HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: reisert@mast.enet.dec.com ("Jim Reisert, AD1C  25-Aug-1992 2006")
Subject: ARLB080 ANDERW UPDATE 4
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 17:05:12 PDT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA12214; Tue, 25 Aug 92 17:05:12 -0700
X-Received: by enet-gw.pa.dec.com; id AA22672; Tue, 25 Aug 92 17:05:12 -0700
X-Received: from mast.enet; by decwrl.enet; Tue, 25 Aug 92 17:05:12 PDT
X-To: rarm@mast.enet.dec.com, opdx@mast.enet.dec.com
X-Apparently-To: rec.radio.amateur.misc.usenet

 
ZCZC AG03
QST de W1AW  
ARRL Bulletin 80  ARLB080
From ARRL Headquarters  
Newington CT  August 25, 1992
To all radio amateurs 
 
SB QST ARL ARLB080
ARLB080 ANDREW UPDATE 4
 
Andrew (27.2n, 88.4w, 210 miles SSE of New Orleans at 1200z, August
25; maximum sustained winds to 140 mph) passed over the southern tip
of the Florida peninsula early Monday morning and currently
threatens the north/central gulf coast.
 
Amateurs are advised to monitor:
 
     Hurricane Watch Net (14.325 MHz)
     4U1UN-sponsored net (14.268 MHz)
     Gulf Coast Hurricane Net (3935, 7235 kHz)
     Florida emergency nets (3940, 3950, and 7247 kHz)
     Waterway Net (7268 kHz)
     Louisiana Traffic Net (3910 kHz)
     Alabama nets (3965, 7243 kHz)
     and Texas ARES Net (7273, 3873 kHz)  
 
Nets are handling emergency traffic, situation reports and
health-and-welfare traffic.  Please do not transmit on these
frequencies except in response to instructions from net control
stations.  Please do not interrupt nets with requests for storm
coordinates or other general information which is available on local
NOAA weather broadcasts.  Priority must be given to immediate
disaster relief communications.  Control of the communication
situation belongs with amateurs and public safety officials in the
affected areas.
 
An ARRL official in Miami reports that reliable telephone service
exists in the region with only a few exceptions.
 
For more information, or to report network and other information,
contact the Field Services Department at ARRL Hq.
NNNN
From: dls@genrad.com (Diana L. Syriac)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Uselessness of ARES/RACES
Date: 3 Sep 92 12:41:39 GMT
Organization: GenRad, Inc.

In article <1992Sep2.153345.12770@rti.rti.org> jbs@rti.rti.org writes:
>In article <598@bongo.UUCP> julian@bongo.info.com (Julian Macassey) writes:
>>
>>	You have missed the point. It is wonderful that every ham in
>>your town knows the "local" frequency. When my car hits a telephone
>>pole driving through your town, how do I know the frequency? Ask a
>>passing ham?
>
>I was pleased to see signs along the interstate through (I believe it was)
>Massachussetts indicating that someone with some sort of emergency services
>organization monitored 146.52 - it didn't say anything else (except I think
>there may have been a call sign given as well), so I wonder what non-hams
>made of it...
>
>Anybody in MA know any particulars on this service?

Yes, I know, and I have used it on occasion.  The Westford Police station
also happens to have an amateur radio station set up, and in fact the police
chief and most of the police and communications people there are also hams
(plus there are a number of volunteer hams who help man the station).

The sign on the road says something like:  146.52, WB1GOF *

To use it, you simply press the * for about three seconds (they have a squelch
on it, so they don't hear ALL 146.52 traffic), then transmit to WB1GOF,
something like "WB1GOF, WB1GOF this is KC1SP", in about 10 seconds they come
back to you:  "KC1SP this is WB1GOF, what is your emergency traffic?".  Then
you can pass the information, they in turn will pass the data on to the state
police (or whoever is appropriate).

This is useful for situations like accidents, disabled cars, etc.  I would
assume you could also use it to dispatch an ambulance if necessary.  It is
NOT an autopatch, though, you ARE talking to the police.

Diana


->Diana L. Syriac (Carlson) dls@genrad.com	Ham: KC1SP (Sweet Pea)      <-
->I'D RATHER BE FLYING!	P-ASEL, INST		CAP: 1LT, Freedom 690 Mobile<-
->AD ASTRA, PER ASPERA				Airplane: C-172 N6513E	    <-
->GenRad, MS/6, 300 Baker Ave, Concord, Mass.  01742  (508)369-4400 x2459   <-
Xref: sparky rec.radio.amateur.misc:14841 alt.folklore.urban:22644
From: 2429oconnorw@vms.csd.mu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Cellular Frequencies
Date: 1 Sep 92 22:14:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: vms.0095FF91.AAA57A40
Reply-To: 2429oconnorw@vms.csd.mu.edu
Followup-To: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services

In article <l9qcl7INNkvl@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>, geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) writes:
>Huh?  If memory serves, I've never seen a television UHF dial that went
>beyond 60 in the first place.  And I know for a fact that I've never
>heard of a UHF station higher than 54 (the local UHF PBS affiliate).

As a survivor of AFROTC summer field training I saw many things.  One of
them were the TVs in our rooms.  We had to keep the channel selectors on
U-84.  Don't ask if they worked because 1. they were never plugged in
and 2. we never had time to sit down and watch.

Bill
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: jbromley@joshua.intel.com (James Bromley~)
Subject: Re: Cushcraft R7
Followup-To: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Summary: R7 gives better patterns 
Organization: Intel Corporation
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 01:21:37 GMT

In article <9208311447.AA06000@ap.nisd.cam.unisys.com>
 doug@kronos.nisd.cam.unisys.com (Doug Hardie) responds to the query:

>> Perhaps someone can shed light on this question.  The R7 is 22 feet
>> high.  Let's say you have 4 5-foot sections of steel mast with tapered
>> ends, so you can put them together.   This gives you 20 feet.

         << stuff edited out >>

>> So, for the extra $350, what do you get?   Would the R7 really
>> perform better, and if so, why?

Doug says: 

>They would probably work about the same.  However, there is a significant
>difference in setup time.  Placing the R7 on top of a Radio Shack mast
>with 4 guy wires will hold it up and can be setup in approximately 30
>minutes with two people.  Slightly longer if you do it yourself....

        < Good points about convenience deleted for brevity >

>-- Doug   WA6VVV

I think another point should be made about trapped monopoles and
dipoles -- antenna pattern control.  That complicated mess of traps
and tuning stubs keeps the top part (or ends on a dipole) from
radiating on the higher frequencies.  By doing that, it suppresses
unacceptable levels of high-angle radiation and lowered gain toward
the horizon.  (On dipoles, traps just insure the thing acts like a
dipole on all bands.)  On some verticals, the traps and stubs make the
upper part radiate in phase with the lower part, producing a modicum
of gain on the higher frequencies.  And, of course, they also move the
driving-point impedance down to 50 + j0 ohms on all of the bands of
interest.

That said, the original poster does make a good point.  A hunk of
vertical pipe with a few non-critical decoupling stubs and a *good*
antenna tuner and feed line would come pretty close to $350 worth of
unity gain.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Jim Bromley W5GYJ       |                                                  |
| Intel Corp. m/s CH3-36  |   Celebrating 30 years as a No-Code Technician   |
| 5000 W. Chandler Blvd.  |                                                  |
| Chandler,AZ 85226       |                                                  |
| tel: 602-554-5183       | Internet: jbromley@sedona.intel.com              |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: keithd@bigguy.timeplex.com (Keith Dickinson)
Subject: Re: Cellular Frequencies
Organization: Ascom Timeplex Inc.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 06:36:15 GMT

In article <3571@atlas.tegra.COM> vail@tegra.COM (Johnathan Vail) writes:

>Reasonable people may argue this way but still the law makes it
>illegal.  Bad spelling aside you are either wrong or missing some
>facts of the case.  Are you sure it was cellular?

Posative.  Of course this was several years ago so it _could_ have been 
before the law was passed... But at that time I remember what a big fuss
was made over the fact.

L8r G8r
 Keith
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: sims@sauron.msfc.nasa.gov (Herb Sims)
Subject: Re: Kenwood Service SUCKS!!!
Organization: NASA/MSFC
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:01:15 GMT

wrb@cbnews.cb.att.com (wallace.r.blackburn) writes:


>Nobody expected Kenwwod "to drop whatever their doing the instant a person
>calls".  They had the radio for at Kenwwod for 1 1/2 fucking months!  This

Now Now, nothing shows ingorance more than to swear......

>was after the dealer had it for a month.  When I talked to the service tech
>at the dealer, he complained that he hadn't received callbacks on 3-4 calls
>to Kenwood's dealer support line - just voice mail.  He called the person's
>supervisor and got his voice mail - and still never got a callback!

Just 3-4 calls over 1 1/2 months?  Come on- it sounds like the repair people
are the ones that let the ball drop not Kenwood. Geese....

>This is not just a reasonable delay, or whatever - THIS IS LOUSY SERVICE!
>I am so happy for those of you that haven't had to use their repair
>service (this is sarcasm for anyone that doesn't recognize it), but don't 
>tell me I should be happy or that my expectations are unreasonable - they're 
>not.  (Note proper use of the contraction they're - short for "they are" as
>opposed to "their").
I am not telling you to be happy or anything like that.  All I am saying is
that Kenwood has always helped me on a timely basis whenever I have called.
It sounds like the repair center you sent your radio to (the dealer) didn't
have enough incentive to try to contact Kenwood.

>I never claimed to be perfect or not make mistakes - I make my share.  The
>difference is I do my best to make them right.  I realize that modern
>transceivers are complex pieces of equipment and some number will
>undoubtedly have problems.  I explained this in my original post - maybe
>you should've read it before you followed the urge to throw in your two
>cents.
Well with a header that says "Kenwood Sucks" I am sorry if I had a chip on 
shoulder......

>Your good experience with Kenwood doesn't invalidate my bad experience with 
>them.  Damn, nothing ticks me off worse than some yahoo in the background
>whining "Well MY [insert item here] has been the greatest I've ever owned,
>you just expect too much".



>				Wally Blackburn AA8DX
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Cellular Frequencies
Date: 3 Sep 92 10:15:25 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug30.031755.24748@msc.cornell.edu> maynard@groo.msc.cornell.edu (Maynard J. Handley) writes:
>Sorry to appear a complete bozo, but what exactly do people mean when they
>say TV's can intercept these frequencies? As I understand TV, the audio and
>visual signals go out at two separate frequencies. So are we saying that
>the TV receives the cellular signal at the audio frequency and simply plays
>it as a sound? Doesn't it care that there is no video present? Is cellular
>communication by simple FM (that TV audio uses) and not an AM signal (that
>would use less bandwidth).

I believe what you are thinking about is the fact that TV uses *intercarrier*
sound. That is, the TV signal is downconverted to a 45 MHz IF and the *beat*
between the visual carrier and the aural carrier is at 4.5 MHz which is then
amplified in another IF strip and demodulated to recover sound. Some old
sets used completely separate video and audio IF strips and didn't rely on
intercarrier sound, but all the newer sets, since about 1956, use the
intercarrier method. So how can you receive sound without a picture carrier
is the question you want answered.

That's a good question, and the answer is not very satisfactory. What happens
is that you *mistune* the TV so that the desired sound carrier is 4.5 MHz
from the local oscillator. Then you depend on *leakage* through the 45 MHz
IF strip to get that signal to the 4.5 MHz aural IF strip. There's another
problem too. TV sound is not NBFM. It's MBFM, or Medium Bandwidth FM. It's
deviation is 25 kHz instead of NBFM's 5 kHz. So the signal you demodulate
is going to sound weak and noisey.

You can improve things immensely by using a coupling capacitor around the
45 MHz IF direct to the 4.5 MHz IF, and retuning the discriminator for a
narrow deviation. Of course that ruins the set for regular TV reception.

Gary KE4ZV
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: wpns@miki.pictel.com (Willie Smith)
Subject: Re: CC&R Contingencies, any advice?
Organization: PictureTel Corporation
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:45:49 GMT

In article <Aug.29.14.37.26.1992.28792@pilot.njin.net> ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie) writes:
>> I am about to start bidding on a house; though I think the property is
>> old enough to have no CC&Rs at all, does anyone have any advice for
>> how to phrase a CC&R Contingency Clause to put in the Offer to Purchase? 

>This contract is contingent on a investigation to determine that 
>there is no Covenent or Deed Restriction that would prohibit the
>construction of an XX' amateur radio tower on the premises.  This
>investigation shall be concluded within thirty days of the acceptance
>of the offer.

We started our negotiations with all of the developers we talked to
with the simple verbal statement that we were hams, were interested in
putting up ham radio antennas and satellite dishes, and if there were
any restrictions on them we wouldn't waste any more of his time or
ours and we'd be on our way.

One of them had never heard of such a restriction, accepted our offer,
and we began the P&S negotiations.  As soon as we put "No restrictions
on amateur radio antennas of up to 65 feet in height" in the P&S he
got the mental image of what it would look like and informed us that
he would be adding such a restriction, the details of which would be
worked out _after_ we signed the P&S, before the closing.  Needless to
say that's _not_ the house we bought. :+}

I would suggest you have your lawyer search for C&Rs before the P&S
and put in a nebulous "No restrictions against transmitting and
receiving antennas (and towers?)" clause in the P&S.  Putting a number
on it will make it seems a lt more real (and threatening).

Willie Smith
wpns@pictel.com
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Cellular Frequencies
Date: 30 Aug 1992 15:47:19 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Aug30.145623.18862@afit.af.mil> jmiller@afit.af.mil (Jeffrey C Miller) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.214645.4889@mv.mv.com> mem@mv.mv.com (Mark E. Mallett) writes:
>>Which has the best TV callsign I know of:  WLVI.
>>(LVI == 56 in roman numerals.)
>They're not the only ones:  WXIX, Ch 19, Cincinnati.

It just struck me that KLVI fits this mold: it's an AM station, 560 KHz, in
Beaumont, TX.

Lessee..3, 7, 12, 14, 16, 19, 21, 25, 30, 41, 45, 52, 54, 56, 59, 61, 65, 91,
95, 102, 104, and 106 are all TV/radio station channel numbers or frequencies
that can use the same trick. I wonder just how many stations out there do
that...
-- 
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.
 "Keep in mind that Amateur Radio As We Know It Today will cease to exist
            at midnight tonight." -- Dave Newkirk, WJ1Z
From: schro@nessos.sni.de (W.F.Schroeder)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Looking for a _really_ feature-packed handheld dual bander
Date: 31 Aug 92 12:41:40 GMT
Organization: Siemens Nixdorf Info.Sys. AG, Paderborn, Germany

In <29AUG199217153384@spades.aces.com> gavron@spades.aces.com (Ehud Gavron 602-570-2000 x. 2546) writes:
...
>	I need:
>	- 2m/70cm dual bander
>splits
>	- Odd splits on at least 20 memories, with the offset between
>	  TX and RX varying from a multiple of 5KHz to 10KHz (the W2A
>	  does not allow a 5KHz offset from RX/TX)
>	- At least 40 memories total, hopefully not forced to be 20/20
>	  VHF/UHF.
>expanded rx
>	- Ability to receive 800MHz band FM
>	- Ability to receive 118-136MHz AM
>	- Ability to RX two frequencies in the same band at the same
>	  time.  In other words, I want to be able to listen to, say
>	  146.0MHz and 147.0MHz on both VFOs at the same time (although
>	  of course I'll only be able to transmit on the VHF VFO). 
>oob tx
> 	- Ability to TX out of band on both VHF and UHF (this can be
>	   a mod, I don't care...) specifically the ability to TX in
>	   the PSB and commercial bands ajacent to the amateur bands
>scanning
>	- Bitmapped scanning.  I.E. if I have put a memory on `skip'
>	  then I expect it to take 0 time to scan past that memory.
>	  For example, if I have 50 memories of which 48 are skip-set
>	  then I expect this thing to scan those 2 frequencies 25 times
>	  in the same amount of time it would normally scan all 50 once.
>general
>	- Direct frequency entry would be nice but not required
>	- CTCSS encode required, decode would be nice
>	- DTMF encode required, decode would be nice
>	- DTMF memories would be nice
>	Someone know of such a Handy-Talkie?
>	Ehud Gavron, N5NEQ
>Ehud Gavron        (EG76)     
>gavron@aces.com

I'm not sure about the splits, but everything else sounds like a
description of a Kenwood TH-78.  It is said to be the only HT around
that can RX two frequencies on the same band.  I got me an TH-78E a few
weeks ago and i am happy with it. 

73 Django  DL5YEC
From: bill@prijat.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Speaking Of Q-Codes...
Date: 31 Aug 92 11:50:09 GMT
Reply-To: bill@platypus.uofs.edu
Organization: University of Scranton, Scranton, PA

In article <1992Aug25.085437.8483@vax.oxford.ac.uk>, malcolm@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
|> 
|> Gary's comment hits very close to my thoughts on the matter. To be honest, it
|> does not matter one ha'penny-worth (cent/dime/nickel-worth to most of you) to
|> me whether pro-words or pro-signs are used ... but I note with interest that
|> no-one has mentioned the matter of pro-words being language dependent whereas
|> pro-signs are not. 

This may be true in CW, but definitely not when Q-signals are used in voice.
Let's see now:  
                              English                German
                     QRV      keuw are vee           kew are fow
                     QSY      keuw ess why           kew ess upsilon 

|>                    OK on VHF all parties will probably speak the same language
|> and English is "Universal" but in noisy international HF voice contacts I can
|> see good cause to use pro-signs.

From where you live in particular this isn't true and becomes less true on the
continent.  I worked England on 2 meters with one of those little ICOM portable
side-band units from Field-Day in Heinsberg, Germany (near Aachen.)  And that
was using the built in whip antenna.  I lived in Moenchengladbach and frequently
spoke on both German and Dutch repeaters.  From Aachen, you could add Belgian
(French and Flemish) to that list (and maybe even France and Luxembourg.)  VHF
and UHF don't guarantee that the same language will be spoken by everyone you
hear.  Not even here in the U. S.

All the best.

bill    KB3YV

-- 

     Bill Gunshannon          |        If this statement wasn't here,
     bill@platypus.uofs.edu   |  This space would be left intentionally blank
     bill@tuatara.uofs.edu    |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   
From: alanb@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Alan Bloom)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:28:18 GMT
Subject: Re: Vertical antenna for a covenant-restricted lot?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Rosa, CA
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc

In rec.radio.amateur.misc, jhays@boi.hp.com (John D. Hays) writes:

>Of course you could always do a flag-pole vertical.

Indeed.  Run up old glory and dare your neighbors to criticize you for
being patriotic!  Plant a large bush at the base so they don't
see your gamma match...

AL N1AL
From: roakley@guvax.georgetown.edu
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Kenwood Service SUCKS!!!
Date: 27 Aug 92 09:20:37 -0400
Distribution: world
Organization: Georgetown University

In article <1992Aug26.133437.19998@sunova.ssc.gov>, greg@sscvx1.ssc.gov (Greg Chartrand) writes:
> If so many of you are having problems with Kenwood USA, I suggest you send 
> a short sweet letter to Kenwood Japan. For the cost of postage, I think a 
> deluge of letters when sales are down would have a very strong impact.
> 
> 
> Just a thought....
> 
> Greg
> WA9EYY


Someone might even go back and print out all of the letters on this 
thread and send the whole package off to Kenwood (nasty language and 
all).  I own three Kenwood rigs now (TH25, TS440SAT, and TM701) and 
have never had any problem.  (I.e., I have never had to use their 
service department.)  

However, I have been looking to upgrade the HF rig, and I was 
considering the Yaesu 990, the Kenwood 850, and the ICOM 765.  Reading 
this thread has convinced me to eliminate Kenwood from the running.  
(Actually, I have pretty well settled on the 990.  I received a lot of
positive comments on that rig when I inquired about it here a while 
ago.)  Nonetheless, the fact is that based on these comments I am not 
likely to buy Kenwood again unless I start hearing better things about 
their service.

Bob



   
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc,alt.folklore.urban
From: mem@mv.mv.com (Mark E. Mallett)
Subject: Re: Cellular Frequencies
Organization: MV Communications, Inc.
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:46:45 GMT

In article <l9qhf3INNn02@news.bbn.com> levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) writes:
>In my local area are:
>	Channel 56 (Independent, Boston)

Which has the best TV callsign I know of:  WLVI.

(LVI == 56 in roman numerals.)

-mm-
-- 
Mark E. Mallett  MV Communications, Inc./ PO Box 4963/ Manchester NH/ 03108
Bus. Phone: 603 429 2223    Home: 603 424 8129     BIX: mmallett
Internet: mem@mv.MV.COM  ( uucp: ...{decvax|harvard}!mv!mem )
Looking for news and mail in southern NH / northern MA?  Try MV!
From: MOSIER@iris.uncg.EDU (Steve Mosier)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Cushcraft R7 measurements
Date: 28 Aug 1992 07:13:14 -0700
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu

> One of the major advantages of the R7 is supposed to be that
> it doesn't require an antenna tuner.  However, looking at these
> SWR numbers, I would say that it certainly does require one.  The
> bandwidth on 30m and 40m is particularly bad. (as expected)  I would
> not operate on the CW portion of 40m with that high an SWR.

> If you read between the lines of this month's QST article, 
> you will see that a dipole actually works better, especially
> on 40m.
> 
> I'll spend my $400 on something else.

I took an R7 to the beach this summer and rigged a pretty fast setup system,
making a storage and travel case for the partially dissasembled R7 that also 
contained some pipe and an auger to put it in the ground and mount the R7 
about 8 feet in the air.  I would not have wanted to string radials, and did 
not have the space or supports for a dipole.  I agree that a dipole probably 
works better -- at least, my 80m Zepp at home does.  But for a vacation/travel 
antenna, I was very impressed with the R7.  I didn't make any effort to get 
the thing tuned perfectly.  I just used a tuner.  But I did load it up on 80m 
with almost a 1:1 swr using the tuner and was able to get out fine.  I don't 
think I will use it at home.  $360 for a travel antenna may sound high, but 
then again plenty of people rig up all kinds of expensive contraptions for 
their travel trailers.  

steve - W3GRG
mosier@uncg.bitnet
mosier@iris.uncg.edu