A reminder that this coming weekend 2-3 September is IARU Region 1
SSB Field Day. Activity will be mainly from G, DL, ON, HB9, I, OZ.
Please come on and give points to as many /P stations as you can.
The contest is on the five bands 80-10m and runs for 24 hours starting
at 1500z. The exchange is report and serial number.
Dave G4BUO
>From Straw, Dean, N6BV" <rdstraw@arrl.org Wed Aug 30 15:47:00 1995
From: Straw, Dean, N6BV" <rdstraw@arrl.org (Straw, Dean, N6BV)
Subject: YTAD.ZIP
Message-ID: <304479E5@arrl.org>
Sorry, gang. I misfired yesterday announcing that the latest version of
YTAD.ZIP is at the ARRL ftp sites. It is now available at the easiest site
to access:
oak.oakland.edu
in subdirectory: /pub/hamradio/arrl/bbs/programs
Have fun.
73, Dean, N6BV
Senior Assistant Technical Editor, ARRL
rdstraw@arrl.org
>From n4zr@ix.netcom.com (Pete Smith) Wed Aug 30 15:52:39 1995
From: n4zr@ix.netcom.com (Pete Smith) (Pete Smith)
Subject: Glasses
Message-ID: <199508301452.HAA25149@ix5.ix.netcom.com>
Maybe it's an indication of the aging contester population, but I got quite
a few responses to my question about improving comfort wearing earphones
with glasses. I'll summarize briefly here and have a more detailed file I
can forward to anyone who wants it (and will send to Scott 'FOX for his
home-page):
Several people liked the Heil Pro-sets, including people who had found any
over-the-ear headsets uncomfortable before.
Several suggested contact lenses, while others had bad experience with them
(which may mirror the general public experience). One suggested using a
so-called monovision lense, where you put one in one eye only for reading
the monitor (I understand this only works for people who have one eye
strongly dominant for near vision).
Several suggested using several different pair of earphones and/or glasses
and changing off as needed.
Some liked on-the-ear headphones, like the Heil BM-10, while others
complained they made their ears sore.
One suggested liquid-filled over-the-ear pads, available from aviation radio
sources.
Two suggested using special frames with very thin bows, usually available
special order only.
At a minimum, no shortage of things to try. Thanks all!
73, Pete Smith N4ZR
n4zr@ix.netcom.com
WEST Virginia
>From Swanson, Glenn, KB1GW" <gswanson@arrl.org Wed Aug 30 16:08:00 1995
From: Swanson, Glenn, KB1GW" <gswanson@arrl.org (Swanson, Glenn, KB1GW)
Subject: Towers/birds, contesting and networks...
Message-ID: <30447EEF@arrl.org>
Greetings fellow contesters,
No flames, "Just another perspective."
According to my thesaurus, "elicit" can be replaced with:
-obtain, -invoke, -evoke, -extract, -summon, -gain, -derive, and, -extort!
So, is it "unsportsmanlike" to ELICIT contacts via non-amateur means?
Well, how about extract, summon, derive or extort contacts!
IMHO, to "derive" a contact via an Internet/packet network,
or via an EME/laser/packet network,
or any other "network," is all the same! No?
(BTW, according to my dictionary, "network" can be "a chain of
interconnected people or operations, [example,] a spy network.")
Above opinions are solely mine, and mine alone!
73, Glenn, KB1GW
P.S. No bird/tower collisions at my QTH... guess it's because my tower is
firmly rooted to the ground! ;-)
The neighbors cat has been known to take out a few birds, (and mice),
however. Wonder if they need a permit to keep a known killer (their cat),
in a residential area?
-----------------------------
>The rule, as quoted by Tack, states it's unsportsmanlike to ELICIT
>contacts via non-amateur means.
>
>So I looked it up to be clear:
>elicit: verb, transitive
>1. To bring or draw out (something latent); educe.
>2. To call forth (a reaction, for example). See Synonyms at evoke.
>
>IMHO, PacketCluster does not "draw out" or "call forth" DX multipliers.
>It simply notifies you that they are there.
>
>Yes, some purists may think that amateur radio means ONLY. But by the
>current rules, packetcluster does not "elicit" contacts or multipliers.
>And, by "the spirit of the rules", maybe a spotting network is a
>spotting network.
>
>Please, no flames. Just another perspective.
>Chad Kurszewski WE9V chad_kurszewski@csg.mot.com
>From H. Ward Silver" <hwardsil@seattleu.edu Wed Aug 30 16:16:22 1995
From: H. Ward Silver" <hwardsil@seattleu.edu (H. Ward Silver)
Subject: K0SF TOWER CUP: Need Data on Bird Strike
Message-ID: <Pine.3.07.9508300819.C22043-b100000@bach.seattleu.edu>
I live on an island in Puget Sound, near a residential harbor. This
harbor is a busy way-station for Canadian Geese on their travels and we
frequently have "vees" of up to 30 "honkers" making their way up from the
harbor. They have to climb 300 feet to get over the hill, and being heavy
birds, are not far above ground level when they pass over our property.
In seven years, I have no knowledge of any of these birds coming even
close to either of my 60-foot towers.
We also have a nearby Blue Heron rookery and the birds stay well clear of
the towers and wire antennas.
The stacked array of the 2-element 40-meter yagi and the 3-element
tribander has become somewhat of a popular resting area for the resident
swallow population. Yesterday, my wife counted 96 (!) barn and
violet-green swallows on them at one time. They congregate there in
mid-morning and late afternoon between feeding periods. When the swallows
aren't there, the sparrows and finches take over. The quad spreaders on
the adjacent towers are also popular perches.
In short, far from being a detriment to the avian environment, the
antennas and towers have attracted birds and provide them with a clear,
safe perching area. The larger birds take no notice of the structures.
73, Ward N0AX
>From jdesmon@mn2.uswc.uswest.com (John Desmond) Wed Aug 30 17:11:05 1995
From: jdesmon@mn2.uswc.uswest.com (John Desmond) (John Desmond)
Subject: CQ WW, The Internet & Packet
Message-ID: <9508301611.AA22918@mn2>
Subject: Re: CQ WW, The Internet and Packet?
> > > 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?
>To which Takao KUMAGAI responds:
>> The CQ WW RULE describes on the use of non amateure related
>> sources.
>> =======
>> XII. DISQUALIFICATION: {stuff deleted}
>> The use of non-amateur means such as telephones, telegrams,
>> etc., to elicit contacts or multipliers during a contest is
>> unsportsmanlike and the entry is subject to disqualification.
>> =============
>This could be a tricky "rule interpretation".
>The rule, as quoted by Tack, states it's unsportsmanlike to ELICIT
>contacts via non-amateur means.
>Yes, some purists may think that amateur radio means ONLY. But by the
>current rules, packetcluster does not "elicit" contacts or multipliers.
>And, by "the spirit of the rules", maybe a spotting network is a
>spotting network.
What if you were to access the Internet via TCP/IP over a radio link
using the ham bands? In that case you are using radio and the wireline
portion of the circuit is pretty much invisable to the user. It sounds
like the rules need fine tuning and updating to catch up to the changes
that have occured since the original rules were written.
73, John K0TG
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Desmond - K0TG Saint Paul, Minnesota
U S WEST Communications -
Central Office Technician - Network Switching Local Network Ops.
jdesmon@mn2.uswc.uswest.com
k0tg@amsat.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|