HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Realistic DX-160
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 07:17:45 GMT

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. It can be a real chore to re-string a broken dial cord.
>
>
>>I've heard about digital readouts being added to old radios.  Is this
>>possible with the 160 while keeping it's components 'original'?
>
>Anything is possible, but I wouldn't try this. It'll lik

Sounds easy enough. One thing though--Does  lineing up the pointer on
one mark re-calibrate the main dial calibrate the dial for all the marks?

Thanks!

Simon

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: bwilkins@iat.holonet.net (Bob Wilkins n6fri)
Subject: Re: 430mhz band under th
Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:23:07 GMT

laborde@oak.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Gregory R. LaBorde) writes:
: I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who noticed this. Vast tracts of 440 MHz
: lie dormant and unused, allocated to "private" systems. I am not against
...


There are even bigger tracts of spectrum from 431 MHz to 433 MHz and 435
MHz to 438 MHz   Thats about 5 megahertz of spectrum for all kinds of
amateur activity that does not include repeaters! How about side-band and
satellite activity or just plain old fm simplex.

-- 
Bob Wilkins    n6fri          voice 440.250+ 100pl san francisco bay area
bwilkins@holonet.net          packet n6fri @ w6pw.#nocal.ca.us
From: William=E.=Newkirk%Pubs%GenAv.Mlb@ns14.cca.CR.rockwell.COM
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: FCC Delays
Date: 23 Dec 92 23:05:54 GMT
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu
Originator: daemon@ucsd.edu

>Those who have suggested fees for the FCC.....That was tried once
>and ruled unconstitutional by the courts....FCC has to have
>appropriations (Congress has to fund them) to spend money.

nope.  it was that the FCC wasn't authorized by Congress to collect the fees 
and that there was no relationship between the fees charged and the work 
involved in processing the application.  Broadcasters used to get soaked and 
led the charge for fees to be based on cost of processing rather than worth to
the licensee.  Amateur Radio is unique that fees aren't collected (What's the 
restricted radiotelephone go for - $35 now?). 

>The fees would go into the general treasurey of the US. However,
>if legislation was passed for appropriations to the FCC based
>on an offset by fees collected, that could be a favorable
>argument to get a bill passed and signed into law. Fact is,
>that the FCC if they could collect a $100 per application, not
>one cent could be used by the FCC the way the law stands now.

This is how it should be.  Letting the organization that collects the money 
keep it is a recipe for trouble.  One really good example is in Volusia 
County, Florida (Daytona Beach).  The sheriff (Vogel, i believe) has his 
profiles of potential drug smugglers and stops people accordingly.  He finds 
and keeps a lot of money.  However - people who get stopped and have money 
confiscated are not all drug smugglers.  Many come up clean.  The Rub is that 
they don't get the money back when it's shown they didn't do anything wrong 
other than drive through a checkpoint and met some criteria for further 
searching.

Of course, the Sheriff's Department is very happy to keep the money.  The more
money they find, the more neat stuff they can buy.

I'm against drug smuggling, but I'm also against unlawful searches and 
seizures (it's not illegal to have $10K on you - stupid maybe - but not 
illegal.  it's illegal to sell illegal drugs to get the $10K and if that's 
what you did then the law enforcement folks can confiscate your money).  After
all, that cash could be just straight unreported income from a "cash only" 
business that's skimming the tax money.

You definitely need to have collection and appropriation separate.  Too much 
room for game playing if you get the right foxes guarding the henhouse.

73, bill wb9ivr
From: Larry.Mc.Donald@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: ups gives up on 220?
X-Sender: newtout 0.05 Dec 30 1992
Date: 31 Dec 92  09:40:04

 jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu 
   
   (Jay Maynard)

> In article <C00u1E.8FJ@NeoSoft.com> jreese@NeoSoft.com (Jim Reese) 
> writes: >Actually, UPS has withdrawn it's application for licenses in
> the 220 band.   
> Really? Has anyone else applied for licenses there? (Probably so, but
> we can hope...) Maybe it's time to petition to get the frequencies
> back? -- 

   UPS had claimed that they were going to develop a new 
technology to use on the 220-222 if they got it, which was one of 
the primary reasons it was taken away. They then announced that 
they intended to use NBFM, so the spectrum was not given to them. 
The FCC has recieved more than 10,000 requests for the band.
   The ARRL has petitioned to get it back, but it's not very 
likely.



... Larry.Mc.Donald, N6ZMB, Fullerton, California!  <cough, cough>
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.10

--- Maximus 2.01wb
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: labelle@hfglobe.intel.com (George La Belle)
Subject: Antenna dilema & GAP?
Organization: Intel Corporation
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 00:22:13 GMT



	I'm trying to improve my antenna system on the HF bands.

	Right now I have an inverted V, of sorts, that's 25' at the apex and
	about 60 feet long fed by open wire line and tuned with an old
	Johnson balanced ant. tuner. Unfortunately I really want to work
	600 miles south on 40 but my lot goes N-S (and so does the V).
	I don't want to put op a typical trap dipole cause I know they have
	ground losses. So, to improve I'm considering 2 options. 

	1)The GAP (or something similar in a "no ground" vertical). Don't
	know much about these or how good they may be.

	2) A vertical/horizontal hybrid out of the old Antenna Handbook. It is
	a 30 foot vertical (mounted on the roof) worked against a 30 foot
	horizontal wire, fed with open wire line and tuned for freq. Not
	familiar with the performance of this either, but at least I
	can get more height and swing the horizontal leg around to get a 
	signal out, more or less, in the direction I want to go.

	Suggestions, anyone? Any info on the GAP or R7 type verticals appre-
	ciated, also.

		George WB6YZZ
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: 430mhz band under th
Date: 27 Dec 92 15:51:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: ke4zv.1992Dec27.155154.20108
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems

In article <BzvvFp.IM3@NeoSoft.com> jreese@NeoSoft.com (Jim Reese) writes:
>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. 

Excuse me, but $15 a month *is* outrageous. Around here, repeater clubs
charge $15 a *year* to support the repeater. The machine I operate isn't
club supported. I've hit the regular users 3 times for donations since
it's been on the air. They've come through with more than enough money
to keep the system going. There's currently less than $800 tied up in the 
widest coverage 440 MHz machine in Georgia. It is an *open* machine by 
user request.

Gary

-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
From: jmeyers@ecst.csuchico.edu (Jeff Meyers)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: FT-470 For Sale
Date: 31 Dec 92 22:32:35 GMT
Followup-To: rec.radio.swap
Distribution: usa
Organization: California State University, Chico
NNTP-Posting-Host: psycho.ecst.csuchico.edu


For Sale: Yaesu FT-470 dual band HT - complete setup.
-----------------------------------------------------

FT470 (unit as sold new)			$350
	- radio
	- modified for out of band VHF
	- 7.2v 600mah NiCd Battery Pack
	- wall charger
	- dual band rubber duck
	- soft case
	- owner's manual

PA-6 (car adapter/charger unit)			$18
	- includes cigarette plug

FNB-12S (12v 600mAh battery)			$45
	- Yaesu brand
	- 6-7 months old

NC-29 (5 hour drop-in charger)			$60
	- with timer modification

CSC-45 (softcase for 12v battery)		$10
						=====
Total priced individually			$483


I prefer to sell everything as a package.  The package price is $450.
I will give priority to those interested in the entire package...

** Note: shipping is extra!  Expect an extra $10 for shipping in the
         continental US - more for those of you in remote places :-)
-- 
============================================================================
| Jeff Meyers      |  jmeyers@ecst.csuchico.edu      | 39x43'N  121x48'W   |
| Chico, Ca 95926  |  KD6DIS@KE6LW.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NA  | Grid: CN80-CM99 ??  |
============================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: jcw@kd4dts.dixie.com (John C. Wren)
Subject: Re: ICOM 901 vs Kenwood TM-741
Organization: kd4dts
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 13:39:38 GMT

shibumi@joes.garage.com (Kenton A. Hoover) writes:

>gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>The IC901 is getting a little long in the tooth by Japanese mobile rig
>>standards, but it will stack more than 3 bands, and the control head,
>>and it's *cable*, are really small. The microphone also does *not* attach
>>to the control head and that's a major win. 

>The microphone doesn't attach to the control head on the 741 either.  It
>plugs into a seperate connector that can be placed anywhere that the user
>wishes.


>| Kenton A. Hoover                                                            |
>| P.O. Box 882643                                             +1 415 957 3614 |
>| San Francisco, Kalifornia 94188-2643                shibumi@joes.garage.com |
>|==============442.075+100=146.850+=444.625+131.8=440.900+114.8===============|

As an owner of 2 TM-741s that are remote mounted, this is not completely true.
You can attach the microphone anywhere you want *if* you shell out the bucks
for a remote mount kit.  This allows you to remote both the microphone and
the control head, independently of each other.  There is a short remote 
mount kit, and a long one.

On a different note, I like the TM741, most of the time.  It has some really
nice features.  One the other hand, it doesn't do a couple of things that
I *really* wish it did.  Like being able to force AM or FM mode, regardless
of what it thinks it should be (DF'ing in the aircraft band, for instance).
CTCSS & DTMF Receive (Paging) are separate modules that will set you back
about $65 for the pair.  Autodialer is a little stupid, as it drops carrier
for a short time before sending the autodial string (some repeaters have a
real problem with this).  Can't clone it (with 200 memories per band, this
can be really annoying to update one radio, then have to go back and do the
other.  How primitive).  

It *does* support 3 bands, although 1.2 Ghz is kinda pricey.  Entry level
radio is cheaper than a 901.  Some people have reported problems in the
finals of 901s.  I prefer the display of the 741 over a 901 (personal,
you mileage may vary).  901 gets a little wierd after the 2nd band.  The
741 doesn't sub-band any frequency.  The *only* different between the
bands is that one has PTT selected, and the other 2 don't.  I don't think
the 901 has a clock/calander.  741 supports powering itself on and/or off
at a selected time.  It can power itself off after a period of no signal.
Built in time out timer for when you sit on Mr. Microphone.  (Don't think
that the 901 has that, not sure).

Anyways, you get the idea.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John C. Wren (kd4dts)			|  Word Prefect 5.1:  The choice of
jcw@kd4dts.dixie.com			|    religious scribes everywhere.
..!emory!rsiatl!kd4dts!jcw		|
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: 430mhz band under th
Date: 30 Dec 1992 17:27:38 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec29.161631.1@ttd.teradyne.com> rice@ttd.teradyne.com writes:
>  That works both ways. In an area where there's extremely high frequency
>congestion, If a pair of simplex stations pick a repeater input on which to
>hold a simplex QSO (and the repeater's not in use at the time), any station
>knowingly transmitting on the input and QRMing their QSO is equally at fault.

...assuming that they can hear him. If the repeater is PLed, and they're not
using the repeater's PL tone, then someone using the repeater from across town
won't know that thay're there. Nevertheless, if he gets into a conversation on
the repeater with someone else who, likewise, cannot hear the "simplex"
conversation, then the only interference going on is from the "simplex" users.

>The only thing the rules say is that the repeater operator can turn off the
>repeater to prevent the 'non members' from being repeated. The rules say
>nothing about giving the repeater operator(s) EXCLUSIVE rights to the
>frequencies, input or output. The spectrum is still a shared resource - it's
>first come first served.

OK...but why should someone hold a "simplex" conversation on a frequency known
to be a repeater input? The only reason I can come up with is that they
deliberately wish to QRM the repeater, especially if they do not QSY after
being advised of the situation. Otherwise, they can accomplish the same thing
by using a repeater's OUTPUT frequency, and they thereby gain the advantage
that the repeater user is much more likely to hear them and avoid them.

It is simply not good amateur practice to hold a conversation on the
repeater's input frequency if you do not intend to use the repeater. Folks
have been held to be maliciously interfering with the users of the repeater
for doing so.
-- 
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: tskelton@ncrclm.ClemsonSC.NCR.COM (Tom Skelton)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Status of P5RS7 ??
Date: 29 Dec 92 15:34:43 GMT
Reply-To: tskelton@ncrclm.ClemsonSC.NCR.COM (Tom Skelton)
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR E&M CLEMSON Liberty, SC

Anyone know when Romeo and crew will QRT from North Korea? (for 
those of you wonder who the thunderous pileups on the bands lately
can be *blamed on*, it's probably this expedition)     I heard 
Dec. 31, 1992 and then another time I heard 2/4/93.  Since one of the
Russian ops apparently had to go home, and word is out that the 
expedition is under *certain local stress*, I wonder if they will be
able to hang in another day much less month.  
By the way, I am still one of the unfortunate many from the east coast
that has not worked P5RS7 (yes, for those of you who think this is a
typo it is not).  I called for 4 hours on 20 cw 2 nights ago with no luck.
Thanks for any info..73, Tom WB4IUX

-- 
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: little@nuts2u.enet.dec.com (nuts2u::little)
Subject: Re: Soldering radials to SO-239's
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 09:41:02 GMT
X-Posted-Via: NEWS-NOTES gateway (a hack!)

This brings up a related question.  How do you get the chassis mount SO-239
to take solder at the mounting holes?  I find that the center conductor is
copper(?) and takes solder well, but trying to get the body of the
connector to take solder seems almost impossible.  I almost always melt the
insulation before getting the body to take solder. :-(

73,
Todd
N9MWB
From: cjackso@uswnvg.com (Clay Jackson)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: AEA Isoloop comments wanted
Date: 24 Dec 92 17:10:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: U S WEST NewVector Group, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Hi Scott - I have an ISOLOOP in an attic - the loop is bent into what
looks approximately like a figure 8 (in order to clear the rafters, it
still bangs 'em); and it seems to work pretty well.  I'm feeding it
with a TS-680 and about 100W.  I'm not the strongest signal around, but
I've found that I can work whoever I can hear.  

A couple of caveats:

1)  Make sure you feed it with good coax. I had some old RS (Radio
Shaft) RG-8 that I tried, and it radiated more than the loop!  I switched
to 9913 and things got a LOT better.

2)  Make sure that you keep the antenna itself AT LEAST 4' from any
large metallic objects (I suspect that a balcony rail would be OK, 
especially if it was perpendicular to the loop). 

3)  Also be sure to follow AEAs recommendations about the placement
of the feedline.  When I first put up my 'loop, I was so low that I had to 
run the feedline parallel to the 'loop about 2' under the loop.  I 
had no END of problems (feedline radiation - even with the 9913, RF
in the shack, hi SWR) until I pushed the antenna up about 4' off
the floor of the attic.

4)  Make sure you get a fairly recent model, or that you make the mod
(AEA will send you the parts) for the loop controller to slow it down

5)  Be patient learning to work it - particularly when changing bands.
It's a bit hairy to get used to tuning it all the time, but I found
that after a week or so of use (hour or so/nite) that it's become 
second nature, and that I "know" how long to hold the buttons.  I still
occasionally miss the noise peak after I've changed bands.

In summary - it's a great little antenna, particularly in tight
situations.  I've also had a chance to compare one against a
Cushcraft R7, and I couldn't hear/see a difference in receive, and
got no difference in signal reports.


73!
--
Clay Jackson - N7QNM
US WEST NewVector Group Inc
Bellevue, WA
uunet!uswnvg!cjackso
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: jsalmi@vipunen.hut.fi (Jouni T Salmi)
Subject: Panasonic RF-B600?
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: 29 Dec 92 10:16:46 GMT



Does anyone have experience with National Panasonic RF-B600 receiver? I am most  interested of it's strong-signal capabilities, especially with an outdoor antenna. And is it stabile enough for SSB reception?

Thanks for comments in advance!

Jouni.Salmi@hut.fi
From: a-kevinp@microsoft.COM (Kevin Purcell, Rho)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: UK EMC rules and UK repeaters
Date: 29 Dec 92 18:46:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: ingate.9212291102.aa09123
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu
Originator: daemon@ucsd.edu

In the recent posting of RSGB Bulliten they had the following notes:

January's Radio Communication has now been posted to all RSGB members. It
includes a full description of the Licence changes regarding EMC, and gives
details of the Radiocommunications Agency's new EMC Leaflet, EMC and the Radio
Amateur. Details are also given of the latest licensing negotiations between
the RSGB and the RA and there is a full report of the meeting between the RA,
the City and Guilds and the RSGB to review the first year of the Novice
Licence.

And:

The Central Birmingham VHF repeater GB3BM has now closed down due to problems
of security at the site, and the repeater keeper has relinquished the
franchise. The franchises for GB3BM and GB3AM in South Birmingham are now
vacant and any group of radio amateurs is invited to contact the RSGB's
Repeater Management Group with a view to taking over either or both
franchises. Application should be in writing to the RMG Chairman, Geoff Dover,
G4AFJ, whose address is correct in the RSGB's Call Book. The Midland area
repeaters GB3BX, GB3CF, GB3MH and GB3WK are now on time clock operation, from
0700 to 1800GMT until further notice.

Two questions:

I'd appreciate more information on the new EMC rules (I expect this is 
to bring everyone into line with the new EEC EMC requirements. Is this 
a benefit to UK hams?

Franchises? So this is how the repeater system works in the UK. Who 
decided on the covered areas?

73 de Kevin Purcell N7WIM/G8UDP (Seattle, WA)          a-kevinp@microsoft.com
Do your interests match mine? If so call me. I'd like to hear from you.
QRP, Packet, TCP/IP, Digital voice, Macintosh, Spread Spectrum, Homebrew,
Satellites, Antenna design, Propagation, VHF/UHF weak signal, Microwave, QEX
From: randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: About transverters (was Weak signal VHF)
Date: 22 Dec 92 17:54:01 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

MROWEN%STLAWU.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Michael Owen W9IP) writes:

>Lastly, Geoff Webb asked about sources for transverters.  For 6 meters,
>the Tokyo Hi-Power HX-650 looks marvelous.  50 watts, dual switchable
>preamps (high/low gain), DBM, $500 +/-.  On 2 meters, the SSB
>Electronics transverter is available commercially, but its price is
>absurd (ca. $1,000).  Sinclabs (Ontario) makes old-style (dual-gate
>MOSFET, I think) units for 144 & 222.  They're much like the now-
>defunct Microwave Modules.  For 432, Down East Microwave makes a great
>no-tune transverter, kit or preassembled.


I just got a catalog from SSB Electronics.  They are a German firm
with an office in the U.S.   They sell 20 watt assembled transverters
for 6m, 2m, 1.25m, 70cm, and 23cm for about $800 each.   They are
expensive, but they claim to outperform any multimode VHF/UHF rig on the
market.  They also sell receive-only transverters for about $190 and
T/R transverters without relays and power amps for around $450.  I have
heard that they make very high quality products.  It was interesting
looking at their products, even though they're out of my price range.


-- 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Randall Rhea                                        Informix Software, Inc. 
Project Manager, MIS Sales/Marketing Systems    uunet!pyramid!infmx!randall