Right you are, George. By the way, I have been away from the
reflector for a few days so I haven't been keeping up with what has
been posted, but I sure hope nobody took my April Fools posting
seriously about a non-ham working DX stations in WPX from my
station...
73, Tad, NZ3I
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Gags and stuff
Author: AA3JU George Cook <george@epix.net> at INTERNET
A couple fellows seem to have there underware all bunched up over what
are obvious Gags surrounding April 1st. Fellows please relax they are
jokes you are supposed to get a little chuckle out of it and move on
with your life.
snip...
>From Spike Lazar <slazar19@sgi.net> Thu Apr 4 01:51:45 1996
From: Spike Lazar <slazar19@sgi.net> (Spike Lazar)
Subject: Power and dBs: Dr Baffoonik, where are you?
Message-ID: <199604040151.UAA09093@orion.bv.sgi.net>
Steve Said:
>I know the good Doctor Baffoonik can clear up this highly complex debate
>about power and dB. Where are you Doc?
>
Well Steve,
I really have been enjoying this one, the combatants are all claiming to
know what a dB is and trying to prove their dB is the real one and the
other guys dB's are cheap imitations. I really marvel at these guys, because
they spent years cracking the books, and yet they have no common sense of
what a dB really is and what it does.
A dB is a measurement of power you exert over your competitors, similar to
the power of money to control people, or the power of politicians to control
a nation.
You have it when you spend a whole contest hearing "Big Signal" in 40
different accents. You don't have it when you spend a whole contest
watching your "S" meter.
Pretty soon MFJ will be bringing out a whole line of "S" meters. "S" meters
will be the new craze, and no self respecting contester will be without
five or six of them. I even hear ETO sold out to invest in a new plant in
Bulgaria to manufacture "S" meters. Pretty soon Ray Heaton will have a 800
number to calm the nerves of these contesters who are worried about delivery
of their "S" meters before the big test. Also I've heard ETO had big photo
session with Martti extolling the virtues of the Alpha "S" meters and the
and they even have an export model on the drawing boards. (Yup a two holer)
Other interesting things, I'm amazed at how many guys have cars than can
go over 150 mph, and amps that run over 1.5 kw. I think I've heard this
story before. (I smoke it once, but I didn't inhale, or I don't look at
the pictures I just read the articals.) The real question is do they have
more wall paper or speeding tickets!
One final tidbit fresh off the reflector, a quote from ON4UN " The (2820)
reflector lists OT6T in the assisted Cat, which is not correct." ....I didn't
know Cats had a 2820 reflector, maybe this would be a great place to
continue this dB debate on.
Also he mentions the gang at OT6T working like busy little Beavers hauling
all those big, bad, ugly and loud 4-1000's amps. around. I'm sure if poor
old Harry RA3AUU would have had a bigger "S" meter he would have kicked their
arses. John certainly enjoyed watching Harry suffer from squinting at
that little "S" meter all weekend long.
Sincerely yours,
Dr. Bafoofnik **** (Call witheld by the unleash the Beaver Society)
p.s.
If RA3AUU was at OT6T we could have called him Harry beaver!
>From ken smith <kgsmith@onlink.net> Thu Apr 4 02:33:16 1996
From: ken smith <kgsmith@onlink.net> (ken smith)
Subject: wpx thoughts
Message-ID: <199604040233.VAA40950@onlink1.onlink.net>
>From the notes of VC3SK:
As the contest started, I began to holler CQ. First station comes back to
me. I enter the call, give the exchange, get the exchange, say thanks and
hit enter. The computer reboots. I stare at the screen and mumble a couple
of obsenities as the computer starts up CT again. This only happened one
other time, and think it may be caused by a bad peice of RAM. So my
appologies to my s/n 1 as I couldn' remember the call in my shock, and you
were gone in a hurry. Also to the VK who got the same treat.
Highlights.
working VK longpath( I assume since it was my sunset.
working africa on 15. Up here anything on 15 was a highlight.
Nothing broke.( other than the reboot)
running vk's on 40
Not so High Lights.
rule of thumb. If running Europe and you get last two letters coming
back, it is a IK#. Wish they'd read Rich's column in CQ Contest.
Having to keep feeding the wood stove. It isn't spring yet up here.
Having ops cancel out due to work( 160 amp could have been sent anyway)
Overall a good contest, for the most part we had very little problem with
deliberate QRM, or the infamous DVP phantom.
Look for us in the cw test in may.
73
Ken VA3SK
Corbeil Contest Club
kgsmith@onlink.net
>From Bruce Lallathin <aa8u@voyager.net> Thu Apr 4 03:43:37 1996
From: Bruce Lallathin <aa8u@voyager.net> (Bruce Lallathin)
Subject: KT8X Antennas at AA8U
Message-ID: <199604040343.WAA09986@vixa.voyager.net>
Many have sent email re the antenna farm at AA8U, this is one. Maybe it is
of interest to others as well.
>To: Jim Pratt <n6ig@netcom.com>
>From: Bruce Lallathin <aa8u@voyager.net>
>Subject: Re: your mail
>
>
>Hi Jim,
>
>I'll try to give you the $.50 tour of the 80m antennas....hi
>
>I started several years ago with the 6 element 80M delta loop array.
Basiclly it it two delta beams on one hi-line between two 130' Rohn 55
towers. The two beams share the reflector so I get NE for Europe and SW for
ZL/VK. 5 elements toward EU and two zl/vk. Hope this is clear.
>
>Used it with much success, but always found myself unable to tx to mults
off the sides!
>(It is even worse since I listen almost entirely on the 8 Beverage antennas
and hear lots of goodies off the sides of the delta array.)
>It has DEEP side nulls. None of the other 80M antennas here have sufficient
gain so I put up the 4-sq. to cover the other directions.
>
>This has really been a success. The two complement each other. The Delta
loop is fed top center for SW and bottom center for NE, horizontal pol. The
NE driven element is fed with a current balun and the feed point is close to
50 Ohms.
>
>About 75% of the time, the delta loops will have about a 2dB advantage rx
and tx into the heart of Europe (DL,G,F,I) etc. Any other direction the
4-sq. wins no question. To ZS by about 40 dB! The farther the dx is, the
better the 4-sq. does.
>
>I used to switch the delta loop to cw by adding wire to the loops. Now that
I have the 4-sq. up I don't bother. I just add a couple feet of phasing line
to each vertical element in the 4-sq. and lengthen the radiators as well. It
probably isn't necessary, but I feel better about it that way. It is really
broad. I'm told one measure of the 4 sq. performance is how little power
goes to the dummy load. At 3775 with 1200W to the phasing box, I get about
10W to the dummy load. Guess that is good. At 3512 or so the dummy load gets
about 300W, not enough to damage it, but that 300W isn't being heard
anywhere. HI
>
>The 4-sq. is somewhat noisy compared to the delta loops, especially if it
snowing or raining. The delta loops and quads are used here because they are
efficient and quiet.
>
>Hope this info is what you were expecting.
>
>73,
>Bruce
>
>
>>I notice you have both a vertical 4-square and a couple of delta-loop
>>arrays on 80 meters. Just out of curiousity, how do they compare with
>>one another? Is the delta-loop array fed for vertical or horizontal
>
>>polarization? Can it be switched fone/CW? Which is better, the
>>four-square or the arrays? Is this consistent? Which is quieter on RX?
>>
>>Thanks and 73! Jim
>>
>> n6ig@netcom.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>From Dan Robbins <kl7y@alaska.net> Thu Apr 4 04:14:54 1996
From: Dan Robbins <kl7y@alaska.net> (Dan Robbins)
Subject: A contester is born...
Message-ID: <9604040414.AA06236@alaska.net>
At 05:19 PM 4/2/96 -0800, you wrote:
>
>> That was not 3rd party traffic...
>>
>> Denny :)
>>
>
>I'm afraid that it IS third-party traffic. After treading onto the same
>thin ice myself last year, I looked very carefully at the regulations.
>Any time you put an unlicensed operator at the mike and he or she speaks
>to another ham...it's third-party traffic. This is no different than
>putting a foreign student on the line to talk with parents while at
>college...which I used to do all the time.
>
>Admittedly, it's a very minor transgression in the Grande Scheme of
>Things. But foreign PTT's often get their undies in a knot over such
>stuff, to the detriment of resident hams. There are simple remedies for
>such things...such as Novice classes!
>
>73, Ward N0AX
>
I was at an FCC forum at one of the big conventions (Dayton, I assume) when
an obvious anti-contester protested to the FCC guy there about all the
contesters taking up the bands. The FCC guy said contesting was a perfectly
legitimate activity as acceptable as ragchewing or any other activity. To
fill the bands with activity was good for ham radio!
Nonplussed, the anti-contester played his hole card. There were hams who
let others operate at their stations. He had heard several of these working
Japan, and we had no third party agreement with JA. Hence these guys were
breaking the law and the FCC should shut down the contesters. If A works a
JA at B's station using B's call sign that's a third party violation says
our anti-contester.
The FCC guy was great. I can't remember his exact words, but let me
paraphrase his example. KL7Y is working multi-op and novice WL7XXX sits
down to crank out a few Q's. He works a JA in the contest. Legally! Why?
Because the control op, KL7Y, has instructed WL7XXX to work the contest, so
the QSO is at the bidding and direction of KL7Y and does not violate third
party agreements. As long as WL7XXX operates that way there is no problem.
If I tell triple X to say HI to Hiro, that is not third party, either, that
is a communication from the control operator through his station directly to
the JA. On the other hand, if triple X works his old buddy Hiro while
operating KL7Y in the contest and then says, "Yo, Hiro dude. Next time
you're in Anchortown let's heli-ski Hatcher Pass all day and drink Moosehead
Beer all night," that is a violation (not to mention that KL7Y doesn't ski
and would probably opt for Ballantine Ale). That's a third party message
WL7XXX-KL7Y-JA. Even an unlicensed person may work JA or whoever as long as
KL7Y is the control op, as long as the communication is at KL7Y's direction
and on his behalf.
The key here is that it is only third party traffic when it is not on the
"behalf" of the CONTROL OP. The FCC guy did a much better job of explaining
it than I probably did, even the anti-contester understood right away. The
guys operating my Mulit-op station do it on my behalf!
Dan KL7Y
>From Jim Reid <jreid@aloha.net> Thu Apr 4 04:20:37 1996
From: Jim Reid <jreid@aloha.net> (Jim Reid)
Subject: Power and dBs: Dr Baffoonik, where are you?
Message-ID: <1.5.4b12.32.19960404042037.006fc688@aloha.net>
BTW, The good Dr.'s real
>name is dB Cooper?
>
> C. Dean Norris
> Amateur Radio Station K7NO
> e-mail to dnorris@k7no.com
Wow, he did survive the parachute jump after all!
Probably used the money to get his piled higher and
deeper papers.
Jim, AH6NB
>From Jim Reid <jreid@aloha.net> Thu Apr 4 04:32:15 1996
From: Jim Reid <jreid@aloha.net> (Jim Reid)
Subject: CW, HF and WRC-99
Message-ID: <1.5.4b12.32.19960404043215.006ff418@aloha.net>
Bob,
Pleased about your reaction. It is good that among the committee
are both New Zealand and Aussies hams; the chairman is a VK. And the
French are very anti-NZART. So, if enuf pressure to retain CW
were to come from US hams to the ARRL, I believe they will
suppot its retention as a req. One responder has ventured the
thot that EU will, in fact, be the deciding opinion; and that
they will insist on keeping the CW req for HF operations rights
and be willing to give it up ONLY at the cost of more amateur
frequency bandwidth at or around 5 and 7 mHz, and the retention
for many years of set aside CW mode bandwidth, regardless of the
req for CW skill as a license priviledge at HF. Am sure many
such suggestions will come forward over the next couple of
years.
73, Jim, AH6NB
>From Jim Reid <jreid@aloha.net> Thu Apr 4 04:40:53 1996
From: Jim Reid <jreid@aloha.net> (Jim Reid)
Subject: CW, HF and WRC-99
Message-ID: <1.5.4b12.32.19960404044053.006c4d38@aloha.net>
WB2DIN's comment:
>I would personally appreciate the ablity to comment to a committee on
>these matters.... Will all items for discussion be announced and will all
suggested other items.... be brought before the committee....?
>A publicly posted list of such topics would serve well so that
>everyone knew what was under discussion. Just as an example, I would
>wonder how much respect the NZART proposal on HF CW would receive
>from ARRL.
>
>73, Bob, WB2DIN
I truly hope that what you hope for occurs, Bob! And that the
open to-all discussion in the US begins soon, and not later
in 1997 or 98! Perhaps I should post the complete list of
topics the FASC committee has been tasked by the IARU to
address, it goes well beyond the CW req.
73, Jim, AH6NB
>From Dan Robbins <kl7y@alaska.net> Thu Apr 4 05:19:05 1996
From: Dan Robbins <kl7y@alaska.net> (Dan Robbins)
Subject: WPX rules
Message-ID: <9604040519.AB23508@alaska.net>
Maybe I'm just grumpy because we're at the bottom of the sunspot cycle, but
a couple of weeks ago several contesters said that for an N3 in Texas to
sign /KM5 in the WPX was wrong and could get him DQ'ed. Well, I read the
rules in JAN CQ mag and saw no such prohibitions. The rules mandate a
correct portable prefix for someone operating in a different DXCC country,
but I saw nothing against the N3 signing portable KM5. If someone can
politely show the source that clearly states such practices violate the
rules, I will hold no grudges and happily work them in future contest.
Sorry, it took me so long to get back to this but vacation called - I
decided ogling bikinis was preferable to staring at a CRT.
Dan, KL7Y, still bug-eyed, but recovering
>From Rich L. Boyd" <rlboyd@CapAccess.org Thu Apr 4 05:36:41 1996
From: Rich L. Boyd" <rlboyd@CapAccess.org (Rich L. Boyd)
Subject: multiple personalities April 1
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91-FP.960404003551.17383A-100000@cap1.capaccess.org>
One thing I think we should do is log supposed dupes. That may help in
situations where someone else has bootlegged our call and made QSOs.
Rich Boyd KE3Q
>From AA1K Jon Zaimes <jon.zaimes@dol.net> Thu Apr 4 11:33:01 1996
From: AA1K Jon Zaimes <jon.zaimes@dol.net> (AA1K Jon Zaimes)
Subject: A contester is born...
At 08:30 4/3/96 -0500, Joseph M. O'Brien wrote:
>
>Actually, Stan is correct. From the 10th edition, FCC rule book, part
>97.3(a)(44):
>
> Third Party Communications. A message from the control operator
>(first party) of an amateur station to another amateur station control
>operator (second party) on behalf of another person (third party).
>
Sounds like this still leaves a lot open to interpretation....I'd say the
contest "message" was "on behalf of" the station licensee (the control
op!)....not on behalf of the guest op....if i have a guest op (ham or
non-ham) sitting at my radio using my microphone exchanging my message with
another station, he's doing it on MY behalf, not for the benefit of some
third party. So it seems this rule doesn't apply to this situation. I don't
have the rule book handy. Is there something else to pin this down?
...73/Jon AA1K jon.zaimes@dol.net
.>The "another person" does not distinguish between "hams" and "non-hams."
>Hence a General class ham operating in the extra class sub-band with an
>extra class operator present as the control operator is a third-party.
>
>Joe IS correct when he says that "messages from amateurs relayed by [an]
>amateur to another amateur" do not constitute third party traffic.
>However, this is because FCC part 97.115(a)(2) creates a specfic EXCEPTION
>for cases where "the third party is a licensed amateur" and NOT because
>the rule itself says third parties are only non-amateurs.
>
>Hope this helps clear up things!
>
>
> 73,
> Joe, WI2E
> jobrien@minerva.cis.yale.edu
>
>From Joseph M. O'Brien" <jobrien@minerva.cis.yale.edu Thu Apr 4 09:23:00 1996
From: Joseph M. O'Brien" <jobrien@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Joseph M. O'Brien)
Subject: A contester is born...
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960404035357.23699B-100000@morpheus>
On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, AA1K Jon Zaimes wrote:
> At 08:30 4/3/96 -0500, Joseph M. O'Brien wrote:
> >
> >Actually, Stan is correct. From the 10th edition, FCC rule book, part
> >97.3(a)(44):
> >
> > Third Party Communications. A message from the control operator
> >(first party) of an amateur station to another amateur station control
> >operator (second party) on behalf of another person (third party).
> >
> Sounds like this still leaves a lot open to interpretation....I'd say the
> contest "message" was "on behalf of" the station licensee (the control
> op!)....not on behalf of the guest op....if i have a guest op (ham or
> non-ham) sitting at my radio using my microphone exchanging my message with
> another station, he's doing it on MY behalf, not for the benefit of some
> third party. So it seems this rule doesn't apply to this situation. I don't
> have the rule book handy. Is there something else to pin this down?
>
> ...73/Jon AA1K jon.zaimes@dol.net
Hi Jon.
Well, the problem with your interpretation is that all amateur
communications from stations governed by the FCC need a control operator
to be legal. According to 97.3(a)(12) . . .
Control Operator. An amateur operator designated by the licensee
of a station to be responsible for the transmissions from that station to
assure compliance with the FCC rules.
First, this means control operators have to be FCC licensed amateur radio
operaators. So, when your non-ham friend relays info. (say a contest
exchange) to WI2E, he may in actuality be doing it on your behalf, but as
far as the FCC is concerned, you, the control operator "responsible for
the transmission", are the one sending it. You're the one in control, not
your non-ham friend or general class friend operating in an Extra class
subband (assuming you're an Extra!). From the FCC's perspective, because
you're responsible, you sent the transmission on your friend's behalf even
if it was their voice that carried the information.
You just have to keep in mind the FCC's definitions of "third party
communications" and "control operator" because they are all
that matter in a debate over FCC rules:
1. First party = control operator on transmitting end
2. Second party = control operator on receiving end
3. Third party = non-ham/licensed ham operating outside privliges
Identify the control operators and you're well on your way to figuring
out who is the third party!
73,
Joe, WI2E
jobrien@minerva.cis.yale.edu
PS: Of course, if you're not governed by the FCC, things probably
differ for you! :-) 73 de WI2E
|