>3) The exchange needs to be something that is unique for each operator,
>is totaly random in nature, changes from contest to contest. or even
>changes from band to band OR...even more diabilically is TOTALY random
>in nature and must be different for each QSO (he he he he a sick mind
>is a terrible thing to waste).
The KCJ contest (if I recall correctly) uses a randomly
generated number for each contact.
--
George Fremin III
Austin, Texas C.K.U. "You don't need an antenna that big to work 40 meters."
WB5VZL -Local ham upon seeing the N5AU 40m yagi-
512/416-0140
geoiii@bga.com
>From David L. Thompson" <thompson@mindspring.com Fri Apr 5 04:24:02 1996
From: David L. Thompson" <thompson@mindspring.com (David L. Thompson)
Subject: 4-1000 Info Please?
Message-ID: <199604050415.XAA24455@borg.mindspring.com>
>>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've know people to run a single tube at 3kW+ PEP out on SSB.
>
>The biggest problem is drive power and stability. The 4-1000 is "hard to
>drive". In grounded grid, the 4-1000 needs a lot of plate voltage (over 5000
>volts) to get decent gain. At 5000 volts, expect to drive the tube with
>120-140 watts to get 1500 watts out! Expect a "hard to drive" amp unless
>there is a a lot of high voltage.
>
>>A GG 4-1000A won't violate part 97 unless the HV is *real* high or you have a
>FT-1000 driver! It also won't run RTTY conservatively at 1500 watts because
>the plate dissipation is only 1000 watts. At 60 percent anode efficiency (if
>the PA can manage that) the tube will be right at it's limit on RTTY and
>glowing a pretty orange color!
>
>73 Tom
>
>
I remember the article by W0SYK about the "Brown" Bomber that used two
4-1000's in about 1970. He was loud on 20 SSB mornings working long path
DX. As I recall with two 4-1000's you could do away with the bifilar choke.
W4GD sold amps witha pair of 4-1000's thru Memphis Amateur radio Supply
until he became an SK 10 or 12 years ago.
W0SYK ran 150 watts to drive it and W4GD recommended a Signal 1 for best
results (sold by his buddy K4ID.
Dave K4JRB
>From Bruce (AA8U)" <aa8u@voyager.net Fri Apr 5 04:14:49 1996
From: Bruce (AA8U)" <aa8u@voyager.net (Bruce (AA8U))
Subject: Proposed New Contest Exchange
Message-ID: <199604050414.XAA19829@vixa.voyager.net>
At 10:43 PM 4/4/96 GMT, you wrote:
>"Bruce (AA8U)" <aa8u@voyager.net> wrote:
>
>>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
>
>1) I agree we need more meanigful exchanges for most contests.
>
>2) The HEX idea is I fear in reality no better than than 59(9) because
>it can be "calculated" by an easy subroutine which would quickly be
>imbedded in most of the more popular contest logging programs. The
>software would no doubt calculate the HEX input for you and enter it in
>the log freeing the operator from having to worry about getting it right
>since the software would or could be self coreecting.
>
>3) The exchange needs to be something that is unique for each operator,
>is totaly random in nature, changes from contest to contest. or even
>changes from band to band OR...even more diabilically is TOTALY random
>in nature and must be different for each QSO (he he he he a sick mind
>is a terrible thing to waste).
>
>Dave
>N0DH
>
>
Dave, I don't think it is going to waste..HI
If you read some of the other postings regarding software decoding, I think
you will have to agree that due to the hex code possibly representing
numerous callsigns, that would remove a great deal of certainty for the
program and shift the burden to the operator where it should be......no, I
don't advocate paper logging. Not that kind of burden. Man, the youngsters
that never did it that way don't know what they missed. It sure was fun though.
I used to do a fair ammount of programming, in the bad old days. So, I do
have some sympathy for the software guru's at CT and NA. They could easily
give us a HEX window that would display all the possible calls any hex
number could be.... similar to the current super check partial. The operator
would still have to verify the correct one from the decoded posibilities.
I think we are in basic agreement in principle. Nearly every response has
been positive and I begin to see we all share a common concern. This
suprises me somewhat given the nonsense that has occured her lately re. the
dB, QRO, etc. Please God, send some sunspots QUICK!
Even though my specific proposal is full of holes and not all that well
thought out, it has resulted in an interesting and fruitful discussion of an
important topic. Especially if you compare the content of the current
discussion with those I just mentioned. I have yet to need my "duck
feathers". HI HI
Thanks to you and many others for contributing in a positive way to the
continuing discussion.
73,
Ugly
>From Del Seay <seay@alaska.net> Fri Apr 5 13:07:25 1996
From: Del Seay <seay@alaska.net> (Del Seay)
Subject: Third Party, Etc
Message-ID: <31651B0D.55EF@alaska.net>
In my earlier message regarding the Third Party conversations,
I let my hands get ahead of my brain. It is not the intent of the
signatory countries to regulate these conversations, but rather
to allow them. It would be the Non-Signatory countries only that
would be adversely affected. Sorry!
--Del, KL7HF
>From Del Seay <seay@alaska.net> Fri Apr 5 12:50:55 1996
From: Del Seay <seay@alaska.net> (Del Seay)
Subject: 3rd party stuff
References: <199604050308.TAA23221@desiree.teleport.com>
Message-ID: <3165172F.1D58@alaska.net>
Stan Griffiths wrote:
>
> >Well, someone has to do this. The attached file is from Part 97
> >pertaining to Third Part Traffic.
> >de KL7HF
>
> Well, now I am confused. Why does someone "have to do this"? I think we
> all have copies of Part 97 so just reprinting it here doesn't add anything
> that I can see. What am I overlooking?
>
> I hope you are not implying that merely reading Part 97 will clear this up!!
>
> Stan w7ni@teleport.com
No Stan, I wasn't implying anything. If you look at the message I had
"REPLYED" to, you'll see he stated that he Thought it said something,
and a few others also "thought" it said something else. That would
indicate that a lot of the chatter was from guys who did not have a
copy of part 97!
Since I have stuck my nose in where it obviously isn't needed, or
probably wanted, I'll go a tad further.
I think (note: I only think!) the intent of the Agreement that we
and other countries are signatory to, is to assure that amateur radio
is limited to conversations of a technical, or otherwise no politically
sensitive nature between only amateur operators from each country.
I tried to get a copy of the Agreement from several sources, but
no success.
If I am correct in the above assumption, then we are in violation of
the third party agreement by allowing stations that are not qualified to
be a control operator, make a contest exchange with a non signatory
country, and perhaps even with a signatory country.
Dan (KL7Y) stated perfectly what a FCC representitive said at one
of the meetings in Dayton, which would kind of make this all null
and void. The only problem I would have with that is you put five
of these guys in a room and you'll get five different answers. They
are usually engineers, and usually have the Ham Communities best
interest at heart. However, that doesn't mean they are correct.
The gentleman who earlier suggested to leave the subject alone lest
we get an answer we don't like is so far the best advice I've seen.
Take care ,& 73 --Del, KL7HF--
>From palooka@pyrotechnics.com (Joe Pontek, K8JP) Fri Apr 5 06:38:24 1996
From: palooka@pyrotechnics.com (Joe Pontek, K8JP) (Joe Pontek, K8JP)
Subject: TH6DXX and 204BA
Message-ID: <199604050638.AAA31325@kiwi.pyrotechnics.com>
>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.
>
Hi Shawn & Jim
I have had TH6's TA36's CL/TA-33's up and since I went to my 204BA, I won't
go back. I currently have a 204BA at 82 feet and I do very nicely from
central Indiana. It did suffer some damage in a recent ice storm. Three
different elements pull out from loading. I am building a new one this
coming weekend and I am reinforcing it per W6QHS suggestions and using his
demensions. I am going one step further, like the Force 12 antennas, I am
aluminum pop riviting each element component to the other. That will end the
only weak point I have found in the antenna. The other will come down, be
rebuilt the same way and hung up as a fixed antenna on Europe or Asia. I
currently have one of the old 3 element 1015DB duo-banders for 10 and 15
meters 6 feet below the 204BA. The new mast will have a 4 element Cushcraft
for 15 up there in place of the 1015DB. Also, I use W2DU choke type balun
instead of the coiled coax or coil type (W2AU) balun. No more tribanders for
me except on DXpeditions, I'm still looking for a TA-33Jr or TH3Jr.
When the French were running around out in the Indian Ocean checking in to
the 256 Group, I was usually the first to here them show up. I have had more
than my share of getting thru on the first call.
73, K8Joe"Palooka"
palooka@pyrotechnics.com
>From AA1K Jon Zaimes <jon.zaimes@dol.net> Fri Apr 5 10:34:19 1996
From: AA1K Jon Zaimes <jon.zaimes@dol.net> (AA1K Jon Zaimes)
Subject: A contester is born...
At 04:23 4/4/96 -0500, Joseph M. O'Brien wrote:
>
> 1. First party = control operator on transmitting end
> 2. Second party = control operator on receiving end
> 3. Third party = non-ham/licensed ham operating outside privliges
>
>Identify the control operators and you're well on your way to figuring
>out who is the third party!
>
> 73,
> Joe, WI2E
> jobrien@minerva.cis.yale.edu
>
>PS: Of course, if you're not governed by the FCC, things probably
>differ for you! :-) 73 de WI2E
>
FB Joe thanx for the elaboration!...73/Jon
>
>From Torgny <txt@canit.se> Fri Apr 5 10:11:30 1996
From: Torgny <txt@canit.se> (Torgny)
Subject: Taping, the result
Message-ID: <199604051011.MAA21623@uno.canit.se>
Hello.
A couple of weeks ago I asked about observations regarding
taping and contests. Here are the result:
Using tape as backup in a contest doesn't seem to be that
very common. Rather, they are used as an 'educational tool'
for the operator to improve his/her skills by their using
recordings to find any weak spots in their operating.
Others use recordings to warm up before a contest starts,
yet others use them only to remind them of the good times
that were.
So, how do they hook up the gear? Some suggestions arrived:
Use the audio input on the VCR and record in longplay, by doing
so you have up to 6 hours of tape.
Use a videocamera's audio input. If you have a camera with a
built-in 24-hour clock display, congratulations.
Use a taperecorder with a footswitch.
---
So, there you go. But you probably knew all of this before.
I didn't.
Thanks for the help, all of you who answered!
/Torgny - SM0TXT
|