HENRYPOL@aol.com wrote:
>
> Just got back from several days business trip in Worcester, MA. I envy you
> New Englanders for your pleasant summer weather! So I stopped by the PO box
> this morning and was pleased to find the September issue of CQ.
>
> This month's cover photo (KC1XX's 200 ft tower) is probably the worst one I
> can remember in a long time. Ninety percent is out of focus! The upper
> antennas are barely distinguishable as antennas. It's a good thing there is
> a writeup (still in fine print!) on page 2, otherwise one would be hard
> pressed to determine what is on the upper portion. Why couldn't we have had
> a picture of something from 96-WRTC?
>
> So what's in this issue.....
>
> Contesting related: Results - 1995 CQ WWDX SSB Contest; Results - 1996 WRTC;
> Bill's Basics - CW operating tips; Rules for the 96 CQ WWDX Contest; and
Henry -
Did you notice the nifty little MFJ-414 the author reviewed in this CW
piece?? Looked so good I wanted one. Called MFJ and guess what? It's NOT
available for at least six months, the author apparently got ahold of a
proto-type. There isn't even a PRICE available from MFJ. Makes ya wonder
doesn't it???????
-73-
Jerry KB9NMU
>From kw4t@pop.erols.com (Dan Weisenburger) Sat Aug 24 09:20:05 1996
From: kw4t@pop.erols.com (Dan Weisenburger) (Dan Weisenburger)
Subject: CW & HF Licensing
Message-ID: <199608240820.EAA14207@smtp2.erols.com>
After following this thread for a few days I thought it was time for some input.
Ward (N0AX) is correct, that Novices should be merged with Techs. The Tech
license no longer serves the purpose for which it was intended (the
exploration and experimentation in the VHF and higher frequencies).
Providing Novices with 2 meter accessablity will bring them into the fold.
There has not been the proliferation of 220 Mhz repeaters by repeater clubs
that I had hoped for and even fewer cross-linked machines with the 2 meter
repeaters. At least the Novice operator has at one time demonstrated an
ability to receive code.
I would not agree that Techs be granted the Novice priveleges on HF. They
can already listen on receivers to this part of the spectrum and if they
have a desire to join in the QSO's they hear (CW QSO's) then they can easily
upgrade, afterall, if they can copy the QSO's, they can pass the 5 WPM.
The other levels should retain the present CW requirements as long as
possible and here's a few reasons why.
1. As a "fraternity", CW is a common bond. If were real good at it -
great! If it's something we we had to suffer through to "get the ticket" -
great! I laid off CW for almost 15 years. When I picked it up again af
Field Day a few years ago I started right up at 20 WPM and went up from
there. It's like riding a bike again, you look a little shakey for a few
minutes but then you regain control and away you go.
2. The current VEC system has already "dumbed - down" the CW test.
Originally a CW test required solid copy for one full minute at a given
speed. 65 characters for General/Advanced and 100 characters for Extra. The
score required to pass this CW test was 100%. Then came the first
"complainers" that the test was "too hard". So multiple guess "QSO format"
became the new way.
A passing score was 74%, however, the FCC at least had the minimum passing
score raised to 80% owing to the format of the test. When the VEC's came
along the passing score was lowered to 70%! With the variations in code
speed from one VE team to the next the speed dropps even lower!
3. The question pools for each license are pre-published with the correct
answers and distractors. There is not much difference between a question
that states (EXAMPLE: 1 What meter band is a frequency of 7,050 KHz?) and
(EXAMPLE: 2 A frequency of 7,050 KHz is in what meter band?) MAKE THE
POOLS TOUGHER!!!
CW will never die as long as we keep alive... but it will go the way of
Latin in a very short time.
What can we as contester's do NOW! Adopt a No-Coder to operate in a VHF
contest. Let them see their callsigns in the results as "Part of the team".
Show them that there is more than just repeaters on two meters.
I concede that there are a large amount of No-coders who could'nt care less
about code. My wife (N3VBH a.k.a. the Very Blond Ham), Carol is one of them.
But guess what - these are the guys and gals doing all that "public service"
work with their handie talkies.
That's enough bandwidth for now.
73 from Lakemoneys Gone, Dan - KW4T
kw4t@erols.com
>From david.mueller@worldnet.att.net (David Mueller) Sat Aug 24 15:00:37 1996
From: david.mueller@worldnet.att.net (David Mueller) (David Mueller)
Subject: KH2 and 80/40 ant. summary
Message-ID: <19960824140035.AAA8936@LOCALNAME>
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 needhame@3lefties.com (Earl Needham, KD5XB, in Clovis, NM) Sat Aug 24
>16:20:08 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: <BMSMTP8408997642needhame@server.3lefties.com>
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)
> From: david.mueller@worldnet.att.net (David Mueller), on 8/24/96 2:00 PM:
<snip>
> 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.
>From aa0ob@skypoint.com (Greg Fields) Sat Aug 24 15:45:00 1996
From: aa0ob@skypoint.com (Greg Fields) (Greg Fields)
Subject: Vanity Calls?
Message-ID: <m0uuJy0-0002RxC@mirage.skypoint.com>
Hi all,
With Gate 2 opening up on September 23, a couple of my friends
with AA0 calls keep calling me up to check call sign availability
on the Web. They are busily making their lists and eagerly
awaiting their new call. I originally said I wouldn't give up
AA0OB because I have used it three years in contests and many
people recognize my call in the domestic contests. (At least I
like to think so!) Now I seem to be getting caught up in the
excitement. Hmmm.....wouldn't it be nice not to have to correct
people all the time? "No, it's alpha alpha, NOT delta alpha
zero." This has happened so many times in DX contests that it
has become tiresome.
Here is are my questions for the reflector. When were the last
one by two K call sings issued? When were the 1 by 2 N calls
first issued? When did the 2 by 1 calls start coming out?
I was licensed in 77 and was active in my teenage years till
81. I got back into the hobby four years ago so I have a big
gap in my knowledge of the call sign history. Part of me
thinks I shouldn't get a call sign that was not available during
my Amateur career, like a 1 by 2 W or K if they weren't issued
in my time. And another part of me feels a little strange
about taking a call that was previously held. More than
likly a 1 by 2 W or K call was given up because the previous
owner is deceased. How do you feel about this? Do these things
bother anyone else or is the shortest call sign the only
important thing for contesting? And how do people feel about
starting over with a new call sign that people won't recognize
for awhile? Or do I just spend too much time thinking about
trivial things as my wife has suggested. : )
73,
Greg AA0OB (At least for another month!)
Greg Fields AA0OB
aa0ob@skypoint.com
Minneapolis, Minnesota
U.S.A.
|