Leaving in the morning for my next trip. Here is my schedule:
31 August to 3 Sept. - Asuncion, Paraguay - ZP5/WJ2O
4 Sept. to 11 Sept. - Easter Island with group - XR0Y
12 Sept. to 14 Sept. - Santiago, Chile - CE/WJ2O
15 Sept. to 18 Sept. - Buenos Aires, Argentina - LU/WJ2O
I know there is no contest going on but have pity and work me anyway. When
my rate goes below 75/hour I start falling asleep.
73 es CUL, Dave, WJ2O
>From email@example.com (Bill Hider) Wed Aug 30 04:47:44 1995
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Bill Hider) (Bill Hider)
Subject: CQ WW, The Internet and Packet?
At 04:53 PM 8/29/95 -0400, K2WK@aol.com wrote:
>Steve, W4/YV5DTA writes:
>>I was wouder, if is legal during CQ WW to use a internet connection to
>connect >to a packet cluster and rx spots?
>>Can this be consider under ASSISTED cat?
>I personally see no problem with the idea of using any form of technology
>to aid in operating a contest, short of actually calling people up to tell
>to get on the air.
>Being a regular entrant in the assisted category, this issue is dear
>to my heart. This is a subject ripe for open and intellegent debate.
>Questions such as: what constitutes the boundary, with ham radio
>on one side and a sophisticated technological world is on the other.
>I would say that if the internet connection connects to a real packet
>cluster system where spots are posted by means of ham radio
> (HF/VHF/UHF) it rightfully qualifies as assisted operation.
>A philosophical problem we will have to address in the not too distant future
>is when everyone is logged onto the cluster via telephone lines. The
>isn't whether this is assisted operating, but whether this in fact is ham
>I regularly log onto packet cluster systems all over the world either via
>some form of radio HF link, satellite, or via the internet by means
>of telnet. I typically place a mail message on these accessable systems
>reminding the operators/users that a contest is in the offing for the weekend
>and that they should look for me on all bands. I have also spotted friends
>on these systems, in real time. To date these methods have had little impact
>on my score. My time is better spent putting up better antennas, getting
>out of the shack, or studing the CT manual on comfort breaks in the commode.
>But before you know it we'll all be wearing Dick Tracy wrist watches
>and carrying cell phones in our shirt pockets. Or, are we already there?
>Well, gotta run my beeper just went off to remind me the roast is done in the
> 73 de Walt - K2WK
I, too, am a regular SOA entrant and I think that an Amateur Radio contest
should be limited to using only Amateur Radio links during the contest, for
spotting or other contest purposes during the contest, including talking to
your buddy and alerting him (or him alerting you) to DX spots. Use of these
Amateur Radio links would, of course, be a determining factor in the users'
class of entry.
Bill Hider, N3RR
email@example.com OR firstname.lastname@example.org
>From email@example.com (Bill Hider) Wed Aug 30 04:50:00 1995
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Bill Hider) (Bill Hider)
Subject: ZAPPED ! It CAN happen 2 U !
At 07:05 AM 8/29/95 -0400, PaulKB8N@aol.com wrote:
>Thanks for a very timely and well-presented summary of what lightening damage
>As I read your piece, I kept thinking of the charged atmosphere as a
>potential difference against ground. Since E=IR, the lower the R,
>theoretically the higher the I, and hence the greater the potential for
>damage. I believe that there is a fundamental dilemma when dealing with
>lightning protection schemes. It seems that the largest grid discharge
>system available at most locations to defuse lightning is AC Ground. Putting
>several ground rods at each tower location cannot provide as great a "current
>sink" as that of house wiring that is connected to a larger electrical grid.
>What, then, is the strategy for dealing with lightning? The bigger the
>"fuse" is that blows, the greater the collateral damage will be. As Bill
>mentioned, control cables became the "fuse" and the results were devastating.
>It seems that there may be two schools of thought on grounding, one that says
>ground everything, and one that says isolate everything to prevent a current
>path. Have there been any experiments dealing with passive lightning
>protection? The more extensively we ground an antenna system and the lower
>the ohmic value of the ground, don't we create a more attractive and
>potentially more devastating discharge path?
>I don't want to start an ozone layer debate, but aren't there really two
>sides to this story?
The whole idea is for you to control the lightning discharge path to ground.
If you don't, the lightning will take its own path to ground and therefore
it (the lightning) will be in control! That'll mean burned-out electronics
gear and possibly worse (a QTH ??).
Electrical grounds are primarily personnel and electrical fire safety
related and are installed to minimize the local resistance to ground from AC
Lightning grounds conduct static and lightning-induced voltages away from
sensitive equipment (including antennas, rotors, indoor equipment and QTHs)
and towards earth ground where they will be dissipated to a non-harmful level.
Each type of ground system is compatable with the other. Each serves a
specific, yet different, purpose.
If you're going to have an outdoor antenna, you'd better be prepared to
suffer the consequences if you don't install an adequate lightning
protection system. There is no excuse for not installing a cost effective
lightning protection system.
Think of it as an insurance policy. If you've got $3000 in CONTEST
equipment, shouldn't you provide a couple hundred bucks (onetime charge,
amortize over 10-20 years) to protect it from total loss?
I'll add AGAIN that everyone should read 'The "Grounds" for Lightning & EMP
Protection' by PolyPhaser Corporation. Many of the comments stated on this
reflector on this subject have not been thoroughly researched and are
ill-conceived. The PolyPhaser literature has logical, engineering-based,
emperically-derived data and discussion, which requires some thought, but
which is relatively easily understood. <No, I am not in any way affilliated
with PolyPhaser; I happen to agree with their approach to professional
lightning protection>. Everyone should also subscribe to their free
publication, "Stricking News".
Comments/questions are welcome.
email@example.com OR firstname.lastname@example.org
>From email@example.com (Bernhard Buettner) Tue Aug 29 21:15:10 1995
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Bernhard Buettner) (Bernhard Buettner)
Subject: CT on NT
> Since everyone is busy playing with Windows 95, I decided to install
> Windows NT. I'm still not sure why, but...
> I can't seem to get CT version 8.42 to run on NT. It loads the COMTSR's,
> then hangs. Anyone have any experience with this?
I have just sucessfully used CT under WindowsNT 3.51. The CW tone
(SOUND) sounds a bit and the LPT port is not keying. But it works.
Anyone know how to make this work?
 Bernhard Buettner (Ben)
 Mail: Schmidweg 17, 85609 Dornach, Germany
 Internet: email@example.com
 Packet: DL6RAI @ DB0AAB.#BAY.DEU.EU
>From Larry Schimelpfenig <firstname.lastname@example.org> Wed Aug 30 11:38:20 1995
From: Larry Schimelpfenig <email@example.com> (Larry Schimelpfenig)
Subject: K0SF TOWER CUP: Need Data on Bird Strike
Not to slight any of the environmentalists, but this stuff has really
gotten out of hand. Wonder if the community in which Steve lives has the
same environmental impact considerations for new homes being built. I
think I'm going to have to remove the large picture window in our living
room. Three weeks ago as I was daydreaming about how the trees in the
front yard would support a fixed wire beam on 40, a hummingbird smacked
into the window. He dropped to the flower bed below. A bit dazed he (or
she - gotta be politically correct also) flew off into a tree and
appeared to recover. Hope none of you tell Spotsylvania County Va of this
encounter, or I may have to take my house down. It's in the path of
migrating hummingbirds. Hope I didn't need an environmental impact study
prior to planting the flowering pear trees in the yard. Birds might fly
into them ya know.
My humble opinion is that the city isn't as concerned with the large
number of birds that will killed by this installation as they are in
finding any possible way of preventing it from being errected.
Uh, has anyone conducted a study of the effects of RF on birds migration
patterns during the fall contest season.
Oh, I wanted an excuse to tell everyone of a wonderful sight that can be
seen from I-94 just south of Eau Claire WI, and I now have it. I have
often times marveled at the ability of the W0AIH gang to be able to the
east coast on ten meters via some form of scatter, seemingly at any time.
Well, as I drove through the area mentioned last week, I could see how
Paul & co. do it. I'm not sure, but I think they may have more tower than
W3LPL does! Beautiful stacks. If you're driving through the area, it's
hard to miss. Looks like a military installation! Hey Paul are you
finding any dead birds at the base of your towers?
Good luck Steve. Tell your city council to get a life. (Maybe they could
get into contesting - it's a lot more exciting than bird watching).
73 de Larry K7SV - firstname.lastname@example.org
On Tue, 29 Aug 1995, Steve Fraasch wrote:
(most deleted for brevity)>
> To All:
> Do any of the tower owners out there have any experience with birds striking
> their towers ?
>From Straw, Dean, N6BV" <email@example.com Wed Aug 30 12:42:00 1995
From: Straw, Dean, N6BV" <firstname.lastname@example.org (Straw, Dean, N6BV)
Subject: Latest YTAD.ZIP
Bill Fisher recently said:
>From: Bill Fisher
>To: Straw, Dean, N6BV
>Subject: Re: Latest YTAD.ZIP
>Randy says he has been playing with TA and his 205CA stacks. He told me
>program says it shouldn't work. You might drop him a line and see what's
>up. I know for a fact those antennas work. Would be nice to know why he
>thinks they don't or if the program is giving bad data.
I've been talking with Randy now for months. He's been one of my beta
testers, in fact. The fact is that the elevation-angle data from the ARRL
Antenna Book (and which are used in YTAD) are statistics. They are valid for
the entire 11-year solar cycle, all months, all days, all hours. That
doesn't mean that at any one particular point in the solar cycle they are
totally representative. I have tried to stress that point repeatedly with
everyone! Others have asked for specific data for low levels of solar
activity using IONCAP. (Someday, when I get time...)
In Randy's case, he told me recently at a YCCC meeting that he has never
felt the 20-m stack at 100/50 feet has much of any advantage over either
antenna by itself, and YTAD confirms that observation. Further, since he put
up the station, the sunspots have been steadily declining (hopefully
bottoming out and rising again, soon!). At these levels of sunspots, the
lower elevation angles are generally favored, and that is where the K5ZD
station excells. It's when the sunspots go high again that Randy's station
will begin to suffer because the terrain is so steep. He can remedy that to
some extent by lowering the antennas (or putting up more antennas, lower) or
interestingly enough by going HIGHER for 20 meters. I find that raising the
top antenna from 100' to 130' while keeping the lower one at 50' will make a
very significant difference.
So, in short, we know that Randy's station plays, and from his observations
we know that certain combinations of antennas work better than others. We
also know that it's the operator that makes the most difference, given a
certain minimum level of station, of course! In other words, if Randy were
to operate my station and I his, he would no doubt still wax me -- he's a
I've encouraged Randy also to take data from his topo chart for other
azimuths than 45 degrees to check out YTAD. I know he's been on a business
trip recently, and I don't know if he's had the time to do this.
73, Dean, N6BV
>From email@example.com (Pete Smith) Wed Aug 30 13:20:01 1995
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Pete Smith) (Pete Smith)
Subject: ZAPPED ! It CAN happen 2 U !
Bill, N3RR, wrote:
>I'll add AGAIN that everyone should read 'The "Grounds" for Lightning & EMP
>Protection' by PolyPhaser Corporation. Many of the comments stated on this
>reflector on this subject have not been thoroughly researched and are
>ill-conceived. The PolyPhaser literature has logical, engineering-based,
>emperically-derived data and discussion, which requires some thought, but
>which is relatively easily understood. <No, I am not in any way affilliated
>with PolyPhaser; I happen to agree with their approach to professional
>lightning protection>. Everyone should also subscribe to their free
>publication, "Striking News".
I agree, but now face a bit of a conundrum. The "Grounds" book speaks
approvingly of DC-grounded antenna elements, and particularly driven ones,
from the lightning protection standpoint. Others, perhaps for antenna
performance reasons, advocate insulating yagi elements from the boom. My
new Force-12 C-3 CONTEST antenna has all-insulated elements and is designed
for either a coax-coil choke or a bead balun ... hence no DC path to ground.
Any suggestions, clarifications, or other head-straightening gratefully
73, Pete Smith N4ZR