Well, compare that to what KM9P said. "Anyone sending 5NN all the time will be
suitably embarressed"
73, Ed
-------------------------------------
Name: ed sleight
E-mail: k4sb@avana.net
Time: 12:03:24 PM
This message was sent by Chameleon
-------------------------------------
>From n2uck@juno.com (Roman S Makuch) Sat Aug 24 22:02:39 1996
From: n2uck@juno.com (Roman S Makuch) (Roman S Makuch)
Subject: KH2 and 80/40 ant. summary
References: <BMSMTP8408997642needhame@server.3lefties.com>
Message-ID: <19960824.130310.5191.1.n2uck@juno.com>
On Sat, 24 Aug 1996 08:20:08 -0700 needhame@3lefties.com (Earl Needham,
KD5XB, in Clovis, NM) writes:
>
> David, in the Air Force, the regulation states that a ham
>living in
>base housing MUST be permitted to have an antenna -- you might want to
>check on
>that.
> And the last time I checked, Guam was either a territory or a
>protectorate of the United States -- so how can anybody force you to
>operate
>from ONLY a club station? Isn't that a violation of civil rights or
>something?
>Any attorney with a good idea/opinion?
>
>7 3
>Earl Needham, KD5XB, in Clovis, NM (DM84)
>Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia, Pi Chi '76
>Have you really jumped ROUND PARACHUTES? (Overheard at the Clovis
>Parachute
>Center)
Earl,
It's the military's base and they can do whatever they wish. Ever hear of the
U.C.M.J.?
Yes, I hate parachutes, PERIOD!!!
73 de Roman, N2UCK
>From hwardsil@wolfenet.com (Ward Silver) Sat Aug 24 18:33:47 1996
From: hwardsil@wolfenet.com (Ward Silver) (Ward Silver)
Subject: Two more Watt-Me-Worry Warts?
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.960824103223.1426D-100000@gonzo.wolfenet.com>
We're up to 18 low-power CW Sprinters. If you're inclined, join the
Watt-Me-Worry sprint teams, sans amplifier. This is not QRP, just
barefoot. Don't all push and shove, now...send email and get on board!
73, Ward N0AX
>From david.mueller@worldnet.att.net (David Mueller) Sat Aug 24 19:55:45 1996
From: david.mueller@worldnet.att.net (David Mueller) (David Mueller)
Subject: KH2 and 80/40 ant. summary
Message-ID: <19960824185544.AAA15811@LOCALNAME>
Wow...sorry guys I didn't mean to start another thread here regarding
antenna regulations on military installations, I was only trying to
summarize my findings on the best commercial vertical for 80/40!!!
#1- I am in the US Coast Guard, we don't have our own housing on KH2 so
members must use Navy housing and follow their regulations.
#2- The housing is on a military installation. When I signed up for the
military I signed my civil rights away. If I have a problem with the
regulations, they will just tell me "if you don't like it, move off-base"-
into a very high-cost rent environment.
#3- If a club station is available, most likely the antennas will be
better than anything I would put up at my QTH anyway, so better the chance
to work you in a contest.
Thanks for all the offers regarding seeing lawyers, ETC, but pse lets get
back onto a contest-related thread before Trey gets pissed! The subject is
of a personal nature and wont improve the majorities score (unless you need
KH2), so pse reply directly to me.
Again, Best 73,
Dave KE2PF
david.mueller@worldnet.att.net
>To: cq-contest@tgv.com
>From: David Mueller <david.mueller@worldnet.att.net>
>Subject: KH2 and 80/40 ant. summary
>
> I'd first like to thank the dozens of people who replied to my question
on the best low band vertical.....
> And the winner by far is the Butternut HF2V. About 90% highly
recommended this one.
>I got 2 positive replies on the MFJ, and a few very positive replies on the
GAP line of verticals. My guess is that all three verticals are similar in
preformance, but the HF2V has been on the market much longer so more are
familiar with it.
> I was also very happy to recieve an Email from Gary, NH2G, who is
retired Navy living on Guam and has given me some updates as to changes on
the island since my last tour. Good news: Guam now has the world's largest
Kmart. There were no such stores before and prices for simple household
items were through the roof unless you went to the PX. Bad news: They
have renovated/rebuilt all of the military housing and they no longer allow
antennas of any type in the housing areas. So it looks like I will be using
100w and a tuner to a vertical made of black #18 wire running up the side of
a coconut tree! I have a similar setup here at my present QTH which works
real well suprisingly. Fortunately, though, they tell military members they
must operate from club stations, so perhaps I'll have a place to set up my
tribander and low band verticals after all.
> Again, my transfer to Guam is by no means definite. It won't happen
'till next summer at the earliest. I just want to prepare far in advance so
I'm ready if it happens. I'll make another posting if I get definite
orders, sometime next spring.
>
> Thanks again for the help and the time
>Best 73, Dave KE2PF
>david.mueller@worldnet.att.net
>
>
>From aa0cy@robertwanderer.gardnerville.nv.us (Robert Wanderer) Sat Aug 24
>18:14:16 1996
From: aa0cy@robertwanderer.gardnerville.nv.us (Robert Wanderer) (Robert
Wanderer)
Subject: Grid Squares
Message-ID: <01BB91FA.674139C0@robertwanderer.gardnerville.nv.us>
Be careful relying on Buckmaster CD-ROM or equivalent. My mailing address is
in DM08, but I physically live in DM09.
>From nj1v@mail.phoenix.net (John Guida) Sat Aug 24 16:28:39 1996
From: nj1v@mail.phoenix.net (John Guida) (John Guida)
Subject: E-mail address for 9V1YC
Message-ID: <199608242028.PAA06056@mail.phoenix.net>
From: Self <nj1v>
Howdy!
I recently posted a message to 9V1YC at the last e-mail address i have
for him: 9v1yc@equator.lugs.po.my. It came back as "host unknown".
Does anyone have any other information for James's current e-mail
address?
CUL es 73.............................."victor"
John Guida NJ1V
nj1v@phoenix.net
>From needhame@3lefties.com (Earl Needham, KD5XB, in Clovis, NM) Sat Aug 24
>22:38:18 1996
From: needhame@3lefties.com (Earl Needham, KD5XB, in Clovis, NM) (Earl Needham,
KD5XB, in Clovis, NM)
Subject: KH2 and 80/40 ant. summary
Message-ID: <BMSMTP8409224240needhame@server.3lefties.com>
> From: n2uck@juno.com (Roman S Makuch), on 8/24/96 1:02 PM:
> Earl,
>
> It's the military's base and they can do whatever they wish. Ever hear of
the U.C.M.J.?
Yes, after 17 years, I think I understand a little about the UCMJ.
The point still stands -- in the AIR FORCE, the AIR FORCE REGULATION
states that a ham must be allowed to have an antenna. The base is REQUIRED to
abide by the reg, which is service-wide. I tried to point out that it's
possible the Navy has a similar reg.
7 3
Earl Needham, KD5XB, in Clovis, NM (DM84)
Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia, Pi Chi '76
Have you really jumped ROUND PARACHUTES? (Overheard at the Clovis Parachute
Center)
>From k8yse@en.com (John Papay) Sat Aug 24 23:20:37 1996
From: k8yse@en.com (John Papay) (John Papay)
Subject: New DX'ers and Contesters
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960824222037.00743bac@en.com>
Kenwood's plan to sell more radio equipment to potential contesters and dx'ers
who are now in the trucking business or are users of CB's is quietly proceeding.
I am not sure if they are going to be able to figure out what grid square or
DXCC Country they're in, but maybe Kenwood could help train these newcomers so
that we can benefit from all of this.
Yes, Kenwood has written another letter to the concerned amateur radio
community. It's
long and therefore I have made it available on the EIDX network if you care
to read it.
I have also included the orignal announcement of their marketing plan from
the ARRL
Letter (May 31, 1996) as well as the first open letter to the ham community
(June 10, 1996).
The latest letter (August 13, 1996) doesn't mention truck stops or cb shops
and seems to
try to soften what was orginally a shock to most of us. Form your own opinion.
You can access all of the letters at:
http://www.en.com/users/k8yse/kenwood.html
If you don't have internet browser capabilities and want a copy emailed to
you, either
in the body of the email or as an attachment, please send your request to me at
k8yse@en.com and I'll see that you get a copy. (I use Eudora to attach files.)
This is not intended to start a thread so please don't reply to the list
(unless, of course,
you have some linkage to dx'ing or contesting). If you want to respond to
me personally, please
use my email address so that everyone else doesn't have to read it.
73,
John Papay k8yse@en.com
http://www.en.com/users/k8yse
>From ke7gh@primenet.com (Brian K. Short) Sun Aug 25 01:11:35 1996
From: ke7gh@primenet.com (Brian K. Short) (Brian K. Short)
Subject: Contest Software?
Message-ID: <01BB9219.FC76C360@ip129.phx.primenet.com>
Comments re versions of contest programs (CT, N6TR, NA, WriteLog, etc)?
Possibly share responses via private E-mail later.
Interested in CW, but WriteLog only supports SoundBlaster voice keyer
and ethernet multi? Lost track of CT versions (9.?) Interface signals?
Never tried NA, WriteLog in a contest? Updates/Support?
Enter couple VHF contests/year and Field Day. 2 radios? (FT990/1000MP)
Personal or reflector your discretion: ke7gh@primenet.com
(also subscribe ct-user, trlog, and na-user no cross posting)
>From n4xm@iglou.com (Paul D. Schrader) Sun Aug 25 01:46:44 1996
From: n4xm@iglou.com (Paul D. Schrader) (Paul D. Schrader)
Subject: New 160M contest, my view
Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19960824204310.287f128c@iglou.com>
Did anyone consider not allowing anyone in the USA to call CQ? Then maybe we
could hear the DX.
73 Paul N4XM
At 01:36 PM 8/19/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Hello Fellow Topband Contesters,
>
>I feel compelled to post my thoughts....hope you find this interesting.
>
>I prefer to have two chances to work JA! A second chance at Europe or
>elsewhere is very desirable. Please make this possible.
>
>I agree that 12 hr. off times, during daylight hours likely, allow some
>rest, honey-do projects, ant./equip. repair etc. I hate to sit by the radio
>waiting for another W8 to answer my endless CQ's, a real waste of time,
almost.
>
>Start times.....dunno what would be best for all involved. Friday evening at
>about 00 Z works for me. Can't always take off Friday afternoon to get
>ready. The contests that start earlier make it difficult to get home, eat
>chow, and get the station fired up in time.
>
>Maybe 24 hrs. of operating time total out of 48 hrs. with off times a
>minimum of 12 hours would work. Would be nice to have off times as short as
>an hour, but I don't want to be compelled to call CQ in daylight hours just
>because my competition is.
>
>Not in favor of having RST in the exchange.
>
>In favor of the contest name "The 160M Distance Challenge"
>In favor of full four character Grid ID.
>In favor of higher points per QSOs over longer distances.
>In favor of DX window at 1830-35 that is enforced some how.
>In favor of using the State/Province/Country in the exchange, to assist in
>getting the WAS and other award chasers involved.
>In favor of allowing paper logs, not every contester in the world has a PC.
>In favor of some point advantage for low power/QRP.
>In favor of numerous categories of entry, SO, SOA, MO, MM, M2, MOLP, MOLPA.
>In favor of prompt results publication. In favor of prompt issuance of
>certificates, plaques, and trophies, mugs too.
>In favor of club competition.
>In favor of allowing non-contest windows in the WARC bands....hi
>In favor of this format replacing ARRL 160M and possibly CQ 160M CW contests.
>
>Well, I have enjoyed following this thread and I look forward to seeing this
>new contest become a reality.
>
>73,
>
>Bruce
>
>AA8U ZK1AAU FP/AA8U
>aa8u@voyager.net
>President: Mad River Radio Club
>
>
>
>From n4xm@iglou.com (Paul D. Schrader) Sun Aug 25 02:28:33 1996
From: n4xm@iglou.com (Paul D. Schrader) (Paul D. Schrader)
Subject: CW & HF Licensing
Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19960824212457.29ef45a6@iglou.com>
Do you really think they'll stay at legal power? I think they should be
kept separate as much as possible until they get a real license. They can
associate at the club level until then.
73 Paul N4XM
At 10:25 AM 8/21/96 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Here's an idea - Consider merging the no-code Tech and Novice licenses,
>with HF privileges the same as General, but at a greatly reduced power
>level. VHF privileges would be the same as for current no-code Tech.
>
>This would get the new ham "in the tent" so that he or she can see why
>it's worth learning the code to get the extra privileges. As it stands,
>the Novices and Technicians are segregated in little-used or SWBC-infested
>bands (with the exception of 10m SSB which is dead 5 years out of 11)
>where they don't get exposed to the full ham experience. I know from
>experience that you can do a lot with just a few watts of power and even
>limited antennas.
>
>This has the simultaneous effect of getting the entry-level ham involved
>in the ham community while making "full membership" contingent on making
>the effort to acquire skills. Also, it would tend to minimize the
>no-code/code frequency segregation, yet maintain the value of the
>higher class ticket. I would make the analogy of the "visual flight
>rules" restriction on new pilots as a parallel situation. Also (he said,
>tongue-in-cheek) it gets me a lot more Sunday afternoon contacts during
>Sweepstakes ;-) ;-) ;-)
>
>To be clear, let's call the new Entry-Level license the "Associate":
>
>Associate Current Tech Exam Current VHF privileges plus
> General HF privileges, 5-20W
>
>Current Tech Grandfathered to Associate
>
>Current Novice Grandfathered to Associate
>
>Current Tech-Plus Grandfathered to new General
> due to having passed the
> higher theory/rules exam
>
>General 7-10wpm requirement Existing General privileges
> (13 is too big a (no change to existing licensees)
> step as a first
> exam level)
>
>Advanced More theory & rules Existing Advanced privileges
> (no change to existing licensees)
>
>Extra 15-20wpm plus more All Amateur privileges
> theory and rules
>
>The FCC should like this proposal as it reduces the number of license
>levels to four from the current six. Current licensees see no reduction
>in their privileges and no significant cheapening of their achievement.
>Manufacturers will like it because more people will have more HF
>privileges. New licensees will like it because they get access to more
>activities. Old licensees should tolerate it because it keeps the CW
>requirement and doesn't give away the HF store, yet makes the hobby more
>inclusive of the new licensee.
>
>Technicians get the biggest bonus - General Class privileges. Existing
>Novices get VHF privileges and existing no-code Techs get the
>limited-power HF privileges. Novices trade the existing 250W limit
>against broader HF frequency privileges. (Get the Novices down below
>7050kHz and they'll be upgrading faster than they ever imagined.)
>
>As it is, the entry-level licensees don't have the opportunity to mix in
>the the broader ham community. "Novices - you go over there in the weeds
>where we can't see you. No-code techs, you guys stay away from HF
>entirely. Techs - you can operate on HF, but only with the Novices."
>Small wonder that these groups don't upgrade and don't feel a strong bond
>with the traditional ham community!
>
>I agree with K1KP entirely that there needs to be a commonality among
>hams. Yet it can't happen without *communication* within the *community*.
>It is no coincidence that the words begin with the same six letters.
>
>73, and let's have some discussion!
>
>Ward N0AX
>
>
>
|