[Top] [All Lists]


From: pke22@rz.uni-kiel.d400.de (pke22@rz.uni-kiel.d400.de)
Date: Wed May 29 17:39:18 1996
Hi folks,

I don't think it is a good idea to let N6AA have the last word on multi-op
single-band operation in contests. He perfectly missed my point.

My point is: 

Since the beginning, 18 years ago, contest means for me a common effort
of a team, where the operators do their best during their shifts of 6 hours
to put some pressure on the next operator. We have a team for MM or MS in
the ARRL-contests, WWDX, FD and WAE. Not so for WPX or any other contest.
36 hours of operation as single-op is too much of a good thing for me and
my team mates. So we skip WPX.

But I could easily find one or two operators for a single-band effort in 
this 48-hour-event. I think, this is a common situation and particularly
48-hour-events would benefit from a multi-op/single-band category.

It even may be that newcomers find their way to contesting with the help
of this category. Maybe not. Maybe there will be less entries then in the 
single-op category. This is not what I have in mind, to trade standards for
activity. I can't tell the consequences of this new category, and I agree that
there is not much sense in too many categories. But I am convinced, that a
lot of small teams feel excluded from contesting, particularly from 48-hour-

That's my point.

The personal replies to my first posting entirely agreed or advised me to

>enter the multi category, work the single band and worry about how to 
>interpret the score later. The point is having fun, right?

Right. And it is a good idea too, to make a comment on single-band operation
in the soapbox remarks. Maybe next year.

But it simply is more fun, if you know that you are competing with others
obeying the same rules as you do. In this sense, part-time operation or
self-limitation to single-band is second best only. 

Thanks for reading. 

Mark, DF4PA.

Email: pke22@rz.uni-kiel.d400.de

>From george@epix.net (AA3JU)  Wed May 29 15:37:15 1996
From: george@epix.net (AA3JU) (AA3JU)
Subject: Contesting is dieing
Message-ID: <>

At 05:02 PM 5/28/96 -0400, you wrote:

>Our contesting logging programs could even be redesigned or have an 
>optional "computer game" interface, meaning the display might appear 
>more like a computer game or pinball game, or something, while still 
>retaining the necessary logging info -- like the pinball game goes 
>"ding-ding-ding-ding" and racks up the points when you hit certain 
>things, our contest display could go ding-ding-ding-ding when we work a 
>double mult, etc. (I realize we do get positive feedback now, but we can 
>"pump it up" more).

He he he he he cool!

I can see it now W3LPL is the Boss you have to defeat at the end of the game
right?  And he has like these 2 arms that look like 200' towers that
constantly shoot machine gun bullets and stuff.  Only he doesn't run out of
ammo but you do unless you get the power up from the next room in the form
of a huge 4 holer amp.  My only question is where do we add the temporary
see in the dark glasses into CT.  I mean NA has them already and stuff but
............(Huh oh yeah reality sorry)


*George Cook.....AA3JU.....AKA "The Ratman" *
*george@epix.net.....AA3JU@W3PYF            *
*http://www.epix.net/~george                *
*                                           *
*Proudly Frankford Radio Club.........      *
*.......Proficiency Through Competiton.     *
*"Not just words but a way of life"         *

>From gswanson@arrl.org (Swanson, Glenn,  KB1GW)  Wed May 29 17:16:00 1996
From: gswanson@arrl.org (Swanson, Glenn,  KB1GW) (Swanson, Glenn,  KB1GW)
Subject: testing Q&A
Message-ID: <m0uOn3H-000RD8C@mgate.arrl.org>

"I used the ARRL license manual which had ALL THE QUESTIONS and ALL THE 

 - - - -
As would any other study guide (by Gordon West, W5YI, etc.), BTW.

Now, let's see, there are 50 questions on the Advanced exam.
Each question pool contains 11 times the number of questions on the test.
So, if you can memorize 550 questions (11x 50), AND the correct answers for 
each and every one of the 550 questions--you're certainly on the way to 

               73, Glenn, KB1GW

>From cedric.baechler@com.mcnet.ch (Cedric Baechler HB9HFN)  Wed May 29 
>17:37:26 1996
From: cedric.baechler@com.mcnet.ch (Cedric Baechler HB9HFN) (Cedric Baechler 
Subject: What country is 1E6???
Message-ID: <199605291637.SAA10309@mail.mcnet.ch>

>> > I worked 1E6-station in the CQ WPX Contest, but what is his DXCC country?
>> > 
>> I was wondering the same thing Where is 1E6KYA I copied him twice once on
15 and once on 20
>> .
>> John W5HUQ
>I note JE6KYA in my log on 20 meters.  Could it be that he was having 
>trouble counting the dashes when he tried to send "J"?

I also find JE6KYA in my log.

73, Cedric HB9HFN

>From thompson@mindspring.com (David L. Thompson)  Wed May 29 15:43:24 1996
From: thompson@mindspring.com (David L. Thompson) (David L. Thompson)
Subject: Special prefixes on CW
Message-ID: <199605291533.LAA16389@borg.mindspring.com>

Well its finally happened...something that works much better on phone than
CW.  All those new and special prefixes just disrupt the sending patterns on
CW too much to be effective.  It seems or be easier to use them on SSB.
Appears the Europeans are more used to them too.

One thing I don't understand...why are so many contestants still sending by
Hand?...The contacts I make on CW are all keyboarded so sending a special
call is no big deal.  getting correct copy is!     

Dave K4JRB, K96JRB forget K400JRB thats too confusing!

>From k4pql@nando.net (k4pql)  Wed May 29 16:44:40 1996
From: k4pql@nando.net (k4pql) (k4pql)
Subject: WPX zero pointers
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960529113915.9116A-100000@bessel.nando.net>

I have to agree with KN5Hose, it would make a lot of sense to
give a point for inter-country qso's. Midwest & low band activity
could only increase. 
73, K4PQL

>From thompson@mindspring.com (David L. Thompson)  Wed May 29 16:01:24 1996
From: thompson@mindspring.com (David L. Thompson) (David L. Thompson)
Subject: Hour limits on contests
Message-ID: <199605291551.LAA26728@borg.mindspring.com>

I think hour limits on contests (for single ops) would be a good addition.
Years ago the ARRL SS was over two weekends and the contestant selected 40
hours from 70+.  This adds a new skill of picking the right times to operate
and makes contestants in more areas competitive.  In the SS its very
difficult for a W1 or W2 to crack the top scores against a Los Angeles W6 or
A Texas or Mississippi 5.  This same W1 or W2 (with exact same equipment)
probably will score better than either 5 or 6 in the ARRL DX.   Adding an
hour limit can often even up the field.   I think contests will be more

My reasoning is that today its get on a frequency and work them is about the
only key to success unless one goes single band or enters a speciality
contest such as the YL/OM or SAC.  I won in W5 land because in the SS the W1
or W2 came to me in droves.  The key to winning it all lay in picking the
right 40 hours.   I often won or lost by picking the wrong 30 minutes!
This way you add the skill of knowing what hours to pick, showing you
understand propagation, and still run them as fast as you can during the
time limit!

I'll bet the scores in most any DX contest won't fall off much if a single
op can only work 30 or 36 hours out of the 48..and the op will be more
rested on Monday!

73, Dave K4JRB

>From tree@lady.blindchicken.com (Larry Tyree)  Wed May 29 17:19:01 1996
From: tree@lady.blindchicken.com (Larry Tyree) (Larry Tyree)
Subject: ARRL bulletin - Important
Message-ID: <199605291619.JAA01125@lady.blindchicken.com>

Well, now that we have all sharpened letter writing techniques after 
Ladies Home Journal week, here is another chance to express yourself:

>From owner-w1aw-list@netcom.com Wed May 29 00:55:22 1996
From: n1ist@netcom.com (Michael L. Ardai)
To: arrl-nediv-list@netcom.com, barc-list@netcom.com, ema-arrl@netcom.com,
        fieldorg-l@netcom.com, w1aw-list@netcom.com
Sender: owner-w1aw-list@netcom.com


                           QST to all Amateurs

                                May, 1996

                              Strafford, VT


Bill Burden WB1BRE                      Warren Rothberg WB1HBB
wb1bre@arrl.org                         wb1hbb@arrl.org


    ************** 2 Meter AND 70 cm BANDS THREATENED ***************


        I have included the text of Dave Sumner's upcoming  editorial for
July  QST  in  this bulletin.  ARRL, as the principal  representative  of
Amateur  Radio  in  Washington,  is  actively pursuing this issue as this
bulletin is being written.  Dave's call to action is serious!!   We could
lose these bands if we do not take action now!!
        Club  presidents  and  newsletter  editors:    please  make  this
information available to your membership as soon as possible.

Follows the text of Dave Sumner's July QST editorial:

                              WRITE NOW!!!!

     Get out a pen and paper,  or boot up your computer.  There's work to
be done!  Your help is needed  to  defend  two  meters  and  70 cm.  Yes,
that's right -- the two most popular and  crowded  amateur VHF/UHF bands!
But don't panic, and don't "go ballistic."
     Here's what's happening, and what you can do about it.
     The    United    States  is  preparing  for  the  1997  ITU    World
Radiocommunication Conference, WRC-97.  In the past, the public has  been
able   to  participate  in  the  preparations  for  such  conferences  by
responding to  FCC  Notices  of  Inquiry.   In March, the FCC announced a
streamlining of its  International  Bureau's  preparatory  processes  for
WRCs.  Under the  new  scheme,  the NOIs have been eliminated in favor of
increased emphasis on WRC Advisory Committees.
     For  WRC-97, a series of  Informal  Working  Groups  (IWGs)  of  the
Advisory Committee has been created to  address  specific  agenda  items.
The output of each IWG will go directly to a joint FCC-NTIA-Department of
State  Steering  Committee  of  the  Advisory  Committee.   There,  draft
proposals as received from the IWGs will be reviewed and forwarded to the
FCC  for  possible  release  as  preliminary  U.S.  proposals for  public
     In announcing the streamlined WRC preparatory process, the FCC tried
to reassure  those who might be concerned about reduced opportunities for
public participation:   "Interested parties should note that input to the
Advisory Committee may be  sent  at any time directly to the Chair of the
WRC-97  Advisory  Committee;  the  Chairs  of  the  Advisory  Committee's
Informal Working Groups;  Cecily C.    Holiday, the FCC's federal officer
of the WRC-97 Advisory Committee,on  C.  Ladson, the alternate
federal officer."
     Hold  that  thought while we shift gears to  the  substance  of  the
     One  of  the WRC-97 agenda items includes consideration of  possible
additional frequency  allocations  for  the  mobile-  satellite  service.
So-called "little LEOs,"  low-earth orbit satellites below 1 GHz, already
have allocations.  Their  proponents  claim  these are inadequate and are
trying for more.  The  needs  of  little LEOs are being addressed in IWG-
2A, chaired by Warren Richards of  the  Department  of  State.   The ARRL
technical  relations  staff participates in IWG-2A to  represent  Amateur
Radio interests.
     At the May 7 IWG-2A meeting, an industry  representative  proposed a
list of "candidate bands" for little LEOs.  The list includes a number of
bands  that  would  negatively  impact  existing  services,  and does not
include  others  that  would  be  technically  more feasible but to which
strong  objection  from  incumbents  could be expected -- the point being
that some  political,  rather than purely technical, judgment already has
influenced the list.
     Incredibly, 144-148 and 420-450 MHz were included on the list!  This
is the first time  in  memory  that another service has been proposed for
the two-meter amateur band.  We must make sure it is also the last time.
     We do not need to explain to ARRL members the extensive use that  is   
made of these bands by amateurs.    The two bands provide the backbone of
our local public service communications effort.   Voice  and data, mobile
and fixed, even television -- the list of  present amateur uses is a long
one,  and  of future uses is even longer.   Both  are  already  used  for
satellite services  and  for  moonbounce  and  extended-range terrestrial
operations requiring extremely  sensitive  receivers  and  high levels of
effective radiated power.
     Apparently we did need  to  explain  all  this  to  the  little  LEO
industry representatives, so we did  just that -- both at the meeting and
iup letter on May  15.  We also explained that we had to regard
the matter as extremely serious.  No one with the slightest background in
radiocommunication  could  possibly  believe  that  a  mobile-  satellite
service could be introduced into either band without disrupting  existing
and future amateur operations.  Therefore, we said, if we did not receive
assurance that they would be taken off the list of candidate bands by the
deadline for this issue of QST, we would have no choice but  to bring the
matter to the attention of the entire membership.
     The response we  received  was  unsatisfactory.   In effect, we were
told the little LEO  industry  would  consider  our  views but that until
their  spectrum  needs  are  satisfied,   all  bands  must  remain  under
     So, this is a call to  action.    We must get across to the industry
and government participants in IWG-2A that the  144-  148 MHz and 420-450
MHz  bands  cannot  be  considered  as  candidates  for  mobile-satellite
services.  We need to drive the point home  so  forcefully,  with so many
grassroots responses, that no one is ever tempted to try this again.
     Which brings us back to that invitation for "interested parties"  to
send input "at any time." There's no time like the present!  Here are the
key addresses, including those of the mobile-satellite industry folks who
seem to have started the ruckus:

Cecily C. Holiday, International Bureau, FCC, Washington, DC
20554; choliday@fcc.gov; FAX (202) 418-0748.
Warren G. Richards, Chair, IWG-2A, Department of State, CIP
2529, Washington, DC 20520; richardswg@ms6820wpoa.us-
state.gov; FAX (202) 647-7407.
Tracey Weisler, FCC Rep., IWG-2A, International Bureau, FCC,
Washington, DC 20554; tweisler@fcc.gov; FAX (202) 418-2824.
Mary Kay Williams, Final Analysis, Inc., 7500 Greenway
Center, Ste. 1240, Greenbelt, MD 20770; FAX (301) 474-3228.
Leslie Taylor, LTA, 6800 Carlynn Court, Bethesda,
MD 20817; ltaylor@lta.com; FAX (301) 229-3148.

     Do comment.   But be civil.  Don't abuse people who are simply doing
their jobs.  We  have to get across that casting covetous eyes on amateur
bands is counterproductive, and contrary  to  the  public  interest.   To
accomplish this we need a lot of comments, including yours.  But remember
that the objective is to educate and  persuade,  not  to  intimidate.  We
don't need to.  The facts are on our side.
     To monitor the FCC's ongoing WRC-97 preparations, visit  its  WRC-97
home page at:  http://www.fcc.gov/ib/wrc97/.
     Write now. Right now! -- David Sumner, K1ZZ

>From mzyd108@unix.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk (5B4WN)  Wed May 29 17:32:26 1996
From: mzyd108@unix.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk (5B4WN) (5B4WN)
Subject: RIG control interfaces
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960529172335.20643C@granby>

Hi there,

        I apologise for the bandwidth on a subject that I expect has been 
thoroughly discussed in the past on this reflector.

        I am looking for a schematic diagram + info on how to build an 
for controlling the radio (YAESU/KENWOOD) with the PC (K1EA etc). I know 
there were a few 
articles in QST in the past but as I do not have access to them now, I 
would appreciate if you could point out a web site with the info (MAX232 
based?? MC14C88 etc CHEAP is the word!!). Or alternatively, if somebody 
could email me a 
simple diagram with the info, I could summarise for the reflector (if 
anybody else is interested) and put it on my web page for others to refer 
to in the future.

        Thanx in advance,

                Best 73s,

                        Marios (5B4WN/G0WWW)
       ( # # )                                               
+++++Check my WWW page: http://www.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk/~mzyd108 ++++       

Email:Marios Nicolaou (5B4WN)> mzyd108@unix.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk    

>From thompson@mindspring.com (David L. Thompson)  Wed May 29 17:02:33 1996
From: thompson@mindspring.com (David L. Thompson) (David L. Thompson)
Subject: 160 plaques
Message-ID: <199605291652.MAA00934@borg.mindspring.com>

I have about a half dozen replies to sponsoring 160 plaques.  I have not had
my update meeting and will try to do so right away so hold on (thanks guys).

Dave K4JRB

CC: AA1AA et al

>From genewill@ordata.com (Gene A. Williamson)  Wed May 29 18:40:02 1996
From: genewill@ordata.com (Gene A. Williamson) (Gene A. Williamson)
Subject: Special prefixes on CW
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.90.960529102534.24893A-100000@cobra.ordata.com>

> CW.  All those new and special prefixes just disrupt the sending patterns on
> CW too much to be effective.  It seems or be easier to use them on SSB.
> Appears the Europeans are more used to them too.

The Europeans, by and large, are much better cw operators than we Yanks.
> One thing I don't understand...why are so many contestants still sending by
> Hand?...The contacts I make on CW are all keyboarded so sending a special
> call is no big deal.  getting correct copy is!     

What? We have to push F1 *and* copy callsigns? Or, God forbid, send our 
own call the same way two or three times in a row? What is this . . . a 
CONTEST? Requiring skill, dedication, thought, and PRACTICE?

Sending Morse by hand is a skill and an art. I say "Bravo Zulu" to those 
who do it well, and who provide contest points for others whose keyboards 
alternate between 30wpm and 60wpm as the exchange progresses.

One would think 'DBV would be one of those "problem copy" calls on cw, but
surprisingly not . . . with weighting and speed carefully adjusted for
band conditions and overall contest skill levels. WPX ain't SS, ain't
CQWW, and 40 ain't 15 . . . and, of course, all bets are off during Field
Day. (Oops, that's not a *contest*.)

This IS, you know, our H O B B Y.

73 Gene K7DBV           genewill@ordata.com

>From l38217@alfa.ist.utl.pt (Pedro Pedroso)  Wed May 29 19:51:21 1996
From: l38217@alfa.ist.utl.pt (Pedro Pedroso) (Pedro Pedroso)
Subject: WPX 36 vs 30 hours SOP
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.960529184424.3442B-100000@alfa.ist.utl.pt>

On Wed, 29 May 1996, Jan-Erik Holm 0920 239081 wrote:

> From: Jan-Erik Holm 0920 239081 <JEH@on.mobitel.telia.se>
> To: cq-contest@tgv.com
> Subject: WPX 36 vs 30 hours SOP
> I fully agree with KM9P and VK5GN on the 30 hours instead of 36.
> I used to like WPX contest and usually did pritty good but since
> they changed to 36 hours I haven=B4t operated at all and I=B4m not
> going to until they change back to 30 hours.
> 73 de Jim SM2EKM     jeh@on.mobitel.telia.se

=09Hello !!
=09I can't understand what's the problem ??=20
=09If CQWWDX  is 48 hours, WPX with only 36, it's fairly easyer to
=09optimize operation and get some rest during the contest.
=09Personaly I even prefer 48 Hour operation, when you are forced
=09to stop because you have limited time operation, you break the
=09rythom and gets harder when you come back !
=09=09=09=09=0973 + Good DX + Good Contest !!
 | Pedro Pedroso                        |                            |=20
 | l38217@alfa.ist.utl.pt               |  CT1ELP                    |
 | Eng. Electrotecnica e Computadores   |  Founder member of GPDX    |
 | (Telecomunicacoes e electronica)     |                            |
 | Address: P.O.Box 116 , 2806 Almada Codex , PORTUGAL               |

>From aa4nu@raider.raider.net (Bill W. Cox [AA4NU])  Wed May 29 18:33:01 1996
From: aa4nu@raider.raider.net (Bill W. Cox [AA4NU]) (Bill W. Cox [AA4NU])
Subject: What gives ???
Message-ID: <m0uOp7F-000CnkC@raider.raider.net>

What gives ?

"Possible" removing of CW as a "requirement" seems to draw no "urgency" with 
the powers that be. 

Kinda a "Don't worry, be happy, all is well" ?

"Possible" removing of 2m and 440mhz as "ham bands" seems to get a special 
posting and a call to get the word out to clubs/newletters/etc ...


Times sure are strange ...

What's that ole story about boiling a frog in the kettle ? Try throwing him
(her!) in there with the water already boiling, it will jump right back out.

Aha ... but put'em in the pot with the water at normal temperature and 
SLOWLY raise the temperature up, it will never realize what is happening ... 
UNTIL ...  

O well, back to re-building the station here ... all is well, don't worry ?

73 Bill AA4NU    aa4nu@raider.raider.net

>From kf3p@cais.cais.com (Tyler Stewart)  Wed May 29 19:22:25 1996
From: kf3p@cais.cais.com (Tyler Stewart) (Tyler Stewart)
Subject: 1000MP
Message-ID: <199605291822.OAA21826@cais.cais.com>

>At 08:42 PM 5/28/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>vy nice showing....especially considering the length of your call! You liked
>>the 'MP RX - tell the readers of the reflector (or just me) more, pse.
>This was my first use of the MP in a contest.  I can say for sure that I
>doubt the RX is any better than the Omni-6 on CW.  I can also say for sure
>that RX is the only place the two radios are on the same playing field.  The
>MP is clearly the better radio.  
>The biggest thing I noticed this weekend was the fatigue factor.  Operating
>40M this weekend on an IC-765 or 761 would have been torchor.  The MP
>incorporates DSP on the front panel.  I pretty much leave it engaged the
>entire time I operate.  There are many times you feel like the RX is dead,
>but actually it's just the DSP taking out the HISS you hear on other radios.
>Back to 40M... Normaly after operating the low bands on a noisy weekend I
>end up popping some Tylenol to take care of the ripping headache I get from
>trying to listen to one noisey band in one ear and another radio in the
>other ear.  I didn't get that headache this weekend.  I believe it was the
>radio.  Yes, you still get static crashes and you can't copy through them.
>But the radio takes away the constant abuse you get on "normal" radios.  Now
>maybe you can get this with an external DSP box... The last one I tried was
>not anywhere close to the DSP in this radio.  One last note on the DSP...
>This weekend was full of copying signals at or in the noise level on 20M.
>The DSP tends to peak up those signals to level where you can copy them
>easier.  Again subtracting from the fatigue factor.
>Like I said before... I'll own another or an IC775DSP before this fall.
>This radio is solid.  I had no "weird" things happen this weekend while
>interfacing with the computer like with the Omni-6.  It didn't need to be
>reset, etc... It just worked... which is what I expect from a radio.
> ---------------------------------------------
>| Contesting Online... The ultimate           |
>| source of ham radio contest information     |       
>| http://www.contesting.com                   |
> --------------------------------------------- 

I concur with most of that about the DSP, although the radio even without DSP
just sounds quieter than my D.  My MP DSP was on "A" setting noise reduction
the whole weekend.  I find the other settings are almost always too much, but
that first notch seems to do especially well against the dynamics of static
crashes, which a Timewave does nothing on...however, I think the DSP/audio
in the MP still lets just a little RX noise or just audio hiss thru, which
a Timewave would finish off.  I'll say it again:  The MP is the best RX I've
ever used.

>From readerl@goliath.sunyocc.edu (Larry Reader)  Wed May 29 19:29:47 1996
From: readerl@goliath.sunyocc.edu (Larry Reader) (Larry Reader)
Subject: Web Page Announcement
Message-ID: <9605291829.AA00168@goliath.sunyocc.edu>

We are pleased to announce that there is now a Windwood Web Page at:


Please check it out, esp. if you are looking for a '96 SS or '97 WPX
Caribbean location.

>From bsmith@tx.ncsu.edu (Brent Smith)  Wed May 29 20:06:12 1996
From: bsmith@tx.ncsu.edu (Brent Smith) (Brent Smith)
Subject: Special prefixes on CW
References: <Pine.SUN.3.90.960529102534.24893A-100000@cobra.ordata.com>
Message-ID: <960529150614.ZM7463@nt2>

.... SNIP .....

        > One thing I don't understand...why are so many contestants
        > still sending by hand?

Could it be because they enjoy it and prefer it that way?  At least 
that's why I do. (Seems rather obvious.)        

                                        - Brent KO4PY

>From jesposit@sctcorp.com (Joe Esposito)  Wed May 29 20:28:00 1996
From: jesposit@sctcorp.com (Joe Esposito) (Joe Esposito)
Subject: Hand Keying
Message-ID: <m0uOqvF-0002EcC@sctladm.sctcorp.com>

Right on, Brent! I use an army surplus J-51 for CW contesting in my
mobile. It looks like the old push-on style wooden clothes pin. I hold
it between my thumb and forefinger and squeeze it to send. Oh what a


Joe, K2YJL/M

>From biss@epg.nist.gov (Robert Biss)  Wed May 29 15:30:19 1996
From: biss@epg.nist.gov (Robert Biss) (Robert Biss)
Subject: ARRL's Urgent NEED
Message-ID: <Q1AC97BC@washer>

Seems to me (as I remember it) the good ole ARRL snuck the NO CODE license 
in on us inspite of all the surveys they took of the HAM Community telling 
them we didn't want it....They also did the renewable novice thing....One 
never really knows the value of something when it is given to them!!!!

They got it through (IMHO) to help out the equipment manufacturers sell all 
those 2M  HT's....  Where did the bulk of that money go???  OFF SHORE  of 

Now they have been working  quietly (i'm told) to drop the CW requirment 
altogether....Again (IMHO) that is to help the manufacturers, again mainly 
OFFSHORE, sell more HF equipment...

In fact, i'm told that one of the members of the ARRL committee studying! 
the dropping of the CW requirment is a manufacturer too....HMMMM  That 
company has recently gone from their usual 2 pages a month advertising to 
about 20 colored pages a month....HMMMMM again....makes one wonder doesn't 
it...I think that it is a 'done deal' and we've been sandbagged again!!!

I guess if we lose the 2 meter band and the 70 CM band they have to have 
something to entice all of those NO-CODERS that they lurred into ham radio.  
And that would be an UPGRADE into HF with a NO-CODE requirement.

When will the ARRL learn to GET OUT OF BED with the manufacturers and 
represent the HAM RADIO FRATERNITY  like they were set up to do in the 

Boy,  Do we ever need a Vic Clark now!!!!!  

I, like many of you, will do my part in trying to save our bands...but when 
is the ARRL going to represent us on what we want, and have stood for, for 
many years.

Many of the No Coders do not belong to ARRL, and that is no surprise to me 
and it shouldn't be to you either.  There is no need to, they got what they 
wanted with little or no effort.  How many of them are going to do their 
part to fight for the bands?

It will be interesting to see if ANY of the manufacturers get on the 
bandwagon with the ARRL to help save the bands....You know they don't want 
to preserve CW....it will be easier to sell more radio's...a lot more...

This, ofcourse, has all been IMHO.....for what it's worth....

Got to punch the F8 key before I change my mind...

73 bob   K3ZNV

>From k1vr@k1vr.jjm.com (Fred Hopengarten)  Wed May 29 17:34:43 1996
From: k1vr@k1vr.jjm.com (Fred Hopengarten) (Fred Hopengarten)
Subject: DVP E-Mail
Message-ID: <31ac7cb0.k1vr@k1vr.jjm.com>

I received a handout at Dayton which includes info for the
new distributor of the K1EA DVP.  The DVP is being
distributed by LZ Engineering, run by Krassi Petkov AA1ND.

Order line:    617/646-7490 (it says 24 hours!)
FAX:           617/648-0615
Tech Support:  617/648-2495
e-mail:        aa1nd@aol.com

As I haven't seen those numbers and addresses elsewhere, I
thought you guys and gals might be interested.

As usual, I may be a user, but I have no financial
                      Fred Hopengarten K1VR
           Six Willarch Road * Lincoln, MA 01773-5105
     home + office telephone:  617/259-0088 (FAX on demand)
                   internet:  k1vr@k1vr.jjm.com
            "Big antennas, high in the sky, are better
                       than small ones, low."

>From kf3p@cais.cais.com (Tyler Stewart)  Wed May 29 20:50:27 1996
From: kf3p@cais.cais.com (Tyler Stewart) (Tyler Stewart)
Subject: WPX zero pointers
Message-ID: <199605291950.PAA07681@cais.cais.com>

>I have to agree with KN5Hose, it would make a lot of sense to
>give a point for inter-country qso's. Midwest & low band activity
>could only increase. 
>73, K4PQL

Well, it would give the US a more equal footing with EU (giving 1 pt for US to
US call area or whatever).  They already do that for the RTTY WPX contest.

>From kf3p@cais.cais.com (Tyler Stewart)  Wed May 29 20:53:50 1996
From: kf3p@cais.cais.com (Tyler Stewart) (Tyler Stewart)
Subject: 1000MP
Message-ID: <199605291953.PAA08284@cais.cais.com>

>At 02:22 PM 5/29/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>I concur with most of that about the DSP, although the radio even without DSP
>>just sounds quieter than my D.  My MP DSP was on "A" setting noise reduction
>>the whole weekend.  I find the other settings are almost always too much, but
>>that first notch seems to do especially well against the dynamics of static
>>crashes, which a Timewave does nothing on...however, I think the DSP/audio
>>in the MP still lets just a little RX noise or just audio hiss thru, which
>>a Timewave would finish off.  I'll say it again:  The MP is the best RX I've
>>ever used.
>I thought you threw your 1000MP back after a couple of weeks because of the
>display.  Did you ever get that resolved?
>Pete Smith N4ZR (n4zr@contesting.com)

No, it still sucks, as does the power control system.  I just decided the
tradeoff was worth it for a slightly better RX, a smaller more portable box, and
one that's set up for a transverter.

73, Tyler

>From jreid@aloha.net (Jim Reid)  Wed May 29 21:27:26 1996
From: jreid@aloha.net (Jim Reid) (Jim Reid)
Subject: Possible loss of 2m and 440
Message-ID: <>

>"Possible" removing of CW as a "requirement" seems to draw no "urgency" with 
>the powers that be. 
>Kinda a "Don't worry, be happy, all is well" ?
>"Possible" removing of 2m and 440mhz as "ham bands" seems to get a special 
>posting and a call to get the word out to clubs/newletters/etc ...

But these ARE the bands where all those couple hundred thousand new
buyers of HT's and stuff use them!  Those bands account for
the new money coming into the coffers.  Don't need to know CW
to qualify to buy HT's.  What are the ads about on the inside/outside
covers of most issues of the ham mags?

73, Jim, AH6NB

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>