Field Day is a contest.......
Contests are not allowed on WARC bands......
end of story
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Paul Evans, W4/G4BKI paul@paccomm.com
+1 (813) 874-2980 Fax:+1 (813) 872-8696
Views expressed here are not necessarily those of PacComm.
I don't surf the internet, I SAIL IT!
Captain of S/V "Spindrift" (Catalina 36), Dunedin, FL.
PacComm Packet Radio Systems, Inc., 4413 N. Hesperides St., Tampa, FL 33614-7618
>From R. Torsten Clay" <torsten@mephisto.physics.uiuc.edu Tue May 23 19:03:07
>1995
From: R. Torsten Clay" <torsten@mephisto.physics.uiuc.edu (R. Torsten Clay)
Subject: ARRL FD & WARC bands
Message-ID: <199505231803.AA18915@mephisto.physics.uiuc.edu>
A few years ago, warc bands were legal for FD. I remember
operating from N4AR (KY Contest Group)...we tried qsying to
18 Mhz, but there was almost no activity there anyway.
KCG is another contest club that does a "serious"
FD effort (2A).
Tor
n4ogw@uiuc.edu
...
> that is correct. So I got out my May 1995 QST and looked.
> It clearly states that the 10, 18 and 24 Mhz bands are
> not to be used for FD contacts. It seems that I recall
> that the use of the WARC bands came up last year after FD.
> I am sure that hams being hams and wanting to use
> their full privilages and favorite bands got on the
> WARC bands during FD and made FD contacts - ya cant stop them.
>
> But the ARRL rules for the event do exclude these bands.
>
> --
>
> George Fremin III
> Austin, Texas C.K.U.
> WB5VZL
> 512/416-0140
> geoiii@bga.com
>
>From Peter G. Smith" <n4zr@netcom.com Tue May 23 19:22:16 1995
From: Peter G. Smith" <n4zr@netcom.com (Peter G. Smith)
Subject: Remote antenna switches
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9505231026.A18832-0100000@netcom20>
In response to my query about experience with remote antenna switches, I
received about 20 comments. The most surprising thing about them is that
VERY few people had problems with their antenna switches, and all of them
were generally satisfied with the ones they had chosen. To the extent
there were negatives, they had to do with deficiencies in design "seen
from afar." Generally, where people were using a given unit, they
acknowledged the shortcomings but had successfully worked around them and
felt that the units worked well regardless.
The largest number were using the Ameritron RCS-8V. They acknowledged the
relatively poor quality enclosures, but reported long trouble-free
service. Several people were using the RCS-4, which does not require a
control cable - the clear low-cost winner overall.
Next was DX Engineering -- high marks on both electrical and mechanical
construction, but acknowledged to be a little more expensive than the
Ameritrons.
A number of people praised Top Ten Devices, particularly for their
flexibility, while noting the need for a weatherproof enclosure because
the relay boxes are designed for indoor use. They also got loud applause
for their customer service.
Two liked the switches from Antenna Mart of Iowa.
And finally, a couple of different solutions -- one urged the use of
something called a "globe" - a multi-position motorized coax switch,
available surplus-- while two encouraged me to build my own.
So that's the story - I hope you find it useful.
73, Pete
N4ZR@netcom.com
"Better, faster,cheaper -- choose any two"
"No no no -- it's WEST Virginia"
|