rthorne at VNET.IBM.COM rthorne at VNET.IBM.COM
Fri Apr 8 08:49:37 EDT 1994

Spoke with Kenwood service yesterday.  I explained my problem, Kenwoods
response, I don't have a problem.

Between the phone conversation with Kenwood and all the replies here on the
internet, I'm comfortable that I don't have a problem at all.  It has just
been a case of getting used to a new radio, hence operator error.  Basically
the response was the rig operates differently based on operator voice
characteristics, a valid statement.  All my on the air tests confirm my audio
is very good and strong (strong is a relative statement).

One other note, I completed watching the tape 'TS-850S Operation and
Adjustment' by Ham Repair Co. in Georgia.  Came with the rig.

The tape had nothing earth shattering but it was neat to sit back and watch
someone show you how to use the radio and make simple adjustments.

One adjustment which was very interesting, was the power output adjustment. For
you TS-850S owners, are you aware you can pump 200 watts out of the rig? Its
not recommended but possible with a simple twist of an internal pot.  The
instructor thought it would be safe to adjust it to 130 watts to help drive
an amplifier.  This may add another twist to the 100 watt vs 150 watt contest
questions.  On 150 watt contest weekends, open the rig and make a quick
adjustment.  Just kidding, I wouldn't do it.  I may adjust mine for 120 watts
and thats it.  If you do it remember your power supply must be able to handle
the increased power level (more current).


Rich - WB5M

>From John Dorr K1AR" <p00259 at psilink.com  Fri Apr  8 16:36:56 1994
From: John Dorr K1AR" <p00259 at psilink.com (John Dorr K1AR)
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 94 10:36:56 -0500
Subject: Future of Single Op?
Message-ID: <2974901157.1.p00259 at psilink.com>

Hi there...

I am in violent agreement when it comes to a general policy of "less 
categories are better than more categories." What disturbs me is that we 
meeasure a category's value by the amount of "serious" competitors.

The fact is that there are huge numbers of people who still choose to 
operate "real" single operator. It's either by choice or perhaps due to 
limited access to packet (or lack of equipment). I think it's dangerous 
to assume that the world is no longer interested in single operating (unassisted) 
by simply measuring it according to what the big boys are doing and how they 
compare to each other across categories.

If you take a look at any set of contest results, there are many people
entering the single op category that would probably be very upset if they
were lumped into a category that included the ability to use packet spotting.

This topic needs much more discussion--especially respecting the needs 
of the "little pistol"--before we go ahead and meet the needs of the big 

73 John, K1AR

>DATE:   Thu, 31 Mar 1994 21:31:06 -0500 (EST)
>FROM:   Randy A Thompson <K5ZD at world.std.com>
>A more interesting area to me is the eventual demise of single operator
>unassisted (i.e. the no-packet category of single op).  
>The number of "serious" single op unassisted entries is going down with
>each year.  Many of them are escaping to the arguably more enjoyable 
>category of s/o assisted (+ packet).  I see the not to distant future where
>major DX contests have a small handful of hardcore single ops and that's it!
>No competition after the first 2 or 3 spots.
>Given that the top single-ops are often beating (and certainly 
>competitive) with the assisted guys, why do we need two categories?  
>Separate categories were originally proposed due to fear of the unknown.  
>Now that we KNOW that packet is not that significant of an advantage, why 
>not combine the two single op categories back into one?
>Single operator would be defined as "One person doing all operating, 
>logging, and maintenance functions at a station for the contest period."
>No other rules or limitations.
>What do you think?  Let's bring competition back to contesting by making 
>less categories instead of more!
>Randy, K5ZD

>From len at ariel.coe.neu.edu (Leonard Kay)  Fri Apr  8 16:42:48 1994
From: len at ariel.coe.neu.edu (Leonard Kay) (Leonard Kay)
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 1994 11:42:48 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: More IRQ's
Message-ID: <9404081542.AA03511 at ariel.coe.neu.edu>

>>Maybe I'm missing something, but I got a Boca card with two additional 
>>serial, one parallel and one game port for $15.  True, it doesn't have 
>>selectable IRQs but there has already been sufficient discussion here 
>>about how to handle that.  Got it from MEI/Micro Center.x
>>73, Pete
>>n4zr at netcom.com
>>NOTE: New Address

Actually, I'd like to know the answer to this, too. I remember buying
one of these cards a couple years ago, thinking that I could use it to
expand my AT (which already had COMs 1-2) to COMs 3 and 4. It didn't 
work, even though the IRQ's were jumper-selectable. I'm not a hardware
guru, so I just threw it in my junk box (it's still there....) and lived
with 2 serial ports.

Len KB2R
len at ariel.coe.neu.edu

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list