HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jreese@NeoSoft.com (Jim Reese)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: 430mhz band under th
Date: 28 Dec 92 12:52:09 GMT
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <L7ugwB2w165w@presoft.com> steve@presoft.com (Steve Kohlenberger) writes:
>Whatever funnies the data may contain, the ratios tell us that:
>  - MOST of 440 is not OPEN (free) in Southern California.
>  - People in the 2m and 220 tend have found ways to afford or chosen
>    to afford the repeater costs that the 440 crowd have not found or
>    possibly that...
>  - The 2m and 220 vs. 440 and 1280 are motivated toward repeaters
>    differently.

Actually, the last point is probably the most accurate...the guys I know
in Southern California do wide area inter-city linking...we're talking close
to 100 sites on the air and linked...they had very specific reasons for 
making their system "private".  This doesn't mean that they won't accept
new users, what it does mean is that they have a set procedure that they 
follow for membership, and everyone is treated the same.

>
>[As I said, I am new.  I am working on my no-code tech at the moment.
>I have not purchased my first set yet.]
>

Best of luck.  I've had a tremendous amount of fun doing this stuff...

>Is the rest of the country (and the world for that matter) seeing the
>same pseduo-commercial side of amateur radio and in the same bands?
>
>Is this political?

"Closed" or "private" repeaters are always political.  Many trustees don't 
want to build a system for everyone to use.  Sometimes there are specific
reasons why...a wide area linked system can become very crowded if there's 
not some control on the number of users.  The other reason that isn't so 
obvious is that some of these systems are complicated enough that training
is required for the users to understand the configurations.  The group I'm
familiar with in SO Cal. does exactly this.

>
>Is it that the 2m and 220 repeaters came on line when Amateur Radio
>was in a more generous and cooperative phase than it is right now?
>
>Is it an us vs. them and clickish in 440?

That certainly enters into it, but it's not always the case.  There are 
some systems that are closed to the point that they don't want new users.  I
think these trustees are very short sighted.  One of my UHF systems is closed,
another is open.  I also run a 2 meter system that is open.  Each was built
to address a specific need.  The open systems were designed to be general
use machines while the closed system was a specific use radio.  The main 
point I'm trying to make here is that there can be legitimate reasons for 
running a "closed" system.  By the same token, there are just as many people 
who will argue that no system should be "closed".  I'd agree to disagree.


-- 
     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: schuch@phx.mcd.mot.com (John Schuch)
Subject: Hot Rigs, was: Radio Robbery
Organization: Motorola Computer Group, Tempe, Az.
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 08:24:23 GMT

In article <9301011837.AA05064@emx.cc.utexas.edu> miles@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Miles Abernathy) writes:
>Buddy Brannan, a blind amateur radio operator, was riding an Austin,
>Texas, city bus about 1 PM on Wednesday, Dec. 30, talking on his
>handy-talkie. A guy on the bus asked him about the radio and Buddy gave
>him a demo. The guy liked it so much he asked to look at the radio and
>ripped it off. Jumped off the bus and left Buddy on the bus.
>
I know the feeling, I had my Yeasu FT-727R ripped off some time ago.

I've always thought there should be some clearing house for the serial
numbers of stolen equipment. We all look for great deals on used
equipment and I wonder how many of us become the unwitting accomplice
of the bad guys.

I would think a system you could call and enter the serial number
through a touch-tone phone would not be that complicated. It
could even be tied into packet and/or the internet.

John

-- 
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| John R. Schuch  -  Motorola Computer Group  -  Manufacturing Engineering |
| N7XVS - schuch@phx.mcd.mot.com - (602) 438-3008 - CompuServe: 70733.3330 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: tstader@aol.COM
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: (none)
Date: 31 Dec 92 15:22:40 GMT
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu
Originator: daemon@ucsd.edu

From root Thu Dec 31 10:23:48 1992
From: tstader@aol.com
X-Mailer: America Online Mailer
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu
Subject: RE: UPS gives up on 220? (was Re: 430mhz band under th)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 10:23:48 EST

Jay... according to Don Bishop's editorial column in the Jan '93 issue of
Mobile Radio Technology, the FCC has run a lottery to assign contruction
permits for local channels... but no nationwide channel contruction permits
have been issued. The FCC has yet to decide on whether to do it by lottery or
not!

Apparently there is only one company that makes FCC type-accepted equipment
for 220.... SEA, Mountlake Terrace, WA.

73 for now.... c u on the shortwaves
Terry Stader - KA8SCP
America Online Ham Radio Club Host
Internet: tstader@aol.com (files <28K)  or
          tstader@attmail.com ( files >28K)
KA8SCP@WA1PHY.#EMA.MA.USA.NOAM
ka8scp@ka8scp.ampr.org [44.56.4.82] Mac
ka8scp-1@ka8scp-1.ampr.org [44.56.4.120] DOS Clone
(they're BOTH pc's!)
From: kc6sss@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Kissing Cousin Six Sugar Sugar Sugar)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: FT-790 power control for OSCAR use...
Date: 22 Dec 92 14:28:00 GMT
Organization: The People's Number Four Cat Farm, Berkeley CA, USA

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

>In article <9212161210.aa20020@ingate.microsoft.COM>,
>    a-kevinp@microsoft.COM (Kevin Purcell, Rho) writes:

>| You can use the ALC (which I presume the rig has on its accessory socket).

>The FT-790R doesn't even have an accessory socket...  You'll need internal
>surgery; use the STBY connector on the side, or perhaps the base where
>the SO-239 would be on the 290/690.  Or the CW jack if Morse is not your
>thing :-)

Can't do that.  It's the best way to energize the transmitter in order to
check out your antenna and transmission lines.
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 05:52:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.032415.15671@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Rod Anderson) writes:
>In article <BzxHor.F25@NeoSoft.com> jreese@NeoSoft.com (Jim Reese) writes:
>>
>>No Jim, you don't understand what it takes to keep a repeater on the air.  It's
>>not that I'm insensitive to the users, but I have to buy my family Christmas
>>gifts, too.  Keeping a repeater on the air can cost hundreds, even thousands
>>of dollars a year.  It's not the responsibility of the trustee to carry the
>>financial burden alone.  If there are users who get the benefits of the 
>>radio system, they should help pay for it.  
>>
>>It's funny that most hams wouldn't think about coming over to my house at
>>three in the morning expecting to be able to use my HF station for free, but
>>they will kerchunk MY repeater at three in the morning and EXPECT it to be 
>>there.  There's no difference, and it's no cheaper for the repeater owner.
>>
>>If you want a free repeater, put one on yourself.  Otherwise, help the guy 
>>who built the radio, scouted the site, and keeps the sucker working for you
>>to talk on.
>>
>
>It is too bad YOU don't understand amateur radio.  It is never permitted
>to charge for the use of equipment.

I can't find this portion of Part 97.  Please post a reference.


  You don't own the frequency that the
>repeater is on. 

And broadcast stations don't "own" the frequencies either...they belong
to the public, and the licensees hold them in trust.  But that doesn't
give YOU the right to transmit there.


 I have a right to transmit on your repeaters input
>frequency if it is not in use.

Maybe.....maybe not.  Depends on local coordination.

Local coordination ideally should encourage a wide diversity of
uses for spectrum.  If I have been coordinated exclusively on a
link frequency, you don't have the right to squat there just because
you don't hear me using it.

>


-- 
 Tad Cook     |  Phone:  206-527-4089  (home)     |   MCI Mail: 3288544   
 Seattle, WA  |  Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA   |   3288544@mcimail.com 
              |  Internet: tad@ssc.com           or...sumax!ole!ssc!tad
From: flloyd@l1-a.West.Sun.COM (Fred Lloyd [Phoenix SE])
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Yaesu FT-530
Date: 22 Dec 1992 20:59:10 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Phoenix, AZ
NNTP-Posting-Host: l1-a.west.sun.com

In article <78713@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprfm@prism.gatech.EDU (Monte Freeman) writes:
>
> Several days ago I posted a message asking for info on both the Alicno DJ-580
>and the Yaesu FT-530. I was going to buy one or the other.
>
> Well, I bought the Yaesu. I like it so far, but haven't had a chance to play
>with it much.
>
> I have heard that this radio has been out in Japan for quite some time. It is
>rumored to have lots of hidden features that require either a hardware or 
>software mod to get to. 
>

I played with the radio for a short while today down at the local
HRO.  I have to say that I'm impressed.  The one I saw was modified
and was receiving way up into the 928 mhz region.  The remote control
speaker mic was way-cool.  The lighted keypad was very nice.  The
battery looked wimpy.  The lcd display was nice with lots-o-info.

Most surprising was the price: $409.95 plus $89 for the speaker mic.

Hmmmmm... 

-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: ant-vent@precipice.chi.il.us (Paul Graham)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Baluns useless? (was: Steel Wool Balun)
Date: 17 Dec 92 09:22:16 GMT
Organization: Welch Research, McHenry IL, USA

alanb@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Alan Bloom) writes:

> The purpose of a balun is to eliminate feedline radiation.  Feedline
> radiation messes up an antenna directional characteristics.  Since a
> dipole is not very directional anyway, this is not a concern.
> 
> On the other hand,
> In rec.radio.amateur.misc, wtr@mitre.org (Bill Ralston) writes:
> 
> >Although the above may well be true, I must point out that a balun can be a
> > help in eliminating feed-line radiation caused by unbalances in the
> >antenna.  Case in point, I recently installed a balun on my 40 meter
> >dipole.  Although it did not change the resonance point or SWR at all, it
> >did significantly reduce the amount of RF in the shack (which made my PC a
> >less crash-happy). YMMV.
> 
> Good point.  Another possible solution (other than a balun) is to change
> the feedline length.  Try adding/removing 1/4 wavelength.  If you can
> get the standing wave on the feedline to have a node near the dipole
> feedpoint, you will see a fig reduction in feedline radiation.
> 
> AL N1AL
> 


Don't change feedline length -- use a balun..
**** 
        Always feed a balanced load (such as a dipole) with 
        balanced line (or with a balun) unless you want big
        problems with line radiation and/or RF floating
        around in your shack, and like RF burns, crashed
        computers, etc.
****
73, Paul - K9ERG
From: charlier@hplsla.hp.com (Charlie Panek)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:04:04 GMT
Subject: QST reviews of HF rigs: Updated list
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: dplumb@cix.compulink.co.uk (Dave Plumb)
Subject: Re: 430mhz band under th                
Cc: dplumb@cix.compulink.co.uk
Reply-To: dplumb@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:04:00 +0000

> Feedlines - You check out the cost of 7/8 heliax lately? Try adding the 
> cost of seven or eight 150 ft runs of that, replacing it every 10 years 
Having read many messages on the subject, I think Amateur Radio in the USA 
has got far too commercialised, and I only hope it doesn't get the same over 
here. Generally over here most repeaters have a small group of supporters who 
pay a yearly fee to keep the box on air. Sites are usually chosen from local 
authority buildings, such as hospitals, town halls, civic centres and the 
like. The main London repeater is on top of London Weekend Televisions 
building. I don't know what they pay for rent and electricity, but if it were 
in the region of what you pay out there, they wouldn't put the repeater 
there! Simple! 
 
I imagine someone in the repeater group is an employee and has approached 
someone sympathetic and got it cleared. Maybe we just don't have as many 
repeaters as you do per square mile? Even if we did have a 6000ft mountain, 
such a repeater would have an unecessarily large coverage area, and would 
probably be open to abuse from idiots for miles around. 
 
Although it might be one big "ego" trip to have your own repeater, with your 
own group of users, surely the aim is to "further ones technical knowledge 
through the use of radio" and not to provide an alternative to the telephone 
network? I think if you want to get such sites, such equipment, such 
facilities, maybe you should join commercialised radio services and run a 
repeater that way, the amateur channels shouldn't be used for such purposes. 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Dave Plumb   |   Internet: dplumb@cix.compulink.co.uk   |  Fidonet: 2:252/140 
London, UK   |   Packet  : G7MIL @ GB7HSN.#32.GBR.EU    |  MO:  0000-0600 GMT 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: 430mhz band under th
Date: 29 Dec 1992 14:27:41 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec29.002412.2925@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Rod Anderson) writes:
>One of the basic principals in amateur radio is that no one ownes
>a given frequency.  But when repeaters are set up and coordinated
>they are in practice given exclusive use of 40 kHz of amateur band
>width (input +/- 10 kHz, output +/- 10 kHz).  When a repeater is
>made private the users are in principal given exclusive use of
>their frequencies.  If the owner charges for the use of the
>frequency he is basically charging to use his frequencies.  After
>all because he has his repeater coordinated on this frequency no one
>else can use it.

The problem with your argument is that you assume that someone, by virtue of
putting up a repeater on a frequency, turns that equipment into a public
utility. This simply is not so. The frequency is not the issue. The equipment
is.
 
>As long as there are open frequency pairs for additional repeaters
>this is no real problem.  When all frequency pairs are used up and
>there are no open repeaters available then the private repeaters
>become a problem.  It them becomes a case of paying for the use of
>a band.

There are always frequency pairs available; surely 900 and 1200 aren't full
yet? The folks who put up the closed systems you're complaining about were
told "there's no room for you on 2, go to another band". Turnabout is fair
play...or are you trying to say that, now that 440 has gotten more popular,
that the folks who spent in some cases $5-10K on boxes and a couple of
kilobucks annually to maintain them must now run them your way? 

>If it is acceptable to charge for the use of a repeater then can the
>owners of packet BBS makin a charge for their services?  They have the
>cost of the computer, antennas, two or three radios and tncs invested
>in the hobby.  They could make the same claim that they need to charge
>for their services.

If they can get a user base that way, more power to them.
The same arguments apply, and even your specious frequency argument holds less
water - after all, packet systems share channels much better than repeaters
do...
-- 
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
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: How to subscribe to info-hams?
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 05:47:47 GMT


The title says it all.  I'm looking for the address.

Thanks,

Simon
From: jreese@NeoSoft.com (Jim Reese)
Subject: Re: 430mhz band under th
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 22:03:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec27.201949.13337@samba.oit.unc.edu> Kirk.Smith@launchpad.unc.edu (Kirk Smith) writes:
>A ha.  I see I've found the hidden cost of amateur radio repeaters.  $2000
>a year in site rental fees? 
>
$2,000 per year is a BARGAIN!  Most tower companies in Texas charge between
40 and 60 cents per foot per month for commercial tower space.  Plus power.
This stuff ain't cheap.  Most repeater users don't have any idea what is
involved.  Sometimes you can get free sites, but usually there is some 
expense involved...electricity, telephone, insurance, etc.

>For that much loot, it's a wonder anyone would bother putting up a ham
>repeater.  I'm not entirely sure I'd do it. 

Precicely my point.  Most of us put repeaters on the air for the fun of 
building radios.  This is why we get so upset when people gripe when they go
off the air, or when people demand to use them just because.

-- 
     Jim Reese, WD5IYT            | "Real Texans never refer to trouble
  jreese@sugar.neosoft.com        |  as deep doo-doo"  --Molly Ivins
From: MOSIER@iris.uncg.EDU (Steve Mosier)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Looking for a few DX QSL addresses
Date: 3 Jan 93 19:43:03 GMT
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu
Originator: daemon@ucsd.edu

Really fell behind in 1992 and wound up doing a whole year of QSLing at
once.  I have a few left that I'd like to QSL direct.  Can anyone help me 
with the following:

V47G
YE2IX (manager for 9A1CRU)
YO7AKL
VP5GH
7P8SR
9K2MU
OK3TWO

Please respond to me directly so as not to clog the net.  Thanks.

Steve - W3GRG
mosier@iris.uncg.edu
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Exploding Air Bags? Locking Anti-Lock Brakes?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 09:24:33 GMT

gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
: 
: It's a violation of federal regulations, OSHA? BATF?, one of those, to
: transmit within 500 feet of a wired explosive charge. Since airbags are
: deployed by a wired explosive charge, lead azide, it would seem that you
: can't legally transmit on an amateur radio in an airbag equipped car.

Sorry, Gary. It is not lead azide. The compound used is sodium azide.
It burns, but does not explode.

Bill
From: murphym@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Is the IC-R100 a good receiver?
Date: 21 Dec 92 15:51:19 GMT
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu
Originator: daemon@ucsd.edu

OK, given the ICOM-R1 has a few disadvantages, Is the ICOM-r100 any better?
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: miles@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Miles Abernathy)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Auto RFI susceptibility.
Date: 1 Jan 93 18:47:07 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Texas
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d10
X-XXMessage-ID: <A769EDC77501B991@slip-x45.ots.utexas.edu>
X-XXDate: Fri, 1 Jan 93 12:47:03 GMT

I would "steer clear" of Toyotas. It was a Camry whose $1100+ computer
was reported to have burned out in 1992, and my wife's 92 Camry's 'Owners
Manual' specifically states that you have to get permission from Toyota
before mounting a transmitter in the car.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
  _     Miles Abernathy, N5KOB        =
 | |__  miles@emx.cc.utexas.edu       =
_|    | POB 7580, Austin TX 78713     =
\  * /  University of Texas @ Austin  =
  \/    tel. (512) 471-6521           =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
From: mab3474@zeus.tamu.edu (Myles Barkman-KG5AI Tx A&M Univ.)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: HF mobile antennas - Want advice.
Date: 23 Dec 1992 17:18 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

Would like comments regarding different types of antennas and opinions on
which one is best.  Would like to run 75, 40, 20, 15, and 10m.  I would
put it on my bumber and guy in from the luggage rack.
******************************************************************************
* Namenet   : Myles Barkman   aka 'Scanman'             Texas A&M University *
* Hamnet    : KG5AI          V.P. of W5AC-TAMU ARC        College Station TX *
* Internet  : mab3474@venus.tamu.edu   RACES          Grad-Dec.92            *
* Bitnet    : mab3474@tamvenus           ARES         BS Electronics         *
* Packetnet : kg5ai@w5ac.tx.usa.na         SKYWARN    Engineering Technology *
* ICBMnet   : 30.606 N 96.316 W        I never met a tornado I didn't like.  *
******************************************************************************
From: steve@gandalf.UMCS.Maine.EDU (Steve E. Goldsmith)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: LATEST FCC CALL SIGNS AS OF DEC 1
Date: 22 Dec 92 18:35:12 GMT
Organization: University of Maine, Department of Computer Science

From    : WB1E @ K1RQG
To      : CALLS @ USBBS
Date    : 921217/1642
Msgid   : BF 14759@K1RQG $14759_K1RQG1
Subject : LATEST FCC CALL SIGNS AS OF DEC 1


   Here are the latest callsigns issued
by the FCC as of December 1, 1992:

=======================================
      Group   Group    Group     Group 
        A       B        C         D
Dist. Extra   Advanced Tech/Gen  Novice
---------------------------------------
  0   AA0KS   KG0BY    N0UPN     KB0KUW
  1   AA1EM   KD1LK    N1NUA     KB1AMB
  2   AA2LN   KF2LH    N2SXD     KB2PPA
  3   AA3CK   KE3FN    N3NQE     KB3AKE
  4   AC4XF   KQ4JF      *       KD4UHQ
  5   AB5JD   KJ5GJ      *       KB5WCU
  6   AB6PC   KN6DF      *       KD6PFZ
  7   AA7SL   KI7IA      *       KB7QWZ
  8   AA8JG   KF8XY    N8WEJ     KB8OKK
  9   AA9FG   KF9MI    N9RLL     KB9IFW
North Mariana Is.
      AH0Q    AH0AL    KH0AY     WH0AAT

Guam
      NH2K    AH2CR    KH2GL     WH2AND

Johnston Is.
      AH3D    AH3AD    KH3AG     WH3AAG

Midway Is.
              AH4AA    KH4AG     WH4AAH

Hawaii
       *      AH6ME    WH6JQ     WH6CQA

Kure Is.
                       KH7AA        

American Samoa
      AH8G    AH8AE    KH8AI     WH8ABB

Wake Wilkes Peale
      AH9C    AH9AD    KH9AE     WH9AAI

Alaska
       *      AL7ON    WL7GN     WL7CGF

Virgin Is.
      NP2U    KP2CA    NP2FZ     WP2AHU

Puerto Rico
       *      KP4UL      *       WP4LOF

=======================================

       * All calls in these blocks have been assigned.

   For more information about the call sign assignment in the Amateur Radio
Service, see Section 97.17 (f) of the FCC Rules, or write to the FCC,
Consumer Assistance Branch, Gettysburg, PA 17325-7245.

   This list is updated monthly by
Mark  WB1E @ K1RQG.ME.USA.NA


I understand the chubby guy in the red suit will be operating air mobile
on the 25th....sorry I don't know his call sign......

73 till next year...!
----- End of message 14759 from WB1E @ K1RQG. -----
-- 
		Steve E. Goldsmith --  Systems and Operations Manager
		 University of Maine Department of Computer Science
		     5752 Neville Hall; Orono, Maine 04469-5752
		 (207) 581-3945       steve@gandalf.UMCS.Maine.EDU