I second the motion.... in fact, I will send a check to Billy for
one of the plaques.
One minor change suggestion: Rather than "first licensed" in the
past two years, how about "first full HF license" obtained in the
past two years. (For "W's" that would be General, and the equivalent
VE class.) This would give eligibility to those who have had a
Tech or Novice (and VE equivalents) for several years, but who have
recently upgraded to full HF status.
Not to make Tech or Novice ineligible, but given their small HF
allocations (especially on phone) they likely can't really compete.
Let me know the cost of sponsoring one of the plaques ($50.00???).
73, de Hans, K0HB
---NoSnail v1.17
*******************************************************************
HAM>link< RBBS - Serving the Amateur Radio Community Since 1983
- 612/HAM-0000 v.34 Ham Radio Spoken Here!!
- 612/HAM-1010 v.32b Reply to sender @ hamlink.mn.org
********************************************************************
>From n4bp@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us (Bob Patten) Wed May 22 17:32:48 1996
From: n4bp@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us (Bob Patten) (Bob Patten)
Subject: WPX
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9605221200.B119-0100000@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
On Wed, 22 May 1996 k4sb@avana.net wrote:
> For your information, all the calls I mentioned are perfectly legal to use
> during
> 4-1-96 to 8-31-96. I'm not making up some phony prefix.
>
All well and good, but how do the contest rules apply to this scenario?
Is one station permitted to use several calls in the WPX? Am I allowed
to knowingly work one station under several calls and use each new prefix
as a multiplier?
I do not subscribe to CQ Magazine. The rules as published in March '96
QST make no mention of this situation...
>From 0006743923@mcimail.com (Kurt Pauer) Wed May 22 17:45:00 1996
From: 0006743923@mcimail.com (Kurt Pauer) (Kurt Pauer)
Subject: VO1/2 Section - Not Yet
Message-ID: <80960522164508/0006743923DF3EM@MCIMAIL.COM>
The CAC had a meeting in Dayton. Tim, VE6SH, the VE CAC Rep and an
officer of RAC presented information about Newfoundland. Approval
has been given to create an RAC section, but it has not been formed
yet. In light of this, the CAC consensus was to table any discussion
until such time as the section has been formed. So there is no
need to continue speculation for the time being here on CQ-Contest.
Dr Bafoofnik will be taking names of anyone who tries to continue
this thread!! Very 73, Kurt, W1PH, New England Division, CAC
>From harpole@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu (Charles H. Harpole) Wed May 22 18:14:29 1996
From: harpole@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu (Charles H. Harpole) (Charles H. Harpole)
Subject: Hy-Tower on WARC?
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.93.960522131146.16093D-100000@Pegasus>
Anyone ever added any/all WARC bands to a HyGain HyTower HT-18 (it is a
stub-tuned tower-style vertical)? Also, any tips on adding the 160m coil
to the HyTower???
Anyone willing to use your antenna modeling program to address these
questions? 73, K4VUD
>From steven@zianet.com (Steven Nace KN5H) Wed May 22 19:40:15 1996
From: steven@zianet.com (Steven Nace KN5H) (Steven Nace KN5H)
Subject: Vertical ant experts, I need info
Message-ID: <18401590601751@zianet.com>
What, if any effect does a 'tilt' in my vertical have in its performance? My
R7, for lack of a better word, leans a lot. This less than vertical
orientation is due to high winds. The question is, how much can I tolerate
before there is a change in its performance.
Thanks in advance
73 de Hose KN5H
>From DFREY@maila.harris.com (DFREY) Wed May 22 17:21:25 1996
From: DFREY@maila.harris.com (DFREY) (DFREY)
Subject: On removing CW
Message-ID: <1a363ca0@maila.harris.com>
I sent the following to the FASC (at iaru@iaru.org).
I'm posting it here to give fellow contesters some factual,
substantive, and non-emotional arguments against removing the code
requirement. Send your comments on the position paper (see it at
http://www.arrl.org/iaru/fasc1out.html#fasc1.11) TO THE IARU, not to
me - I've said my piece.
-Dick
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Re: 9.12, 9.13 and 9.14 of the IARU Discussion paper.
It all seems an exercise in subjunctives:
...future technical developments may provide....
...there may be the possibility for sufficient expansion....
...S25.5 (RR 2735) [possibly] being dropped from that agenda....
On the mere possibility that several events might occur in the future,
we are going to cut a critical item which helps maintain what little
order there is now.
If the Morse code requirement is removed, administrations will no
longer be compelled to inforce band plans which protect code since
that mode is no longer required by law. This will happen even if
other administrations choose to retain the code requirement. This
is not conjecture, this WILL happen. If CW is removed, the present
use allocations should be grandfathered to prevent disenfranchising
those using it now.
Chaos reigns below 30 MHz already. Phone patches on 80M CW, fish
net buoys on 160M, CB migration into 10M, inter-island business
traffic on 40M, SSB chatter on 10.000 MHz, ionospheric sounders
coursing at will, the list is endless. Clearly, enforcement is a
present problem. Any future deregulation must be balanced by
requiring strict and vigorous enforcement of the remaining rules.
Without a mandated requirement for acitive enforcement, the rules,
even advisedly bad ones, are just so much worthless paper.
If, because of "technical developments", the ITU code requirement
is removed, the use of similar "technical developments" should be
required to insure compliance with the remaining rules.
Technical improvement comes at a cost. The present justification for
code is it permits amateurs "to be able to intercommunicate without
regard to equipment or language barriers...." How will placing an
additional requirement for modern equipment facilitate improved
intercommunication? Technical improvements notwithstanding, Morse
code will probably remain the simplest and most economic form of
universal inter-language radio communication.
Richard Frey, K4XU
>From dnorris@k7no.com (Dean Norris) Wed May 22 20:17:11 1996
From: dnorris@k7no.com (Dean Norris) (Dean Norris)
Subject: Hy-Tower on WARC?
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960522191711.0068c37c@mail.syspac.com>
At 13:14 5/22/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Anyone ever added any/all WARC bands to a HyGain HyTower HT-18 (it is a
>stub-tuned tower-style vertical)? Also, any tips on adding the 160m coil
>to the HyTower???
>Anyone willing to use your antenna modeling program to address these
>questions? 73, K4VUD
>
>
My Hy-Tower loads beautifully on 18 & 12 meters. Doesn't hear well compared
to other ants but does work.
cdn
C. Dean Norris
Amateur Radio Station K7NO
e-mail to dnorris@k7no.com
http://www.syspac.com/~dnorris/
|