A 15m observation WPX SSB
ramirezk at emi.com
ramirezk at emi.com
Thu Apr 4 20:22:36 EST 1996
When the 15m band finally sprang to life at about 1800z on
Saturday I had the chance to run US and Europe for a change.
This was something I hadn't had a chance to do this my KH2F days
back in Guam and Midway Island. I played around a bit with the
Iding portion of the running. Is it me or have US stations
become even more impatient on the bands? I ID'ed after every QSO
and never had someone ask me,"what's your call?". I tried IDing
every 2 qsos and was asked many times after my "QRZ", "what's
your call?". I remember being able to run 3 stations straight
before IDing and never having someone ask me that question.This
was back in the 80s. I don't understand why a station cannot
wait for at least one transmission to go by to see if a station
will ID or not.Serious in the contest or not,asking that
question without giving your own call is illegal and usually
winds up interfering with another station who is calling. I
suspect that the culprits are mostly serious contesters who
don't want to waste precious seconds waiting for an op to
identify on the second time around. Anyway, I ID'ed after each
QSO 98% of the time which worked fine for me.
73 Ken KP4XS
>From Bruce (AA8U)" <aa8u at voyager.net Fri Apr 5 02:40:05 1996
From: Bruce (AA8U)" <aa8u at voyager.net (Bruce (AA8U))
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 21:40:05 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Proposed New Contest Exchange
Message-ID: <199604050240.VAA10508 at vixa.voyager.net>
At 08:41 PM 4/4/96 -0500, you wrote:
>At 02:26 PM 4/4/96 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>I think this proposed change could have some other benefits and maybe some
>>not so beneficial. Regardless, I offer it to my fellow contesters for
>>consideration. Let's see where it takes us.
>>
>>I present this in good faith, so if you want to flame me, I warn you in
>>advance, I have "duck feathers". HI HI
>
> Bruce:
>
> Ok, that's a great idea - but how would something like KB1BBI or
> KC9XED come out?
>
> If we can keep the HEX value to a three character Alpha/Numeric
> sequence - that's the answer!!
>
> Good job...
>
> 73
>
> Tom, NM1Q (tomf at neca.com)
>
>
Thanks for your kind words Tom.
The way I figure it....KB1BBI = 186 HEX = 395 DEC
> KC9XED = 1A8 HEX = 424 DEC
I prefer hex because it includes letters as well as numbers and more
interesting. Remember these same hex or dec codes could also indicate other
possible calls making it less likely software will replace operator skill
entirely. HI
1A8 could be XE9KCD, or other variations. Other calls are possible not
necessarily with those same letters. Same goes for the KB1 call.
Thanks for your input to this discussion.
73,
Ugly
>From GLENN R. JOHNSON, M.D." <GRJOHNSON at VAX1.BEMIDJI.MSUS.EDU Fri Apr 5 03:00:55 1996
From: GLENN R. JOHNSON, M.D." <GRJOHNSON at VAX1.BEMIDJI.MSUS.EDU (GLENN R. JOHNSON, M.D.)
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 21:00:55 -0600 (CST)
Subject: 20M jamming during WPX
Message-ID: <960404210055.6480 at VAX1.BEMIDJI.MSUS.EDU>
In northern MN the jamming signal was 40+ dB (whatever that means)
over S9 from 14.185-14.215. This segment was TOTALLY unuseable.
The NIR-12 almost completely eliminated the noise. The NE U.S.
didn't seem to "see" much of this. The West Coast folks thought
it was coming in from Asia.
On the spectrum scope there were "blips" moving back and forth
within this bandwidth quite rapidly.
I called the FCC Watch Officer in Washington, D.C. (202-632-6975)
and told him what I saw and heard. He said "very interesting" and
told me he would alert the other monitor stations. He thanked me.
WITHIN 10 MINUTES THE JAMMING HAD STOPPED, and I never heard it
again.
So..............what was it? Where was it?
_________________________________________________________________________
Glenn R. Johnson, M.D. email: grjohnson at vax1.bemidji.msus.edu
Home: 218-243-2611 BBS: WA0PUJ at K0LAL.#NCMN.MN.USA.NA
FAX: 218-243-2918 Cluster: WA0PUJ at WA0PUJ (PacketCluster)
Work: 218-759-5000
"Orthopedic Surgeons
WA0PUJ, VO2GJ, VP2EZ, VP5H, ZF2RT get all the breaks!"
_________________________________________________________________________
>From John Sweeney <jsweeney at pop.wwa.com> Fri Apr 5 03:01:22 1996
From: John Sweeney <jsweeney at pop.wwa.com> (John Sweeney)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 21:01:22 -0600
Subject: TH6DXX and 204BA
References: <1.5.4b12.32.19960404215552.006b6718 at aloha.net>
Message-ID: <31648D02.3B0D at pop.wwa.com>
JIM,
Below is a message I sent to Shawn.
73, John K9EL VA3CDX
Shawn,
Since we are at a sunspot low, and you indicate you are willing to do
without 10 or 15 coverage, you will notice a big difference with the
204BA. I had a 204BA for several years, and recently replaced it
with a TH7. The only reason I haven't gone back to the 204 is for
10 and 15. I am currently looking for a 17-15-12-10 mini log for
those bands and then I will go back to the 204. The 204 is lighter,
significantly better bandwidth, better gain over the bandwidth, but
most importantly on 20, the front to side and front to back are
far superior on the 204. I can honestly tell that there is a
significant difference. I really miss my 204.
73, John
VA3CDX K9EL
lun!shawn.lightfoot at lis.ab.ca wrote:
>
> Ok all you out there with mega antenna farms. Help me out.
>
> I have currently a TH6DXX, working nicely.
> I have almost come to the conclusion that I will put up a 20 meter
> monobander such as the Hy-Gain 204BA.
> I don't know if the difference between the two antennas is significant
> enough to warrant changing out the antennas and sacrificing 15 and 10.
> I DO plan on putting up monobanders for 15 and 10 later on, both when
> the sunspots cooperate, and mostly -when I can afford it!-.
>
> For those of you who have had both the TH6 or TH7 and a 204BA, I'm
> looking to hear some feedback on what you think.
>
> Tnx,
> Shawn
> VE6PV
Jim Reid wrote:
>
> Aloha Shawn,
>
> Please post or forward to me your responses. I have
> exactly the question, tho am thinking in terms of
> a Force 12 mono antenna for 20.
>
> 73, Jim, AH6NB
>From w7ni at teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) Fri Apr 5 03:08:28 1996
From: w7ni at teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) (Stan Griffiths)
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 19:08:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 3rd party stuff
Message-ID: <199604050308.TAA23221 at desiree.teleport.com>
>Well, someone has to do this. The attached file is from Part 97
>pertaining to Third Part Traffic.
>de KL7HF
Well, now I am confused. Why does someone "have to do this"? I think we
all have copies of Part 97 so just reprinting it here doesn't add anything
that I can see. What am I overlooking?
I hope you are not implying that merely reading Part 97 will clear this up!!
Stan w7ni at teleport.com
>From w7ni at teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) Fri Apr 5 03:08:22 1996
From: w7ni at teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) (Stan Griffiths)
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 19:08:22 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Third Parties
Message-ID: <199604050308.TAA23177 at desiree.teleport.com>
>
>
>Hi Stan!
>
>
> A very interesting situation you pose . . . However, there are
>only three possibilities in Pary 97--1st, 2nd & 3rd parties--because they
>cover all situations.
I not so sure you are right about only three possibilities. Only three are
mentioned in Part 97 (first, second, and third parties) but certainly this
does not mean there can't be others. It would help if there was a clause
somewhere in Part 97 that actually said there were only three possibilities
but I can't find it. So consequentially, I can't buy your argument.
>Communication have to be from control operator to
>control operator (1st & 2nd parties). Being that to be a control operator
>you have to be a licensed amateur and that licensed amateurs have to
>operate within their license privliges, your wife cannot be the control
>operator.
Yes, that seems clear.
The fact that your wife is passing messages for you is
>immaterial here. Check out 97.115(b)(1)&(2). She is a third party--anyone
>who isn't a control operator (what is left besides those people after
>you've identified 1st and 2nd parties)--who is "participating in stating
>the message."
It simply does not say anywhere in Part 97 that "anyone who is not a first
party or a second party is, by default, a third party". Besides, even if
you find a place where it says that, where does it say that "a third party
cannot send a message to a second party on behalf of the first party"? I
can't find that either. I also can't find any place where it says
"everything is prohibited unless it is specifically permitted" in Part 97.
Part 97 clearly prohibits some things and clearly permits other things and
clearly doesn't talk at all about yet other things. So why would you
conclude that these last "unmentioned things" are prohibited? I would
prefer to think they are permitted.
>You're still the one responsible for the
>transmissions--which is another way for the FCC to say that it's your
>transmission whether it's your non-ham friend, KA7UFG outside her
>privliges or your DVK. :-)
>
> 73,
> Joe, WI2E
> jobrien at minerva.cis.yale.edu
So point me to some Part 97 sections where it clears up the questions I
have, if you can.
Stan w7ni at teleport.com
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list