HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jkearman@arrl.org (Jim Kearman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Speaking of Business Traffic
Date: 24 Jul 92 13:28:31 EDT
Organization: American Radio Relay League

After replying to D. Jenkins' posting about business traffic,
I noticed his posting was quite old. We're having trouble
getting anything from Usenet right now, so we aren't
seeing postings made after about Wednesday, July 22. Direct
e-mail MAY be getting through, but I haven't seen any in
a few days. 

If you've sent e-mail to ARRL, or have made a posting you
feel we should respond to, this outage will explain why
you haven't heard from us. I THINK outgoing mail and
postings from here are getting through. Rest assured,
once the problem is resolved, we'll be back in force!

73, Jim

****************************************************************

JIM KEARMAN, KR1S                    Voice: 203-666-1541 ext 279
ARRL Assistant Technical Editor	     FAX:   203-665-7531
Author of `The DXCC Companion'	     ARRL Headquarters
Editor of `Now You're Talking!,'     225 Main Street
ARRL License Manuals,		     Newington, CT 06111
ARRL Instructor Guides		     e-mail: jkearman@arrl.org

*****************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: mcleman@nthead.zso.dec.com (Jeff McLeman)
Subject: ********
Reply-To: mcleman@nthead.zso.dec.com (Jeff McLeman)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 22:16:10 GMT


--
I am considering putting up a HF vertical for 80-10M. I have been looking
at the Cushcraft APV8 (powerwave). Does anybody have any info on this
antenna? I know it is a 1/4 wave, and that it needs groud radials, (Not
a problem). What i am asking basically has anybody had good experience
with one? I cannot put up a tower or a beam, so this is my next best
solution.

Thanks for any responses.

Jeff


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff McLeman, KD1IT	   email:  mcleman@zso.dec.com                 
Redmond, Wa.	  	   UUCP: ...decwrl!zso.dec.com!mcleman
                           packet: kd1it @ n7duo.wa.usa.na


 Views expressed here are mine, exclusively. They are not in any way
 connected to my employer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: michael@vk2bea.UUCP (Michael G. Katzmann)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Reciprocal Licences in the U.K
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:50:52 GMT
Reply-To: michael@vk2bea.UUCP (Michael G. Katzmann)
Organization: Broadcast Sports Technology, Crofton. Maryland.

In article <542@bongo.UUCP> julian@bongo.UUCP (Julian Macassey) writes:
 >
 >	I also pointed out that I had for five years or so been trying
 >to get someone at the ARRL to update the reciprocal agreement to
 >include Technician and get rid of the Conditional. The U.S.
 
 >	On the back of the form is a list of countries with which the
 >U.K has reciprocal agreements. This listing is called "Annex 1" (sic).
 
 >with 12 wpm Morris and type B which is the same written with no-code
 >for VHF (2 M and up). There is I believe a new Novice licence in the
 >U.K.
 
 >	Well for the U.S.A. in the HF column is Conditional, General,
 >Advanced, Extra. The VHF (no-code) column is blank. But it gets worse.
 >At the bottom of the page is a note that says: " The following licence
 >types do not have a UK equivalent: Australia - Novice. USA - Technician,
 >Novice.  Is that plain enough?
 >

The examination requirements for a B class licence are the same as 
that for an A class licence with the exception of morse. This is also
true of the Australian 'Limited' licence BUT the US technician
licencee must pass more theory (i.e. general class) and morse before
he is granted the baseline HF privilages. 
In other words UK class B > US technician hence no reciprocity. 

-- 
Michael Katzmann	  >	Broadcast Sports Technology Inc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~	 <	Crofton, Maryland. U.S.A
Amateur Radio Stations:   >
NV3Z / VK2BEA / G4NYV	 <	opel!vk2bea!michael@uunet.uu.net
From: flloyd@sunburn.West.Sun.COM (Fred Lloyd [Phoenix SE])
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: June 1992 Callbook Tapes Available
Date: 28 Jul 1992 19:52:58 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Phoenix, AZ
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: sunburn.west.sun.com

We have shipped approximately 9 tapes as of today and wish to thank
those who have participated thus far.  The new database contains some
30,000 new entries, last updated June 10, 1992.  Now that we've fully
ramped the project up, we still need a few more participants in order
to break even on the costs.  

If you'd like to get a copy of the latest FCC Callsign database, read on:

	       * * * The Summer `92 Callsign Project * * *

After much waiting and anticipation, the Summer update of the callsign
database is IN.  The latest dump contains 568023 callsign entries
occupying 54 Megabytes of space.

We're currently in the process of making copies of the database for
all those interested.  In order to recover costs, we ask for a $20
contribution for each copy made.  In addition, those receiving copies
must supply the blank tape and pay for shipping both ways.

The preferred tape format is the QIC-150, 150 megabyte quarter inch 
cartridge.  We can also write QIC 24 (60 Mb), Exabyte 8mm, and 1/2
inch/9track tapes.  UNIX TAR format will be used unless otherwise
specified. 

(We can also do EBCDIC and/or dd if all you want is the raw data,
e.g. no sample programs).

In addition to the callsign database, which is a 54 megabyte flat file,
we'll also be supplying 'C' source code to programs which may be used
to creates indices and perform fast (bsearch) lookups based on either
callsign or name.

In addition, you get a copy of the source to a complete, working
callsign server program.  All source code was developed on a Sun,
and is ANSI-C compliant.

If you'd like a copy of the above package, here's what you shoud do:

1. Prepare a self-addressed and postage prepaid return mailer containing
your blank QIC-150 (preferred) tape.

2. Enclose a note indicating your name, address and any special 
handling or formatting instructions.  Please also include your e-mail
address if you want e-mail confirmation of your order.

3. Enclose a check for $20 payable to Fred Lloyd

4. Package the above and send via US Mail (or FedEx) to:

	Fred Lloyd, AA7BQ
	8215 E. Wood Drive
	Scottsdale, AZ  85260

If your tape is QIC 150, QIC 24, or Exabyte, it will be processed
within 2 days of our receiving it.  Other formats will be processed ASAP.
9track 1/2 inch tapes take a little more time since we don't have
a drive onsite.

Thanks,

-fred

-- 
| Fred Lloyd  AA7BQ,  Systems Engineer          Fred.Lloyd@west.sun.com |
| Sun Microsystems Computer Corporation                   ...sun!flloyd |
| Phoenix, AZ    (If it's a fact, I believe it!)         (602) 275-4242 |
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: vjh21@cas.org (Vince Herried ka8cte)
Subject: Re: "Readability, Strength" signal reports
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:30:16 GMT

I've always thought the 'whoop' was caused by a 'soft' power supply.
Eg before key up, the filter caps are all fully charged.
After key down, power drain causes the weak power supply voltage to drop.
The osc is sensitive to voltage and presto whoop.  The pitch change of the whoop
dependant on wether the osc goes up or down and your offset from the carrier and
the kepplairian numbers for the sump.....   well what ever.

what is a 73's, me no use em?

73
v



The number to call is BR 549


-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
				 |     Vincent Herried  (614) 447-3600 x 2877
				 |     Chemical Abstracts Service
 _____________________           |     P.O. Box 3012
(_)________________   \          |     Columbus, OH 43210-0012
  ________________|\   \         |
 (_)______________\_\   \        |     Current thought: People who cannot be
   ______________________\       |     understood are geniuses, so management
  (_)____________________|       |     assigns them the toughest projects.
				 |
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: markd@silogic.uucp (Mark C. DiVecchio (K3FWT))
Subject: Re: Eico 753 ????
Organization: Silogic Systems, San Diego, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 05:00:42 GMT

In article <BruqwG.Cu7@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> rtaylor@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Roger Taylor) writes:
>Does anyone have a manual for an Eico 753 SSB transceiver or can copy one?
>
>Anyone know where to find the Mods to make the VFO stable?  K9ALD


I had a 753 which I purchased in High School in 1966. The rig put out
a very potent signal and I could always talk to anyone I could hear.

The tube VFO was, by the time I bought mine, replaced by a transistor
VFO. If you still have the tube, you can get an order of magnitude
improvement by replacing it with the transistor version.

About 5 years ago, I finally gave the radio away at a swapmeet (Gave
it to a poor Novice - probably discouraged him for good). Anyway, with
it went all the dozens of letters between me and EICO and copies of
shippers as I sent the rig back to them 3 three times so they could
work on the VFO.

Your best bet is QST and CQ magazines of the 1966/67 era. There was
a good article in one of them about the drifting VFO and what could be
done. EICO also had a technical bulletin which talked about it and
other fixups for the rig.

From what I remember, the general plan was to replace all the
inductors with physically larger versions (and supposedly less
heat sensitive). The second thing was to replace the NPO caps
with caps with different NPO coeffients until the drift was within
spec. Third was to replace the PCB with a thicker version. EICO
also had hand picked transistors.

Within spec had an unusal meaning to EICO at the time as well. What
was considered good back then would not be acceptable today.

Good Luck and 73,  mark   K3FWT
-- 
Mark DiVecchio, Silogic Systems, 619-549-9841                       K3FWT
-----   9888 Carroll Center Road, Suite 113, San Diego, CA 92126    -----
markd@silogic.uucp                             BBS 619-549-3927
...!ucsd!celit!silogic!markd     celit!silogic!markd@ucsd.edu
From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard )
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: music over the radio
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:13:35 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

cchapman@matd.gatech.edu (Charles H. Chapman) writes:

>In article <x3mmn0d.pdh@netcom.com> pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard ) writes:
>>
>>Which of the following is the correct quote of FCC rules 97.113(d)
>>
>>#1
>>
>>"no station shall transmit: the tones of music;"
>>
>>#2
>>
>>"no station shall transmit: music;"
>>
>>
>
>I think the spirit of the regulation was to prevent people from pretending
>to be a broadcast station and competing with the real broadcast stations.
>I'd bet my reputation that the FCC doesn't care if you send digitized music
>or letters representing musical notes or digitized images of sheet music as
>long as the average Joe listening on his shortwave receiver can't hear the
>music.

I agree.  Too often, though, people come in and say that the rules do say
something is legal (or illegal) when in fact the rules do not deal with it
at all, one way or the other.

It is generally accepted by many that "if it is not prohibited specifically
then it is OK".  For the most part I agree with this.  But please let's not
have people who want to operate, or encourage others to operate, under this
concept, to disguise it in any way.

Sometimes a better answer might be:  "the rules do not directly address
the issue so you have to figure it out yourself, but I follow the principle
that if it's not prohibited, then it is OK until they tell you otherwise".

The cases that fall out of this are where something is indeed prohibited
such as "music" but that the rules are vague and it is not clear whether
the wording means something broad or something narrow.  In this case you
have to use other things, such as figuring out the spirit of the rules.

So in the case of music, I still hold that the rules "may literally prohibit
any kind of music because the prohibition is not qualified at all, but that
the spirit of the purpose is to prevent the broadcasting of music for the
purpose of entertainment".  So go ahead and transfer digitized sheet music
images  ...I see no problem with it...  but please don't go around saying
that the rules do not prohibit it.

Maybe the rules need some rewording (though the FCC has refused to make
changes as suggested in the past).
-- 
/***********************************************************************\
| Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  pdh@netcom.com   |   "The problem with |
| depending on government is that you cannot depend on it" - Tony Brown |
\***********************************************************************/
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: Deed restriction bans all ham antennas
Reply-To: whs70@dancer.UUCP ()
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 17:05:45 GMT

In article <10918@platypus.uofs.uofs.edu> bill@platypus.uofs.edu writes:
>
>I once looked at buying property in a place that banned not only antennas
>but also things like clothes-lines.  I made sure they could be eliminated 
>before I agreed to buy the land.
>
>|> speculate as to what would be the best way to fight such a deed
>|> restriction?
>
>Why should you be able to fight them??  When you sign the deed, you are 
>agreeing with all the attachments.  You have no grounds to fight them.
>You have to either have them removed before you buy or look for another
>piece of property.  The restrictions constitute a contract that you are
>willingly entering into.  It's not like restrictive ordinances which can
>be passed after the fact.  

Actually, there may be very good grounds to fight them.  If there
are already numerous "non-conforming" antennas in the subdivision
then the CCRs may have no impact because they have not been enforced
for too long a period.  Likewise, if the original "enforcing" 
entity (eg. owner's association, architectural jury, etc.) is 
no longer in existence, then there may be no methodology for
the enforcement of the CCRs and hence they become a moot issue
by default.  Anyway, I'd have a good local attorney look at the situation
and provide the advice on any specific property you might be
interested in.

This is just my .02 and NOT legal advice.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
From: kstuart@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Kenneth Stuart)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Is it "business" if I use and autopatch to...
Date: 23 Jul 92 12:26:21 GMT
Reply-To: kstuart@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Kenneth Stuart)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

With regard to the business/non-business issue of certain autopatch
calls, like calling a tow truck for a breakdown, I'd like to pass along
information which I received a couple of years ago.

ARES/RACES MEMBERS TAKE NOTE!

I spoke with attorneys at the ARRL, as well as the FCC field office,
with regard to this very issue.  The concensus was as follows.

The ham radio service was not intended to be used for the benefit of
business operations (no surprise there..), but the FCC does recognize
the occasional need for communications with businesses WITH BUSINESS
BEING DISCUSSED/TRANSACTED when it is in the interest of public safety
OR WELFARE.  Calling for a tow from an auto club falls under that category.

The particular incident which prompted my discussions with the League
concerned the temporary shelter of victims of an apartment fire.  About
20 families were affected, and the ARES/RACES director at the scene
was calling motels via autopatch to find rooms for the victims for the
night.  Availability of rooms was discussed, and reservations were placed
via ham radio.  So the club, with the idea of applying the dreaded WOUFF-HONG
to the EC's more vulnerable body locations, had me call to get the "official"
standing on the issue.  However, the response from the attornies was
not what was expected.  I was advised that the EC was justified in the
use of the autopatch UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES since the EC was acting
for the welfare of the fire victims - no lives or personal safety were
involved, but the welfare of the people was being protected - and therefore
the use of Ham Radio was OK.

The point is, the FCC expects us to use common sense.  Obviously they
don't want us to place carryout orders at the local Burgerburp restaurant
via autopatch, but they also realize that calling for a tow truck on
a highway is an occasional necessity and protects the welfare and safety
of human beings!

73,   Ken W3VVN
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Reciprocal Licences in the U.K
From: julian@bongo.UUCP (Julian Macassey)
Date: 26 Jul 92 06:15:09 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


	Mea Culpa, I was wrong. Must be getting cocky in my old age.


In article <Jul.25.10.32.49.1992.5132@pilot.njin.net>, ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie) writes:
> >	Really? In fact the difference between a U.S. no-code
> > Technician and a U.S. General is 13 wpm Morris. There is no futher test
> > for General, but there is another test for Advanced.
> 
> Not since March of 1987.  The Element 3 test was split into 3A and 3B.
> After that date Technicians only need to take 3A.

And this is expanded by William=E.=Newkirk 

> Tech requires Element 2 and 3A
> Tech Plus requires Element 1A, 2, and 3A
> General requires Element 1B, 2, 3A, and 3B.
> 
> difference between a General and a Tech is 13 WPM and a written test.
> 
> before March 21, 1987 there was just 1 test for technician and general, but 
> that's history now.  Of course anyone upgrading to general from the pre-1987 
> tech license gets credit for 3B if they can show they held the license before 
> that date.
> 
> Definitely 2 tests.  25 Q for Tech, 25 Q for General.

	So does this mean they made the Technician test even easier?
Wow. I assume "Tech Plus" - something the FCC do not seem to have in
their database - means Tech with Morris. 










-- 
Julian Macassey, julian@bongo.info.com  N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA
742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice (213) 653-4495
From: bsplaine@mtmtl8.sr.hp.com (Bill Splaine)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Wanted : Icom 228H Mods
Date: 24 Jul 92 13:32:35 GMT
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (NMD MTA MWTD)

If you find any mods that don't appear as common replies to your note, I
would like to know what they are.  I have both a 228H and 229H.
Thanks and 73 de Bill N6GHG
From: royle@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Roy W Lewallen)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Inverted-L Question
Keywords: antenna swr inverted-l
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:59:00 GMT



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

>I just put up a 3/8-wave inverted-L for 80 and 40 meters as described in
>July '91 QST.  The article says that the feed-point impedance on 40 should
>be around 100 ohms purely resistive and vary from 70 to 130 ohms with some
>inductive reactance on 80.

>Well, once I got it up, I took the rig and cross-needle power meter out to
>the feedpoint.  I had about 2.3:1 on 40 at the low end and it got higher as
>frequency went up - antenna is a little long.  No problem.

>Before pruning, I ran about 51 ft. of RG-59 into the shack.  I figured
>this would reduce feedline SWR once the antenna was resonant (100 ohms to
>75 better than 100 to 50) as article stated also.

>When I went into the shack to get an initial reading, the SWR was damn-near
>perfect!  OK, so I stumbled onto the correct length of 75-ohm coax to give
>me 50 ohms at the end.

>The question is:

>SOULD I PRUNE THE ANTENNA FOR RESONANCE OR LEAVE IT THE HELL ALONE?

>I intend to use a tuner anyway to match it to my solid-state rig.  The
>antenna seems to work OK on 40.  I've called three stations and they all
>came right back.  Two in the daytime at about 200-400 miles and one at
>night at about 550 miles.  All gave good reports.  I haven't tried it on 80
>yet.

>I don't clearly understand what I am giving up, or what I would gain with
>the antenna tuned exactly.  It is broadbanded as hell - 1.05:1 at bottom of
>40 to 1.55:1 at top of the band.  I have a series capacitor made from
>RG-213 in series for 80 - SWR about 2.25:1 and I use the tuner to match to
>rig.  I short the cap for use on 40.


>                        73 de AA8DX
>                        Wally Blackburn
>                        wrb@ccsitn.att.com
>                        att!ccsitn!wrb


Nothing you can do by changing the feedline or pruning this antenna will
significantly improve its pattern or gain.

There's nothing magic about resonance. As you know, resonance is the
frequency at which the feedpoint reactance is zero. And it's nothing more.
There's no abrupt change in any characteristic of an antenna when tuned to
resonance -- performance is essentially the same at nearby frequencies. The
RG-59 is, as you stated, transforming the antenna impedance to something near
the 50 + j0 ohms your transmitter likes to see. As far as the line goes, non-
unity SWR on a line this length won't hurt anything at all unless you're
running a KW or more. (At high power levels, a cable the size of RG-59 might
overheat or arc over if run with an elevated SWR.) For the same reason,
putting a transmatch or network at the transmitter end to make your rig happy
on 80 meters is fine, too. It won't hurt to prune the antenna, but it won't
make it work one bit better. You're not giving up a thing by leaving the
antenna as it is.

73,
Roy Lewallen
W7EL
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: penfold@crchh344.bnr.ca (Harvey Schwartz)
Subject: Alinco DJ-580T Question
Reply-To: penfold@crchh344.bnr.ca (Harvey Schwartz)
Organization: Bell Northern Research
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 18:56:46 GMT

   When both volume levels are turned all the way down and the squelch
is set to a normal operating position, and a qso is taking place on a
repeater on vhf, I can hear popping noises whenever the repeater is
accessed.  I suppose this could happen on uhf also, but I haven't
noticed it yet.
   Has anyone else noticed this phenomenon, and is this a bug in the
design?
From: jkearman@arrl.org (Jim Kearman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Morse Cuts Through The <>
Date: 29 Jul 92 11:20:06 EDT
Organization: American Radio Relay League

Julian Macassey writes: 
 
>        The July 18th-24th 1992 edition of the Economist (U.S. Edition)
>has a special section on "The Legal Proffesion". The World's second
>oldest according to John Mortimer (who dat?).
> 
>        On Page 9 of the supplement is an ad from Arthur Andersen. They
>are touting their services as expert witneses and and "strategic
>consultants". The slant of the article is that they will cut through
>the jargon and code. 
> 
>        Two thirds of the page is covered with printed Morris. What
>does the Morris say? Two words - yes, I know two words in  2/3 of a
>page - the words are: Gobbledgook and Nonsense. Are Arthur Andersen
>trying to tell us something?

Yes! Morse cuts through when other modes don't! Julian, even you
got the message! :>

****************************************************************

JIM KEARMAN, KR1S                    Voice: 203-666-1541 ext 279
ARRL Assistant Technical Editor	     FAX:   203-665-7531
Author of `The DXCC Companion'	     ARRL Headquarters
Editor of `Now You're Talking!,'     225 Main Street
ARRL License Manuals,		     Newington, CT 06111
ARRL Instructor Guides		     e-mail: jkearman@arrl.org

*****************************************************************



 
 
-- 
Julian Macassey, julian@bongo.info.com  N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA
742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice (213) 653-4495
 
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc