cheap and flexible computerized rotor controller
David Robbins
ky1h at berkshire.net
Sat Aug 10 01:16:07 EDT 1996
I have posted the latest status of my computer controller for rotors
on my web site. Check out the Whats New page for links. This is the
controller I commented about earlier using a Z-World micro controller
board that costs about $159 in place of the $345 Yaesu board. Right
now you can hook up a Yaesu Gxxxx-sdx rotor to a computer running
either CT or a dumb terminal program. It should also be able to control
other rotors that use an analog position circuit.
73, dave
--
ky1h at berkshire.net or robbins at berkshire.net
http://www.berkshire.net/~robbins/ky1h.html
>From zettel at homer.libby.org (Steve Zettel) Sat Aug 10 02:13:59 1996
From: zettel at homer.libby.org (Steve Zettel) (Steve Zettel)
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 19:13:59 -0600
Subject: OmniVI vs FT1000MP
Message-ID: <v03007801ae3192533beb@[192.0.2.1]>
As a counterpoint, I now own the same Omni VI that gave Bill troubles
with the microprocessor. I haven't used it in multi-radio or
legal-limit amplifier contest situations, or in contest situations at
the world-class level of operator performance that Bill routinely
functions, BUT I have used it with the TenTec Hercules II amp (500W
PEP),
Model 253 Autotuner with a computer interfaced fulltime for
autoband-switching from the Omni or the computer and have experienced
zero "rig-CPU" glitches. I've been very happy with it, but I'll be the
first to admit that my RF environment may be very different than
Bill's. Ditto the number of hours/operator intensity. Bill was very
up-front with his reasons for disatisfaction with the Omni VI before
we struck a deal. I haven't operated the 1000MP for any appreciable
time so I have no opinion about that radio.
Your mileage may vary.
Steve Zettel KJ7CH kj7ch at libby.org
Libby, MT steve.m.zettel at nps.usace.army.mil
>From vr2bg at asiaonline.net (VS6BrettGraham) Sat Aug 10 02:15:27 1996
From: vr2bg at asiaonline.net (VS6BrettGraham) (VS6BrettGraham)
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 09:15:27 +0800
Subject: RF Exposure limits
Message-ID: <199608100115.JAA22558 at asiaonline.net>
The discussion about this has really been something to watch.
Here in Hongkong, we had RF exposure limits imposed in a license revamp a
few years back. The limits are:
Unperterbed RMS Equivalent Plane
Freq Field Strength Power Density
(MHz) (dbuV/m) (mW/cm^2)
10-400 148.8 not applicable
400-2000 122.8+log(f) f/2000
2000-300000 155.7 1
While during this exercise it was agreed that an amateur should have as a
part of his station the equipment to verify his/her transmitter's frequency
& power output, it was recognized that amateurs could not be expected to
verify that the exposure limits were not exceeded.
Luckily, HK doesn't have some of the problems which have been described
here recently, particularily in regards to the legal profession. We do
have problems getting permission to erect an antenna in the first place &
with the need be able to pull them down for typhoons, increasing the height
of the typical first string station's small tribander from 6-7m isn't an
option for reducing exposure.
Radiation is one of those things that we eventually will learn is bad for
us, like leaded petrol, unsafe sex & stuff like that. Anyone with some
intellegence should realize that anything we introduce into our environment
that is not naturally occurring will probably have a detrimental effect.
Limits to exposure are inevitable & as N6NB pointed out, a single standard
with some basis will be better than a hodge-podge of standards without.
The possible inadvertant consequences of these limits highlight another
problem altogether. Within the space of a typical suburban lot in a big
country, I have five other houses for a total of 14 potential neighbors
of varied nationality, culture & race, often without adequate proficency
at a common language to communicate. We get along just fine, antennas, RF
& all. While for some it may be too late, I believe that some folks here
would be better off channelling their energy into improving the situation
with their neighbors.
73, VS6BrettGraham vr2bg at harts.org.hk
>From wrt at eskimo.com (Bill Turner) Sat Aug 10 03:39:31 1996
From: wrt at eskimo.com (Bill Turner) (Bill Turner)
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 02:39:31 GMT
Subject: Follow-up message from a "frisky dog"
References: <9608091532.AA16482 at esinet.net>
Message-ID: <320bf1b7.13869420 at mail.eskimo.com>
On Fri, 9 Aug 96 11:32:29 EDT, AD4TU wrote:
<snip>
>Gentlemen, what is the farthest that any of you have received substantiable
>RFI/TVI complaints from when operating 160-10M at high power? Tower height,
>antenna azimuth, angle of radiation, mode of operation, terrain, etc.
<snip>
---------------------------------------------
I can give you some ballpark numbers from my typical suburban QTH. When
running 100 watts to my tribander at 50 feet, my neighbors approximately 100
feet away are receiving only marginal TVI or telephone interference, hardly
enough to notice. (this with the beam pointed directly at them). As I
increase the power to about 200 watts, the interference becomes quite
noticeable. Somewhere around 400-600 watts, the TV and phone become basically
unusable. All this is without filters, of course. Filters help some, but not
as much as I'd like.
Since RF fields follow an inverse square-law power ratio, when I go from 100
watts to the legal limit of 1500 watts (15 times increase), the range of
interference should theoretically move out by a factor of the square root of
15, or slightly less than 4. Instead of 100 feet, the distance becomes about
400 feet. This is pretty close to what I have observed.
So, in your situation with 1000 foot separation, I'd say you have little to
worry about. If some interference does arise, the appropriate filter will
probably cure it... maybe.
73, Bill W7LZP
wrt at eskimo.com
>From seay at alaska.net (Jan & Del Seay) Sat Aug 10 10:55:04 1996
From: seay at alaska.net (Jan & Del Seay) (Jan & Del Seay)
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 02:55:04 -0700
Subject: OmniVI vs FT1000MP
References: <9607098396.AA839630214 at internet.nps.usace.army.mil>
Message-ID: <320C5C78.2676 at alaska.net>
steve.m.zettel at internet.nps.usace.army.mil wrote:
>
> As a counterpoint, I now own the same Omni VI that gave Bill troubles
> with the microprocessor. I haven't used it in multi-radio or
> legal-limit amplifier contest situations, or in contest situations at
> the world-class level of operator performance that Bill routinely
> functions at, BUT I have used it with the TenTec Hercules II amp and
> Model 253 Autotuner with a computer interfaced fulltime for
> autoband-switching from the Omni or the computer and have experienced
> zero "rig-CPU" glitches. I've been very happy with it, but I'll be the
> first to admit that my RF environment may be very different than
> Bill's. Ditto the number of hours/operator intensity. Bill was very
> up-front with his reasons for disatisfaction with the Omni VI before
> we struck a deal. I haven't operated the 1000MP for any appreciable
> time so I have no opinion about that radio.
>
> Your mileage may vary.
>
> Steve Zettel KJ7CH kj7ch at libby.org
> Libby, MT steve.m.zettel at nps.usace.army.mil
>
If you want a real rude awakening - throw a signal generator on
both of them. I have - and the FT-1000 must be made for urban life.
Internal noise is about 5 dB less on Omni-6, bottom noise floor is
about the same distance , 4 to 4.5 dB lower.
I do have to admit the keying and qsk on the OMNI-6 needs work. It was a
lot better on the OMNI-V. So they went downhill there.
See ya. de KL7HF
>From k6sti at n2.net (Brian Beezley) Sat Aug 10 04:00:16 1996
From: k6sti at n2.net (Brian Beezley) (Brian Beezley)
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 20:00:16 -0700
Subject: RF Exposure limits
Message-ID: <199608100300.UAA22049 at ravel.n2.net>
VS6BG:
>Radiation is one of those things that we eventually will learn is bad for
>us, like leaded petrol, unsafe sex & stuff like that. Anyone with some
>intellegence should realize that anything we introduce into our environment
>that is not naturally occurring will probably have a detrimental effect.
>Limits to exposure are inevitable & as N6NB pointed out, a single standard
>with some basis will be better than a hodge-podge of standards without.
K6STI:
I'd like to hear your take on the net benefit/detriment of the following
items that don't occur naturally in our environment: Books, clothing, wine,
bread, and cut flowers.
Life entails risk. It's one thing to adopt a responsible and prudent
attitude toward yourself, your family, and your neighbors regarding a hobby
that entails manipulation of some of the fundamental forces of nature. It's
quite another to be ordered what to do about it in the absence of compelling
scientific evidence.
You mention N6NB. Mindful of the cq-contest FAQ that just appeared (which I
take to be Trey's way of suggesting that it might be time we all got back to
genuine contest issues), I'd like to suggest that those that who helped
bring the burden of this new regulation upon us bear some of its
consequences. Although I don't feel responsible, I've done what I can to
help. Perhaps Wayne Overbeck, N6NB, will respond in kind by donating some
of his legal expertise to help fellow hams legally accosted by their
neighbors as a result of the new FCC rule he was instrumental in having adopted.
Final note: Despite our differences on this issue, Brett, I sure hope
you'll see fit to blast through another JA SSB pileup on 6 meters with
40-wpm CW at the top of the next sunspot cycle. That QSO out of the blue in
1991 was a fantastic radio experience!
Brian Beezley, K6STI
k6sti at n2.net
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list