HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adams@chuck.dallas.sgi.com (Charles Adams)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: MFJ-564 Deluxe Iambic Paddle Review
Date: 22 Nov 92 22:11:26 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

Scott,

thanks for the followup.

on the quality issue.  yes, mfj (and i own a bunch of their stuff)
is noted for poor quality for circuit boards, soldering techniques,
etc.

the paddle is of pretty good quality, thus the reason for my saying
it was a bencher.  it is well made except for the points that i made
in previous posting.

an additional note.  it has four tapped holes in the base for the mounting
of the mfj keyer.

73,

chuck adams, k5fo  70+wpm cw, CP-60
From: coolguy@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (Guy Shechter)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Johns Hopkins?
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 19:38:58 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

Is there a ham club or station at Johns Hopkins University?

Thanks

--
coolguy@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (Guy Shechter)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 943-2728
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Xref: sparky rec.radio.amateur.policy:1855 rec.radio.amateur.packet:2962
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: Bulletin FWDING on 2Meters.
From: paul@n3eop.pgh.pa.us (paul)
Date: 15 Nov 92 01:41:38 GMT
Organization: CrossRoads in Elizabeth, PA

steve@zero.com (Steve Urich) writes:

> 
> 	Hello, I would like some input on policies about forwarding bulletins
> 	on 2 meter user freqs. Could anyone acknowledge if there is a national
> 	forwarding policy that limits or restricts forwarding bulletins on
>     2 meters?

> 	However there are 2 remaining systems that are still using the old
> 	One user at a time type pbbs's that ARE NOT willing to upgrade their
> 	software and at least another tnc for a fwding freq. 
> 
> 	I personally feel if they want to continue to use 2meters for bulletin
> 	forwarding they should: A: Only get a restricted distrubution.
> 	B: Use Beams instead of amplifiers so it will cut down on the user
> 	interference. C: Reevaluate their worth, are they contributing or
> 	hindering fellow packet operators with their operations. Consider
> 	the future of packet and how large the distrubutions are going to
> 	be an weather single user pbbs's are a asset or a liability to
> 	the community.

Unfortunately, they have as much a right to be on that frequency as you 
do, so your options are very limited.  We had a situation in the 
Pittsburgh area where all the PBBSs were on 145.03, with the long haul 
and keyboarders on 145.01.  Then the sysops went to local forwarding on a 
220 freq (forwarding only, no users), which helped a lot.

Eventually, we went to a "cellular" approach, where there was one BBS per 
frequency per region.  There was then very little need for digipeaters, 
as most people were able to hit their local board directly.  Those who 
did not have a board to hit locally were able to use one of the high 
profile digis on .01 or .03 to get one of the remaining boards on those 
freqs.

There was one instance of a sysop who made a total annoyance of himself, 
but there wasn't much anyone could do.  So, his mail feed was cut, and he 
quickly came into line.

So, basically you can either move, or try to convince him to come into 
compliance.
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: paulf@umunhum.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty)
Subject: Re: Usefulness of Morse Code (and MicroSats)
Organization: The Three Packeteers
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:58:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.092900.16531@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>It's not the variable element length that's the problem, though that
>does require an adaptive algorithm, it's the incoherent on/off keying 
>that's the problem. Phase tracking a phase shift keyed signal is much
>easier in noise than reliably detecting the presence/absence of an 
>on/off keyed carrier. Having to adapt to varying element lengths due
>to random speeds with on/off keying is a problem in the presence of 
>impulse noise, of course. Machine sent encodings at a fixed speed and 
>spacing allow predictive algorithms to smooth out random noise hits.

That's probably why most folks prefer keyer - sent CW, even when decoding
by ear.  While it's true that there's some variance in element timing, the
variance itself often presents predictable patterns.  During WWII, for 
example, radio intercept stations were able to identify operators
individually, based on their timing -- there was a great deal of variety
between operators, but less so within an op's own sending.  In any event, as
you mention, newer adaptive algorithms are able to deal with this.

Impulse noise is far less prevalent at frequencies above 100 MHz, so it's much
easier to deal with the lack of coherency.

>With predictable bit timings, extremely narrow effective bandwidths
>can be synthesized through oversampling. If bit timing can be tied
>to an external stable source, tracking of signals 12 db below the
>noise floor has been demonstrated by the Lowfers with relatively
>simple homebrew equipment.

Just for fun, consider a spread spectrum system which uses about 2.4kHz of
bandwidth, and which is Morse coded...



--
-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX/5W1JX  | "Just name a hero, and I'll prove he's a bum."
->paulf@Stanford.EDU          |  -- Col. Gregory "Pappy" Boyington, USMC (ret)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: JSCHWITZ@ECLX.PSU.EDU (Jay G Schwitzgebel)
Subject: Re: Usefulness of Morse Code (and MicroSats)
Organization: Penn State Engineering Computer Lab
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 19:21:34 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <9467@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> hpb@hpb.cis.pitt.edu writes:

> In article <1992Nov11.184634.27080@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> paulf@umunhum.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty) writes:
> >In article <1992Nov11.021345.11013@hubcap.clemson.edu> andy@newton.cs.clemson.edu (Andrew J. Greenshields N3IGS) writes:
> >>  That might be an argument in favour of CW, but it is not an argument
> >>in favour of the CW requirement.
> >
> >As for access to HF, there's the oft cited treaty restriction.  My read
> >of the ITU at this point is that this requirement is UNLIKELY to disappear
> 
>    Come on guys...doesn't this belong in rec.radio.amateur.policy?  I've
> noticed little traffic in that group and I'm getting tired of this
> endless debate about the merits of CW.
> 
> Harry Bloomberg
> hpb@vms.cis.pitt.edu

Well, Harry, I found both that original post as well as your own followup
in rec.radio.amateur.policy, so it actually IS in the right place.  I 
suppose it's possible, of course, that it (and your own follow-up) was 
somehow double posted.  True, there is too much policy traffic in the 
rec.radio.amateur.misc group, but how often might that be due to cross-
posting?

Just wondering...

Jay Schwitzgebel   KD4RLM    

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: dbushong@wang.com (Dave Bushong)
Subject: Re: Third Party Traffic Question
Organization: Wang Labs, Lowell MA, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 03:02:29 GMT

hpb@hpb.cis.pitt.edu (Harry Bloomberg) writes:

>In article <1992Nov16.200429.25924@meaddata.com> pulse@meaddata.com (Tom Hesley) writes:
>>
>>Am I interpreting the notion of  third party traffic incorrectly?  Are
>>supervising hams considered by  the law  to  be  third parties in  the
>>above scenario?  Any comments would be appreciated.
>>
>   This sounds like a perfect topic for rec.radio.amateur.policy.  Enjoy!

Nice serve, great return.
-- 
Dave Bushong, Wang Laboratories, Inc.   Amateur Radio Callsign KZ1O
Project Leader, OCR products            kz1o@n0ary.#noca.ca.na
Internet: dbushong@wang.com
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: Kirk.Smith@launchpad.unc.edu (Kirk Smith)
Subject: Re: Is this legal?
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:18:30 GMT

Actually, I'm not sure if this would make a non-amateur transmitter
transmit.  If it's a paging transmitter, some of them are constant carrier,
so it would just add a few bits to the digital modulation, no?

Also, if the paging transmitter was already transmitting someone elses
regular page, and you activated it at the right time, it wouldn't stop
transmitting and then restart for your page, it would simply append your
paging info and THEN turn the TX off.

Hey..  I'm new at this.  Waiting for my license to arrive, and already I
can start playing armchair lawyer on the Internet.  What fun!  :-)

-ks

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: jgt10@uts.amdahl.com (John G. Thompson)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Other legal/illegal autopatch uses
Date: 18 Nov 92 23:14:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

I've had this questionable use of autopatch in mind.  Since the 
subject is back I'll ask for opinions.

A local radio station regularly asks listeners to report traffic 
problems to them by phone.  (If you have GTE you can do it free.)
If I use an autopatch to report a traffic problem to the radio station
am I in violation?

On one side I can see this as a public service.  I am providing information
indirectly to the public via the radio station.

On the other hand the call could be constured as doing business on 
amateur frequencies.

Any other points of view?

JGT
-- 

John G. Thompson        Amdahl Corporation      jgt10@uts.amdahl.com 
  KD6KID                P.O. Box 3470 MS 340    {sun,uunet}!amdahl!jgt10
#include <disclamer.h>  Sunnyvale, CA 94088     1-408-737-5708

Go ahead, flame me...I've got heavy duty surge protectors.
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Usefulness of Morse Code (and MicroSats)
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 09:29:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.014331.11266@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> paulf@umunhum.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty) writes:
>In article <VeV7TB3w165w@n3eop.pgh.pa.us> paul@n3eop.pgh.pa.us (paul) writes:
>>And it's much, much easier to build a machine that decodes FSK reliably 
>>than one for Morse.
>
>While it's true that the variable codeword of Morse makes life difficult for
>a demodulator, in practice you need to put a lot more power behind an FSK
>signal in order to obtain equivalent error rates.   Now, perhaps you could
>slow FSK down and trim the filter bandwidth, but then you should also allow
>CW to be sent via FMing, but that's a paper exercise.

It's not the variable element length that's the problem, though that
does require an adaptive algorithm, it's the incoherent on/off keying 
that's the problem. Phase tracking a phase shift keyed signal is much
easier in noise than reliably detecting the presence/absence of an 
on/off keyed carrier. Having to adapt to varying element lengths due
to random speeds with on/off keying is a problem in the presence of 
impulse noise, of course. Machine sent encodings at a fixed speed and 
spacing allow predictive algorithms to smooth out random noise hits.
With predictable bit timings, extremely narrow effective bandwidths
can be synthesized through oversampling. If bit timing can be tied
to an external stable source, tracking of signals 12 db below the
noise floor has been demonstrated by the Lowfers with relatively
simple homebrew equipment.

Gary KE4ZV
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: JSCHWITZ@ECLX.PSU.EDU (Jay G Schwitzgebel)
Subject: Other legal/illegal autopatch uses
Organization: Penn State Engineering Computer Lab
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 19:29:00 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

     After reading about using the autopatch for paging a ham to a specified
frequency, I wondered about something else.  Is it legal (or otherwise
generally accepted within the amateur community) to use the autopatch to
check messages on an answering machine?  I've heard of people doing it,
but it is clearly one of those borderline policy questions.  That's what
I had on my mind, however, I'd be interested in reading here about any
other similar questions concerning use of the autopatch.

Jay Schwitzgebel  KD4RLM
From: kb2ear@kb2ear.ampr.org (Scott R. Weis KB2EAR)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Is this legal?
Date: 15 Nov 92 16:59:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: kb2ear.1283
Organization: KB2EAR's Machine

Well localy we have a person who loves to call the FCC.  He heard somone
call a dialup pager and then he called the FCC.  Here is what he got
back.  "It is not legal to call a pager or cell phone because it makes a
non amateur transmitter transmit."

--
Scott R. Weis KB2EAR, EMT-A
Inernet:	kb2ear@kb2ear.ampr.org
Packet:		KB2EAR@KB2EAR.NJ.USA
Snail Mail:	10 Palmer Rd., Kendall Park, NJ, 08824-1228
Phone:		+1 908 297 0469

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: jon@Turing.ORG (Jon Gefaell (KD4CQY))
Subject: Re: Is this legal?
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 19:18:14 GMT

In article <1283@kb2ear.ampr.org> kb2ear@kb2ear.ampr.org (Scott R. Weis KB2EAR) writes:
>Well localy we have a person who loves to call the FCC.  He heard somone
>call a dialup pager and then he called the FCC.  Here is what he got
>back.  "It is not legal to call a pager or cell phone because it makes a
>non amateur transmitter transmit."

1.) This is a 'Friend of a Friend' story. Urban Legend
2.) If you call the FCC, you're likely to get a more
    restrictive interpetation. (This is a well known
    fact, and every Amateur is encouraged to bring
    these questions up within the Amateur Community,
    Notable W5YI, or ARRL, etc...
3.) What happens when you make an autopatch call, and
    the recipient is on a Cellular Phone?

So, go get your facts a bit straighter, and ask your local lid
to leave the FCC alone.
From: paulf@umunhum.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Usefulness of Morse Code (and MicroSats)
Date: 19 Nov 92 01:51:57 GMT
Organization: The Three Packeteers

In article <wRw7TB4w165w@n3eop.pgh.pa.us> paul@n3eop.pgh.pa.us (paul) writes:
>I can demonstrate the utility of SSB, FM, Packet, RTTY, AMTOR, PACTOR, 
>SSTV, FSTV, FAX, programming in C, and being able to rebuild a Chrysler 
>2.2 engine.  Yet I don't see the need to require knowledge of any of them 
>to use any other.

While that's somewhat true, it's also not relevant; the question is whether
or not knowledge should be required in order to pass an exam, not for use.

And, at the moment, yes, we DO require a demonstration of technical knowledge
of SSB, FM PAcket, RTTY, AMTOR, SSTV, FSTV, and FAX in order to pass elements
2-4 of the exam.  This is required, even if you never intend on using those
modes, because the average ham should know about such things.


--
-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX/5W1JX  | "Just name a hero, and I'll prove he's a bum."
->paulf@Stanford.EDU          |  -- Col. Gregory "Pappy" Boyington, USMC (ret)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Usefulness of Morse Code (and MicroSats)
From: paul@n3eop.pgh.pa.us (paul)
Date: 13 Nov 92 18:19:55 GMT
Organization: CrossRoads in Elizabeth, PA

paulf@umunhum.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty) writes:

> In article <1992Nov11.021345.11013@hubcap.clemson.edu> andy@newton.cs.clemson

> >  That might be an argument in favour of CW, but it is not an argument
> >in favour of the CW requirement.  As has been said many times before,
> >there have been many arguments in favour of CW, but not one in favour
> >of requiring CW in order to be able to use the HF bands for voice and
> >other digital modes apart from CW.
> 
> Not so.  Demonstrating the utility of CW lends credence to the argument that
> CW is a skill that the average (read general class) amateur should acquire.

I can demonstrate the utility of SSB, FM, Packet, RTTY, AMTOR, PACTOR, 
SSTV, FSTV, FAX, programming in C, and being able to rebuild a Chrysler 
2.2 engine.  Yet I don't see the need to require knowledge of any of them 
to use any other.
From: lucky@ece.iisc.ernet.IN
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: PAX: An Address Request
Date: 17 Nov 92 09:20:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: ece.9211170920.AA29581
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu
Originator: daemon@ucsd.edu


Hello everybody!

It's nice to see the requests for PAX pouring in. One of the people
who requested a copy is Brett Breitwieser, but my message to him
got bounced back from an intermediate node. The transcript is appended;

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
>>> HELO netcom.netcom.com
<<< 553 Local configuration error, hostname not recognized as local
554 <lancelot@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us>... Service unavailable

Can someone help to get this msg across to Brett? (Brett, if you're
tuned in, would like an alternate route to you. The netcom node seems
to be behaving strangely). Brett's address is lancelot@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us

Lucky, VU2LBW
lucky@ece.iisc.ernet.in
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: garnet@borland.com (Garnet Chaney)
Subject: Re: FT-23 Mods for Packet Operation
Originator: garnet@genghis.borland.com
Organization: Borland International
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:51:00 GMT

In article <9211190934.aa06645@ece.iisc.ernet.in> lucky@ece.iisc.ernet.IN writes:
>
>
>Here is a mod which you can try out to get your FT-23 working on
>packet. The FT-23 handie has an auto-save feature which cannot
>be disabled from the keyboard. Hence, a tendency to loose
>incoming packets sometimes. Jumper 10 on the control board is used
>for the SAVE feature. Disabling this jumper is all you need to
>do to shut off the auto-save and get on packet.
>
>73 de Lucky, VU2LBW
>
>lucky@ece.iisc.ernet.in
>

Wouldn't a simpler fix be to set the squelch so that it is always open?
Radios dont go into auto-save if the squelch is open, and the TNC can
tell the difference between noise and packets, so everything should
work just fine if you dont plan on listening to the output of the radio
by ear. 

- Garnet   KC6YKE
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: TCP/IP Routing Help  
From: Steve_Wright@kcbbs.gen.nz (Steve Wright)
Date: 20 Nov 92 02:22:44 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

>  
>It's great to use rough geographical bounds to define address groupings,  
>but remember that radio waves don't obey borders.  By definition, a  
>network consists of stations that can reach each other (and therefore in  
>most places 44.xx <ain't> a network!).  Subnets should be assigned based  
>on connectivity, not geography.  
  
Yes, but you assign IP addresses according to what RF domain (repeater) they  
belong to, not which geographical area.  A (bit-regen 9k6) repeater  may  
provide coverage to nodes that overlap geographical boundaries, but to  
allocate different subnet addresses to nodes sharing one repeater seems silly.
And what if a user has ports on two repeaters/subnets?  
  
>  
>The proposal that Jeff Townsend, WB8LYJ, came up with for Ohio after he  
>and I had some talks is basically that the state would be divided into  
>four quadrants -- NE,NW,SW,NE -- with each quadrant subdivided into four  
>subquadrants.  
>  
>Subnets would be normally be assigned around switches or servers, and  
>the subnet address would be based on the geographical location OF THE  
>SWITCH/SERVER ONLY.  All users "homing" to that switch or server would  
>have an address in that subnet, regardless of their geographical  
>location.  
  
This all assumes that your users are not using RSPF or any other routing  
protocol and have only ONE port on their system. If a user has more than one  
port, the routing then gets impossibly complex if you are going to start  
typing 'route add ' anything...  
  
>  
>So, you have a geographical structure that simplifies wide-area routing,  
>with local subnets that are fully connected around a switch or server.  
  
aren't all all NOS nodes switches and servers ??  
  
a Question:  
  
 How do you fix the 'hidden transmitter' problem  ?   Users 'homing' to a  
central switch sounds like (the bygone) days of digipeaters and CSMA on a  
simplex channel.. ;-)  but seriously ;-) how  is the hidden transmitter  
problem being solved  ?  I like the idea of two (one) 9K6 modem back to  
digital back replacing the audio stages of a UHF repeater (standard  
bandpass notch-reject type) triggered by a STATE-DCD in the modem.  
  
  
  
Digitally,  
  
Steve - ZL1BHD  
  
   
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: amolitor@nmsu.edu (Andrew Molitor)
Subject: Re: AmigaNOS 2.9j
Organization: Department of Mathematics
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:05:36 GMT

In article <9211161547.AA03318@tix.timeplex.com> roman@tix.timeplex.COM
	(Daniel Roman) writes:
>I'm looking to get the most recent version of AmigaNOS but John's system
>[130.88.202.27] that was mentioned in his announcement either has been
>down frequently or I can't get there from here.   Would someone who has
>managed to obtain it please put it on ucsd.edu or tell me where I can
>get it?

	I have gotten it in one of the intervals between netstorms
and placed it on moink.nmsu.edu, 128.123.4.58, in pub/amiganos. This
is a public service, in an effort to please someone who can send me
some documents, or give me some hints as to how to persuade AmigaNOS
to initiate a SLIP connection! I am attempting to set it up for a friend,
and cannot find an analogue to 'tip' suitable for manually initiating
the connection -- this is necessary, as the local SLIP server assigns
addresses dynamically (I suppose a really clever dialer could do it
too).

	Has anyone done this? Halp! Halp!


		Andrew

>____________________________________________________________________
>Dan Roman           |     ///      Internet:  roman@tix.timeplex.com
From: cvadratv@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Gateways to packet II
Date: 20 Nov 92 21:36:28 GMT
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Nntp-Posting-User: cvadratv

I was wondering how the internet/ham gateways work. Do they just collect and
then periodically forward email or are there actual real time connections into
the internet?

Also how expensive would a basic packet radio setup cost (excluding the
computer :) )

Eric
From: edb@cns.BRocku.CA (Ed Blasinski)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: H16 & PK232 connections
Date: 19 Nov 92 16:42:38 GMT
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu
Originator: daemon@ucsd.edu

   Does anybody have the pinout to connect a Icom H16 to a PK232MBX ?

.


From: bob@tardis.video.ARizona.EDU
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: KAMRe: KAM
Date: 17 Nov 92 15:02:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: tardis.2722
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu
Originator: daemon@ucsd.edu

Roland, 7J1AKI/WF4P asked in Packet-Radio Digest #312 for information on a
TAPR modification for otimizing the KAM on HF.  I assume that he is talking
about the TAPR DCD State Machine modification.  This will dramatically improve
DCD operation.  For the KAM, the optinalonal clock is also required.  You can
obtain further information by em-mail to me ;  e: rnielsen@tapr.ampr.org, or
wricontact:

Tucson Amateur Packet Rdadio
P.O. Box 12925
Tucson, AZ 85732
Phone 602-749-9479 (Tues- Fri, 10am - 3 pm MST , 1700-2200 UTC)
FAX 602-749-5636

73 de Bob W6SWE
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet