Thanks to all for the overwhelming response regarding my sick 765.
I just knew a large contingent of 765 owners were on this reflector!
Your advice puts me in the area of the octave bandpass filters, or the
solder joints/relays thereof, or the VCO board. Called ICOM and
and ordered the service manual, which is $30 plus shipping/handling.
I'll report back to the group about its ultimate fate (what fixed it,
or that it got shipped to WA). Really don't want to ship it out yet,
until i finish working the 3Y0 expedition on all bands. So it stays
lit (and working) until they are gone.
Again, thanks to all who sent replies (in no particular order):
K1KP, KE7X, K6XO, WM2C, N6MZ, K0GU, NG0X. Thanks guys.
tyler N4TY
>From Dave Hawes <34703@vlf03v31.ueci.com> Thu Feb 3 17:02:34 1994
From: Dave Hawes <34703@vlf03v31.ueci.com> (Dave Hawes)
Subject: Looking for info - KP2A
Message-ID: <16964365067@vlf03v31.ueci.com>
Does anybody have any info on the recent KP2A operation in the CQ 160 CW
contest? Who was the operator? Score breakdown, etc.?
Please reply to me directly. Thanks. Dave, N3RD <34703@VLF03V31.UECI.COM)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Hawes Internet: 34703@vlf03v31.ueci.com
Raytheon Engineers, Valley Forge, PA Voice: 610-254-5167
Fax: 610-254-5134
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>From Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH@TGV.COM> Thu Feb 3 18:44:34 1994
From: Trey Garlough <GARLOUGH@TGV.COM> (Trey Garlough)
Subject: Looking for info - KP2A
Message-ID: <760301074.372760.GARLOUGH@TGV.COM>
> Does anybody have any info on the recent KP2A operation in the CQ 160 CW
> contest? Who was the operator? Score breakdown, etc.?
K4TEA has been going every year for the past yen years or so. His callbook
information is correct. Call directory assistance (404-555-1212) and get
his number, then call him and ask him.
--Trey
>From Jim Reisert AD1C 03-Feb-1994 1323 <reisert@wrksys.enet.dec.com> Thu Feb
> 3 18:19:30 1994
From: Jim Reisert AD1C 03-Feb-1994 1323 <reisert@wrksys.enet.dec.com> (Jim
Reisert AD1C 03-Feb-1994 1323)
Subject: CT vs. ???
Message-ID: <9402031819.AA22325@us1rmc.bb.dec.com>
Len WF2V wrote:
>It sure would. I thought it would do this before I purchesed it. I am
>happy with CT (except for the small bugs) for the major contests, but I
>run some of the not-so-major contests like ARRL RTTY, PA QSO party, NY QSO
>Party, NH QSO party, QRP contests, and others where CT sits on the shelf
>useless because it doesnt support them, and I have no (user) power to make
>it understand the smaller contests.
The contests CT supports are based on user demand, and similarity of rules
with already supported contests. CT probably doesn't support the contests
you mention because not enough people have asked for it. You admit yourself
that they're "not-so-major" contests. That very wording just supports this
reasoning - why support those contests if they're "not-so-major"?
Ken has been thinking of user-defined contests for a while. I have no idea
whether he plans on including them in CT version 9 or not. But remember,
increased functionality often results in increased bugs!
73 - Jim AD1C
>From mwilson@arrl.org (Mark Wilson) Thu Feb 3 20:01:30 1994
From: mwilson@arrl.org (Mark Wilson) (Mark Wilson)
Subject: More on Russian call signs
Message-ID: <2666@mw>
Here's something else for your .cty files from UW3AX via
K1ZZ:
Boris Stepanov has informed me that the following call sign
blocks have been reserved as indicated:
R1MVA-R1MVZ Malyj Vysotskij Is.
R1FJA-R1FJZ Franz Josef Land
R1ANA-R1ANZ Antarctica
These replace the 4J/4K call signs previously used, which are
no longer available to Russia.
73,
Dave K1ZZ
>From Jim Hollenback <jholly@hposl42.cup.hp.com> Thu Feb 3 20:31:22 1994
From: Jim Hollenback <jholly@hposl42.cup.hp.com> (Jim Hollenback)
Subject: CT vs. ???
Message-ID: <9402032031.AA12153@hposl42.cup.hp.com>
>
> Len WF2V wrote:
>
> >It sure would. I thought it would do this before I purchesed it. I am
> >happy with CT (except for the small bugs) for the major contests, but I
> >run some of the not-so-major contests like ARRL RTTY, PA QSO party, NY QSO
> >Party, NH QSO party, QRP contests, and others where CT sits on the shelf
> >useless because it doesnt support them, and I have no (user) power to make
> >it understand the smaller contests.
>
ARRL RTTY on CT would be hard ... lots of typing in the packet window, but
for state QSO parties you probably could work over the .CTY file for CQP.
At least it would dupe check your contacts and give you an indication of
mulitpliers and Q's. The scoring probably would be off and would need some
work. KI3V/7 has a CQP.CTY for out-of-state verus the in-state .CTY file
supplied...not sure but it might be on the distribution list. This probably
is not the real answer, but certainly better than paper and pencil. I did
it one year for the PA contest, but don't know if I have the .CTY file around
anymore.
Jim, WA6SDM
jholly@cup.hp.com
>From Joel B Levin <levin@BBN.COM> Thu Feb 3 21:16:41 1994
From: Joel B Levin <levin@BBN.COM> (Joel B Levin)
Subject: CT vs. ???
Message-ID: <20365.760310201@bbn.com>
I am not interested in having Ken support every little contest; but I
would really like the ability to configure CT to work with most any
old contest, so my wish-list has user configurability at the top.
There are just too many contests to have them built in to a single
program, what with all the QSO parties, foreign radio association
contests like the recent Belgian one. Even if it did little more
than log the qsos, exchanges and multipliers it would be better than
what I have now, which is a piece of paper.
Even so there will be some contests with rules too weird for a what a
user might be allowed to do, and probably even what I have expressed
a wish looks to be pretty hard. Oh well.
KD1ON
>From Scott A Stembaugh <n9ljx@ecn.purdue.edu> Thu Feb 3 22:07:41 1994
From: Scott A Stembaugh <n9ljx@ecn.purdue.edu> (Scott A Stembaugh)
Subject: CT vs. ???
Message-ID: <9402032207.AA20599@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
In message <9402031819.AA22325@us1rmc.bb.dec.com> AD1C writes:
>Len WF2V wrote:
>
>>It sure would. I thought it would do this before I purchesed it. I am
>>happy with CT (except for the small bugs) for the major contests, but I
>>run some of the not-so-major contests like ARRL RTTY, PA QSO party, NY QSO
>>Party, NH QSO party, QRP contests, and others where CT sits on the shelf
>>useless because it doesnt support them, and I have no (user) power to make
>>it understand the smaller contests.
>
>The contests CT supports are based on user demand, and similarity of rules
>with already supported contests. CT probably doesn't support the contests
>you mention because not enough people have asked for it. You admit yourself
>that they're "not-so-major" contests. That very wording just supports this
>reasoning - why support those contests if they're "not-so-major"?
>
>Ken has been thinking of user-defined contests for a while. I have no idea
>whether he plans on including them in CT version 9 or not. But remember,
>increased functionality often results in increased bugs!
>
>73 - Jim AD1C
A quick plug here for some software I think is great in this respect - Tree's
N6TR LOG has user defined contests. You can modify the scoring to fit your
needs. Not to mention it is cheaper than CT :-)!! I highly reccommend getting
the PD version and running the simulator. You have to give up the CT mind-set
to make the learning curve smaller, but once you get the hang of it it flows
alot more naturally than CT (for me at least).
Just a comment from a little-pistol (perhaps even a water-pistol).
73
--scott N9LJX
|