ANCHORS - SCREW-IN vs EXPANDING

[N6ZZ at aol.com]

After reviewing responses to my screw-in guy anchor query, I decided to
install some heavy screw-ins.  Instead of the ones that Rohn sells, which are
4-foot long & have a 6-inch diameter plate, I went for 6-footers with an
8-inch plate.

Two very strong guys (thankfully, I wasn't one of 'em)  spent an hour trying
to install anchor #1.  They got it in about 4 feet, and ran into some rock.
 By this time, they did not look at all like the smiling workers pictured in
the Rohn catalog installing one of their anchors!  Another half-hour of
effort to install, including use of two 5-foot bars to increase torque on the
screw-in, succeeded in bending the 1-inch shaft of the anchor!

After the guys went away (and they were real crabby), I found a company that
installs poles for the utility companies in this area, and asked 'em if they
used machines to install screw-in anchors.   They said that they don't use
screw-ins in this area at all because of the rocks in the soil!

They use what's called an expanding anchor.  They drill a hole through the
soil (or, in my case, rock) just big enough to admit the un-expanded anchor
to whatever depth the anchor is going to be installed at.  The anchor & rod
are placed into the hole, and then they use another rod to pound on the
anchor which makes it expand into undisturbed soil.  The anchor looks like a
flower bud when it's unexpanded, and then when they expand it, it flattens
out and sticks into the surrounding soil.  Then, the hole is filled and
tamped.

This outfit installed 3 anchors in one hour and charged me $300 total for
anchors and labor.  The drill was on a tractor-type device that could get
into fairly tight areas and left only moderate dents in the lawn.

I think I should have made the second phone call first----thanks for your
input!

                       Phil - N6ZZ                          N6ZZ at AOL.COM  


>From Douglas S. Zwiebel" <0006489207 at mcimail.com  Sat Sep 10 15:07:00 1994
From: Douglas S. Zwiebel" <0006489207 at mcimail.com (Douglas S. Zwiebel)
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 94 09:07 EST
Subject: multi-single...new approach
Message-ID: <70940910140707/0006489207PK2EM at mcimail.com>

 
Well, I guess it's time to 'fess up and take the blame/credit.  Somewhere
between 15 and 20 years ago, I wrote an article in CQ magazine about
how to run a successful Multi/Single operation.  If you want to look
for the article, it was written under my antique call: WB2VYA.  Back
then there were no computers in homes to speak of, PacketCluster (R),
"instant band change", no tune rigs, etc. didn't exist.  And just
previously, the category meant ONE RIG, MULTIPLE OPS.
 
That evolved into the use of the OCTOPUS (interlocking two or more
rigs so only one would be on the air at once), which was somewhat
quickly banned.
 
Having been assigned the task of M/S for CQ (no, I don't do that
category anymore), I quickly found many flaws in the rules and found
that additional explanations were needed.  The flaws were more in the
form more of gray areas, or what some would euphemistically call
loop-holes.
 
Basically, I set it up so that there are two 10 minute periods.  If
the "mult" station alone had a ten minute period, then the "run"
station could move all over the place at will.  Or, if there were
more than two rigs on site, they  could in effect OCTOPUS the run
rigs and they could work anything, even non-mult's.  Don't forget, that
back then, a 10 minute band change was NOT considered a big drawback,
because it could have taken 3 or 4 minutes to change the antenna, rotate
it, tune up the rig, then tune up the amp, find the correct log (paper),
and then first try to work the guy.
 
Enough history.  It has worked fine for many years.  And yes, maybe it is
time for a change.  I have looked carefully at the results to see how
m/s is faring against single op/all band and m/m, and it fits right in
where it should (as I see it).  But since the advent of instant band
change, I can see how m/s (for CQ rules) can be frustrating.  I think
that the idea of x band changes/hour won't work.  Just think about it.
The worst problem is the "planning" of the band change per hour without
knowing what the rest of the hour will bring.
 
So how about this: Change the 10 minute rule to apply to only the RUN
station.  This would allow ONLY MULTS to be picked up anywhere, anytime,
as they are available.  Since many m/s guys run some sort of spotting,
you would have the ability to zip around anywhere.  Assuming state of
the art rigs, a two transmitter m/s would be about as competitive as
a 3, 4 or 5 rig m/s.  But the RUN station would have to stay put for
10 minutes.  This is the ONLY way to separate m/s from m/m, if the "new"
set of rules were implemented.
 
I think something like this is in the cards because of what the single-ops
are now doing.  If a single op can zip around from band to band on an
unlimited basis (ostensibly to pick up mults), then why shouldn't the
m/s be able to do the same?  After all, it's supposed to be a category
with more "potential" than a single op.
 
And please don't comment on the NAME: m/s.  I don't care what you want
to call it, it's the concept that I'm trying to get across.
 
As for WHEN the 10 minute period starts, it HAS to be based on when the
first qso gets logged.  Listening time is not known and has no way to be
verified.  I got a complaint one year that it took some op 9 minutes to
work the needed mult, but he had to stay there another 10 minutes, making
the 10 minute rule into a 19 minute rule for him.  Sorry, no choice.  And
speaking of time, I take the 10 minute rule to be 9.99 minutes, not 10.99.
I have no way of knowing during what part of the minute you worked the guy.
So if you work the guy at 2310, you can work the next guy (another band) at
2320, not 2321, as mentioned before (think it was an ON).  I feel fine
about giving you the benefit of the doubt.  But when it comes to mult's,
and if the NEW m/s concept is accepted, this is a mute point.
 
So m/s types, any comments?  And how how about my fellow committee guys?
 
de Doug/KR2Q
kr2q at mcimail.com

>From p_casier at ub4b.eunet.be (Peter Casier)  Sat Sep 10 16:19:45 1994
From: p_casier at ub4b.eunet.be (Peter Casier) (Peter Casier)
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 1994 17:19:45 +0200
Subject: Summary: Telephone, internet and contests
Message-ID: <199409101519.AA07505 at ub4b.eunet.be>

Friends,

A while ago, I requested your opinion on different cases where 'eliciting
contacts through non-amateur means' might or might not be applicable.
Thanks for your answers, here is a resumee. There are some interesting ideas
in there.
Remember, we are talking about a M/M, M/S or SO/assisted entry.

>CASE #1:
>********
>During a contest, one phones or faxes or telexes to a DX station asking to
>come on frequency.
ON6TT: thy should not. Clearly.
W4/YV5DTA: My point of view that this is the same if you ask a mult to
set-up and schedule.
K3NA: The contest operator used non-amateur means.  This is against the rules.
K5GN: Not to any station.
WS7I: Thy should not
VE6MD: Clearly a violation of the rules, and should be disqualified.

>CASE #2:
>********
>Somebody else is spotting for you. In order to keep him up to date with the
>mults worked, you fax him the worked multiplier list every hour.
ON6TT: this is not an direct 'elicit', but probably: thy should not. 
W4/YV5DTA: It not the same when you have a person you checking with another
radio for multipliers.
K3NA:  The contest operator is DIRECTLY using non-amateur means as part of
the process of obtaining useful contacts.  This is also against the rules. 
(Note: if the fax was transmitted by amateur radio, not telephone line, then
it would be OK.)
K5GN:  OK.  It is not eliciting contacts.  However, seems like you *ought*
to use radio to do it instead of a land-line.
WS7I: Only if it is an Amateur FAX. E.g. do it via packet.
VE6MD: This one I think is ok. You are not soliciting a contact. There would be 
no difference if your spotter was sitting next to you.

>CASE #3:
>********
>To log onto a remote cluster, the contest station dials with a telephone
>modem into an Internet access point and telnets to the remote cluster.
ON6TT: I don't know
W4/YV5DTA: Or what about if I dial to my home computer and i have a switch
software that allowes me to operate my packet station
K3NA: The contest operator is again DIRECTLY using non-amateur means.  This
is against the rules.
K5GN:  OK.  Same as Case 2.  It's getting info, not soliciting contacts.
WS7I: Hmmm good point, but I would say that its merely an extension of Packet so
its OK.
VE6MD: Hmmmmmm, interesting one. If you place yourself as a spot on the cluster,
you are then using non amateur means to solicit a contact. If you only 
pull spots off of the cluster, you are not "soliciting" a contact. Tough
one, but by the letter of the rules, pulling spots would be ok. My
personal opinion though, is that it is not right.

>CASE #4:
>********
>To log onto a remote cluster, the contest station logs in, through packet
>radio into a packet<>internet gateway and reaches the remote cluster through
>Internet. Most probably, the gateway uses a telephone dialup connection to
>get into Internet.
ON6TT: is ok
W4/YV5DTA: ????
K3NA: In this description the contest operator knows (and EXPLICITLY and
DIRECTLY controls) a non-amateur means to connect to the remote cluster.  The
operator actually issued commands to to gateway to make a connection to
Internet.  It does not matter that the connection was made by telephone, since
the Internet is a non-amateur means of communicating.  Therefore, this is
against the rules too.
K5GN:  OK.  Same as Case 2.  It's getting info, not soliciting contacts.
WS7I: Nah, this is an AMATEUR method tho we usually have the packet right on the
internet connection and don't use phones.
VE6MD: Even tougher. See my personal opinion on #3.

>CASE #5:
>********
>The contest station logs through packet radio into the local clusternode.
>The cluster network is quite extensive, and somewhere in the network, two
>nodes are connected through a telephone dialup connection.
ON6TT: Should be ok. If this is not allowed, we can abandon links to
clusters. A lot of clusters are nowadays linked through dialup, internet or
commercial lines.
W4/YV5DTA: ?
K3NA: This case is OK.  The contest operator does not control the
connection between the cluster nodes in some other distant part of the cluster
network.  The contest operator is only using amateur radio, and he has no
ability to control the remote telephone connection mentioned here.
K5GN:  OK.  Same as Case 2.  It's getting info around, not soliciting
contacts.
WS7I: Its all AMATEUR means and is just packet via one method or another. The
vagueness of rules is rather interesting tho.
VE6MD: This one is ok. Although I feel hypocritical after answering 3 and 4. :)

>CASE #6:
>********
>A friend is making a dialup connection as in case #3, and forwards you the
>multipliers by 2m phone.
ON6TT: no difference with case #3. 
W4/YV5DTA: Well but this would be like using packet spots.
K3NA: If the "friend" is NOT part of the multi-multi or multi-single
station, then the contest operator really can not control his actions.  If the
contest operator becomes aware that the friend is using non-amateur means, the
contest operator should greatly discourage this behavior, as it is (in my
opinion) against the spirit of the game.  If the contest operator is not aware
of the situation, there is little that can be done.It would certainly be an
ethical no-no for a multi-multi or multi-single team to recruit a small army
of "friends", who make telephone calls on behalf of the contesters.
K5GN:  OK.  This case is OK, because he is merely getting info around, not
soliciting contacts.
WS7I: This cases doesn't worry me either.
VE6MD: Again, following the rules to the letter, it is ok. Personally, I don't 
like it.

JUDGING ALL CASES AT ONES:
**************************
K3EST:
The rules are VERY clear. Any non-amateur means can not be used.
Telephones, FAXES, Telegrams, Smoke signals, Internet etc etc. CAN NOT be 
USED AT ALL. During the contest.
N2IC/0:
I personally don't see a problem with obtaining packet cluster spots via
non-amateur means.  Why should one group have the benefit of spots just because
they are within the "ham radio range" of a packet cluster, while another
group is penalized because they do not have "ham radio" network access to
the cluster ?
WA8YVR: 
Why go through all the complicated cases?  How about this:
        (1)     The frequencies for the contest are 1.8 through
                28 mHz, excluding the WARC bands;
        (2)     Contest QSOs may only be solicited during the contest on
                contest frequencies.
        Seems simple enough to me.


Other remarks:
**************
KU4J:
Here is another ethical scenario. Suppose you are a M/S station
the run station is on 10m and the mult station is on 15m and the 10
minute rule is in effect and the mult station find a good multiplier
on 20m that he needs on 15m, in order to skirt the 10 minute rule
he QSY's to 20m and uses his own callsign (not the contest callsign)
to ask the guy to QSY to 15m. In my opinion this is absolutely
unethical, however this must be a common practice. According to Bob,K3EST
this is an 'accepted' practice.

N2IC/0:
As you may have guessed, the no-non-amateur-solicitation rule was written
before packet clusters existed.  The rule came about as a direct result of a
VP2 M/M station owner running up a multi-K$ phone bill during CQWW to "get his
friends on the air".
(...)
For the past few years, several of us in the USA have had an HF network
operational for CQWW to exchange spots (separate from the backbone on 10135
kHz).
It's a pain to set up and keep up, and doesn't provide 24 hour/day
coverage, but it is truly an "amateur" means, and less expensive than the
telephone.  Using "internet chat" or a related service via telephone may
change the way we run this network in the future.

W4/YV5DTA:
Well last time I check, computers are not-related to the hoobie, so 
computer logging should be part of this? 

K3NA: Earlier this century the mathematician Goedel showed that any consistent
system of rules contains unprovable truths.  Therefore I believe that "intent"
must be considered in evaluating your test cases.

N2ALE/6: There are other potential cases which ought to be considered.
A while back, there was a discussion of the "Beetle Valley" rules 
regarding SO and SOA.  While much was stated in jest, it did start me
thinking as to the logical outcome of using Packet*Cluster and how it
might lead to the maximization of QSOs.  Clearly the "best" use of packet
would be to inject your call and frequency into the Packet*Cluster in the
DX country as it would allow one to make more contacts at any given 
frequency.  Rather than using phones or Internet, this could be done via
Packet Satellite at 9600 baud(!).  The technology exists to do this now.
I am unable to evaluate the sportsmanship merits of this.

K2WK: Add to Peter, ON6TT's, list of opearting scenarios, of questionable
legality or rule compliance:The case where a Single-Op (non-assisted) is
logged into the cluster (by radio), thought he/she doesn't use the info sent
by the 
cluster directly, but occasionally puts out a ANN/FULL or Spot of 
him/her/self and the frequency the he/she is on.  Is this legal in CQWW
or ARRL DX tests? If its legal is it ethical?

WS7I: As one of the contest rule people once told me, "The rules are purposely
vague to not preclude ....." (...) I think that the intent of the rule is
that you don't call a person up on
the phone or telex (fax) a person to solicit a contact, but that any
"amateur" means of finding contacts (packetcluster) is OK. Hooking up via
whatever method should be OK. Is it within the spirit of the rules for the
East Coast of the U.S. to have a system that is many 100's of times better
than that of some of us out in the boondocks of the Western U.S.?  We have a
system here that goes about as far in miles (400 miles) but has only about
20 people on it!

WA8YVR: DX contests are run on DX frequencies.  If you want to solicit QSOs on
something other than DX frequencies, you are not running a DX contest. If
you put out a message on internet/DX cluster/ whatever that says: "Work
ON4UN on 1832.5," then you are soliciting contacts on something other than
DX frequencies.

73 es have fun contemplating about the answers
Peter - ON6TT.

p_casier at ub4b.eunet.be


>From H. Ward Silver" <hwardsil at seattleu.edu  Sat Sep 10 16:30:43 1994
From: H. Ward Silver" <hwardsil at seattleu.edu (H. Ward Silver)
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 1994 08:30:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: TVI judgement
Message-ID: <Pine.3.07.9409100843.C7960-b100000 at bach>

I have to correct the statement about KT7G's situation.  Hud's NEIGHBORS,
not Hud, were specifically enjoined from harrassment.  They refused to
cooperate in any way, generally acted like schmucks, and got nailed with
court orders to, essentially, shut up.  Hud enjoyed this no end, as you
might imagine. (The neighbors even went back on TV with one of the local
lame afternoon news-like programs and were so obviously incompetent that
people were asking if THEY were the "Neighbors from Hell"...smirk) 
However, I can't imagine having to be in such a stressful situation and
enjoying it on a long-term basis.

Re: Rob's statement about "Don't buy a house in these neighborhoods." 
Well put!  These fussy homeowner's associations will even give you a hard
time about what color to paint your house!  I hope that when the Big One
hits, out here, they all sit in the dark for a week without any
communications because they ran all the hams out.  What am I thinking? 
These are the big bucks folks...CD/FMEA/OES will be at their door with hot
food and moist towelettes five minutes after the first tremblor <;-)

Why aren't there any kids getting into it these days...you tell me!

I feel better now, thank you...
73, Ward N0AX