I am debating as to whether or not I should go through the trouble of flying
my 160 meter balloon vertical for CW WPX. I don't think I have ever even
listened on 160 during this contest. Being on the west coast I figure I might
pick up some points with a few JAs, VEs and maybe and XE or 2. On the
other hand, we are at the end of May and this isn't CQWW as far as
activity goes. My guess is that I wouldn't get any prefixes that I wouldn't
find on 80 or 40.
Any left coast WPXers make any Qs on 160 last year?
Anyone have 160 CW WPX experience and suggestions?
73. Ken, AB6FO, KWIDELITZ@DELPHI.COM
>From firstname.lastname@example.org (Bob Patten) Mon May 20 20:26:07 1996
From: email@example.com (Bob Patten) (Bob Patten)
Subject: Overrun by wall adaptors - DC power for shack accessories
On Mon, 20 May 1996, Pete Smith wrote:
> My *contest* station is strangling in the power cords from all the wall-plug
> adaptors needed to power various bits and pieces. At this point, I have
> Is there a better way? If you're using a central power supply for all these
> minor demands, what is it, and how do you manage the power distribution
> problem? Are RFI or ground loops an issue?
> Direct replies appreciated, and I'll summarize if there's interest.
You have at least one interested party, same mess here...
>From firstname.lastname@example.org (k3lr) Mon May 20 20:44:03 1996
From: email@example.com (k3lr) (k3lr)
Subject: Towers and the FCC
The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau has released a Fact
Sheet which explains the FCC's new antenna/tower registration
procedures which go into effect July 1, 1996. The Fact
Sheet contains guidelines concerning applicability,
registration requirements, electronic filing, and painting
and lighting specifications. The Fact Sheet is available
on the World Wide Web at http://www.fcc.gov/wtb/antstruc.html.
If you are considering the construction of any tower or are
the owner of a tower that has previously been studied
by the FAA, you should obtain a copy of this Fact Sheet. It
is a great document and answers many questions.
If you would like to talk to a professional consultant on
matters concerning towers and the FAA, you can contact
John Allen at 904-261-6523 or FAX 904-277-3651. John is an
independant consultant and does not work for the FAA or FCC.
I do not have a connection with John's services other than
the company I work for uses him to investigate our tower projects.
He is very good.
In other FCC matters....
The FCC has established a new Family Radio Service (FRS). FRS
is a short distance, two-way personal radio service. You do not
need a license to operate these radios in places where the FCC
regulates communications. The radios transmit on any of
the fourteen 462-468 MHz channels allocated to FRS. You
can find out more on FRS by visiting the FCC's homepage
at http://www.fcc.gov or call 800-322-1117.
73! & Good Day!
>From firstname.lastname@example.org (Fred Hopengarten) Mon May 20 15:43:19 1996
From: email@example.com (Fred Hopengarten) (Fred Hopengarten)
Subject: Ladies' Home Journal Has Heard You
On Thu, 16 May 1996 16:46:33 -0400, PerryB1237@aol.com
> Maybe I should have sat on my typing hands.
> Perry Bradshaw
No. You did the right thing. And proved that you are
a good writer in the process.
HOWEVER, as you have now revealed yourself to be a
lawyer for a publisher, you might offer the contest
reflector a few thoughts on a long-lived thread here on the
contest reflector. The question is: If a ham, who is an
engineer, writes a program which calculates stresses of
combinations of antennas on a tower for the purpose of
submitting a building permit application, and that tower
should subsequently fail, would a court hold the author
civilly liable for damages resulting from the tower failure?
I am a lawyer and have taken the position here on the
reflector that there is almost no difference between writing
a book containing the formulas to do the calculations, and
writing a program to do the calculations. With the proper
disclaimers, I see so little risk that the program should
present no substantial liability problems.
As an ARRL Volunteer Counsel, I would love to be able
to show a town that a peer-reviewed program calculates that
a proposed tower is safe (with a given safety ratio).
(Conversely, I'd love to see hams NOT erect systems which
overload a tower.) Right now, the only thing a ham can do
is hire a Professional Engineer to fill in the numbers into
formulas from a book on his table. At a cost from $200-
$1500, it presents a problem in some cases.
Would you like to offer some thoughts?
Fred Hopengarten K1VR
Six Willarch Road * Lincoln, MA 01773-5105
home + office telephone: 617/259-0088 (FAX on demand)
"Big antennas, high in the sky, are better
than small ones, low."
>From syam@Glue.umd.edu (De Syam) Mon May 20 22:02:42 1996
From: syam@Glue.umd.edu (De Syam) (De Syam)
Subject: WPX CWHell (fwd)
Knut Baczko, DK5AD/OE2BZL, has asked me to put the following about his
WPX CW operation upcoming on the Reflector:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
OEM2BZL (special call for 1000 years OE) will be QRV in the WPX CW
Contest coming weekend.
Main activities 80M/40M/20M
Start on 40M > 7030
QSY to 80M > 3030 between 0300h-0400h
back to 40M 0500h
then 20M during the day
Station: OMNI VI
Antennas: 2 phased verticals 80M, rhombic (300f) east west
lazy H north/south
V (120feet) east
Hope to work as many stations as possible. Special QSLs will be send
to every station worked via the bureau. No need to send direct QSLs.
(end forwarded message)
Fred Laun, K3ZO