radio would be re-tuned and to get
WWV back on the right spot on the band spread dial I had to put the main
dial back to it's original position.

So, am I doing something wrong here?

Simon

(thanks for the technical help so far!)


Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: jhw@rti.rti.org
Subject: Tech data on IC-211
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, RTP, NC
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 14:08:10 GMT

I recently purchased an Icom IC-211 all mode transceiver at a hamfest.
I did get a user manual with the rig which describes the operation of
various circuits in the rig but does not give tune-up details.  
Shortly after I put the rig in operation, the final tranistor went 
south, and I replaced it last night with a new 2SC2094, bringing the
rig back to life.
    My question is:  To what values should the idle currents of the
power transistors (final and driver) be set?  ..and how do you set
the maximum/minimum limits of the power control (FM mode)?  I want
to make sure that I set it up in such a way that the output transistor
is not stressed -- I don't want to blow another one.
    Also, I'd be interested in any other comments about the operation
of the IC-211 since this is the first time I have ever used one.
    Thanks in advance.

Joe White        WA4GIR         RTI, RTP, NC       jhw@gizmo.rti.org
From: LAPORTEJ@wl.aecl.CA
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: unsubscribe
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:13:21 GMT
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu
Originator: daemon@ucsd.edu

unsubscribe
From: little@nuts2u.enet.dec.com (nuts2u::little)
Subject: Re: 430mhz band under th
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:38:35 GMT
X-Posted-Via: NEWS-NOTES gateway (a hack!)

This whole discussion about 440 repeaters sounds like most other
discussions in this newsgroup.  Two polarized sides that are in many cases
arguing apples and oranges.  I love how impassioned the arguments get!

To those support/encourage closed repeaters, my only comment is that the
trustees of the repeater are certainly free to shut off the repeater
whenever they please and hence prevent the general public from using
*their* equipment.  If outsiders use the repeater or its assigned
frequencies, then pull the plug on the repeater and wait your turn to use
those frequencies.  No one grants you exclusive use of a frequency that's
not currently being utilized.

As for Brian's comment that a channel is in use when people are listening,
I say that's nonsense.  Most channels/frequencies are listened to, yet
that doesn't make them in use.  "In use" must certainly mean that
communication is going on, and simply listening to dead air is not
communicating.  How can you intentionally interfere (which is prohibited by
the FCC) with communication that isn't taking place?

Although I don't think I've heard this espoused, only implied by closed
repeater proponents, for those that complain about being thrown off a
closed repeater, you really have no right to the equipment.

How is this any different than regularly scheduled nets?  If the frequency
is in use at the time the net starts, it may politely ask those using it to
move.  If the current users don't move, then either wait your turn for the
frequency or QSY.  Repeaters are essentially unscheduled nets in that they
have a designated frequency, but no fixed time.  The only real difference
is that it's hard to get the repeater to QSY. :-)

Why do these issues need to become some contentious?

Now I know why I spend so little time on repeaters.  Although the problems
described in this chain of replies don't seem to occur in the Chicago or
Boston area, the only two places I occasionally use repeaters.

Long live weak signal work!

73,
Todd
N9MWB
From: price@cod.nosc.mil (James N. Price)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Glitch in Quicktrack?
Date: 28 Dec 92 18:05:16 GMT
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu
Originator: daemon@ucsd.edu

-------
I've using Quicktrack for satellite tracking for several years.  I
printed out some RS-10 and RS-12 passes yesterday and noticed a
problem:  the program has dropped 31 Dec 92, i.e. it goes from
30 Dec 92 to 01 Jan 93.  Will this go away if I don't try to cross
year boundaries?  I've never seen this before, but it's possible
I've never tried to go across year boundaries in a single session
before.

Strange--any ideas/help?

73--Jim, K6ZH

(Hope Santa was good to everyone)
-------

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: jreese@NeoSoft.com (Jim Reese)
Subject: Re: 430mhz band under th
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 20:26:12 GMT

In article <n1317t@ofa123.fidonet.org> Larry.Mc.Donald@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>I can olny hit one open one from my house (the entire area 
>has about six) and there's only one simplex freq. The rest has all 
>been privatised by hams who wanted "private" systems or were looking 
>to make a buck off of the ham bands. Sure, there are plenty of 
>repeaters that I can use, for $15 a month.  

'scuse me...but have you ever had to PAY for the equipment involved in putting
up a repeater?  I didn't think so...  If you had, you wouldn't think $15
per month was such a rip-off.

Repeaters are VERY expensive, even for the good scroungers.  Someone has to
pay for them...the logical choice is the users.  You're lucky that at least
six people have chosen to put on open systems out of the goodness of their
heart. 

-- 
     Jim Reese, WD5IYT            | "Real Texans never refer to trouble
  jreese@sugar.neosoft.com        |  as deep doo-doo"  --Molly Ivins

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: 430mhz band under th
Organization: very little
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 06:20:20 GMT

>In article <725556607.AA00000@therose.pdx.com> Larry.Lund@p12.f79.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Larry Lund) writes:
>>I know if I wanted to transmit on a particular frequency, and it was a
>>private/closed repeater that, that would not stop me. When I got my license
>>back in 87' there was nothing in the rules that I remember telling me I was
>>only allowed to tramsmit on certain frequencies between 440-450 Sorry charlie
>>I ain't buying it! 
>


Larry.....don't you recall the discussions we had about this on Fidonet's
Ham echo?  Some guy with a new tech license would show up, complaining
because he had been chased off a 440 MHz repeater that this was
somehow illegal.

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)


The whole idea with coordination is ensuring that a variety of
spectrum usage is protected.  This means that if I have a frequency
coordinated for my UHF link or repeater input or whatever, and
it is a closed system, then you can probably get into some hot
water if you and your buddies repeatedly operate simplex there.

(Larry is a nice guy and I know he wouldn't do that)

Of course, the local coordinator also has the right to assign
several closed repeaters to one freq pair, each with their own PL.
But that is just one option.




-- 
 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   
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: johnr@mik.uky.edu (John S. Roberts, Jr.)
Subject: Re: Online Repeater Directory?
Reply-To: johnr@mik.uky.edu (John S. Roberts, Jr.)
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:06:57 GMT

How about this:

Since a number of people have problems with the way that the ARRL does things  
in their book.  What if I scanned the current repeaters in and then poll  
usenet and also packet for updates to the list.

Do people out there care enough to send me the updates?  I wouldn't have the  
benefit of a nice small directory, but the information would be acurate and  
up-to-date.

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 +=-
From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov (Scott Dorsey)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: 6 Meter Radio Shack HTs!
Date: 3 Jan 1993 13:05:27 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center and Reptile Farm
NNTP-Posting-Host: grissom.larc.nasa.gov

In article <PHR.93Jan3035445@napa.telebit.com> phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin) writes:
>Did you somehow get the xmit and receive to be on separate frequencies,
>for use with the repeater?  If so, how?  Does the crystal control
>the xmit only, with the receiver tuned by an LC circuit?  How selective
>is it?

Yup, the units I used had a crystal-controlled transmitter and an
independantly-tuned receiver that relied on an LC circuit.  How selective
was it?  Not very.... it can pick up half the band, it seems.  I'm quite
happy with the transmit performance, but the receiver stinks.

>There are some cheapo Tozai walkies at the local Walgreen's for
>$10 a pair; I'm likely to go pick up a set to play with...

Hey, for $10 a pair, it's worth it for an experiment.  

>Also, where does one get crystals nowadays?  Thanks.

Try JAN Crystals, or ICM (International Crystal Manufacturing).  They both
have 800 numbers and are good folks to deal with.
--scott

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: miked@vcd.hp.com (Mike Dobbs)
Subject: Ham programs for the mac
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:58:29 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard VCD
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

I am looking for two types of shareware programs for the Macintosh.

	1) Morse code tutors

	2) A log book program

I have ftp capability.  Thanks in advance.

--------
  Mike Dobbs    (206) 944-2696         /    Internet: miked@vcd.hp.com
  Hewlett-Packard Co.                 /     HPDesk: Mike Dobbs/HP5400/AL
  Vancouver Division  (R&D Lab)      /      Phone: (206) 944-2696     
  P.O. Box 8906                     /       FAX:   (206) 944-2984
  Vancouver, WA  98668-8906        /
From: acm139@ccs.northeastern.edu (Scott Ehrlich)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: 900 Mhz band
Date: 28 Dec 92 16:55:32 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: College of CS, Northeastern U

Do we hams have exclusive use of 900 Mhz, or is it shared?

As I was scanning our section of the frequency (902 - 928 Mhz), I heard some
cellular phone activity.  What's going on?  You can't tell me I was violating
the cellular phone act by listening to the ham bands!

===============================================================================
| Scott Ehrlich 	       Internet: wy1z@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu   |
| Amateur Radio: WY1Z          Packet Radio: WY1Z @ K1UGM.MA.USA.NA	      |
===============================================================================
From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov (Scott Dorsey)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: 430mhz band under th
Date: 27 Dec 1992 20:53:28 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center and Reptile Farm
NNTP-Posting-Host: grissom.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1992Dec27.200306.12723@samba.oit.unc.edu> Kirk.Smith@launchpad.unc.edu (Kirk Smith) writes:
>I'm admittedly the new guy on the block, but I'm still trying to figure out
>how it could cost "thousands" of dollars a year to keep a repeater on
>the air.  If one went full tilt with a repeater, controller, duplexors
>and antennas, I can't see how it could get much above $5 or $6k total,
>and that's with all new equipment.  Does your repeater get hit by
>lightening and completely destroyed every year, necessitating its total
>replacement, or am I missing something?

I have seen some fancy systems that could probably cost that sort of money,
especially in urban areas where tower space is extremely expensive, and
good locations are few and far between.

I have also seen some systems built around old GE Progress-Line decks with
punched-tape keyers used for ID (in fact our local club has such a scheme).
The money required to keep something like this on the air is much less, but
the amount of effort is much greater.  In rural areas where good locations
are fairly plentiful and inexpensive, you can set up a repeater for a couple
hundred bucks.

Either way, repeaters are run by groups of people, and those people usually
can use a lot of help.  I mean help in terms of money, in terms of donated
equipment, and in terms of labor.  If you don't want to pay their repeater
fee, ask if they'll accept some space in a tree on your property, or a few
hours worth of work aligning receivers, or a couple of GE Progress-line decks.
If everybody did this, then we wouldn't have any need for repeater fees
anyway.
--scott
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: brian@umbc4.umbc.edu (Brian Cuthie)
Subject: Re: Exploding Air Bags? Locking Anti-Lock Brakes?
Organization: Systemix Software, Inc.
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 16:49:39 GMT


This whole issue seems unbelievable to me.  Does anyone think that people 
ask Toyota before installing a cellular phone ?

I'm not a lawyer, but I would bet that unless they come right out and say,
"You can't put transmitters [read cellular phones] in this car" they
would violate some "suitablilty for the intended purpose" statute or some
such.  Virtually everyone who buys a car today is at least thinking about
putting a cell phone in it.

Furthermore, I agree with someone else's comments regarding the person 
sitting next to you at the traffic light.  What's supposed to happen
when he keys his 200 watt UHF transmitter ?

brian

KA3BRZ



-- 
Brian Cuthie
Systemix Software, Inc.
brian@systemix.com
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc