Denny, K8DO@AOL.COM just had a major crash and lost an entire days worth
of upload files... Not sure what got up and what went into the drink when
shot down by mission control, part way through the upload... AND they all
vanished off the harddrive...So, if you asked me a direct question and didn't
get an answer, please repeat.... :>(
>From Steve Runyon WQ5G 512-838-7008 <email@example.com> Sat Aug 19
From: Steve Runyon WQ5G 512-838-7008 <firstname.lastname@example.org> (Steve Runyon WQ5G
Subject: Force12 E Amil Address Needed
Can anyone send me the current e-mail address for Force12?
The old address of email@example.com has not worked for a couple
Tnx de Steve
>From firstname.lastname@example.org (Phil Irons) Thu Aug 17 05:07:57 1995
From: email@example.com (Phil Irons) (Phil Irons)
Subject: Msg from TF3KX
The following message appeared in my mailbox...I don't know if it was given
circulation to the entire reflector. If not, here it is...if it was, I
apologize for the repetition.
>I need one of those maps that has my QTH in the center and shows=
>directions as straight lines - the one where Australia ends up encircling
>the earth and beyond that you fall off into the black hole!! Sorry, but I
>don=B4t recall what the proper term is (...centric something?).
>Anyway, I know there are some programs around that can custom print this. =
>would like to copy such a program through the internet or, if someone can
>make me a map, I would like to copy it through the net. This would do in
>the short term. In the long term, if someone knows who sells such=
>please let me know.
>My location is just south of Reykjavik, Iceland. Lat: 64N, Long: 22W
>Thanks and 73 de Kristinn, TF3KX (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Phil Irons VE1BVD
Sydney, NS Canada
One of these days my ship will come in...
with my luck I'll be waiting at the airport!
>From Steve Sacco <email@example.com> Sat Aug 19 04:21:00 1995
From: Steve Sacco <firstname.lastname@example.org> (Steve Sacco)
> Hi all - I am planning on installing a concrete swimming >pool in my yard
in the near future, and wonder if there >would be any use (or danger!) of
grounding the tower to the >pool ground. [REMAINING TEXT DELETED]
I cannot think of ANY condition where you WOULD NOT want to ground the
tower to the pool.
The goal is to keep all "grounds" at the same potential, so a strike does
not flow through, say your A/C wiring to get to another, better ground.
If you are surge-protecting your coax and control cables at their point of
entry into the shack (you *ARE* doing that, right?), and that ground is
tied to the tower ground (you *ARE* doing that too, right?) and furthermore,
you have tied the ground to the house/shack A/C ground (you've *DONE* that,
right?), then I would say that you would definately WANT to connect the
tower directly to the pool ground.
Otherwise (given the above assumptions are correct about your grounding
scheme) a strike to your tower COULD go from your tower, to your common
ground at the entry point, THROUGH the AC ground, to the pool equipment,
then finally to the pool's "UFer" ground. That ground should be pretty
excellent, if I understand what I've read correctly about UFer grounds...
Even if your grounding scheme is not all tied together, I believe that it
would still be to your benefit to tie the tower ground to the pool, for the
1)All it takes is **ONE** path from your incoming coax/control cables to to
your AC ground (i.e. ONE forgotten, un-disconnected wire), and large
portion of the current will attempt to go through that conductor through
any equipment plugged into the A/C, and on to the A/C ground, and likely
through the house to get to the pool. Again, you would have to believe
that all of that re-bar welded together would form a bodaceous, low
resistance ground (creating a high potenital between it, and the incoming
wire), and would thus be mighty appealing to a bunch of adolescent
electrons with a bad attitude and nowhere else to go...
2) If the pool equipment takes a hit (that, well-heads, and air
conditioning units are favorites here in Florida!), and the pool was tied
to the tower ground, the energy in the strike would be distributed between
the pool's ground, and the tower's grounding sytem. This would be
proportional to the impedance of the two grounds, of course, but still, the
energy would be split, therefore reducing the amount of the strike going to
the pool's (and house's A/C!) ground.
3) If the tower receives a strike, the energy would likewise be dissipated
between the tower's ground and the pool ground. Again, the energy would be
shared between the two grounds, thus reducing the strain on each.
4) With the tower and pool (and therefore A/C) grounds tied together, the
impedance for the ENTIRE system is reduced. This benefits the tower, the
pool equipment, and the house: the lower the resistance, the more the
strike will be directed (remember, YOU are in control of this stuff!) into
the ground, rather than through appliances and what-have-you to other
routes to ground. Once again, the path a strike takes is proportional to
the impedance to each of the paths. SOME energy will go the higher
impedance route! Your job is to give it a ground (path) of SUCH low
impedance, that only a trivial amount of the strike will go the high
I'll end with a suggestion that you plunk down the 25 or so bucks for the
book "The Grounds for Lightning and EMP Protection", published by
PolyPhaser. Reading it should aid you in your decision-making process, and
give you greater confidence in your final decision. I believe there was
also an article in a QST a while back on UFer grounds - you should check
that one out, too.
(Standard disclaimers apply here - I flunked out of Electrical Engineering
early-on in college, switched to Business Administration, and now make my
living as a computer programmer of financial applications, which have quite
little to do with lightning or electricity, although the computers DO use
electricity, or so I'm told - even the UNIX and N/T boxes...)
For the sake of "clousure" (as they call it at work), let us know what you
finally decided, and why!
>From Jeff Singer <k0od@MO.NET> Sat Aug 19 04:47:08 1995
From: Jeff Singer <k0od@MO.NET> (Jeff Singer)
Subject: New Radios
As long as they're bringing out this new generation of radios, why
don't they do something really elegant: Eliminate half the buttons,
switches, knobs, etc.
My TS-850 is typical of current radios. It has FOUR things that
control the RF gain [rf gain, AIP, and two attenuator buttons]. Does
ANYONE ever use the scan function on a radio? I suppose I might try the
Woodpecker noise filter if the Woodpecker ever returns. The QST review of
the TS-850 raved about the CW reverse on the 850; I think I used it once!
Then there's that nifty tone control and the light dimmer. I guess if
Heather Lockler ever wants to sit on my lap during the CQWW, I can use
those to create the right ambiance.
Any more ideas for things to REMOVE from radios?
Jeff K0OD St. Louis, MO USA
>From Joe Subich" <email@example.com Fri Aug 18 16:12:10 1995
From: Joe Subich" <firstname.lastname@example.org (Joe Subich)
Subject: DSP power
> Good question! Next question? A quick look in my references don't give a
> clue about this one. Analog blow-by may actually be a limiting factor.
> 100dB of isolation is tough to obtain without special techniques.
Why should analog blow-by be a problem? It should be no more difficult to
design a DSP which does it's sampling at 455 KHz or 50 KHz and provides its
output at baseband (audio). The ideal decoder functions are relatively easy
to implement in DSP. Since the output would be at a frequency well separated
from the input (IF), blow-by would be non-existent.
Frequency translating (detecting) DSP would solve many of the more difficult
receiver problems (BFO leakage, BFO noise problems, IF leakage, detector IMD,
etc.). Frequency translating DSP would permit effective audio derived AGC
(perhaps in conjunction with a multi-loop AGC per Rhode to limit/prevent
overdrive of the DSP). If detection were incorported into the DSP, the DSP
algorythm could be specifically tailored for the mode and signal conditions.
... Joe Subich, AD8I
>From Will Sill <email@example.com> Sat Aug 19 10:32:17 1995
From: Will Sill <firstname.lastname@example.org> (Will Sill)
Subject: New Radios
On Fri, 18 Aug 1995, Jeff Singer wrote:
> As long as they're bringing out this new generation of radios, why
> don't they do something really elegant: Eliminate half the buttons,
> switches, knobs, etc.
> My TS-850 is typical of current radios. It has FOUR things that
> control the RF gain [rf gain, AIP, and two attenuator buttons]. Does
> ANYONE ever use the scan function on a radio? I suppose I might try the
> Woodpecker noise filter if the Woodpecker ever returns. The QST review of
> the TS-850 raved about the CW reverse on the 850; I think I used it once!
> Then there's that nifty tone control and the light dimmer. I guess if
> Heather Lockler ever wants to sit on my lap during the CQWW, I can use
> those to create the right ambiance.
> Any more ideas for things to REMOVE from radios?
> Jeff K0OD St. Louis, MO USA
> e-mail: email@example.com
Sure - at the risk of being flamed for not being a SERIOUS contester, I
never use the following on my KW 440:
all VOX controls
"voice" - dunno wot it does, would hafta look it up
"NB"- noise blanker never seems to have any impact
"att" - my problem is always weak sigs - not strong ones
cw - wot does that mean? ( 8-Q - tonque in cheek!)
t-f set - can't remember wot it does
carrier level - only affects dididah operation
notch - my radio don't own one but the knob is there
processor - yours don't sound good to me, why should mine?
notch sw - same as knob
selectivity - goes with optioons not installed
Maybe ya got something there - but if it looked simple, how would I
impress visitors to the shack?
firstname.lastname@example.org - KD3XR - W F Sill, Tunkhannock, PA