3500-Z Summary

Mike.Tope at Sciatl.COM Mike.Tope at Sciatl.COM
Sat Oct 14 09:49:00 EDT 1995

     Bill, W5VX wrote:
     >Could you forward any responses. I need to replace my 3-500z's and I 
     >am a little confused too!
     >Bill, W5VX
     >bill at tenet.edu
     >ae382 at detroit.freenet.org at PMDF
     Walt K8CV wrote:
     >Hi Mike:
     >If you get any answers please let me know also? Have never
     >had to buy a amp tube yet but some day they will fail. Walt K8CV
     Frank PA3BFM wrote:
     >Go for EIMAC always, all other brands are inferior! 73 Frank PA3BFM
     >six at knoware.nl
     Jim KC8MK wrote:
     >QRO will never help a LID like you!
     >If I were you, I would give up Ham Radio and take up needlepoint!
     >Long time no see.
     Thanks, Jim. Good to hear from you.
     Steve, WD8IXE wrote:
     >Go with a 3CX10000 or better.
     Steve, I am saving that for retirement in Nitro, West Virginia
     Seriously though, I placed a call to RF Parts in San Marcos, Ca; the 
     gentleman I spoke to there told me that the 3-500ZG tube is basically 
     a drop in replacement for the standard 3-500Z tube. The only 
     significant difference between the tubes appears to be price and plate 
     dissipation, the ZG claims to deliver 100 additional watts of plate 
     dissipation per tube. They are sending me some data sheets, when I get 
     them I let you folks know if I find any caveats to the ZG (lower MTBF, 
     etc.) that this guy didn't tell me about.
     Sorry that I can't tell you more. Guess the comical nature of my 
     original post was a deterrent for some of those of more sober and 
     serious demeanor than myself who might have contributed hard technical 
     73 All de Mike, AD4VH
     mike.tope at sciatl.com

>From Ed  Taylor <102662.2222 at compuserve.com>  Sat Oct 14 16:06:03 1995
From: Ed  Taylor <102662.2222 at compuserve.com> (Ed Taylor)
Date: 14 Oct 95 11:06:03 EDT
Subject: GB6AR in Wales
Message-ID: <951014150603_102662.2222_JHE34-1 at CompuServe.COM>

Hi Russell
Glad you're setting up GB6AR for CQWW.  However, I don't know of any clause in
the UK licence which prohibits two (or more) HF signals.  The multi-single and
multi-multi entrants from the UK have been operating several simultaneous
stations for years.  Of course, a GB call attracts attention, although many
operators will think you are in England, and you may not get the full benefit of
the "rarity" of being a GW.  
GL, and I'll look out for you
73, Ed, WT3U (G3SQX)

>From k7ss at wolfenet.com (Danny Eskenazi)  Sat Oct 14 17:20:22 1995
From: k7ss at wolfenet.com (Danny Eskenazi) (Danny Eskenazi)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 09:20:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Any VU(Bombay) DX/Contesters??
Message-ID: <199510141620.JAA02252 at wolfe.net>

My friend from Seattle, KEVIN KJ7OZ, is working in Bombay for a month and
going through severe 20 meter withdrawal.

Anyone know any hams in the Bombay area he might contact?

Do we all want to work Zone 22 in the WW?
Kevins E mail is "KEVIN at shah-bby.mhs.compuserve.com"
Or send info to me "k7ss at wolfenet.com"


73 de K7SS
Danny Eskenazi
4821 51 SW
Seattle WA 98116
206 932 6621
206 932 1449 Fax
k7ss at wolfenet.com

>From peterj at netcom.com (Peter Jennings)  Sat Oct 14 18:32:49 1995
From: peterj at netcom.com (Peter Jennings) (Peter Jennings)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 10:32:49 -0700
Subject: Voice Keyer PCBs
Message-ID: <199510141732.KAA03426 at netcom6.netcom.com>

While rummaging through my storage area, I came across a pile of
PC boards for the ChipTalker, the voice keyer designed by K5FOG
and featured in the December 1991 QST.

This uses the Radio Shack ISD10xx chip to record and playback
up to 4 messages. Pretty simple to build and hard to get wrong.

If anyone wants one, just let me know, I'll drop one in the mail
to you so you can build it before CQWW.


--                                                peterj at netcom.com

   V31DX Home Page: http://mall.turnpike.net/~jc/v31dx.html

>From Dick Dievendorff" <dieven at almaden.ibm.com  Sat Oct 14 21:23:02 1995
From: Dick Dievendorff" <dieven at almaden.ibm.com (Dick Dievendorff)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 13:23:02 -0700
Subject: Contest rules not in QST
Message-ID: <9510141323.ZM21647 at penguin.almaden.ibm.com>

I just returned from a trip back east, and I visited ARRL HQ and talked with
some of the folks.

First, contesters are well represented (maybe even over-represented) in
determining ARRL Editorial policy.  We've all worked these guys over and
over throughout the years.

What I heard was that a new publication would be offered, for about $5, that
contained the detailed rules and a sample log page/summary sheet/dupe sheet
for each of the ARRL contests.  And that the detailed rules would be removed
from QST.  There was no mention of removing contest announcements or printed
scores showing all the calls of the participants.  I believe I heard that the
detailed rules would be available via internet, either via the ARRL Web pages
or perhaps the info server (info at arrl.org).

Not everyone at ARRL HQ was entirely happy with this, either.

It's my belief that contesting is perhaps over-represented in QST, if you
read the results of surveys of QST readers.  We are a vocal minority, and
we've been getting more than our share year after year.

So the pages devoted to contesting should be those that tend to bring guys in.
And I think most new entries will read an article announcing the contest and
an upbeat "here's how to leap into the Sweepstakes fun" article, but devoting
two pages of QST to the same rules that only really matter to the hard core
of us seems to me to be a reasonable thing to do, especially if the information
we need is available, for free, on an internet file server.

Dick, AA6MC

>From john.devoldere at eunet.be (John Devoldere)  Sat Oct 14 22:41:15 1995
From: john.devoldere at eunet.be (John Devoldere) (John Devoldere)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 21:41:15 +0000
Subject: OT5t in CQ WW PHONE
Message-ID: <199510142141.WAA20026 at box.eunet.be>

This year OT5T will be operating multi/single with a limited crew of only 4
local rather unexperienced young operators: ON4AFZ, ON6UK, ON7LX (YL) and
Instead of "hiring" big guns, I wanted to give the opportunity for these
"lesser gods" to try real contesting first hand. Next year we'll be back
full swing, I hope, with some of the champs at the mikes.
Please bear with the situation, and encourage the guys and gals by giving
them yout points on all (10 ???) bands.
We will be using the same equipment as last year (same antennas), as well as
two FT1000Ds's (no MP's yet, sorry). All Beverages are up and the low band
antennas seem to playing well.
Please put us in the log as OT5T, not OT4T nor OT6T nor OT3T, nor OT5A  ...
Last year, most (90%) of the log errors, were stations logging us with the
wrong call. This year there will be OT5A (M/M), OT5L (back after a couple of
years of absence) AND OT5T. So watch out... If this situation on incorrect
calls persists, we will probably switch back to my regular call, ON4UN for
future contests. It seems like not many make errors on that call.

Enjoy the contest, and thanks for the points! Good luck to all.

By the way, I would appreciate critical comparison signal strength reports
between OT5T, OT5A and OT5L. Thank you!

73, ON4UN

john.devoldere at box.eunet.be  
Call us in all major 1995 contests: OT5T or ON4UN
John Devoldere (ON4UN-AA4OI)
B-9000 Ghent (Belgium)

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list