In a message dated 96-11-13 23:49:51 EST, you write:
>Those are the notes I have received after posting the Hill vs. Ocean QTH,
>which is better?
W7RM maintains that salt water is worth 10dB on HF. An RCA(?) study
from the 1920's said basically the same thing.
Probably the best is sitting on top of a high (2,000 feet)
copper-saturated mountain in the middle of the ocean. I think that NP4A fits
this description.
73, Steve K7LXC
>From je1cka@dumpty.nal.go.jp (Takao KUMAGAI) Thu Nov 14 14:08:57 1996
From: je1cka@dumpty.nal.go.jp (Takao KUMAGAI) (Takao KUMAGAI)
Subject: INVITATION to the "contest-rules" Mailing List
Message-ID: <199611141408.XAA27878@dumpty.nal.go.jp>
Dear Contest sponsors, Contest columnists, Bulletin Editors and Web masters
I just set-up the new Mailing-List(=reflector) to distribute the complete
contest rules or results for publication. And I recommend the Contest
columnists, Bulletin Editors and Web masters to join this reflector to
exchange the most updated rules or recent results for their publication.
This "cq-contest" has been too busy for the discussion on the Vanity call
sign or other technical informations and it may not be the appropriate place
to post the complete rules or results.
This "contest-rules" reflector will have the following advantages both
to the contest sponsors and editors;
* Contest sponsors do not need to find the editors' email address any more
because I'll update their email addresses. Just post the contest rule/
result to "contest-rules@dumpty.nal.go.jp".
* Editors and Web-masters can get current contest rules/results to subscribe
this reflector.
If you wish to subscribe this mailing list, please send a subscription
request as follows;
mailto: contest-rules-request@dumpty.nal.go.jp
with your CALLSIGN, EMAIL ADDRESS and what contest/magazine/bulletin/
WWWpage you related in the body of the message.
Subject: line should contain "subscribe contest-rules".
If you have any email addresses of the contest sponsors, contest managers
at national radio associations, magazine editors or club bulletin editors,
they will be greatly appreciated.
Regards
---------
Tack Kumagai JE1CKA/KH0AM
TEL:81-30-066-6408, FAX:81-423-93-4449
Internet: je1cka@nal.go.jp
>From w0mu@sprynet.com (Mike Fatchett) Thu Nov 14 14:25:12 1996
From: w0mu@sprynet.com (Mike Fatchett) (Mike Fatchett)
Subject: The FCC Lied
Message-ID: <01BBD1FC.FA158A20@hd14-174.compuserve.com>
Another twist.
Nest time you hear that the FCC promises to not give away 40 meters are =
you going to believe them? If the hobby is important to you all then =
little things like this vanity issue can gain greater meaning in the big =
picture of what might actually be happening at the FCC
Mike
W0MU
>From w0mu@sprynet.com (Mike Fatchett) Thu Nov 14 14:19:42 1996
From: w0mu@sprynet.com (Mike Fatchett) (Mike Fatchett)
Subject: SS ck, club call??
Message-ID: <01BBD1FC.3586A180@hd14-174.compuserve.com>
If I remember the rules it is the first year the operator was licensed.
Mike
----------
From: Robert Penneys[SMTP:radio@UDel.Edu]
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 1996 12:00 AM
To: cq-contest@tgv.com
Subject: SS ck, club call??
In the spirit of the now threads that will not die...
NY3C wants to use the N.E.R.D.S. new club call, W3TT, on the Sweepstakes.
Does he give the check year for his own license, or the club's?
I figure the latter.
Tnx, Bob
>From k0wa@southwind.net (Lee Buller) Thu Nov 14 14:53:58 1996
From: k0wa@southwind.net (Lee Buller) (Lee Buller)
Subject: NOALOX and Vanity Calls
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19961114145358.006e0500@southwind.net>
Gentlemen....
I understand the angst of what has happened in Washington, but the flames
are counter productive to amateur radio. Lets give it some time for the FCC
to sort out the mess. I didn't have to worry about the mess 'cause I got my
vanity call in 1977...but...I remember how on edge I was about the call.
Yes, and I have trouble with those "Extras" who have those old quaint calls
that really don't deserve the whole concept of "old-timer and learned
fellow." Some of these guys copied 20 wpm once and guessed on the test and
were lucky. There is a big difference between an a 1970 Extra and a 1996
Extra. There are some people out there who are quite undeserving of what
they have...and the greed is rather apparent.
Maybe, we need to spread some NOALOX on some egos...to insure the current
flows where it is suppose to.
Best Regards to all....
Lee Buller
k0wa@southwind.net
PS. By the way...it is clear from the messages that NOALOX and PENTROX are
like Ford and Chevy...dirve the one you like"
>From James_E_Brown@smtp.ord.usace.army.mil (James E Brown) Thu Nov 14
>15:18:14 1996
From: James_E_Brown@smtp.ord.usace.army.mil (James E Brown) (James E Brown)
Subject: The FCC Lied -Reply
Message-ID: <s28af229.015@smtp.ord.usace.army.mil>
Agree with Mike on this issue. Contacting your congressional
representatives to have them make inquiries of the FCC would probably
be the most effective route. Polictical appointees and subordinates do
respond to congressional inquiries in a hurry. Appears that if the
Electronic filings were not processed with the rest in a "random"
manner, then the whole process is invalid, since many outcomes would
change. IMHO, this is a valid topic for this reflector since calls are, of
course, of interest to all and vital in contests. Naturally, it appears from
reading comments here, that those that got vanities do not want it to be
re-done. But those that didnt may have a different perspective.
AE4EY
>>> Mike Fatchett <w0mu@sprynet.com> 11/14/96 09:25am >>>
Another twist.
Nest time you hear that the FCC promises to not give away 40 meters
are = you going to believe them? If the hobby is important to you all then
= little things like this vanity issue can gain greater meaning in the big =
picture of what might actually be happening at the FCC
Mike
W0MU
>From jbmitch@vt.edu (John Mitchell) Thu Nov 14 16:02:07 1996
From: jbmitch@vt.edu (John Mitchell) (John Mitchell)
Subject: The FCC Lied -Reply
Message-ID: <199611141602.LAA08832@sable.cc.vt.edu>
At 10:18 AM 11/14/96 -0500, James E Brown wrote:
...
> IMHO, this is a valid topic for this reflector since calls are, of
>course, of interest to all and vital in contests.
I think it has gone way over the top, and needs to be moved to
REC.RADIO.AMATEUR.MISC or POLICY
Naturally, it appears from
>reading comments here, that those that got vanities do not want it to be
>re-done. But those that didnt may have a different perspective.
So what else is new? But if I got none of my 25 choices, I would not be
small- minded enough to ask thousands of luckier hams than myself to turn in
their calls. I am quite surprised to see the avarice shown by both those
who requested dozens of calls, and those who now want to turn over the whole
game so they can have a second chance. Grow up people. You are supposed to
be contesters; that means you are competitive, but you are also "good sports".
Will the administrator please close out this thread? It is taking up an
amazing amount of bandwidth to go over the same ground over and over again.
Poor sports always cry "I was robbed!". If anyone profited from advanced
knowledge, got preferential treatment, etc., then those individuals can be
handled on a case by case basis, as the FCC has done in the past.
Grow up, folks.
Last word from me on this,
Lottery winner,
John K4IQ (ninth choice and still happy!)
>From ac1o@gate.net (Walter Deemer) Thu Nov 14 16:17:14 1996
From: ac1o@gate.net (Walter Deemer) (Walter Deemer)
Subject: QRP Question (humor)
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19961114161714.00d0d5b8@pop.gate.net>
If a QRP station's power output is more than five watts, is he running broth?
;o) de KN4T (hey -- at least I didn't mention the "V" word!)
|