People are forever mixing up the phonetics for my call. "Sierra" and
"Zero" sound very similar esp. in crowded band conditions. Half the
time it comes out as N0SB, the rest N7SB or NS7B...rarely do they get
it right unless the guy is in the next county hearing me on ground
wave. Using alternate phonetics for the "S" only marginally improves
the situation. Luckily I'm a CW guy & this call has a nice rhythm on
CW...plus a little confusing of the "0" for an "O" makes it one that
few people forget! Don't think I'm going to change.
73 - Alan NS0B
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Alan Braun MD, NS0B/V31EV *Internet: albraun@socketis.net *
* Jefferson City, MO *Packet: NS0B@N0LBA.#cemo.mo.usa.noam *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>From harpole@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu (Charles H. Harpole) Sat Aug 31 02:32:11 1996
From: harpole@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu (Charles H. Harpole) (Charles H. Harpole)
Subject: Remote contesting software wanted.
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.93.960830213125.744B-100000@Pegasus>
What with RF emission limits, we may all be remote operators before long.
Reserve your island now. de K4VUD
On Fri, 30 Aug 1996, Bill Fisher KM9P wrote:
>
> Some of you may find this quite interesting... I talked to K7SS (Danny)
> on 20M CW the other night on my way home from work (love my IC-706).
> Turns out Danny was talking to me on his computer at home over a phone
> hookup to a remote station on an island somewhere. He was using a
> voice/data modem and listening to me on the speaker phone. He was
> controlling a TS-850 via the computer.
>
> It's really got me thinking... I have this huge station that I get to use
> about 12 times a year and a few hours every other weekend. If I could
> find some kind of software that would control my radio via TCP/IP I could
> be doing some remote contesting in some of the minor contests.
>
> So... What I'm looking for is software that can control a radio
> (FT1000MP/850/whatever) via TCP/IP. I'm going to try and do the audio
> portion on 2 meters because it's a long distance phone call to the
> station. I can get an internet connection at the station easily.
>
> If anyone has any leads... Please email me. Oh... if anyone in Atlanta
> wants to share the burden with me, they are welcome to use my station
> remotely when it's QRV.
>
> 73
>
> Bill, KM9P
>
>
>
>From harpole@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu (Charles H. Harpole) Sat Aug 31 02:35:53 1996
From: harpole@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu (Charles H. Harpole) (Charles H. Harpole)
Subject: to choose or not to choose a vanity call
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.93.960830213459.744C-100000@Pegasus>
Hey, VUT, pse get out of the VU business while vanity is possible, de
K4VUD
On Fri, 30 Aug 1996, David Clemons wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've seen a lot of discussion about what calls are good/bad for
> cw/ssb. I've thought alot about the pros and cons of mine (K1VUT).
>
> CON: It's a little long on cw, the phonetics which get through seem a
> little long winded on ssb.
>
> PRO: There aren't many contesters whose calls start with K1V, so there
> is not much of a confusion problem. I frequently have people
> pull out the suffix, then recognize the call without asking
> for a repeat. K1 has also become a "rare" prefix on the WPX
> contests. (I never thought I'd see that day!)
>
> I suppose that if K1DC or W1DC were available, I'd take them because
> they are my initials. Since they are not, I've decided that I'll just keep
> K1VUT. I'm sure there are some advantages to having a short call for
> contesting, but if that were a prime consideration please tell me how WN4KKN
> ever became good at contesting. (Actually Trey, you ought to be able to
> shed some interesting light on this discussion.)
>
> 73, Dave Clemons K1VUT
>
>From harpole@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu (Charles H. Harpole) Sat Aug 31 02:47:35 1996
From: harpole@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu (Charles H. Harpole) (Charles H. Harpole)
Subject: KLM KT34X-A / Anyone having troubles on 15 m ?
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.93.960830214614.744F-100000@Pegasus>
Sell KLM, purchase TH-7. Pullleeeessseee. (Roger Rabbit)
KLM = Keeps Losing Metal. de K4VUD
>From n3rr@erols.com (Bill Hider) Sat Aug 31 10:10:15 1996
From: n3rr@erols.com (Bill Hider) (Bill Hider)
Subject: EIA/TIA/ANSI-222-F supercedes 222-E
References: <9608301742.AA29736@joker.wlv.hp.com>
Message-ID: <32280177.1FAC@erols.com>
Mike Meehan wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> OK, I've got my permits in hand for 2 crank-up's on my
> one acre city lot. I've been looking at the super heavy
> duty US tower 689 and 5106. The engineering calcs for
> the 689 indicate 30 ft^2 windload in 70mph exp2, and
> 200# deadload according to EIA 222E.
>
> Can someone explain what assumptions are in 222E
> regarding the dead load spec?
>
> It seems kinda puny to me, when you add up a
> HD mast and rotor there's hardly any margin left
> for 30 ft^2 of antenna...
>
> The only thing I can rationalize is that the compromise
> between the mass required to accommodate the high windload and
> the hoist system is tilted in favor of windload for US towers'
> designs.
>
> My hope is that the conformance to 222E includes a huge safety
> factor or some other implication regarding dead load.
>
> Any practical experience (including horror stories about
> crank-ups (I'd like to share them with the city engineer)
> would be appreciated, and in particular about practical
> loading of these specific towers.
>
> I've scoured the web for info on this subject but came up
> empty (except for the towertalk list address)---If you know
> of a source, please let me know. Also (as usual) if there
> is enough interest, I'll summarize results...
>
> (I know about the engineering superiority of stacked
> sectional towers so there's no need to school me there :)
> Its just that my city ordinance doesn't allow them.)
>
> Kindest Regards,
> -Mike AK6N
>
> ==================================================================
>
> _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ | Mike Meehan
> _/ _/ _/ _/ | Simulation Optimization Tech.
> _/ _/ _/ _/ | HP EEsof Div., R&D Lab
> _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ | 5601 Lindero Canyon Road
> _/ _/ _/ | Westlake Village CA. 91362
> _/ _/ _/ | VOICE: 818.879.6374
> _/ _/ _/ | FAX: 818.879.6394
> _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ | mmeehan@wlv.hp.comI didn't look up your
> answer, but be sure to use 222-F (June 1996) which
supercedes 222-E.
Bill, N3RR
>From rlboyd@CapAccess.org (Rich L. Boyd) Sat Aug 31 05:24:41 1996
From: rlboyd@CapAccess.org (Rich L. Boyd) (Rich L. Boyd)
Subject: WARNING! Re: Summary: Tower Help
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91-FP.960831002341.28736H-100000@cap1.capaccess.org>
Someone made a comment on the cost of regalvanizing -- that it may cost
as much as a new section. First, at $69.95 or so per section, Rohn 25,
new, is pretty inexpensive tower. Still, a friend of mine had some
regalvanized and it cost about $8 per section, as I recall. Not too bad,
and it came out great. 73
Rich Boyd KE3Q
|