>
>By the way - during all of this, the Department of Defense is firing
>up a multi- Gigawatt transmitter at the HAARP site at Gakona, Alaska.
>For God sakes, if we're worried about 50 watts - what effect does
>1,000,000,000.00 EIRP watts have? They are not worried about our
>health! de KL7HF
>
>
Is this the American version of the Russian Woodpecker? What will it do
to CONTESTS?
Zack W9SZ
--
>From n6ip@juno.com (R P WOLBERT) Fri Aug 9 19:26:11 1996
From: n6ip@juno.com (R P WOLBERT) (R P WOLBERT)
Subject: Lawyerphobia? You Bet!
References: <19960808133614.AAA4531@localname> <320A9263.5972@netcomuk.co.uk>
Message-ID: <19960809.103049.7263.1.n6ip@juno.com>
Chris,
Obviously this guy was not very resourceful....
>"AMERICANS HATE LAWYERS. Hence the joke about the American who finds
>himself in a room
>with Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson and a lawyer. He has a gun but only
>two bullets.
>What does he do? Shoot the lawyer twice, just to make sure."
>
This American would have lined them up. Why waste the second bullet?
There are more lawyers!
73 de Bob, N6IP
>From k6ll@juno.com (David O. Hachadorian) Sat Aug 10 02:18:36 1996
From: k6ll@juno.com (David O. Hachadorian) (David O. Hachadorian)
Subject: NAQP QSY TECHNIQUES
References: <960809005847_174788617@emout08.mail.aol.com>
Message-ID: <19960809.173003.4951.0.k6ll@juno.com>
On Fri, 9 Aug 1996 00:58:47 -0400 BK1ZX70SFL@aol.com writes:
>I guess i am missing something...my ole KC keyer has 4 memories and
>one was
>loaded with:
>pse QSY to 28050 nw ok ? bk
>
>....and the others were 21050/3550/1830....mebbe my approach was wrong
>and i
>should manually send with a paddle "same vfo"...oh well, the paddle is
>still
>necessary i guess :-)
>
>zx
For what it's worth, here's how I do it:
If I'm running, on 14032.4 for example, and a mult needed on 15m
answers, I will send "21?" or "pse qsy 21?" depending on the
other operator's experience level. Notice that neither of these
messages starts with "qsy," because I have found that frequently
the other operator thinks I'm going to send "qsl," and moves off
before he hears the entire question. Also, never send "R," or any
other acknowledgement that you have received his exchange, because
that will also cause many to move off immediately.
If the other station is agreeable to the qsy, I will send "21032,"
or "32," depending on the other operator's experience level. I don't
think it's a good idea to use a common qsy frequency, at least from
Arizona, where if the band is open at all there will be many signals
heard. Choosing the same VFO frequency is traditional, but modern
synthesized radios do not go to the same VFO frequency when the band
is changed. I manually change the VFO knob to the same VFO frequency,
21032.4 in this example, for the benefit of those using analog VFOs.
If I'm in the S&P mode, I will ask for a qsy by sending "21?." I will
only ask for a qsy from a run station if all of the following conditions
are met:
1. The run station does not have a high rate going.
2. There is a good probability of making the contact.
3. There is a low probability of working the multiplier later.
If the other guy says "NO," don't get bent out of shape, just move on.
If I'm running, and someone asks for a qsy, I will usually go if the
rate is not too high. I think it's good PR. If I don't want to qsy,
I just send "later cq test..." No big deal.
Of course, if a multiplier is needed on multiple bands, choose the
band with the highest probability of making a contact first.
Good luck to everyone in the MAQPs, Sprints, and sprINT. I'm
spending this summer in the Rockies, so won't be on.
73
Dave, K6LL
k6ll@juno.com
>From wws@renaissance.cray.com (Walter Spector) Fri Aug 9 03:53:05 1996
From: wws@renaissance.cray.com (Walter Spector) (Walter Spector)
Subject: A New Federal Antenna Preemption
Message-ID: <9608091753.AA17851@raphael.cray.com>
snace@tdrss.wsc.nasa.gov (Steven Nace) writes:
> Wayne wrote:
> >Amidst all the furor over the FCC's RF safety rules, the FCC
> >acted on another docket that also was mandated with a 180-day ETC...
> >but I see a little hope in this for amateurs....ETC
>
> Gee Wayne:
>
> You are just full of good news!!
I saw this on the FCC web site and I think this is GREAT news too!
Speaking as one who was CC+R-challenged for some years, (though as
a Board member I did sneak an R7 on the roof), this ruling is very
significant.
In fact, I think this new reg may be far more significant to the
average ham - who doesn't use QRO - than the RF exposure reg. Think
about it - most CC+R regs are there to increase the cable TV monopoly
and also for asthetics. When every house on the block has a TV
antenna or dish on it, a moderate-sized ham setup will not stick out like a
sore thumb anymore. Asthetics become a non-issue.
Lots more CONTEST fodder as all the hams who could not place antennas
on roofs can now load up their 'TV antennas'. What kinds of things
could an occasional CONTESTER put up as a disguised antenna? (Keeping
in mind that the Winegard CA-8200 TVRO antenna on my house has a boom
length of nearly 18 feet, though the elements are pretty small...) I could
envision a rotatable trapped dipole with some very long guy wires
holding the mast up...
Congress/FCC deserves applause for this bit of deregulation. Over the
long run it will work to our benefit!
Walt kk6nr
|