Equipment Pricing Help
maryh at nconline.com
maryh at nconline.com
Sun Apr 21 05:43:00 EDT 1996
I may get flamed for this message but I desperately need some help. For
reasons that I'd rather not get into publicly, I will be in litigation
Monday and need some "unbiased" opinions of what the following equipment
is worth. Please reply to me directly rather than through the
reflectors.
Yaesu
FT-1000D
SP-5 Speaker with LL-5 Phone Patch
DVS-2 Digital Voice Recorder
MD-1C8 Desk Top Microphone
YH-77ST Stereo Headphones
FIF-232C Computer Interface
Kenwood TS-690SAT with Fox Tango Filters
Yaesu FT-736R with 6m and 220 modules
Yaesu FT-890
Heil HM-10 Dual Element with boom mount and Yaesu cable
Heil Pro Headset with Yaesu cable
Heil BM-10 Headset with Kenwood cable and footswitch
ETO Alpha 89
Henry 2KD Classic
Nye MB-IVA Tuner
2@ Bird Wattmeters (slugs for just about everything)
MFJ-259 SWR Analyzer
DAIWA NS-660PA SWR Meter
Kenwood SM-200 (or something like that) Scope
Timewave DSP-59+
JPS NF-60
Kam Plus
Kam KPC-3
MFJ 1278 Turbo
MFJ 1270B
2@ Alinco DR-1200T
Alinco DR-1200TH
Alinco DR-130T
Alinco DR-150T
Alinco ?? (Dual Band Mobile)
Yaesu FT-5200 with remote mount kit
Yaesu FT-5400
AEA Morse Machine
Bencher Iambic Key
Astron RS-35M Power Supply
Alinco DJ-150T HT
110 ft. Rohn 45G with top section
220 ft. Rohn 25G with 2@ top sections
Heavy Duty 89 ft. crank up
4@ Heavy Duty 20 ft. masts
Guy Wires for 4 towers
Approximately 20@ 200 ft. runs of 9913 and 213
Yaesu G-1000SDX Rotator
3@ Ham IV Rotators
Hy-Gain Rotator
Ring Rotator
Mosley Pro 67-B
Mosley TA-33 with WARC
Unknown 20m Monobander
Unknown 40m Monobander
2@ Unknown 6m Beams
2@ Unknown 2m Beams
1@ Unknown 440 Beam
1@ Unknown 220 Beam
4@ Unknown 2m Verticals
6@ Alpha Delta 4-Position Switches
Most of this equipment was purchased (most of it new) within the last 3
years and when I last saw it it was all in very good condition. Your
help with the "fair market" value of any of these is **VERY MUCH**
appreciated.
DX IS!!!
Mary AD4HC
to: INT:cq-contest at tgv.com
cc: INT:dx at ve7tcp.ampr.org
>From Jim Reid <jreid at aloha.net> Sun Apr 21 00:11:50 1996
From: Jim Reid <jreid at aloha.net> (Jim Reid)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 13:11:50 -1000
Subject: Contesting and the Internet?
Message-ID: <1.5.4b12.32.19960420231150.00702e58 at aloha.net>
Aloha,
Have been trying to get W6GO, keeper of the SF Bay Area Cluster
to allow OH2BA to post spots to his world-wide internet page.
We have no useful DX cluster here in KH6/7 land, and would be
helpful, I think, to know what is being heard in California.
Not that far East of Hawaii. So far no interest by them to
allow a telenet tap onto their cluster. Jukka only takes info,
he posts back nothing. Brad Wyatt told me, the Bay Area Cluster
tried a link with Europe awhile back, and they got to much info
back that was of no use to them around SF, so they dropped off.
This would not happen allowing Jukka to post their spots on the
internet.
Interesting topic, but I suspect there is a fair amount of "if we
have them spotted, why share them with you?" attitude, tho
would hope this is not the case.
73, Jim, AH6NB, jreid at aloha.net
>From Douglas Zwiebel <KR2Q at worldnet.att.net> Sun Apr 21 13:15:21 1996
From: Douglas Zwiebel <KR2Q at worldnet.att.net> (Douglas Zwiebel)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 12:15:21 GMT
Subject: internet stuff...mute?
Message-ID: <199604211215.MAA08785 at mailhost.worldnet.att.net>
Yes, it's going to be a HOT topic for the reflector, but one which has already
been talked about for some time (at least in "certain" groups). I believe
that most of this discussion is mute and here is why:
Don't forget that (for the CQWW contests) you are NOT permitted to use
packet (internet?), spotting nets, 2 meter links, etc. to SOLICIT qso's.
You must be PASSIVE...that is, you can WATCH whatever you want, but you
can't REQUEST specific information! If you want to SPOT something, you
do it on your own (gee, this was a good one, I'll post it). In other
words, you CAN'T ask for a qso (directly, indirectly, subtly, overtly,
hint-hint, or whatever). You can't say "any Europe on Ten yet?" or
"What was that 9G1's full call." You can't spot yourself either. So
from a FUNCTIONAL point of view (IMHO) there isn't a real difference
if you use 2 meter packet, internet, fiber optic link, etc, because
all you can do is LISTEN (to find stuff you still need).
The arguement that allowing internet (for assisted types) would make the
playing field more "equal" for those stations in remote areas where there
isn't a large group of packetradio types, or a node that reaches them,
is (again, IMHO) true.
Will a W6 benefit from knowing what is being heard in Europe on 80 meters
at 1200z? How much will KH0AM's score increase by seeing packet spots via
internet from the East Coast of the USA?
So a REAL question is, "IS THIS HAM RADIO?" Another real question is, "will
it matter at all (to the scores) of the serious contenders? Will the BOX
score guys be affected in any way?" If the top guys aren't affected, but if
the guys in remote places, or "little" guys, or whoever will have more fun,
then (IMHO) it's a good thing in that it will make the contest more fun for
a larger group; and isn't that the main idea? [according to a piece of paper
I have here from some contest director, the FIRST "purpose" listed is (para-
phrasing): "to have a FUN event for the participants."]
And that's my 2 cents worth. I hope it provides more INFORMATION for
discussion.
Again, these are my own thoughts and in no way are meant as any sort of
representation of any group with which I may be associated.
de Doug KR2Q
PS...note my NEW address: KR2Q at WORLDNET.ATT.NET
bye! :-)
>From WF3T <steve.steltzer at paonline.com> Sun Apr 21 16:24:22 1996
From: WF3T <steve.steltzer at paonline.com> (WF3T)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 12:24:22 -0300
Subject: WPX scores corrections
Hi Steve,
Finally recieved my May issue, very nice writeup, congrats. I can
appreciate the amount of time put into the scoring effort. The extra print
was nice after being missed in the high claimed scores :-), but I don't
think I should have been included in the 14 MHZ high power unassisted
scores. That moves W6EEN (KA6SAR op) to 2nd, W9UP to 3rd, etc. The 14 MHZ
assisted listings are correct.
Thanks, 73,
Steve
*\* steve.steltzer at paonline.com (WF3T) *\*
*\* Harley Davidson Inc. *\*
>From Richard Hallman <ki3v at rnodx.org> Sun Apr 21 04:53:11 1996
From: Richard Hallman <ki3v at rnodx.org> (Richard Hallman)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 20:53:11 pdt
Subject: Contesting and the Internet?
Message-ID: <3179B12E-00000001 at rnodx.org>
>Have been trying to get W6GO, keeper of the SF Bay Area Cluster
Im open for connects....Send me E-Mail and we can have a link together...
> Brad Wyatt told me, the Bay Area Cluster
>tried a link with Europe awhile back, and they got to much info
>back that was of no use to them around SF, so they dropped off.
>This would not happen allowing Jukka to post their spots on the
>internet.
Not true....We had a problem with our other gateway....Installed our own
and we are back on line....
>Interesting topic, but I suspect there is a fair amount of "if we
>have them spotted, why share them with you?" attitude, tho
>would hope this is not the case.
Not a problem here......The more the better!!
Rich KI3V Reno Internet gateway Sysop wadg.ampr.org
**********************************************************
Richard Hallman ki3v at rnodx.org
11870 Heartpine St
Reno Nv 89506 ki3v at w7ta.#nonev.nv
**********************************************************
>From PETER GRILLO <ah3c at burgoyne.com> Sun Apr 21 19:42:35 1996
From: PETER GRILLO <ah3c at burgoyne.com> (PETER GRILLO)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 12:42:35 -0600
Subject: Contesting and the Internet?
Message-ID: <199604211242.GAA02205 at burgoyne.com>
At 09:21 AM 4/20/96 -0600, you wrote:
>On 19 Apr 96 at 22:36, frenaye at pcnet.com <frenaye at pcnet.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Both CQWW and ARRL have no problem with a PacketCluster network being
>> connected to the Internet as part of the normal interconnectivity of
>> electronic worlds.
>
>Astounding.
>
>>
>> CQ's policy goes on to say that you can't spot yourself (no self
>> promotion), and that you can't be directly linked to the Internet. That
>> means you can't have your own PC connected to the Internet to access
>> someone else's packet node(one of the many available these days). Under
>> ARRL rules direct links to the Internet are permitted.
>
>But you can link to your next door neighbour, to whom you have loaned a
>PC for the weekend, and that one is connected to the Net. Right?
>
>>
>> Whether a direct connection is something that gives anyone a real
>> advantage is another question. I didn't ask but assume that an Internet
>> connection to a "live" receiver isn't permitted under either set of
>> rules.
>>
>
>I'm not sure that any assumptions are safe, given that the fundamental
>one that Net connections are not allowed has turned out to be incorrect.
>
>Your note brings loads of very nasty issues to mind regarding
>enforceability and what devious people could get away with. Since there
>is no logical difference beteen a packetcluster and any other piece of
>software, there doesn't seem to be anything to stop one simply
>installing an IP switch in a box and connecting through that; after
>which one could use the Net however one liked during a contest. You
>won't catch me operating in any contests where this is allowed.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>D.R. Evans NQ0I / G4AMJ : devans at lynx.colorado.edu
> al019 at freenet.uchsc.edu
>
>"Palindor Chronicles" information and extracts:
> http://spot.colorado.edu/~romigj/drevans.html
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>From PETER GRILLO <ah3c at burgoyne.com> Sun Apr 21 19:50:09 1996
From: PETER GRILLO <ah3c at burgoyne.com> (PETER GRILLO)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 12:50:09 -0600
Subject: Contesting and the Internet?
Message-ID: <199604211250.GAA02295 at burgoyne.com>
At 09:21 AM 4/20/96 -0600, you wrote:
>On 19 Apr 96 at 22:36, frenaye at pcnet.com <frenaye at pcnet.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Both CQWW and ARRL have no problem with a PacketCluster network being
>> connected to the Internet as part of the normal interconnectivity of
>> electronic worlds.
>
>Astounding.
>
>>
>> CQ's policy goes on to say that you can't spot yourself (no self
>> promotion), and that you can't be directly linked to the Internet. That
>> means you can't have your own PC connected to the Internet to access
>> someone else's packet node(one of the many available these days). Under
>> ARRL rules direct links to the Internet are permitted.
>
>But you can link to your next door neighbour, to whom you have loaned a
>PC for the weekend, and that one is connected to the Net. Right?
>
>>
>> Whether a direct connection is something that gives anyone a real
>> advantage is another question. I didn't ask but assume that an Internet
>> connection to a "live" receiver isn't permitted under either set of
>> rules.
>>
>
>I'm not sure that any assumptions are safe, given that the fundamental
>one that Net connections are not allowed has turned out to be incorrect.
>
>Your note brings loads of very nasty issues to mind regarding
>enforceability and what devious people could get away with. Since there
>is no logical difference beteen a packetcluster and any other piece of
>software, there doesn't seem to be anything to stop one simply
>installing an IP switch in a box and connecting through that; after
>which one could use the Net however one liked during a contest. You
>won't catch me operating in any contests where this is allowed.
I wonder what Fred, K3ZO thinks about all this. My hunch is he would agree
with you. I have never used packet and wouldn't even know how to begin
using the internet as a crutch to finding stations to work. Operating
skills require that you must listen, then make the QSO....not search the
internet for help. I guess we old fashioned souls will get steam-rolled no
matter what.
The only plus that I could see in all of this is if it can increase
activity, bring in fresh blood into contesting, OK. But, be wary of rules
changes to protect the innocent. Hopefully, our rules committees will
continue to award the best operators.....
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>D.R. Evans NQ0I / G4AMJ : devans at lynx.colorado.edu
> al019 at freenet.uchsc.edu
>
>"Palindor Chronicles" information and extracts:
> http://spot.colorado.edu/~romigj/drevans.html
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>From PETER GRILLO <ah3c at burgoyne.com> Sun Apr 21 19:57:49 1996
From: PETER GRILLO <ah3c at burgoyne.com> (PETER GRILLO)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 12:57:49 -0600
Subject: Contesting and the Internet?
Message-ID: <199604211257.GAA02409 at burgoyne.com>
At 05:33 PM 4/20/96 -0400, you wrote:
>For the CQ WW 160 Meter Contests, I view internet as another media for
>"alert" messages. Originally there were nets on 2 meters that verbally
>passed on spots such as the 147.510 frequency in Metro Atlanta. Then
>packet came along and most spots were passed by packet. Internet (WEB or
>E-mail) solves one big problem...how to manage a large group of spots that
>most packet programs (even those connected thru large PC's) stumble on. I
>see internet (is K1EA [or anyone] building an intranet vehicle to tie all
>the major packet clusters together? Those of you into telecommunications
>will know what I mean) as the repository for spots and a natural step in the
>automation of contesting.
>
>Any station that uses internet will be a multi op station for the CQ 160
>regardless!
>
>Spotting one's own station while not illegal is in bad taste.
This should be prohibited. The DX side would get a tremendous advantage.
If that is currently being done, it needs to be addressed in rules.
>
>73, Dave Thompson, K4JRB
>CQ WW 160 Meter Contests Director
>
>PS will be posting the 1996 claimed scores (same as sent to CQ for August
>publication) in early May. Will show the top 75 scores both modes
>regardless of class. Final results will again be in the December CQ.
>Still waiting on 1995 certificates!
>
>
>From Charles H. Harpole" <harpole at pegasus.cc.ucf.edu Sun Apr 21 14:27:09 1996
From: Charles H. Harpole" <harpole at pegasus.cc.ucf.edu (Charles H. Harpole)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 09:27:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Trey and me
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960421092617.1478M-100000 at Pegasus>
I am not angry with Trey. I disagree with him. This is a big difference
to me. de K4VUD
>From Spike Lazar <slazar19 at sgi.net> Sun Apr 21 14:40:16 1996
From: Spike Lazar <slazar19 at sgi.net> (Spike Lazar)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 09:40:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Equipment Pricing Help
Message-ID: <199604211340.JAA29582 at orion.bv.sgi.net>
>AD4HC said:
>I desperately need some help. For reasons that I'd rather not get into
>publicly, I will be in litigation Monday and need some "unbiased" opinions
>of what the following equipment is worth..
>
>Yaesu FT-1000D, ect. and much more.
>
>Dear Mary,
Is this part of your divorce settlement? If it is will you please
marry me! This is a serious offer!
88, dr. Bafoofnik
p.s. Do you happen to climb towers also?
>From Pete Raymond <n4kw at citrus.infi.net> Sun Apr 21 16:24:57 1996
From: Pete Raymond <n4kw at citrus.infi.net> (Pete Raymond)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 11:24:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Body Harness
Message-ID: <199604211524.LAA13521 at mh004.infi.net>
Over the past few months there have been a few threads regarding safety
belts and or body harnesses. I was in the market for a new belt to replace
my 30+ year old leather belt. Bill N3RR who's picture appears on the cover
of April 1996 CQ put me in touch with a company called Buckingham
Manufacturing Co., Inc. They are located in Binghamton, N.Y. and
manufacture fall protection & rescue equipment. They can be reached at
(800) 937-2825. Anyway, I called them and requested a catalog of their
climbing and safety belts or body harness equipment that was recommended for
tower use.
Afew days later I received three catalogs. They covered fall arrest,
suspension, work positioning, and retrieval systems and some specialty
products. Which ranged from canvas buckets, to carabiners rated at over six
thousand pounds.
I focused on the body harnesses and found that they had two pages of various
options you could purchase and completely customize a harness to fit your needs.
I ordered two one for a friend and one for myself. They arrived this past
Thursday and I want to tell you I was impressed with the quality and
workmanship. Since thursday I have put seven hours on my tower with the new
body harness. My reaction was the same as when I first purchased my first
air conditioned car "what took me so long". I guess the bottom line here is
that if you are thinking of making a change consider a body harness and if
interested give Buckingham a call and see what they have. 73's Pete N4KW
n4kw at citrus.infi.net
>From Douglas Zwiebel <KR2Q at worldnet.att.net> Sun Apr 21 16:59:39 1996
From: Douglas Zwiebel <KR2Q at worldnet.att.net> (Douglas Zwiebel)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 15:59:39 GMT
Subject: internet stuff...mute?
Message-ID: <199604211559.PAA15517 at mailhost.worldnet.att.net>
Yes, it's going to be a HOT topic for the reflector, but one which has already
been talked about for some time (at least in "certain" groups). I believe
that most of this discussion is mute and here is why:
Don't forget that (for the CQWW contests) you are NOT permitted to use
packet (internet?), spotting nets, 2 meter links, etc. to SOLICIT qso's.
You must be PASSIVE...that is, you can WATCH whatever you want, but you
can't REQUEST specific information! If you want to SPOT something, you
do it on your own (gee, this was a good one, I'll post it). In other
words, you CAN'T ask for a qso (directly, indirectly, subtly, overtly,
hint-hint, or whatever). You can't say "any Europe on Ten yet?" or
"What was that 9G1's full call." You can't spot yourself either. So
from a FUNCTIONAL point of view (IMHO) there isn't a real difference
if you use 2 meter packet, internet, fiber optic link, etc, because
all you can do is LISTEN (to find stuff you still need).
The arguement that allowing internet (for assisted types) would make the
playing field more "equal" for those stations in remote areas where there
isn't a large group of packetradio types, or a node that reaches them,
is (again, IMHO) true.
Will a W6 benefit from knowing what is being heard in Europe on 80 meters
at 1200z? How much will KH0AM's score increase by seeing packet spots via
internet from the East Coast of the USA?
So a REAL question is, "IS THIS HAM RADIO?" Another real question is, "will
it matter at all (to the scores) of the serious contenders? Will the BOX
score guys be affected in any way?" If the top guys aren't affected, but if
the guys in remote places, or "little" guys, or whoever will have more fun,
then (IMHO) it's a good thing in that it will make the contest more fun for
a larger group; and isn't that the main idea? [according to a piece of paper
I have here from some contest director, the FIRST "purpose" listed is (para-
phrasing): "to have a FUN event for the participants."]
And that's my 2 cents worth. I hope it provides more INFORMATION for
discussion.
Again, these are my own thoughts and in no way are meant as any sort of
representation of any group with which I may be associated.
de Doug KR2Q
PS...note my NEW address: KR2Q at WORLDNET.ATT.NET
bye! :-)
>From k5na at bga.com (Richard L. King) Sun Apr 21 18:48:12 1996
From: k5na at bga.com (Richard L. King) (Richard L. King)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 12:48:12 -0500
Subject: internet stuff...mute?
Message-ID: <199604211748.MAA06190 at zoom.bga.com>
>Don't forget that (for the CQWW contests) you are NOT permitted to use
>packet (internet?), spotting nets, 2 meter links, etc. to SOLICIT qso's.
>You must be PASSIVE...that is, you can WATCH whatever you want, but you
>can't REQUEST specific information!
Does that mean that a multi-op can't do a "SH/D" to see the last 5 DX meter
spots? And if he can do that, how about the many options you have with
"SH/D" for band-specific, frequency-specific, or station-specific information?
>If you want to SPOT something, you
>do it on your own (gee, this was a good one, I'll post it). In other
>words, you CAN'T ask for a qso (directly, indirectly, subtly, overtly,
>hint-hint, or whatever).
How about one multi-op holding a mult on a frequency for another multi-op
group to come on frequency to work the mult? The different multi-ops can be
communicating through PacketCluster, 2 meters, or whatever for the
coordination. Contest clubs have been doing that for years to help their
club score.
During past CQ 160 meter contests, it seemed to be standard operating
practice for multi-op stations to go through the list of PacketCluster
network users and send talk messages asking for 160M contacts. Was this
practice against the rules? And multi-ops would spot themselves on
PacketCluster while single-ops would be spotted by their "buddies". I know
this is not considered to be ethical, but is there a specific rule against it?
> You can't say "any Europe on Ten yet?"
What's the harm with that?
>or "What was that 9G1's full call."
Makes sense. You certainly want to do your own callsign copying. Enough
mistakes are already made from calls being incorrect on the PacketCluster.
>You can't spot yourself either. So
>from a FUNCTIONAL point of view (IMHO) there isn't a real difference
>if you use 2 meter packet, internet, fiber optic link, etc, because
>all you can do is LISTEN (to find stuff you still need).
Is this a NEW CQWW rule? Some of these interpretations are not the accepted
practices of the past. I think some clarification is in order.
>The arguement that allowing internet (for assisted types) would make the
>playing field more "equal" for those stations in remote areas where there
>isn't a large group of packetradio types, or a node that reaches them,
>is (again, IMHO) true.
"More equal" is the key word here. Using internet certainly gives them no
overwhelming advantage of any kind.
>So a REAL question is, "IS THIS HAM RADIO?" Another real question is, "will
>it matter at all (to the scores) of the serious contenders? Will the BOX
>score guys be affected in any way?" If the top guys aren't affected, but if
>the guys in remote places, or "little" guys, or whoever will have more fun,
>then (IMHO) it's a good thing in that it will make the contest more fun for
>a larger group; and isn't that the main idea? [according to a piece of paper
>I have here from some contest director, the FIRST "purpose" listed is (para-
>phrasing): "to have a FUN event for the participants."]
PacketCluster usage has really brought us to this brink of internet usage.
It was the beginning of adding the world of digital nodes/nets/webs to the
contest station. There are many geographical areas that have low populations
and few PacketClusters. They don't have the ability to direct connect
between PacketClusters and they are finding that using internet is an answer
for them to do so. Also, the lone operator in a isolated area can use
internet to find a PacketCluster somewhere. Both the operater and the node
must accept the problems that come with linking through internet, and there
are many.
Once again I want to say, "What's the big deal? Why is this a problem?" I
don't see the indignation on using PacketCluster through the internet.
73, Richard - K5NA
K5NA at BGA.COM
>From cns-sd at ix.netcom.com (Art Wallace) Sun Apr 21 19:24:04 1996
From: cns-sd at ix.netcom.com (Art Wallace) (Art Wallace)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 11:24:04 -0700
Subject: Fwd: Equipment Pricing Help
Message-ID: <199604211824.LAA10444 at dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com>
---- Begin Forwarded Message
Return-Path: <owner-cq-contest at tgv.com>
Received: from Dr-Crippen.tgv.com by ix11.ix.netcom.com
(8.6.13/SMI-4.1/Netcom)
id HAA00342; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 07:10:48 -0700
X-ListName: Amateur Radio Contester's discussion list
<CQ-Contest at tgv.com>
Warnings-To: <>
Errors-To: owner-cq-contest at tgv.com
Sender: owner-cq-contest at tgv.com
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 09:40:16 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <199604211340.JAA29582 at orion.bv.sgi.net>
X-Sender: slazar19 at mail.sgi.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: cq-contest at tgv.com
From: Spike Lazar <slazar19 at sgi.net>
Reply-To: Spike Lazar <slazar19 at sgi.net>
Subject: Equipment Pricing Help
>AD4HC said:
>I desperately need some help. For reasons that I'd rather not get
into
>publicly, I will be in litigation Monday and need some "unbiased"
opinions
>of what the following equipment is worth..
>
>Yaesu FT-1000D, ect. and much more.
>
Dear Mary,
Are you interested in a proposal of marrage?
Please send picture of the FT-1000D.
Sincerely,
Art - KK6XN
>From Jerry Sidorov" <jerry at ua9ar.urc.ac.ru Sun Apr 21 21:26:28 1996
From: Jerry Sidorov" <jerry at ua9ar.urc.ac.ru (Jerry Sidorov)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 96 00:26:28 +0400
Subject: Trip to Finland.
Message-ID: <AAqdfUnen0 at ua9ar.urc.ac.ru>
Hi fellow contesters,
In June I'll have a business trip to Finland. I would like to
meet some Finnish hams face to face. If someone will be interested,
send me direct message, please.
---
73, Jerry UA9AR, a member of the RK9AWN crew.
Mail: Jerry Sidorov, P/O Box 9411, * E-mail: jerry at ua9ar.urc.ac.ru
Chelyabinsk, 454080, Russia *
>From k3ww at fast.net (Charles Fulp) Sun Apr 21 22:33:15 1996
From: k3ww at fast.net (Charles Fulp) (Charles Fulp)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 21:33:15 +0000
Subject: Cluster/internet
Message-ID: <199604212132.RAA20778 at nn.fast.net>
I will side with KM9P on this issue. I think internet/landline
links within a system are reasonable and practical. Radio
links are certainly in the spirit of ham radio, but interfacability
with the rest of the world can be very beneficial, both on a
day to day basis and in time of emergency. Every time my 440 link
antennas ice up, I wish I could reconnect to the megacluster, via
land line. When my local access guy goes down, Im glad to be on
440. Keeping as much of the cluster activity on amateur radio, as
is practical is a good thing. HF packet links seem to be too slow
for all but the lightest duty, where the internet links handle
heavy traffic nicely.
For spotting purposes, I can't see the difference in how the nodes
are connected, or how the user goes into the node; however, if
other information is exchanged, (and in a world wide set up self
spotting should certainly be prohibited) then the telephone rules
should apply. "can't you hear me calling you" and "thanks for
the 160 QSO" talk messages should be against the rules in all cases. In my
personal opinion, checking on another band to see if you made
the 160 QSO should also be out of bounds, of course I don't like
schedules made on the air, so off the air schedules/internet schedules, are
even more out of the realm of what I like to do
in a contest.
As for the blurring of hobbies, between computers and Amateur Radio,
that is just a fact of life. Amateur radio attracted folks interested in
electronics and communications, Computer stuff attracts the same pool of
folks. Our stations, even our radios and accessories are
full of microprocessors, even my QRP rig is microprocessor controlled.
The big difference in the communications aspect of the hobby is that
radio propagation is involved. Contesting and DXing on HF are probably the
two HF activities that cannot be replaced by on-line
type services, since specific RF propagation is a part of the basis for the
activity. (EME, meteor scatter and other propagation related activities are
very popular on VHF/UHF etc) Things like ragchewing,
common interest nets (voice reflectors?) transmission of images, etc are
handeled equally well and with little difference (execept frequently
improved speed or reliability) via online
techniques. (look where we all are when not contesting/DXing).
73 Chas k3ww at fast.net http://www.users.fast.net/~k3ww
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list