The trick is that Pat is passing messages on behalf of the control op and is
acting under his direct supervision at all times. Her role is no different
than that of a voice keyer or other automated device. She differs only in two
respects (1. carbon based life form vs. silicon based and 2. totally
unwilling to let some old geezer like Stan to tell her what to do).
>From Joseph M. O'Brien" <jobrien@minerva.cis.yale.edu Thu Apr 4 18:10:20 1996
From: Joseph M. O'Brien" <jobrien@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Joseph M. O'Brien)
Subject: Third Parties
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960404125318.18623A-100000@morpheus>
Hi Stan!
A very interesting situation you pose . . . However, there are
only three possibilities in Pary 97--1st, 2nd & 3rd parties--because they
cover all situations. Communication have to be from control operator to
control operator (1st & 2nd parties). Being that to be a control operator
you have to be a licensed amateur and that licensed amateurs have to
operate within their license privliges, your wife cannot be the control
operator. The fact that your wife is passing messages for you is
immaterial here. Check out 97.115(b)(1)&(2). She is a third party--anyone
who isn't a control operator (what is left besides those people after
you've identified 1st and 2nd parties)--who is "participating in stating
the message." You're still the one responsible for the
transmissions--which is another way for the FCC to say that it's your
transmission whether it's your non-ham friend, KA7UFG outside her
privliges or your DVK. :-)
73,
Joe, WI2E
jobrien@minerva.cis.yale.edu
On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Stan Griffiths wrote:
> Ok, now that I have your attention, try this scenerio for fun:
>
> W7NI is the Control Operator. KA7UFG (my Tech Class wife) is sitting in the
> chair and speaking over the mike during a contest. She is passing contest
> reports and the rig is transmitting in the Extra portion of the band. She
> is talking to stations (on my behalf, as the Control OP) in countries the
> U.S. does not have third party agreements with.
>
> It is clear that W7NI is the first party. It is clear that the control op
> of the stations we are working is the second party. It is NOT clear that
> KA7UFG is a third party. I can't find any reference in Part 97 that
> identifies her role. I don't think that this will necessarily make her a
> third party by default since I can't find anything in Part 97 that says
> that. So her role is undefined.
>
> All of the messages being passed through the station in the form of contest
> exchanges are on behalf of the control operator who is the first party and
> not a third party so they are not third party traffic.
>
> I guess what I am saying is that I cannot find a Part 97 rule that prohibits
> an unlicensed person from passing a message on behalf of a first party to a
> second party located in any country we are permitted to talk with regardless
> of third party agreements. For a third party agreement to have any meaning,
> a third party has to be involved and a message has to be transmitted on
> their behalf. There is a third PERSON involved all right (KA7UFG), but no
> messages are being sent on her behalf and I see no Part 97 rule that
> identifies her as a "third party".
>
> Even if she could be positively identified as a "third party", Part 97 says
> a first party can't pass messages to a second party on behalf of a third
> party. What would be happening here is a third party would be passing a
> message to a second party on behalf of the first party. I can't find a rule
> against that.
>
> This is really not unlike Dan, KL7Y's, perspective on this issue.
>
> I can't wait to see what comments THIS will bring!! :-)
>
> Stan w7ni@teleport.com
>
>
>From w7ni@teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) Thu Apr 4 18:27:01 1996
From: w7ni@teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) (Stan Griffiths)
Subject: 3rd party traffic and contests - solution
Message-ID: <199604041827.KAA20074@desiree.teleport.com>
>In a message dated 96-04-02 21:32:03 EST, you write:
>
>>A simpler thing is to copy the page out of the FCC Rule Book that lists
>>the countries with which we have 3rd-party agreements and post it near
>>the rig.
>
>In the grand scheme of life, I will worry about this one, when the FCC starts
>citing all the big multi's during contests, when it shuts down the maritime
>mobile nets, when it shuts down the ministry phone patch nets, etc. and not
>until ....
>
>Denny
How about if the League or the CQWW committee decide to DQ for this
regardless of what the FCC says. Would that impact you at all . . . ?
Stan w7ni@teleport.com
>From K0RC - Robert Chudek <K0RC@pclink.com> Thu Apr 4 19:16:53 1996
From: K0RC - Robert Chudek <K0RC@pclink.com> (K0RC - Robert Chudek)
Subject: 4-1000 Info Please?
Message-ID: <199604041917.NAA30510@pclink.com>
Hello Brian...
In the mid 60's I built my own 4-1000A amplifier using
scrounged parts. I tested it on 80 meters and found out
I could pin the Drake W4 wattmeter ( > 2000 Watts ) into
a dummy load. The efficiency would drop down on the higher
bands, but it could generate over 1500 Watts on 10 meters.
My design used a 5KVA pole transformer (pole-peg) and
full wave diode bridge rectifier. If I remember correct,
it ran about 4800 V DC full-load on the plate. The filament
of this tube runs over 100 watts and in the grounded grid
configuration required lots of drive ( > 100 Watts ). I
was using a Drake TR-4C which could easily deliver over
200 watts of output power to the amplifier.
My amplifier had a band-switched tuned input to match
the transceiver to the amplifier. This helped lower the
RF drive requirements. It also used a hefty squirrel cage
blower to pump the air through the socket/chimney/tube.
Here's the area's I would pay attention to when looking
for any amplifier you want to use in RTTY contest service:
1) Low RF drive requirement in order to run your
transceiver on low power. Look for the RTTY
specs in your owners manual, most transceivers
are not rated for 100% RTTY duty cycle at full power.
2) A tube or tubes with 1000 watt plate dissipation and
the appropriate socket & chimney air flow system.
Many tubes die because the glass seal fails when the
pins become overheated. The RCA/Eimac tube specification
sheets list airflow requirements and maximum seal
temperatures.
3) Properly engineered tank circuit and band-switch assembly.
If it is not properly designed, the RF circulating tank
currents can destroy the coils and band-switch. This
happened to me on my first attempt (I actually melted
the coil-form into a puddle in the bottom of the RF deck!).
4) HV bleeder AND safety interlocks on the cabinetry. You
do not get a second chance with these voltages! I also
had a bleeder resistor failure in one of my amps. The
interlock safely discharged the HV in this case!
5) Documentation. There were many good amplifier designs
in the ARRL Handbook using the 4-400, 3-500, 3-1000, and
4-1000 tubes back in the 60's and 70's. As long as the
fellow building these units didn't compromise on the parts,
the amplifier would operate just fine.
To answer your capability question, a 4-1000 amplifier can
easily output 1.5 kW on RTTY/SB/CW if you deliver the required
RF drive. The amount of drive needed depends upon the amplifier
design, so you will have to ask the owner about this.
I am not sure of current replacement costs for a 4-1000A tube.
An indication of a "soft" tube is excessive RF drive required to
drive it and less than full power output. A good tube in a good
amplifier design will run more than 50% efficiency.
Here's a guideline for you:
Multiply the keydown DCV times PA current and divide by 2.
Example:
(4400 VDC X 600 mA = 2640 Watts input)
(2640 Watts input / 2 = 1320 Watts ouput)
You should expect 1300 watts minimum output if the tube and
amplifier are "up to snuff". If you can view the 4-1000 tube
when it is run at full output, the plate element inside will
glow a bright red/orange in color. You should not see any, or
very little, blue glow around the inside surface of the glass
envelope.
If there is excessive blue color or the plate runs yellow or
white, it's time to turn this 4-1000 into a lamp!
I hope this information helps you. I see Tom, W8JIT confirms
much of my experience too.
73 de Bob - K0RC
k0rc@pclink.com
--------------------
At 12:51 PM 4/4/96 +-100, Brian, KE7GH wrote:
>An offer to purchase a beefy single 4-1000 amp has come my way.
>With suitable power supply and cooling (which it allegedly has)
>what is (roughly) the RTTY capability as well as SSB/CW? I know
>this is a rugged tube, but could someone with a bit more knowledge
>set me straight on contest performance? What about replacement
>costs? Any other comments?
>
>(I don't wish to violate Part 97, just run RTTY conservatively)
>
>73 de Brian
>
>
>From Bruce (AA8U)" <aa8u@voyager.net Thu Apr 4 19:26:14 1996
From: Bruce (AA8U)" <aa8u@voyager.net (Bruce (AA8U))
Subject: Proposed New Contest Exchange
Message-ID: <199604041926.OAA18661@vixa.voyager.net>
Greetings Fellow Contesters,
Recently there was discussion here regarding the meaningless contest
exchanges that include a "signal report". I have been giving the issue some
thought, now that WPX SSB is history, and have come up with the following
proposal. I present this to the Internet Contest Reflector for your
consideration.
I propose that for some contests, the present sent "signal report", be
replaced with something which is more meaningful, not just more QRM. I
suggest that we use the HEX sum of the ASCII codes of our call signs rather
than the current 59(9) signal report. This could be in addition to your
State or other info presently in use.
I found the HEX codes for my call sign, AA8U, in my printer book. I suppose
decimal equivalents would work as well, maybe better. I think the nice thing
about HEX is that it is more challenging and uses letters as well as numbers
thereby making it more interesting than just plain numbers.
For my call sign, AA8U the following calculation produces a unique sum.
letter // hexidecimal code
----------------------------
A = 41
A = 41
8 = 38
U = 55
----------------
HEX Sum = 10F (read this "one zero F")
This sum, "10F" is not only unique to my call sign, but could serve in log
checking as a checksum of sorts. Granted, the ability to add in HEX is not
presently universal. Possibly, the use of HEX numbers could be replaced with
the decimal equivalent and then added making it easier for most contesters
to determine what their exchange should be. For "AA8U" I believe the decimal
number would be "271" in place of the HEX "10F".
I think this proposed change could have some other benefits and maybe some
not so beneficial. Regardless, I offer it to my fellow contesters for
consideration. Let's see where it takes us.
I present this in good faith, so if you want to flame me, I warn you in
advance, I have "duck feathers". HI HI
73 to all,
Bruce (AA8U)
>From Pete Soper <psoper@encore.com> Thu Apr 4 19:39:27 1996
From: Pete Soper <psoper@encore.com> (Pete Soper)
Subject: Proposed New Contest Exchange
Message-ID: <17291.9604041939@earl.encore.com>
Bruce, AA8U writes about checksumming callsigns, ending with:
> This sum, "10F" is not only unique to my call sign, but could serve in log
A polynomial like CRC16 or the like computed from your callsign *might* be
unique across all callsigns in the world, but a sum of ascii codes isn't
going to be unique across even a relatively small number of callsigns out
there. Luckily cntrl-alt-del-F1 in CT (and other fully debugged, well
supported contest log programs) will compute the CRC16 code automatically
so there is hope for your idea.
Regards,
Pete
KS4XG
>From Pete Soper <psoper@encore.com> Thu Apr 4 19:44:42 1996
From: Pete Soper <psoper@encore.com> (Pete Soper)
Subject: Proposed New Contest Exchange
Message-ID: <17376.9604041944@earl.encore.com>
Replace "polynomial like CRC16" with "32 bit polynomial" in my last message.
A 16 bit polynomial would of course not hack it!
Pete
KS4XG
>From SHAWN LIGHTFOOT <shawn.lightfoot@lun.lis.ab.ca> Thu Apr 4 18:54:00 1996
From: SHAWN LIGHTFOOT <shawn.lightfoot@lun.lis.ab.ca> (SHAWN LIGHTFOOT
<shawn.lightfoot@lun.lis.ab.ca>)
Subject: TH6DXX and 204BA
Message-ID: <8BE02CA.0065002814.uuout@lun.lis.ab.ca>
Ok all you out there with mega antenna farms. Help me out.
I have currently a TH6DXX, working nicely.
I have almost come to the conclusion that I will put up a 20 meter
monobander such as the Hy-Gain 204BA.
I don't know if the difference between the two antennas is significant
enough to warrant changing out the antennas and sacrificing 15 and 10.
I DO plan on putting up monobanders for 15 and 10 later on, both when
the sunspots cooperate, and mostly -when I can afford it!-.
For those of you who have had both the TH6 or TH7 and a 204BA, I'm
looking to hear some feedback on what you think.
Tnx,
Shawn
VE6PV
>From mraz@rdxsunhost.aud.alcatel.com (Kris I. Mraz) Thu Apr 4 19:58:56 1996
From: mraz@rdxsunhost.aud.alcatel.com (Kris I. Mraz) (Kris I. Mraz)
Subject: Proposed New Contest Exchange
Message-ID: <9604041958.AA00843@maverick.aud.alcatel.com>
Bruce (AA8U) says:
> I suggest that we use the HEX sum of the ASCII codes of our call signs...
But if the number can be calculated from the callsign there is no need to
copy it. Just calculate it after the contest. Or get your logging software
to calculate it on the fly.
73
Kris AA5UO
mraz@aud.alcatel.com
>From Bruce (AA8U)" <aa8u@voyager.net Thu Apr 4 20:03:02 1996
From: Bruce (AA8U)" <aa8u@voyager.net (Bruce (AA8U))
Subject: Proposed New Contest Exchange
Message-ID: <199604042003.PAA22614@vixa.voyager.net>
>To: Pete Soper <psoper@encore.com>
>From: "Bruce (AA8U)" <aa8u@voyager.net>
>Subject: Re: Proposed New Contest Exchange
>
>At 02:39 PM 4/4/96 EST, you wrote:
>>Bruce, AA8U writes about checksumming callsigns, ending with:
>>
>>> This sum, "10F" is not only unique to my call sign, but could serve in log
>>
>>A polynomial like CRC16 or the like computed from your callsign *might* be
>>unique across all callsigns in the world, but a sum of ascii codes isn't
>>going to be unique across even a relatively small number of callsigns out
>>there. Luckily cntrl-alt-del-F1 in CT (and other fully debugged, well
>>supported contest log programs) will compute the CRC16 code automatically
>>so there is hope for your idea.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Pete
>>KS4XG
>>
>Thanks Pete,
>This isn't the first time I have had a "half-baked" brain storm. HI Thanks
for you input.
>
>73,
>Bruce
>
>From David & Barbara Leeson <0005543629@mcimail.com> Thu Apr 4 20:03:00 1996
From: David & Barbara Leeson <0005543629@mcimail.com> (David & Barbara Leeson)
Subject: UPS (more)
Message-ID: <20960404200302/0005543629DC3EM@MCIMAIL.COM>
Several recent notes about UPS problems are mirrored in my most recent
UPS experience.
I sent a computer printer from Minneapolis to Detroit because I didn't
want to check it as baggage and the box was to big for carry-on. I
selected 2-day air ("blue label"), which they absolutely promised would
be there on the second day, even though delivered to a residence.
They wouldn't take my credit card, so I paid cash. The receipt had
a tracking number for the box.
You can guess what happened next. Because they insisted it would have
to be signed for, everyone sat around all day waiting for the package.
Around 4 pm I called the 800 number to see when the box could be
expected. I was told, "no problem, it will absolutely be there by
8:30 pm". So we waited around some more. When it wasn't there by
8:30, I called again, but now the 800 number said, "we're closed for
the weekend, call again on Monday". Somehow, I found another 800
number for package tracking. The clerk there tried to contact the
Detroit area UPS locations, but after about 15 minutes of horrid
elevator music he came back on the line and told me that no one was
there, call back on Monday.
Based on prior bad experiences with UPS, it appears you absolutely
can't count on any service when something goes wrong, so don't send
stuff UPS if you can't afford the time for them to track it down (it
took 2 weeks once to find an Alpha 87A I was hoping to use in a
contest).
They seem to feel that offering you a refund on the blue label surcharge
makes everything well again, but they weren't amused when I told them
I would only accept payment in the same form that they demanded, cash in
my hands. Nothing more has been heard from them, although they did send
a fax trumpeting that they had actually delivered the package (well after
I had left Detroit).
Ah, well, that's what you get for believing television ads!
73 de Dave, W6QHS
>From Bruce (AA8U)" <aa8u@voyager.net Thu Apr 4 20:13:42 1996
From: Bruce (AA8U)" <aa8u@voyager.net (Bruce (AA8U))
Subject: Contest Exchange
Message-ID: <199604042013.PAA23891@vixa.voyager.net>
Another thought occurred after reading the "early returns"......how
necessary is it that the "pseudo checksum" be absolutely unique to each
call? Maybe it only has to be almost unique. This might have some positive
side benefits as well, making software decoding not 100% sure fire. I think
the basic idea is to put some requirement operator skills back into
contesting. This might be a refreshing trend.
Thanks to all that have responded so far. Good input!
TNX es 73,
Bruce
>From aa4lr@radio.org (Bill Coleman AA4LR) Thu Apr 4 19:22:48 1996
From: aa4lr@radio.org (Bill Coleman AA4LR) (Bill Coleman AA4LR)
Subject: Proposed New Contest Exchange
Message-ID: <v01540b08ad89cee213c8@[206.28.194.40]>
>Greetings Fellow Contesters,
>
>>I propose that for some contests, the present sent "signal report", be
>replaced with something which is more meaningful, not just more QRM. I
>suggest that we use the HEX sum of the ASCII codes of our call signs rather
>than the current 59(9) signal report. This could be in addition to your
>State or other info presently in use.
Bruce,
I think you are on to something. Instead of just sending the checksum of
your call, we could send the checksum of the entire exchange. This would
permit real-time validation of the entire exchange, not just the callsign.
Most of the contests that use a signal report don't have variable exchange
elements (like a sequential serial number or resending the last name you
received), so this wouldn't place an undue burden on non-computerized
contesters. However, it would permit computerized logging programs some
level of verification that the contest information was received correctly.
We don't even have to go to ASCII. Make it easier to compute. Letter A is
1, Z is 26, zero is 27, nine is 36. Punctuation doesn't count. Add these
values together and send only the last two digits (modulo 100).
Examples:
AA4LR GA would be 1 + 1 + 31 + 12 + 18 + 7 + 1 = 71
AA4LR BILL GA would be 1 + 1 + 31 + 12 + 18 + 2 + 9 + 12 + 12 + 7 + 1 = 106 = 06
AA4LR 05 would be 1 + 1 + 31 + 12 + 18 + 27 + 32 = 122 = 22
Cool! I like this concept.
Bill Coleman, AA4LR Mail: aa4lr@radio.org
Quote: "Not in a thousand years will man ever fly!"
-- Wilbur Wright, 1901
>From Bruce (AA8U)" <aa8u@voyager.net Thu Apr 4 20:31:52 1996
From: Bruce (AA8U)" <aa8u@voyager.net (Bruce (AA8U))
Subject: Unique checksum
Message-ID: <199604042031.PAA25930@vixa.voyager.net>
At 02:24 PM 4/4/96 -0600, you wrote:
>Hi. How can your call's checksum be unique? Remember learning
>the comunitive quality of addition? It doesn't matter what
>order you add things, the answer does not change. Take the
>less than random call: K5NA. It's one I hear once in a while.
>Let's rearrange it. It adds up the same whether it's K5NA,
>AK5N, K5AN, or even N5AK or N5KA.
>
>I admit that you are more likely to find K5NA than those
>other calls, but I still argue that a call sign is guaranteed
>to be unique while your checksum method will not always
>generate a unique number.
>
>Never did I think I would talk arithmetic to anyone.
>73 -
>Susan
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>Susan M. King 512-823-7267
>RG9A/ 9640 IBM Corp. tie 793-7267
>Burnet Rd. ku2q@austin.ibm.com
>Austin, TX 78758
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Yup, you are right. Had I given the matter additional consideration I might
have seen that. This method could still be a usefull exchange because it is
close to being unique. Only one hex or dec number would be valid for my
call. The same number could indicate several other calls....but that might
be a bug that is a feature. HI HI
Thanks for your input.
73,
Bruce
>From Bruce (AA8U)" <aa8u@voyager.net Thu Apr 4 20:51:16 1996
From: Bruce (AA8U)" <aa8u@voyager.net (Bruce (AA8U))
Subject: Proposed New Contest Exchange
Message-ID: <199604042051.PAA28135@vixa.voyager.net>
>To: Gary Nieborsky <k7fr@ncw.net>
>From: "Bruce (AA8U)" <aa8u@voyager.net>
>Subject: Re: Proposed New Contest Exchange
>
>At 12:46 PM 4/4/96 -0800, you wrote:
>
>>Interesting. Could be used in conjunction with the previous QSO hex
>>number...something like is used in one of the more obscure contests....where
>>you give the hex number from the previous QSO....could put a dent in the
>>DVP-Pig Farmers tactics.
>>
>>Another idea (if we all used PC's) would be to have the logging program
>>generate a 4 digit number as part of the exchange based on a seed number
>>put in a the start...sort of like PGP security. The log submittal provides
>>the key. Then any DVP-Pig Farmer QSO would fall out as a non QSO, the
>>receipient of the QSO wouldn't be penalized and disputes over what was sent
>>vs what was received would be easily remedied.
>>
>>Maybe in order to not penalize the non-PC ops, have it done on a voluntary
>>basis so that at least some of the logs would show if the DVP-Pig Farmers
>>were active.
>>
>>I wonder if the various contest sponsors will be very open to any of this?
>>
>>I've noticed that hte old "it ain't broke, don't fix it' attitude seems to
>>creep into even the more enlightened Sprint Boys.
>>
>>73, Gary K7FR
>>
>>
>
>Hope you don't mind my CC: of this to the Reflector. I think you comments
are worthy being seen by everyone. Thanks for your input!
>
>73,
>Ugly
>
>From cooper@gmpvt.com (Tom Cooper) Thu Apr 4 21:32:24 1996
From: cooper@gmpvt.com (Tom Cooper) (Tom Cooper)
Subject: Unique checksum
Message-ID: <199604042132.QAA21849@web.gmpvt.com>
There are lots of things we could exchange that can't be predicted.
The important thing is to make there be at least SOME copying skill
needed to score, and it would be nice if it added to the interest value
of the QSO for those just "giving out some points". I've been told by
some casual contesters that the SS exchange is more fun, rather than less,
to them, and they are the ones whose numbers need to grow.
And it would be nice if the exchange didn't make the whole contest sound like
a waste of time to children and spouses.
Tom WA1GUV
>From mraz@rdxsunhost.aud.alcatel.com (Kris I. Mraz) Thu Apr 4 21:33:36 1996
From: mraz@rdxsunhost.aud.alcatel.com (Kris I. Mraz) (Kris I. Mraz)
Subject: Proposed New Contest Exchange
Message-ID: <9604042133.AA04335@maverick.aud.alcatel.com>
Bill Coleman, AA4LR, said:
> Instead of just sending the checksum of your call, we could send the
> checksum of the entire exchange. This would permit real-time validation
> of the entire exchange, not just the callsign.
>
> Most of the contests that use a signal report don't have variable exchange
> elements (like a sequential serial number or resending the last name you
> received), so this wouldn't place an undue burden on non-computerized
> contesters. However, it would permit computerized logging programs some
> level of verification that the contest information was received correctly.
>
Something about this doesn't sit right with me. I believe it has to be
up to the operator to decide that the exchanged information is correct.
Removing this element of a contest gets too close to robots working
robots for my taste.
73
Kris AA5UO
mraz@aud.alcatel.com
>From Jim Reid <jreid@aloha.net> Thu Apr 4 21:55:52 1996
From: Jim Reid <jreid@aloha.net> (Jim Reid)
Subject: TH6DXX and 204BA
Message-ID: <1.5.4b12.32.19960404215552.006b6718@aloha.net>
Aloha Shawn,
Please post or forward to me your responses. I have
exactly the question, tho am thinking in terms of
a Force 12 mono antenna for 20.
73, Jim, AH6NB
>From David Clemons <dave@egh.com> Thu Apr 4 23:12:16 1996
From: David Clemons <dave@egh.com> (David Clemons)
Subject: Contest Exchanges (new and improved ideas)
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9604041723.A218-0100000@newman.egh.com>
If we are looking for unique exchanges, why not use public key encryption
on the exchange? Of course we all choose our own key without telling
anyone else what it is. This will remove the possibility of guessing the
exchange in advance (or afterward, for that matter).
In retrospect, this idea has its limitations. First of all, the writers of
all the popular contest logging programs will simply add in a feature
which will decipher the exchange via a built-in dictionary, and will then
make corrections to past contacts while we continue working new ones.
The result of this contest logging innovation? All of us will be forced
into buying a 130 Mhz Pentium in order to get any response at the
keyboard.....
Dave Clemons, K1VUT
p.s. - Perhaps simplicity is better. One of my bosses told me that real
programmers work in binary - and the better ones among them just
use 0's.
>From aa4lr@radio.org (Bill Coleman AA4LR) Thu Apr 4 21:38:44 1996
From: aa4lr@radio.org (Bill Coleman AA4LR) (Bill Coleman AA4LR)
Subject: Proposed New Contest Exchange
Message-ID: <v01540b09ad89f13c2805@[206.28.194.40]>
>Replace "polynomial like CRC16" with "32 bit polynomial" in my last message.
>A 16 bit polynomial would of course not hack it!
A 16-bit polynomial is sufficient to detect up to 17 bits in error. Given
the restricted data set of the contest exchange, that is probably enough.
A 32-bit polynomial only ups this to 33 bits.
Bill Coleman, AA4LR Mail: aa4lr@radio.org
Quote: "Not in a thousand years will man ever fly!"
-- Wilbur Wright, 1901
>From David Robbins <robbins@berkshire.net> Fri Apr 5 06:37:18 1996
From: David Robbins <robbins@berkshire.net> (David Robbins)
Subject: Jamming on 20M during WPX
References: <9604041339.AA04483@hp-and2.an.hp.com>
Message-ID: <3164BF9E.D25@berkshire.net>
Tony Brock-Fisher wrote:
>
> I heard the jamming on 14.190 +/1 15 khz as well, from my QTH in Andover,
> MA. I didn't bother to figure out the direction - I just figured it
> was the horizontal output from my mother-in-law's TV!
>
> -Tony, K1KP, fisher@hp-and2.an.hp.com
i wasn't on 20m much during the test, but on a couple weekends over the
last 6 months or so i have heard something like that on 15m between
about 21270 and 21320, usually in the morning and definately peaking
toward europe. it has lasted for up to an hour or so and abruptly
disappeared while the band was definately still open. on one occasion
more than one european operator also reported hearing it.
--
ky1h@berkshire.net or robbins@berkshire.net
http://www.berkshire.net/~robbins/ky1h.html
WWW Page now has New England Flea Market list from W1GSL
|