Mike, N1IST, writes
> I know we aren't big guns, but this sure looks like trouble for
> anyone with a house-mounted (or balcony) antenna and 100W.
> Actually, this will probably also hit anyone operating mobile HF.
This may be less of a trouble than you think.
Roll back to 50 watts, and, unless I am not reading
it correctly, the rule is waived.
3 dB loss. On a good day, you won't even notice the
half S-unit difference. If anything, it will encourage
the design of higher efficiency antenna systems.
Funny that this appeared on the contest reflector.
You mean to tell me I am not the only one insane
enough to do contests from a balcony antenna?! :-)
73 (ummm, maybe 72 now :-)
Kok Chen, AA6TY kchen@apple.com
Apple Computer, Inc.
>From k6sti@n2.net (Brian Beezley) Tue Aug 6 00:43:49 1996
From: k6sti@n2.net (Brian Beezley) (Brian Beezley)
Subject: 80m RF Calcs
Message-ID: <199608052343.QAA07572@ravel.n2.net>
Here are calculated near-fields for 1500 watts key-down into an 80-meter
four-square array over perfect ground.
Uncontrolled exposure limits: 217 V/m 0.58 A/m (peak or RMS?)
Measurement point 6' above
ground and 50' in front of
forward element: 20 V/m 0.07 A/m peak field
These are the only calculations so far that look favorable. The results are
roughly 20 dB under the limits and I don't think actual measurements would
be this much above the calculated values. Still, these calculations do not
take the surface wave into account and it's big on 80 meters.
Brian Beezley, K6STI
k6sti@n2.net
>From jfeustle@UOFT02.UTOLEDO.EDU (Joseph A. Feustle, Jr.) Tue Aug 6 01:59:11
>1996
From: jfeustle@UOFT02.UTOLEDO.EDU (Joseph A. Feustle, Jr.) (Joseph A. Feustle,
Jr.)
Subject: Wasps, again...
Message-ID: <v01510104ae2c01d84b0f@[131.183.100.84]>
Several colleagues have asked me about my recommendation of cyanide for
those beasties that like to bury under ground. I should have included a
large caveat to the effect that cyanide is even deadlier than the wasps.
However, it DID used to be a staple in farm supply stores, sold in bulk and
in powerded form, not THAT many years ago. I used to use it regularly. But,
that was way back when I was young and had no sense, and relieved myself
near an electric fence....
I blame all of the above on having used two radios in the NAQP. I'll never
be the same.
BZZaap and 73,
Joe, N8AAT
>From w9nq@ccis.com (Bob Selbrede) Tue Aug 6 03:27:22 1996
From: w9nq@ccis.com (Bob Selbrede) (Bob Selbrede)
Subject: Electronic Filing for NAQP Logs?
Message-ID: <199608060227.AA31266@bart.ccis.com>
At 10:01 AM 8/4/96 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Gentlemen,
>
>I did not read in the (Jan-Feb 1996 NCJ issue or at the NCJ homepage site)
>NAQP rules anything about electronic filing of the logs.
>Is there no electronic filing available for logs?
>
>If there is, what is the e-mail address to which each set (CW and SSB) should
>be sent? Is there an FTP address for both/each?
>
>You might put it out on the contest reflector that there is/is not electronic
>filing. I am sure others may be wondering.
>
>Thanks,
>
>dale, kg5u
>kg5u@hal-pc.org
Hi Dale,
I'll CC the Contest Reflector on this reply for the benefit of
others having the same question. Steve and I have been accepting NAQP log
submissions via E-Mail for the last two years or so. Send your NAQP CW
submissions to me (w9nq@ccis.com), and your NAQP SSB submissions to Steve
Merchant, W6EMS (merchant@silcom.com). Please submit your ASCII Text Log
and Summary Sheets. Ensure that all required information is on them as it
would be for a US Mail submission. We will acknowldege receipt of each
submission (and team pre-registration), and will probably put a list of all
logs received on the NCJ Web Page so people can also verify E-Mail or US
Mail receipt that way as well. Hope that answers your questions! Let me
know if you need any additional information.
73, Bob W9NQ
w9nq@ccis.com
|