Fred Hopengarten K1VR asked"
"I read your short note on the undocumented feature of
the DSP-9. Thought I'd take advantage of your experience to
ask: "And how does it perform on phone?" Will it make 20
meters a pleasant experience when HG6V fires up 1.9 KHz
below me? Your comments please ... and I think others on
the reflector might be interested too."
-o-o-o-o-o-
Well, I haven't used the DSP-9 much on SSB. I made a New Year's resolution a
year ago to improve my CW skills and have barely picked up a microphone
since. Perhaps someone else on the reflector has used the DSP-9 on SSB???
Bill AA6TT
>From oo7@astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) Wed Dec 15 21:02:47 1993
From: oo7@astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) (Derek Wills)
Subject: contest calls
Message-ID: <9312160302.AA15218@astro.as.utexas.edu>
I still love the TE5T call - "TEST TEST TE5T TEST", looks
and sounds great.
Perhaps we can suggest to the FCC that as well as recycling
old calls, we could agree to swap with someone else. SOme
phone-only types with nice CW calls could swap with a CW
freak whose call is good on phone.
This is all getting rather silly, but it's holiday time...
Derek AA5BT
>From oo7@astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) Wed Dec 15 21:07:15 1993
From: oo7@astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) (Derek Wills)
Subject: Optimum call sign for CW?
Message-ID: <9312160307.AA15255@astro.as.utexas.edu>
I believe AA1AA is still on this list; not the shortest
CW call (50 dit-times with standard weighting), but very easy
to parse. I would think it would be clumsy on phone, though.
--bruce WT1M
This is pretty funny, since AA1AA just posted something implying
that he was lucky to get this call, and I only ever hear him on
phone.
Derek aa5bt
>From Randy A Thompson <K5ZD@world.std.com> Thu Dec 16 03:59:09 1993
From: Randy A Thompson <K5ZD@world.std.com> (Randy A Thompson)
Subject: Calls ending in "K"
Message-ID: <Pine.3.87.9312152209.A10774-0100000@world.std.com>
> From K2WK
>
> I never realized how awful my call was on CW till I got it & entered a few
> tests.
> Next time I'll be less vain & not get my initials. Hmmm... Zulu-Delta sounds
> nice.
>
Hey! Stay away from "my" letters! And ZD is not that great, especially
with a 5 in front of it. The world is filled with lids who think they
worked KH7D. I can't figure it out. I am pretty sure that CT sent it
correctly but maybe not. At least it "enhances" my European runs during
the CW contests.
Randy, k5ZD
>From Randy A Thompson <K5ZD@world.std.com> Thu Dec 16 04:05:22 1993
From: Randy A Thompson <K5ZD@world.std.com> (Randy A Thompson)
Subject: call choice
Message-ID: <Pine.3.87.9312152322.A10774-0100000@world.std.com>
On Wed, 15 Dec 1993, Smith, Pete N4ZR wrote:
>
> Most all of the discussion I have heard so far has centered on the
> effectiveness of calls on CW. What about phone? I submit that you can
> pretty quickly rule out some letters that you don't want - F, M, etc. For
> what it's worth, my suffix works great without phonetics, but then with my
> little station I don't run many JAs.
>
Well, I would recommend against "Z" as a letter for phone. Not enough
choices for Phonetics. Zulu, Zebra and Zanzibar (all two syllables) and
you're done.
Randy, K5ZD
PS - I think I'll just keep this call. The dream of once again living in
Texas will never die...
>From Randy A Thompson <K5ZD@world.std.com> Thu Dec 16 04:14:06 1993
From: Randy A Thompson <K5ZD@world.std.com> (Randy A Thompson)
Subject: W0UN's 160m 4-square
Message-ID: <Pine.3.87.9312152306.A10774-0100000@world.std.com>
>
> Is Colorado the big 160m antenna capital of the world? W0UN - 4-square,
> AA6TT - 4-square, KV0Q - 4-square, KY0A - delta loop and elaborate Beverage
> array, et al.
>
> Bill AA6TT
>
Wow! Necessity is truly the mother (and grandmother) of invention AND
big antennas. You sure don't see spreads like this back here where it's
not so "difficult". Of course, the relative price of land may have a bit
to do with it!
Randy, K5ZD
Did I just hear someone say, "Contests aren't fair?"
>From Jim Reiset AD1C (ex-WN1UHA, WA1UHA) 15-Dec-1993 2357"
><reisert@wrksys.enet.dec.com Thu Dec 16 04:51:52 1993
From: Jim Reiset AD1C (ex-WN1UHA, WA1UHA) 15-Dec-1993 2357"
<reisert@wrksys.enet.dec.com (Jim Reiset AD1C (ex-WN1UHA, WA1UHA) 15-Dec-1993
2357)
Subject: Optimum Callsign
Message-ID: <9312160451.AA03837@us1rmc.bb.dec.com>
------------------Reply to mail dated 15-DEC-1993 19:21:19.59------------------
>My only desire is that when the vanity callsign program is implemented
>they allow people who want to regain a previously held callsign to have
>first dibs on it.
I wonder if anyone would want their old novice calls back (Trey, you don't
count). I sure wouldn't want WN1UHA.
- Jim AD1C
>From Jim Reisert AD1C 15-Dec-1993 2359 <reisert@wrksys.enet.dec.com> Thu Dec
>16 04:54:32 1993
From: Jim Reisert AD1C 15-Dec-1993 2359 <reisert@wrksys.enet.dec.com> (Jim
Reisert AD1C 15-Dec-1993 2359)
Subject: (sub) optimal call sign (ph)
Message-ID: <9312160454.AA03858@us1rmc.bb.dec.com>
Dave, NG0X wrote:
>X-ray as a phonetic seems to have 'punch'; having held
>WN0IZX, WB0IZX, and NG0X, I am used to being "the station ending X-ray" --
>the X gets through even if the other letters don't.
So do you wonder now why KC1XX does so well? ;-)
73 - Jim AD1C
>From Jim Reisert AD1C 16-Dec-1993 0009 <reisert@wrksys.enet.dec.com> Thu Dec
>16 05:03:58 1993
From: Jim Reisert AD1C 16-Dec-1993 0009 <reisert@wrksys.enet.dec.com> (Jim
Reisert AD1C 16-Dec-1993 0009)
Subject: Lloyd Colvin, W6KG - SK
Message-ID: <9312160503.AA04090@us1rmc.bb.dec.com>
It was announced by KB1BE & NA2M that Lloyd Colvin passed away in Ankara yes-
terday. NFI at this time.
AN ANNOUNEMENT CAME OUT ON THE W7PHO FMILY HOUR THIS AFTERNOON THAT LLOYD
COLVIN W6KG FAS PASSED AWAY.
>From Ward Silver <hwardsil@seattleu.edu> Thu Dec 16 05:50:37 1993
From: Ward Silver <hwardsil@seattleu.edu> (Ward Silver)
Subject: Optimum call sign for CW?
Message-ID: <Pine.3.03.9312152136.A21038-8100000@sumax.seattleu.edu>
W0EEE was pretty good, if sent properly, hardly ever confused, but...
K7SS is purty smooth, too,
and N0AX has a certain rhythm
I started life as WB0GQP which sounds like someone falling down stairs...
73, Ward N0AX
>From Donald Nutt <kj6tc@netcom.com> Thu Dec 16 05:43:56 1993
From: Donald Nutt <kj6tc@netcom.com> (Donald Nutt)
Subject: "Rules for callsign party?"
Message-ID: <Pine.3.85.9312152156.A25434-0100000@netcom4>
On Wed, 15 Dec 1993, George Cutsogeorge wrote:
> I vote for seniority.
> George, W2VJN
>
Ditto .-)
Don
>From Ward Silver <hwardsil@seattleu.edu> Thu Dec 16 06:02:58 1993
From: Ward Silver <hwardsil@seattleu.edu> (Ward Silver)
Subject: callsigns, what else?
Message-ID: <Pine.3.03.9312152258.A21038-b100000@sumax.seattleu.edu>
I spent some time thinking about "most easily parsed" calls...seems like
you want to have "sound patterns" that parse more or less uniquely. For
example, AR is the same bit pattern as RN or EC, and at high speed, might
tend to blur. LQ, however, is harder to confuse as by the time you get
through with the L, you have a complete, parsed pattern. Any letter
beginning with a dash following the L will probably not be parsed as part
of the L, unless the L is sent really badly. I look at it from the
brain's point of view; after multiple hours of high-speed Morse abuse, the
least number of choices I have to make, the quicker and more reliably I'll
make the decision.
On phone, I was using the phonetics "Alpha X-Ray" until I realized that
the "uh" at the end of Alpha left my whole mouth in the rong position to
start off "X-ray". I was adding, in effect, another syllable to the call!
Using "Able X-Ray" cuts down on the motion quite a lot. Also, the long A
sound has more punch than the flat "aah" of Alpha. Gee, don't we have
some linguists on here?
And another thing...
How long does it take YOUR brain to stop making every little sound into
snippets of Morse after, say, CW SS? After I've spent a weekend wearing
little chemical grooves into the neurons of my audio circuits, the
"clangover" lasts for about 24 hours...talk about a learning algorithm.
Poor old brain!
And one more thing...
Danny (SS) and Trey (KKN) are so liquid and so fast that they have ceased
to be distinct letters and are now the CW equivalent of bar code...sorta
like BT or AR or SK...way to go!
Off to get a life, now...
73, Ward N0AX
PS (enough, already!) Is there ANY alternative to X-Ray?
>From Peter Reed <mpfb8@syma.sussex.ac.uk> Thu Dec 16 09:03:42 1993
From: Peter Reed <mpfb8@syma.sussex.ac.uk> (Peter Reed)
Subject: Callsigns
Message-ID: <17623.9312160903@syma.sussex.ac.uk>
Just my 2 pence worth - from personnal experience I certainly wouldn't
recommend a call ending in "K". I held the call A4XVK from '76 - '82 and
operated almost 100% CW. The call was not my choice and I remember spending
a great deal of time with some stations trying to get over the fact that
the last letter was a "K". I received many QSL's for A4XV. Some people just
don't LISTEN and that's what causes the problem.
As to the ideal call, ever since I first knew the late G3FXB back in '73,
I always thought Al's call to be the ideal call, certainly as far as G-calls
go - it just rolled off the key so smoothly.
Happy Xmas to all...73...Peter,G4BVH.
>From gjk@hogpa.ho.att.com (Gerald J Kersus) Thu Dec 16 12:51:43 1993
From: gjk@hogpa.ho.att.com (Gerald J Kersus) (Gerald J Kersus)
Subject: Callsigns
Message-ID: <9312161251.AA04104@hogpc.ho.att.com>
Derek, AA5BT writes:
>I can just see an Agatha Christie type novel, with someone meeting
>their fate at the hands of someone who wanted to get their hands
>on his callsign. People have killed for less.
You stole my idea! So much for poison at the FRC Pizza Blast or a plane to
Aruba mysteriously disappearing over the water....
Gerry, W1GD/2
>From Bill Kelsey <kelsey@csn.org> Thu Dec 16 14:01:27 1993
From: Bill Kelsey <kelsey@csn.org> (Bill Kelsey)
Subject: 160 meter 4 square in Ohio
Message-ID: <Pine.3.05.9312160635.C1214-a100000@teal.csn.org>
I helped KS8S put up a 160 4 square last year here in NW Ohio. Uses 4 GAP
antennas - don't remember the spacing but I think it was closer than the
arrays in CO. Neither Dean or I have had a chance to "ring it out", but
Deans impressions are that it is quite directional on RX, but TX is not so
good - our old gamma matched towerseemed to work better on TX.
Used a DX Engineering box in the center of the array to switch
directions.
Maybe we will be able to give it a test in the 160 test this spring.
It has survived everything WX could throw at it this past year - only lost
one antenna to a combine that turned thru the yard.....
73 - Bill - N8ET
>From Joel B Levin <levin@BBN.COM> Thu Dec 16 14:37:05 1993
From: Joel B Levin <levin@BBN.COM> (Joel B Levin)
Subject: Optimum call sign for CW?
Message-ID: <2697.756052625@bbn.com>
|I started life as WB0GQP which sounds like someone falling down stairs...
Gee - I'll have to think about whether I should use my parents'
Tucson address and request the K7YEG I would have had if I had ever
upgraded my old KN7YEG . . .
NAAHH.
/JBL KD1ON (who nevertheless is eligible for QCWA
because of that :-) ).
>From DKMC" <dkmc@chevron.com Thu Dec 16 14:53:55 1993
From: DKMC" <dkmc@chevron.com (DKMC)
Subject: NOTE 12/16/93 06:52:00
Message-ID: <CPLAN065.DKMC.4341.1993 12 16 0652 0652>
Microsoft Mail v3.0 IPM.Microsoft Mail.Note
From: McCarty, DK 'David'
To: OPEN ADDRESSING SERVI-OPENADDR
Priority:
Message ID: B6C3790A
Conversation ID: B6C3790A
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kris AA5UO writes:
> ...people like me who plain forgot to renew and had a new callsign
assigned
> (amazing how fast 7 years pass!)
Wonder how many of you guys had your ticket out of your wallet within 10
secs of reading this note? (As I did] Whew, good til 2002.)
My call was selected in 1976 with CW as the only criterion for selection (it
was my second choice...K5GA got there first). I, like K0GU, regret the G on
phone. GN doesn't have very good phonetics, and is rather unclear without
them.
The worst thing about my call is the fact that W5GN is so active. Every DX
contest 15-20 ops will confuse me with him. So don't go and get something
like W3LR or N1AR.
My favorite call is held by the Texas A&M University MSC Radio Committee,
W5AC. Good rhythm on code, high average talk power on SSB, clear without
phonetics.
David K. McCarty, K5GN
dkmc@chevron.com
>From Steve Fraasch" <Steve_Fraasch@ATK.COM Thu Dec 16 15:00:46 1993
From: Steve Fraasch" <Steve_Fraasch@ATK.COM (Steve Fraasch)
Subject: Computer Modeled 4 Squares
Message-ID: <9312161501.AA14820@ATK.COM>
Subject: Time:8:14 AM
I feel compelled to speak up about claims that some reflector "hams" are the
first to do this or that w/ vertical arrays. Please, don't take offense, but
I am big on giving credit where it is due. NOSC, K2BT, W7EL and many RF
scientists 20-30 years ago have done the computer vertical optimization thing
to death. Credit goes to the Naval Operations System Center in San Diego
who designed NEC and applied it to array design. Also, K2BT, Forrest Gehrke,
published an excellent series in Ham Radio magazine on how to design (w/
computer) arbitrary vertical arrays. Computer optimized array patterns were
presented in the June 1983 issue. Also, ON4UN has discussed computer array
designs at length in his Low Band DX Handbook (source code is included). Of
course, any current EM-antenna text like Stutzman/Thiele "Antenna Theory and
Design", Y.T. Lo's (Univ of Illinois) "Antenna Handbook" and others will blow
the doors off the ham articles. These guys do it for a living. The apparent
lack of published results is probably due to a lack of looking around.
The real CAD value added is the ability to determine the self and mutual
impedances necessary (without actually measuring a physical system) to design
the feed system. Then, a RF cad program like SUPER-COMPACT, or EESOF LIBRA
can be put to use to design the array feed.
Now, if anyone's interested, it might be interesting to publish how to use
NEC to obtain these values (this is not obvious), and show measured results.
The self impedances are easy; the mutual impedances are tricky, but it can be
done. I am currently performing same on a 4 square for 75m using
non-resonant elements (78'). I applied same technique to W0AIH 160m 4 square
(3/8 wave elements, 1/8 wave spacing) where we achieved good results.
Results are close enough that the "fine tweak" can be avoided if your
satisfied w/ 20 dB F/B. In any case, it is almost always better to measure
self and mutual impedances. It is extremely hard to do this with taller than
quarter wave elements, which "couple" regardless of base terminations (open
or short). In this case, or the case of closely spaced elements, the only
way to get your answer is by computer using NEC (MININEC is too limp since it
assumes ideal ground {tangential E field zero on GP} conditions). By the
way, I found that .266 wavelength spacing in a 4 square is optimum if you're
goal is to suppress sidelobes to the same level as back lobe (about - 28 dB
from main beam). Guess what? K2BT found out the same thing 10 years ago.
I am convinced you cannot use the quadrature hybrid feed system to get best
results with vertical arrays. You might get gain, but F/B, sidelobes really
suffer. Plus, you are always tied to quarter wave lines and spacing which is
limiting.
If those out there are interested, a results oriented paper might be
interesting, and it may even be worthy of IEEE BCST APPS Journal (especially
elevated, wide-band, non-resonant designs using electronic beam forming w/
low sidelobes). The NEC self/mutual procedure could be discussed in easy to
understand terms, and would tend at least to summarize "the state of the
art." I've applied NEC to 3 vertical array designs so far w/ success (K0KX,
W0AIH, and home qth), including an unbuilt "9" square for 75m (us MN
blackholers need everything we can get). I am sure other hams "knowledgeable
in the art" have also done the same. There's no limit on who can publish, but
please acknowlege those who have already done it.
K0SF, Steve
>From DKMC" <dkmc@chevron.com Thu Dec 16 15:10:53 1993
From: DKMC" <dkmc@chevron.com (DKMC)
Subject: Vanity Calls -- ZD?
Message-ID: <CPLAN065.DKMC.4491.1993 12 16 07080708>
Microsoft Mail v3.0 IPM.Microsoft Mail.Note
From: McCarty, DK 'David'
To: OPEN ADDRESSING SERVI-OPENADDR
Subject: Vanity Calls -- ZD?
Priority:
Message ID: 9BFEDC9A
Conversation ID: 9BFEDC9A
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Randy, K5ZD, writes:
> And ZD is not that great, especially with a 5 in front of it.
Yeah, but Zenon Dembitsky is such a great set of phonetics.
>The world is filled with lids who think they worked KH7D. I can't figure
it out. I am
> pretty sure that CT sent it correctly but maybe not. At least it
"enhances" my
> European runs during the CW contests.
I am reminded of KZ5M and his alter-ego, K7HM. Also, his pileups and QSL
requests for Canal Zone soon after he got the call.
David K. McCarty, K5GN
dkmc@chevron.com
>From Fred Cady ieefc@msu.oscs.montana.edu" <fred_c@ece.ee.montana.edu Thu Dec
>16 13:16:03 1993
From: Fred Cady ieefc@msu.oscs.montana.edu" <fred_c@ece.ee.montana.edu (Fred
Cady ieefc@msu.oscs.montana.edu)
Subject: Best Callsign
Message-ID: <00977174.43243360.9230@ece.ee.montana.edu>
Enjoyable thread. Something we all think about. Calls ending in K
are bad news so pity the poor local guy here who got KA7MJK as a
novice, upgraded to N7IKK and then went to KE7XK.
I think the call should have some rithym. N7NG is a great call
and I don't think I'll trade KE7X, although its not good for
phone, but I usually don't know where my mike is anyway.
The question of the day is, will Trey change his call????
73, Fred
>From David C. Patton" <mudcp3@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu Thu Dec 16 15:21:20 1993
From: David C. Patton" <mudcp3@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (David C. Patton)
Subject: Callsign selection
Message-ID: <199312161521.AA22369@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu>
A few points regarding callsing selection
1- A callsign selection program should be open only to Extras. A
"vanity" callsign will be a boon for incentive licensing.
2- Anyone who has previously selected a callsign whould not be
eligible to select another "same-format" callsign within the first
year of the program--with the possible exception of someone living in
a district different from that in their original callsign. However,
anyone selecting a callsign in the 70s should have done so knowing
they would have this callsign for life.
If N6TR reselects N7TR, then who would want N6TR (maybe a
non-contester/DXer). And would the "new" N7TR really want someone
signing N6TR?
If N6TR desires a different format callsign such as NA7TR, then
he should be allowed to change immediately under the new program
because this option was not available to him in the seventies.
No one should be allowed to "reclaim" a callsign they let lapse,
or more correctly, no one should have priority over anyone else to a
specific callsign, be they family, clubs, or alien dogs from the
nearest asteroid belt.
3-- How many of you knew that W9KNI was also K9AM in the 70s? The
FCC used to allow one to hold different callsigns from different
addresses. When the FCC discontinued this practice, guys with
multiple callsigns had to choose one. Hard to believe K9AM was
dumped! So why guys who had the advantage of age to select call,
and then dump calls I would kill for, I got stuck winning CW contests
with WO0G.
4-- Anyone who selects a callsign should be required to keep that
callsign for thirty years. After 30 years if he still doesn't like
his call, hopefully ham radio will still be around so he can change
his call.
5-- JY1 is the most kingly call on Earth.
73, Dave Patton, WX3N
|