Just have to put my two cents worth in on this one....
1. I think ALL licensed amateurs with operating priviliges below 30 MHz
should be required to demonstrate "knowledge" of the code, even if it's only
3 WPM. At the very least this will assure that all hams know the basic
characters of the code.
2. The lower 25 KHz of ALL (non-WARC) amateur bands below 30MHz should be the
EXCLUSIVE domain of the EXTRA CLASS CW LICENSE with a minimum requirement of
20 (25?) WPM.
3. Use of the code in the "lower 25" should be a special privilige reserved
for those who WANT to use CW seriously. There should be a "time in grade" (as
there once was) before being allowed to sit for this EXTRA CLASS CW License.
(What I'm suggesting is a CW endorsement feature for the Extra Class
license.)
4. This scheme would in effect allow No-Code licensing from entry through
Extra. However, there would be 125 KHz (out of 3 MHz or so) reserved for
those with the Extra Class w/ CW Endorsement. CW would become a "preference"
rather than a "requirement".
5. I'm not so naive as to believe this would ever come to pass under FCC
regulations, but I do think the concept could be used to encourage and
preserve the art of CW, particularly in the competitive areas of Contesting
and DXing. There are still those out there who will respond to the challange,
and who will want to "run with the big dogs"!
6. Oh yeah, how to police this... Forget it! The good operators will rise to
the top. The others will drift off and find other interests.
'Nuff said!
73, Joe, W5ASP
>From drussell@knox.net (Donald Russell) Thu Aug 22 22:20:34 1996
From: drussell@knox.net (Donald Russell) (Donald Russell)
Subject: Vetical phased arrays
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.960822171441.23841B-100000@jasper.knox.net>
Fellow Contesters:
I am considering a Vertical phased array to replace my
existing Butternut HF2V single element vertical. This Vertical by the
way, does an excellant job on 40 meters, but not so good on 80. I was
going to tear this present system down and go strictly with 2 40 meter
elements with no traps. Fed in phase and out of phase for the common
figure eight pattern. This would allow me to put a better signal into
Europe and NE USA, California, and Southern USA on 40 meters. I am more
interested in the domestic contests than I am in DX, but then.....
I got to thinking. It would be nice to keep the HF2V, add another
and have a
2 element phased array on 80/40. I think the extra gain on 80 meters
would maybe bring the gain up to that of a dipole, and being able to null
out the sides would aid the battle of QRM. I could easily feed this
multiband system in phase just by cutting the coax to equal lengths and
maybe using the WX0B stack-match (or an antenna tuner). I haven't figure
out a simple way to feed this system out of phase though. Seems like you
would have seperate phasing lines and switch them in with relays.
Another
way of doing this would be to use a 3 element triangular system such as
W9XT's in the March/April 1993 issue of NCJ. Feed two elements in phase
at all times, switching between the three to obtain the direction desired.
Then go with the stack-match totally. No worry about feeding the
antennaes out of phase. Of course this would take an extra element and
may not be XYL approved. Then again, pretty well low profile stuff. Any
suggestions or comments on either of these systems would be appreciated as
I have found no documentation of an 80/40 mtr vertical array being tried
before.
73, Don WA8YRS drussell@knox.net
>From aa4lr@radio.org (Bill Coleman) Thu Aug 22 23:15:27 1996
From: aa4lr@radio.org (Bill Coleman) (Bill Coleman)
Subject: Grids, RSTs, etc.
Message-ID: <m0uti0h-00018xC@wa4mei.radio.org>
>Subject: RE: Grids, RSTs, etc.
>From: Rich DiDonna, rdidonna@tacarlson.com
>
>Since some of us still are active in QSL work for contests, isn't the
>exchange still sort of required so that the QSL can be made official?
>
>Rich KI6ZH
No. If you look at the rules for DXCC and such, there's no requirement
for exchanging signal reports. A two-way contact is necessary.
This myth gets perpetuated because of the existance of WAS and DX nets.
(I don't have anything against them, other than the poor operating
practices that are sometimes associated with them) In a net, you already
know the callsign of the person you are trying to contact, so you need to
exchange *SOME* unique information in order to have a valid two-way
contact.
Spend 20 minutes listening to the 3905 Century club (a WAS net) some
night. The only two-way information exchanged is the signal report.
<sarcasm mode on>
Besides, everyone in a contest is 59(9) anyway. How does sending it make
it official?
<sarcasm mode off>
Bill Coleman, AA4LR Mail: aa4lr@radio.org
Quote: "Not in a thousand years will man ever fly!"
-- Wilbur Wright, 1901
>From ke7gh@primenet.com (Brian K. Short) Thu Aug 22 23:25:41 1996
From: ke7gh@primenet.com (Brian K. Short) (Brian K. Short)
Subject: CW & HF Licensing
Message-ID: <01BB9078.EFDE0200@ip025.phx.primenet.com>
>>Dear Asylum Keeper,
<snip>
>>3. All applicants should show technical expertise by soldering a PL-259 as
>> part of their examination.
This could put a crimp on someone's style.
<snip>
>>Sincerely,
>>dr. Bafoofnik
>From hwardsil@wolfenet.com (Ward Silver) Thu Aug 22 23:28:29 1996
From: hwardsil@wolfenet.com (Ward Silver) (Ward Silver)
Subject: CW & HF Licensing
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.960822152554.29086I-100000@gonzo.wolfenet.com>
On Thu, 22 Aug 1996, Rich DiDonna wrote:
> How about 4 classes -
> Novice: VHF only 50 mHz and up (200 watt limit)
> No code required. Skills tailored tests.
>
This is pretty much the same situation as now. The general intent of my
proposal is how to address no-code operation on HF and still preserve
value in the licenses.
73, Ward N0AX
|