New prefixes for KL7 KH6 KP4
frenaye at pcnet.com
frenaye at pcnet.com
Sun Apr 2 11:32:18 EDT 1995
The FCC has released a new "Amateur Station Sequential Call Sign System"
Fact Sheet dated February 1995, replacing the one dated June 1991 that is
referenced in the vanity call sign Report and Order.
The new Fact Sheet incorporates changes that the ARRL requested in November
1993, expanding the opportunities for amateurs in Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto
Rico to obtain call signs that reflect their geographic location.
In Alaska (Region 11), AL, KL, NL, and WL call signs are no longer limited
to the numeral 7. Any numeral, 1 through 0, is available. The call signs
KL9KAA through KL9KHZ are reserved for assignment to U.S. personnel
stationed in Korea.
In the Caribbean (Region 12), KP3, NP3, and WP3 call signs will indicate the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (except Desecheo Island).
In Hawaii and the Pacific (Region 13), AH7, KH7, NH7, and WH7 call signs
will indicate Hawaii except that the letter K following the numeral 7 will
indicate Kure Island.
Systematically assigned call signs in Groups A and C for Alaska, Hawaii, and
Puerto Rico using the traditional numerals (7, 6, and 4, respectively) have
been exhausted.
The new Fact Sheet also designates Group D call signs (2x3) for club and
military recreation stations.
------------------------------------------------------
E-mail: frenaye at pcnet.com
Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box 386, West Suffield CT 06093
Phone: 203-668-5444
>From Jim Stevens, KI4HN" <ki4hn at cybernetics.net Sun Apr 2 18:08:46 1995
From: Jim Stevens, KI4HN" <ki4hn at cybernetics.net (Jim Stevens, KI4HN)
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 1995 13:08:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: WPX SSB Scores - 3rd Post
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950402130719.26285A-100000 at server0>
Corrections/Additions to: ki4hn at cybernetics.net
Changes from previous list indicated by * in column 79.
Single Op - High Power
P40R 4954 959 15.9M
6D2X 4128 864 10.6M op. K5TSQ
TM7XX 2373 851 5.4M @ F6FGZ - op. F5MUX
VK5GN 1730 589 4.0M *
S50K 1560 660 2.5M 15M
9Q5TT 1494 504 2.2M 15M - op. ON6TT *
KP2A 3176 903 7.0M 20M
N6VI/KH6 2032 667 4.0M 20M - 31 hours
OT5T 1781 681 4.4M 40M - op. ON4UN
S50C 1508 648 3.7M 40M - op. S55OO
KM1H 2871 912 7.0M op. KQ2M
N7AVK 2388 756 4.0M
K3ZO 1855 747 3.8M
KI4HN 1546 676 2.8M @ AA4NC
KA4RRU 1606 704 2.5M
K5ZD 1400 615 2.4M 18 hours *
WA7FOE 1736 708 2.3M
K4VUD 1592 641 2.0M
NX0I 1275 658 1.7M
N3NKZ 1045 520 1.3M
KM6YX 1391 587 1.2M *
KF20 813 487 1.0M *
KD1NG 827 451 955k
KW4T 825 503 807k
AA1AA 813 ??? 775k @ K1VR *
KV1W 553 383 531k
WE9R 511 387 465k
KM2T 489 360 349k 11 hours
KU2Q 224 172 126k part time
KI8W 260 182 85k
K8MR 166 130 62k 4.5 hours
KC2X 1127 551 1.5M 15M
W5VZ 1233 509 1.3M 15M *
KZ5D 1053 535 1.2M 15M *
WC4E 758 464 773k 15M *
KC1XX 2390 841 4.9M 20M
WE9V 2157 832 3.7M 20M @ KS9K
NJ1V/5 1000 501 624k 20M
KC7EM 1087 497 2.0M 40M
K8DO 197 163 72k 40M - 18 hours *
WE3C ???? ??? 1.5M 80M - info from KE1Y *
KE1Y 1057 444 1.3M 80M - @ KC1XX
KS9K 1087 493 1.2M 80M - op. N0BSH
AC4NJ 447 238 149k 160M *
Single Op - Low Power
FS5PL 3619 822 7.5M op. WX9E *
VP2EN 3051 758 5.8M op. AA4NC *
VP5A 1525 575 2.1M op. ?
CJ6V 981 488 1.1M op. VE6FR
DA0IU 982 499 1.0M op. DL2OBF
4U9Q 362 207 184k op. ON6TT *
WS1A 785 472 958k *
WW3S 743 442 647k
WA4ZXA 600 385 529k
AA1EY 559 356 524k
KB1GW 150 128 41k 6 hours
N5OKR 150 102 24k 10M
KD4HXT 123 86 24k 10M - 18 hours *
K2YJL 93 34 3k 10M - 11 hours *
WA7BNM 664 352 448k 15M *
WF1L 808 469 557k 20M
WA6KUI 483 370 408k 20M *
AA9AX 68 58 2k 160M - part time *
Single Op - QRP
KA1CZF 325 258 176k
KA9FOX 25 24 1.5k 20M - @ W9UP (post house hunting w/fiancee)
Single Op - Assisted
VA3NR 203 159 133k
KA2AEV 2150 715 4.6M @ N2RM
KY2T 1694 726 3.1M
W6XR 1158 553 1.7M op. N2PNG
ND3F 511 430 480k *
N0AXL 517 327 331k
W9SZ 181 131 35k 11 Hours
Multi-Single
TM1C 4300 1050 13.0M *
VP2MEJ 3005 785 7.9M 28 hours *
F9IE 2800 900 7.4M @ F6BEE *
GB0DX 2729 921 6.1M *
VX6JY 2649 845 5.9M
VE3RM 1923 728 4.5M
CJ2ZP 1783 702 3.9M
S50D 1726 735 3.0M
F6KBF 1554 675 2.3M *
E20AT ???? ??? 1.7M @ ? *
N3BB 2522 835 5.0M *
KT8X 2207 827 4.1M @ AA8U
WX1Z 1862 761 3.4M @ K1KP
N4ZZ 1832 733 2.6M
KU8E 1438 667 2.3M @ W8FN *
NC0P 1454 673 1.9M
KF9PL 1391 660 1.9M @ K9ZO
KQ4HC 1351 606 1.7M @ KO4EW
WK1P 978 557 1.3M @ N1KWF
KI7WX 1013 500 814k @ K6XO
W1KOO 606 378 443k *
Multi-Multi
KP4XS 7618 1174 27.3M
LU4FM 6149 ???? 22.0M APPROX.
6E2T 3357 692 7.0M
VX6LB 2319 753 4.8M *
WZ1R 4760 1150 13.6M @ KY1H
73, Jim, KI4HN
ki4hn at cybernetics.net
>From Peter Hardie <hardie at herald.usask.ca> Sun Apr 2 18:14:04 1995
From: Peter Hardie <hardie at herald.usask.ca> (Peter Hardie)
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 1995 11:14:04 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Kids SquINT (Kids Contest)
Message-ID: <Pine.ULT.3.91.950402111224.7336A-100000 at herald.usask.ca>
On Fri, 31 Mar 1995, Clark wrote:
> This posting is to announce the second running of the Kids SquINT Contest.
> Last December the first SquINT had over 20 participants ranging in age from
> 3 to 11.
What's the age limit for a "kid"? It might give my 16 year old daughter
some incentive to start studying for her license again.
Pete
ve5va.qrp at usask.ca
>From Matthew S. Trott" <0007288678 at mcimail.com Mon Apr 3 01:01:00 1995
From: Matthew S. Trott" <0007288678 at mcimail.com (Matthew S. Trott)
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 95 19:01 EST
Subject: tower config summary
Message-ID: <51950403000115/0007288678PJ3EM at MCIMAIL.COM>
Thank you all very much for the responses.
KY1H, NA5C, N6TR, K1VR, KO9Y, K1KP, K8JLF, AA5ZQ, K3MQH, KD5PJ/9, K2WK,
W3LPL, N6IG, K6LL, KE3Q, W2VJN, KR2J, KK9V, N6MM, N6XI, K7GM, R3/AA5NK, N3BB,
K5TSQ, W5VSZ, K0PP, W2UP, K8DO, and K5ZD. Hope I didn't miss anybody. Lots of
expertise in this group an
d also lots of differing opinions.
Heres' a rundown on the suggestions regarding my 3 inquiries.
Cutting to the quick my inquiries were basically:
(1) How do you TOP your tower (flat plate vs. tapered)?
(2) How do you BOTTOM your tower (concrete embed vs. pier pin)?
(3) How do you "MIDDLE" your tower (rotator suggestions if turning 2 el 40
and large Tri-Bander or 20 mono)?
The tower I mentioned that I am contemplating erecting is Rohn 45 and
therefore most of the responses refer to it, but most of this info would be the
same for most guyed tower situations I'd surmise.
I had 30 or so responses, many answering all 3 questions, some just 1 or 2
of them.
---ANALYSIS---
Question 1 (TOP):
This one appears easy if majority rules.
83 percent favor the flat top
8 percent favor the tapered tube top
8 percent (2 respondents) said it doesn't matter
It was felt by some that the tube top (pipe top) provided added stability
to the mast but the overwhelming majority preferred the flat top citing its use
as a place to stand, set tools and such and it was felt that this configuration
is what Mr. and Mrs. Rohn had more in mind for rotating mast installations
such as we are talking about here.
There was much input on the 2 rotor plate/2 thrust bearing front. Some said
that a second thrust bearing is redundant, however it appears that 33 percent
(10 respondents) are using 2 thrust bearings although the lower one is more of
a "mast clamp" than a "thrust" bearing. Several of you mentioned that while you
do have a rotor plate above your rotor for vertical support (during rotor
changeouts) you don't have a thrust bearing in it choosing instead to use a 2
dollar muffler clamp to stifle the effects of gravity on the mast/array. This
seems like it would work as well as the second "thrust" bearing and be a lot
less expensive to boot. Still others use various sorts of pipe clamps, etc. in
lieu of the 2 rotor plate/2 thrust bearing method. I guess they
carry these apparatti up and down the tower with them when doing rotor work.
Question 2 (BOTTOM):
There really was no clear concensus on this one.
53 percent advised concrete embedment
41 percent advised using the pier pin
6 percent (1 respondent) said either way
Of those who preferred the embedded base approximately half used the short
section to embed. Others used all or part of a full ten foot "long" section.
All those using the "embedment" method cited ease in erection over the pier
pin method. One responden t mentioned friends who were severely injured when
one of the temporary guys on a pier pin installation gave way. Others using the
embedment method if for nothing else cited a psychological confidence factor
that it's "sturdier" feel embues to the erector (at least up to the first
permanent guy point) where beyond this point as I understand it the tower under
either method "feels" about the same.
Those who suggest the pier pin base method are probably more on track with
Mr. and Mrs. Rohn's idea of the way it should be (I just gained this wisdom in
doing this bit of research). I am not an engineer nor have I discussed this
with Rohn engineers, but many of those who responded if they aren't engineers
should be. The idea behind the pier pin config is to allow the tower to "dance"
or "do the shuffle" so to speak in the wind within the constraints of the guys.
With an embedded base this slight pivotin g of the base is impossible and the
resulting energy is transferred up/down the tower as torque (hey, I never
thought about it but makes sense to me). Another big plus for using the pier
pin is that if you move you leave less behind, however those who pre ferred
embedment didn't seem to mind torching/hacksawing off as much as possible from
past installations they'd had and doing it all over again (although the tower
is a couple feet shorter each time you go this route, i.e. If you move alot and
your 100 fo
oter is down to 17 feet or so you might want to go with the pier pin method).
So, what do I make of this? Well, even though the argument for using a pier
pin makes good sense more responents used the embedment method and with many
years of reliable service. I'll leave the math to the rest of you but for the
antennae configuration I'm talking about on Rohn 45 I can't see it "twisting"
off on me, but who am I to say? Any stories of broken welds on this stuff (you
guys not using the pier pins?)--Anyway I'm leaning toward embedment (hopefully
some of you guys can straighten me out at
Dayton before I get rolling on this).
Question (3) "MIDDLE" :
My original question was regarding the Yaesu 1000SDX rotor which I have at
present due to a story that I won't go into now. It seems there is not a lot of
these being used to turn the array we are talking about here or if there are
they (the owners) didn 't respond. One respondent did say that he was using one
in a very windy location with a 2 ele 40 fifteen feet above a large tribander
with no thrust bearing at all. He's been waiting for it to all come apart but
it hasn't yet.
The vast majority have a lot of faith in Tailtwisters and as one individual
pointed out, "They have their quirks, but everybody knows what they are and we
all know how to fix them." Sounds good to me. Several respondents recommended
that 2 be kept on han
d so as to always have one ready for a quick swap out.
Other rotors mentioned in use on similar arrays are the HAM-M, HAM IV,
several mentioned the Create RC5A as a real good choice, Yaesu 2700/2800, Emoto
1300, and one respondent advised going with TIC rings which would allow one to
do away with thrust bear ings, masts, etc. Of course some of these choices are
real pricy but, you probably do get what you pay for as far as durability. Many
attributed the longevity of some of the smaller rotors mentioned here to the
use of the 2 thrust bearings they were using . Even though as mentioned above,
many see the lower thrust bearing in a 2 thrust bearing configuration as
redundant as I write this it comes to mind that it probably does take some of
the side to side force off the rotor (although I can't see how it coul d be
very significant). Another point that came up is the load distribution of the
array as it relates to the thrust bearing and rotor. Most who mentioned this
said that the thrust bearing should take as much load off the rotor as
possible. However, one r espondent mentioned that he uses a Create and they
specify that you do NOT use the thrust bearing to support the weight of the
antenna and mast. Hmmmmmm.
Well that about somes it up as I read it. I have about 40K of info that I
received from the above listed respondents. I didn't think it was probably
kosher to "take up the bandwidth" and send the whole kit and kaboodle out again
and I think I've given fa ir treatment to most of the major points that they
conveyed to me in this summary. I got some questions answered and a few know
ones to ponder. I apologize for the lack of foot notes please don't tell my
English teacher. If any of you want additional info
as to who said what exactly then let me know.
Thanks a lot and see you on top.
Matt -- AA7BG
aa7bg at mcimail.com
>From Takao KUMAGAI <je1cka at dumpty.nal.go.jp> Mon Apr 3 01:32:04 1995
From: Takao KUMAGAI <je1cka at dumpty.nal.go.jp> (Takao KUMAGAI)
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 95 09:32:04 +0900
Subject: about AJ7/JK2VOC
Message-ID: <9504030032.AA23223 at dumpty.nal.go.jp>
Hi all
Someone reported that AJ7/JK2VOC had been operating below 7100khz
SSB during CQ WPX.
A friend of mine called JK2VOC the other night and got the answer
that he never been on 7MHz SSB from USA.
He knew that any JA reciprocal permit holders could not operate
on 7MHz SSB.
Tack KUMAGAI, JE1CKA/KH0AM
<je1cka at nal.go.jp>
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list