balloon verticals

Tue Aug 13 18:36:54 EDT 1996

>
>     Table 1:
>
>Toltex size:    Price:    Burst altitude:    Payload weight:
>(grams)           (US)       (feet)                      (lbs.)
>
>100                  $7.50      40,000                   1.5
>300                  $15         76,000                   4
>800                  $28         99,000                   6
>1200                $45      104,000                   over 6 lbs. 
>

What frequency are we making verticals for? 15 kHz?  :-)

I should think you wouldn't need to be concerned about bursting for a 
typical 160 meter vertical!

Maybe we need a VLF Contest.

See you on 175 kHz!

73, Zack W9SZ

--

>From hwardsil at wolfenet.com (Ward Silver)  Wed Aug 14 00:29:45 1996
From: hwardsil at wolfenet.com (Ward Silver) (Ward Silver)
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 16:29:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: RF Exposure & Cellular Phones
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.960813162436.29015J-100000 at gonzo.wolfenet.com>

On Tue, 13 Aug 1996, Stan Griffiths wrote:

> So how come
> there does not seem to be IMMENSE CONCERN over radios that you actually wear
> on your body??  (cell phones and handhelds)  You can't get much closer than
> that and the field intensities have to be very large even at just a few
> watts of power.
> 
> This argument may only get us into deeper trouble, but I would suggest that
> it might cause a re-examination of the risks associated with handhelds
> (including cell phones).  If we hams are going to risk getting into trouble
> over this, I damn sure want to drag the cell phone companies right into the
> muck with us.  At least they have the funding to defend themselves and if
> they lose (impossible!), the loss of cell phone conveniences will be
> devastating to the general public (which is why they CAN'T lose).
> 

The answer is, of course, that they have ALREADY wriggled their way out of
being covered by this set of rules.  There is no way that they were not
aware of this set of proposed regulations and applied the necessary
pressure to be exempted.

I wish that they had NOT be exempted, because then the cellular industry
might have been our unwitting champion, as was Marconi to the hams so many
years ago.  With their pressure and clout, we might have had a chance to
avoid the whole set of rules, at least for intermittent transmissions.
Now...sigh...we are all by our lonesome.

73, Ward N0AX

>From w7ni at teleport.com (Stan Griffiths)  Tue Aug 13 22:30:54 1996
From: w7ni at teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) (Stan Griffiths)
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 14:30:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Contest related questions...
Message-ID: <199608132130.OAA14515 at desiree.teleport.com>

>Hi Glenn:
>
>Well, since Tom was only interested in spotting stations for others
>and not in using spots himself, that may be a bit harsh.  On a personal
>note, i very much enjoy operating single/assisted and feel that the
>class is getting a bad rap, especially from guys such as yourself and 
>N6AA most recently.  I won't get into a flame war with you guys over
>the issue, but let me say that my soon to be published #1 World socre
>in Single-Op/All-Band Assisted for the 1995 CQWW DX SSB Contest and
>the plaque I will get for my efforts is in no way diminished by the fact
>that you guys refuse to acknowledge my efforts as "real contesting."

Well, you are certainly right in one respect.  SOMEBODY is best at ANY
endeavor.  I am sure if they were giving plaques for shooting fish in
barrels, SOMEBODY would be best at it and win the plaque . . .

I am glad you can enjoy that form of contesting.  I could not.

Stan  w7ni at teleport.com

>From w6go at netcom.com (Jay O'Brien - W6GO)  Wed Aug 14 02:04:50 1996
From: w6go at netcom.com (Jay O'Brien - W6GO) (Jay O'Brien - W6GO)
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 18:04:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Kudos For Billy Lunt
Message-ID: <199608140104.SAA26595 at netcom13.netcom.com>

> 
> Yesterday, at 1818 Eastern Time, I sent some e-mail to Billy Lunt (ARRL's
> Contest Manager) regarding a problem with a just-received certificate.
> 
> Billy's response, correcting the problem, was transmitted at 0916 this morning.
> 
> Now that's SERVICE, and I thought a public "thank you" was in order.
> 
> 73, Walt, AC1O
> 
> 
Congratulations!

I requested a replacement certificate from Billy via fax on 5/1/93 for a
certificate sent for SS with one of my operators' calls incorrect.  No
answer.  I sent a followup fax on 1/30/94.  No answer.  My director asked
him to replace the certificate.  No answer.  I'm still waiting, but
believe me I'm not holding my breath. 

To his credit, he did replace a previous error which awarded us "FISRT 
PLACE" with one that read "FIRST PLACE".

There are many other examples of problems with the ARRL Contest desk, and 
my interest in ARRL contests has declined as a result.  It seems that the 
attitude of the Contest desk is "it's only a contest, therefore it's not 
important".

Perhaps as an east coaster you get responses from Billy.  I'm happy for you.

73, Jay
    w6go at netcom.com

>From n1jm at dreamscape.com (John L. Merrill)  Wed Aug 14 02:22:09 1996
From: n1jm at dreamscape.com (John L. Merrill) (John L. Merrill)
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 21:22:09 -0400
Subject: Summary of Comments OmniVI vs FT1000MP
Message-ID: <32112A41.719A at dreamscape.com>

OmniVI vs FT1000MP
Summary of comments

1.  A couple of people had microprocessor problems with the OmniVI=20
possibly due to a high RF envronment. Others did not.
2.  One person claimed some top dx=92ers/contesters changed to an=20
"offshore" rig after using the OmniVI.
3.  Internal noise claimed to be 5-6db less on OmniVI
4.  QSK on OmniVI not as good as OmniV.
5.  Some didnt like the construction of the OmniVI.
6.  OmniVI has some operating quirks(no details).
7.  FT1000MP works perfect out of the box.
8.  Great radio if you only do cw(OmniVI).
9.  FT1000MP quiter claimed receive audio.
10.  OmniVI advantages: service, U.S  made, cw filters sound better.
11.  Buy FT1000MP without internal supply-runs cooler.
12.  Filters are expensive for FT1000MP.
13.  Some people have had service problems with both.
14.  One person thought FT1000(MP?) was vastly inferior to TenTec Scout=20
and other rigs during Field Day. Horrible Yeasu service.
15.  Other advantages or disadvantages were concerning operator=20
preferences, whether one had a tuner, second receiver, and other bells=20
and whistles.

If anyone has more comments , I would be interested in seeing them.

73, John N1JM

>From AA6KX at postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Bruce Sawyer)  Wed Aug 14 03:19:06 1996
From: AA6KX at postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Bruce Sawyer) (Bruce Sawyer)
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 02:19:06 +0000
Subject: IR2W in WAE
Message-ID: <19960814021904.AAA1475 at LOCALNAME>

Does anybody know who the op(s) were at IR2W during WAE?  That station was
absolutely the loudest signal on the band out here on the west coast--even
louder than RU1A and ON4UN, which is saying a lot.  I see from the new QST
that IR2W was operated in the DX contest last February by Giorgio, I2VXJ.
It would sort of figure to me that he was also the op last weekend, because
I know from comments the op made over the air he was at WRTC this year.
Anyway, anybody know what sort of setup they have over there?  I don't have
an email address for Giorgio or I'd write directly.  But I'd sure like to
hear more about that station.

Bruce, AA6KX

>From kf3p at cais.cais.com (Tyler Stewart)  Wed Aug 14 03:32:26 1996
From: kf3p at cais.cais.com (Tyler Stewart) (Tyler Stewart)
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 22:32:26 -0400
Subject: NAQP SSB this weekend?
Message-ID: <199608140232.WAA11983 at cais.cais.com>

Isnt the phone NAQP this weekend?  Anybody making up teams?

I'm available, but I'll be making a late start and probably wont get 10 hours
in (more like 9.5 since I have to work!#$*(!)

Actually, I'm looking for 4 Texans who need a Yank to make them look extra good!

73, Big T! kf3p at cais.com