Cleaning out those Field Day spiders
sherratt at VNET.IBM.COM
sherratt at VNET.IBM.COM
Tue May 10 13:44:52 EDT 1994
Has anyone ever heard of putting mothballs inside traps to keep those nasty
spiders out (or was a certain antenna vendor pulling my leg ?)
73, Scott N6VB sherratt at vnet.ibm.com
>From sellington" <sellington at mail.ssec.wisc.edu Tue May 10 17:13:49 1994
From: sellington" <sellington at mail.ssec.wisc.edu (sellington)
Date: 10 May 94 16:13:49 U
Subject: Cleaning out those Field Day spiders
>Has anyone ever heard of putting mothballs inside traps to keep those nasty
>spiders out
I've heard that, but I can't say where, and haven't tried it myself. I would
try gluing a piece of window screen over each drain hole. Or, if it's an
antenna that's in storage between Field Days, just tape them up. Needless to
say, storing the elements directly on the ground, under the deck, or whatever
is a good way to attract bugs.
Scott K9MA
>From barry at w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner) Tue May 10 22:49:18 1994
From: barry at w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner) (Barry Kutner)
Date: Tue, 10 May 94 21:49:18 GMT
Subject: Pactor for DXing?
Message-ID: <VoN5Lc1w165w at w2up.wells.com>
"Jay Townsend" <jayt at comtch.iea.com> writes:
> Well, ah, sorta. Actually there are now *TWO* AMTOR contests!
>
Jay - I feel like I'm getting into point-counterpoint - in any case, Yes
there are AMTOR contests (I know about SARTG, what's the other?), but in
my opinion, sleep is more exciting.
>
> I can see that you have never tried FEC Amtor, Barry. You can copy just
> fine in a pileup.
>
True, but according to the rules of the SARTG AMTOR contest, all QSOs
must be made in ARQ mode, so my original point is correct.
73 Barry
Barry N. Kutner, W2UP Usenet/Internet: barry at w2up.wells.com
Newtown, PA Packet Radio: W2UP @ WB3JOE.#EPA.PA.USA.NA
Packet Cluster: W2UP >K2TW (FRC)
.......................................................................
>From barry at w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner) Wed May 11 00:28:03 1994
From: barry at w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner) (Barry Kutner)
Date: Tue, 10 May 94 23:28:03 GMT
Subject: Summary - 40/tribander interactions
Message-ID: <F0R5Lc1w165w at w2up.wells.com>
I also posted my query to the Northeast megacluster and got about 25
replies total.
Seems the split was about 50-50 regrading interactions. Spacings were
from 6-15 feet. Those who had problems with the beams facing same way
reported good result by turning one 90 degrees.
K3DI reported that JA1NUT has his antennas 45 degrees apart to minimize
interaction with the boom of the 40!
Tnx for the replies.
73 Barry
Barry N. Kutner, W2UP Usenet/Internet: barry at w2up.wells.com
Newtown, PA Packet Radio: W2UP @ WB3JOE.#EPA.PA.USA.NA
Packet Cluster: W2UP >K2TW (FRC)
.......................................................................
>From barry at w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner) Wed May 11 01:10:23 1994
From: barry at w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner) (Barry Kutner)
Date: Wed, 11 May 94 00:10:23 GMT
Subject: Looking for FT1000 CAT info
Message-ID: <18T5Lc1w165w at w2up.wells.com>
This post is for Drew, K3PA. He is in the process of updating DXLOG and
ClusterLog, and I'm one of the beta testers.
Drew has been unsuccessful getting the pgm to communicate with the
FT1000. I sent him the CAT info from the manual, but apparently it
applies to the old ROM. His calls to Yaesu have not been returned.
Can anyone supply some info on computer control for the FT1000, how to
get the computer to talk to the radio? Tnx de Barry
Barry N. Kutner, W2UP Usenet/Internet: barry at w2up.wells.com
Newtown, PA Packet Radio: W2UP @ WB3JOE.#EPA.PA.USA.NA
Packet Cluster: W2UP >K2TW (FRC)
.......................................................................
>From Wilbert Knol <wk at frc.maf.govt.nz> Wed May 11 02:32:05 1994
From: Wilbert Knol <wk at frc.maf.govt.nz> (Wilbert Knol)
Date: Wed, 11 May 1994 13:32:05 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: Checking traps with dip meter.
Message-ID: <Pine.3.05.9405111339.A23695-a100000 at sam.frc.maf.govt.nz>
Take the trap out of the element. Shove the dip meter coil up the pipe,
against the fibre glass rod that carries the coil. If the rod is short
you'll be able to get enough coupling into the coil to find a dip. Chances
are you won't however and you'll have to install an inductive link. Slide
back the capacitive sleeve, wind a single turn of enamel wire round the
coil at the end where the plastic end cap sits. Twist the free ends and
bring them out through a small 2mm hole in the end cap, form them back
into a small loop the size of your dipper coil on the outside. Re-install
the capacitive sleeve. This will give sufficient coupling to find the dip.
It pays to check the dipper frequency with a receiver.
Wilbert.
Wilbert Knol, Acoustics Group, MAF Marine Research, Wellington, New Zealand.
Usenet: wk at frc.maf.govt.nz PACKET:ZL2BSJ at ZL2WA.NZL.OC
AMPR:[44.147.180.88] AX25 NET/ROM TCP/IP MBX 146.625 147.075 MHz 24 hrs.
>From k2mm at MasPar.COM (John Zapisek) Wed May 11 10:40:05 1994
From: k2mm at MasPar.COM (John Zapisek) (John Zapisek)
Date: Wed, 11 May 94 02:40:05 PDT
Subject: Checking traps with dip meter.
Message-ID: <9405110940.AA14943 at greylock.local>
> From: Wilbert Knol ZL2BSJ <wk at frc.maf.govt.nz>
> Subject: Checking traps with dip meter.
> Date: Wed, 11 May 1994 13:32:05 +1200 (NZST)
>
> If the rod is short you'll be able to get enough coupling into the coil to
> find a dip. Chances are you won't however and you'll have to install an
> inductive link.
The inductive link can act as a shorted turn that reduces the trap-coil's
inductance. This can make the trap dip higher than it should.
Anybody know the magnitude of this effect? Like 1%, 5%, or 20% ???
73 and thanks. --John/K2MM
>From GOLOMB JOHN <GOLOMB at LAKEHURST.NAVY.MIL> Wed May 11 12:06:16 1994
From: GOLOMB JOHN <GOLOMB at LAKEHURST.NAVY.MIL> (GOLOMB JOHN)
Date: Wed, 11 May 1994 06:06:16 -0500
Subject: skeds for VHF test (K3UA FN11)
Message-ID: <sdd08410.012 at LAKEHURST.NAVY.MIL>
I would like to hear from anyone who would like to try running
some skeds with K3UA in central Pennsylvania (FN11) during the
June VHF QSO Party (June 4-6). We are active from 50 - 1296 MHz.
There is a minor meteor shower during the contest this year, so
anyone within M/S range please drop me a note.
73, John KZ2S
<golomb at lakehurst.navy.mil>
>From Jose Aponte (513) 643-0406 10-11 PM EST <apontej at dmapub.dma.org> Wed May 11 12:32:17 1994
From: Jose Aponte (513) 643-0406 10-11 PM EST <apontej at dmapub.dma.org> (Jose Aponte 643-0406 10-11 PM EST (513))
Date: Wed, 11 May 1994 07:32:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: CQ WPX Remote CNTL MultiOP/SingleXmtr Contest Station Idea-Interest?
Message-ID: <m0q1CWP-00018VC at dmapub.dma.org>
There was a small Impromptu Forum at last Hamvention on Sunday May 1, 94 11am
AT ROOM # 7. During that time there was a brief discussion on some of the
technical issues about implementing a station that would be capable under ideal
conditions of doing about 28,800 contest qso on a 48 hour period. If there
enough person out there interested in this topic, I plan to request a the same
forum room at the same time & date for one hour for the 1995 Hamvention at
Dayton.
In the meantime if this is a suitable electronic forum person that are
interested in participating in helping with the development of the idea of
making such a station possible are welcome to comment. Since this can be a
controversial topic, let's get that out first so that latter the bandwidth of
the net can be used to technical topics on how to do it.
At present the CQ WPX Contest rules say that a MultiOperator Single Transmitter
Contest Station needs to be physically connected to the antenna.. the
implication here is that the receivers do not have to be physically connected to
the antenna.. if this rule is not changed due to this posting by the contest
directors of the CQ WPX Contest (SSB & CW) for the 1995 contest then it may be
feasible to try to implement such idea.
Lets say from 5 to 15 remote control operator shared a xmter resources whose
time slice is multiplex by a computer network of good speed & reliability
(internet) the LAN site in the internet has several PC one of which controls
the CAT port of the transmitter portion of a Kenwood, ICOM or Yaesu.
That there remote operator are within the same skip area as the Xmter far enough
to avoid overloading their receiver when their remote Xmter is on but close
enough to listen to the person they intend to qso. the remote operator has
also access to internet live & has a PC with control of his receiver frequencies
then those operators would work concurrently the same band in the areas that
they are assigned. so when one of them is using the Xmter the others are using
the receivers to listen a complete the qso via the multiplex time slice of two
second per transmission, they would be allow 2 such time slices per contest qso.
At the Saturday hospitality suites I discussed this idea with some of the
contester... some like it some did not & had no interest at all... I want to
put it out in the open to avoid complaints and a possible disqualification
after it is done in a contest like CQ WPX in 1995. so voice your opinion now
so that the contest directors can give me a definite answer to the question
of it it within the present rules & promise not to change them in 1995 or 1996.
After this rule issue is resolved then the discussion can be move to another
list-server for those that may be interested in will set it up here & called it
win-cq-wpx at dmapub.dma.org, it is not set up yet so if someone has a more
suitable name then please suggested to me.
There two types of person I am trying to attract those with contest experience
that would like to help operate & suggest ideas, pitfalls, those with the
technical expertise to pull this off. it will involve in a most complicated
form a distributed data base, & interface to the contest logging programs
like CT, and a possible expert system to help strategically what do do
& what band to operate on for maximum score. One of the Cadre of experts
contributing shall be a humans, not just software, best approach is
a client server on a WAN, or a single machine with enough horsepower to do the
switching multiplex & all the other tasks, the lan client server it is possible implement because it is cheaper & the PC can be developed over the internet
which brings the issue of which OS to use OS/2, NT, or Unix.. unless someone at
AT&T can get the ok to use the real time Unix used for handling 5ESS tasks,
maybe be ICOM, Yeasu or Kenwood can provide a prototype Transceiver with a faster
interface, like that of their internal bus of the the transceiver,
I have not determined what the frequency switch transmit time in between 2 sec.
slices should be but 10 msec sounds good to me. the contest logging programs can
also contribute a prototype software & had approach some of them at the Hamvention
Any other positive ideas are also welcomed.. please let not turn this into an
endless debate over pro & con, & the old way it used to be.. a couple of weeks
of discussion should be enough for those opposed to the idea.
gracias
73's de KP4UY
610 west third street suite 101, dayton, ohio 45407 (513) 643-2724
>From Wirzenius Jari <HATJWI at HATMAIL.HATFI1.msgw.kone.com> Thu May 12 00:32:00 1994
From: Wirzenius Jari <HATJWI at HATMAIL.HATFI1.msgw.kone.com> (Wirzenius Jari)
Date: Wed, 11 May 94 16:32:00 PDT
Subject: CQ WPX Remote ...?
Message-ID: <2DD16B42 at msgw.kone.com>
>CQ WPX Contest rules say that a MultiOperator Single Transmitter Contest
Station >needs to be physically connected to the antenna.. the implication
here is that the >receivers do not have to be physically connected to the
antenna..
You do have to have a receiver to make a complete contest station, don't
you. Else you would not be able to make any QSO's. I think the RX is
essential part of the contest station and you can't distribute it.
What happened to the station area limits? Or is it only in CQ WW where all
equipment must be inside a 500 m diameter or within the station owners
property limits.
I have not got the rules infront of me so I can't check my views.
Basically the idea sounds great.
73's Jari, OH2BVE
jari.wirzenius at hat-fi.kone.com
>From John F. Isenberg (8-296-6098)" <jisenberg at VNET.IBM.COM Wed May 11 14:28:52 1994
From: John F. Isenberg (8-296-6098)" <jisenberg at VNET.IBM.COM (John F. Isenberg (8-296-6098))
Date: Wed, 11 May 94 09:28:52 EDT
Subject: DSP contest usage
Has anyone used the Kenwood DSP-100 for both CW and SSB contest work?
How does it compare to the TW DSP-9? Are there functions worth
the extra cost? Looks like it works on the audio from the mic
as well, does that increase intellegability at the other end?
advice would be appreciated in time for the June UHF contest.
Jack WA2IID
>From sellington" <sellington at mail.ssec.wisc.edu Wed May 11 09:39:46 1994
From: sellington" <sellington at mail.ssec.wisc.edu (sellington)
Date: 11 May 94 08:39:46 U
Subject: Checking traps with dip meter.
>The inductive link can act as a shorted turn that reduces the trap-coil's
>inductance. This can make the trap dip higher than it should.
There are other effects, as well, that make the trap dip somewhere other
than where one would expect. I suspect that's mainly because a trap
really is a distributed element, and behaves differently when connected
to the rest of the element.
The traps I tested from the Mosley PRO-67B dipped as much as several
hundred kHz above or below the middle of their active band. Of course,
that antenna didn't work very well, but I expect you would see similar
shifts in the resonant frequency for beams that DO work well.
Scott K9MA
>From Eugene Walsh <0004504465 at mcimail.com> Wed May 11 17:35:00 1994
From: Eugene Walsh <0004504465 at mcimail.com> (Eugene Walsh)
Date: Wed, 11 May 94 11:35 EST
Subject: 28,000 QSOs!
Message-ID: <63940511163536/0004504465PK4EM at mcimail.com>
28,000 QSO;
This is a fascinating goal!
The rules I have state that the antennas
must be physically connected to all
transmitters and RECEIVERS. This is to
specifically eliminate remote receiving
sites, etc.
In addition, technical problems are the least of
the obstacles to such an achievement. For one
transmitter to average 600 QSOs per hour with a
giant octupus (For 48 hours straight) is possible
only in theory, as anyone who has ever operated
an octopus (Even only a 2 legged one) will testify.
I must admit, however, that it would be a wonderful
thing to behold.
It would be like orchestrating a very large,
extremely complex symphony; where 28,800
of the musicians (Plus dupes!) are not even
aware of the conductor.
73 Gene N2AA
>From H. Ward Silver" <hwardsil at seattleu.edu Wed May 11 19:54:15 1994
From: H. Ward Silver" <hwardsil at seattleu.edu (H. Ward Silver)
Date: Wed, 11 May 1994 11:54:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: CQ WPX Remote CNTL MultiOP/SingleXmtr Contest Station Idea-Interest?
Message-ID: <Pine.3.07.9405111106.D20586-b100000 at bach>
A very interesting idea that I mulled over with the local crew last year.
Frankly, we're not far from the technology that would allow virtually
real-time linkups of operators planet-wide to use a single transmitting
site. (So why are we having a DX contest? Sounds kind of strange to do
all this so that we can use Morse Code, for example...yes, it's a hobby,
alright! :-) I don't have any *problem* with it, per se.
Imagine OH2BH in Hong Kong, OH2MM in EA8, N6KT in HC8, CT1BOH at a big EA
station, K1AR at home, and N6TJ in Hawaii. All of them in a big LAN
linked to P40V. All it takes is phone lines and a fast Pentium machine in
Aruba. The FT-1000's and Alpha's are already in place. POW!!!
If the intent of the committee re: multi-multi is to restrict operations
to single-site, then amend the physically-located rule to state "All
operators and equipment must be contained within a 1000-meter radius
circle or within the property limits."
"CQ twenty, give me your answer, do...
I'm half crazy, all from calling you!"
73, Ward N0AX
>From Dave Curtis <dcurtis at mipos2.intel.com> Wed May 11 21:37:24 1994
From: Dave Curtis <dcurtis at mipos2.intel.com> (Dave Curtis)
Date: Wed, 11 May 94 13:37:24 PDT
Subject: CQ WPX Remote CNTL MultiOP/SingleXmtr Contest Station
Message-ID: <9405112037.AA01706 at climax.intel.com>
<snip>
>
> If the intent of the committee re: multi-multi is to restrict operations
> to single-site, then amend the physically-located rule to state "All
> operators and equipment must be contained within a 1000-meter radius
> circle or within the property limits."
>
> 73, Ward N0AX
>
If the intent of the committee is to foster technical innovations
of all sorts, then perhaps the rule should read:
"All operators must use the same bathroom for the entire contest
period"
:-)
Dave NG0X
dcurtis at mipos2.intel.com
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list