good ol' boys on 75m (fwd)

[KE5FI at aol.com]

I agree that IGNORING the malicious interfefers is the best way.  Although it
won't work if you get too close to their "proprietary" frequency on 75...

>From jdcolson at aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (Jack D.Colson)  Mon Feb  5 16:20:59 1996
From: jdcolson at aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (Jack D.Colson) (Jack D.Colson)
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 11:20:59 -0500
Subject: K3ZO Comments, CQ 160 Meter CW Test
Message-ID: <9602051620.AA05038 at aplcomm.jhuapl.edu>

Fred I received an e-mail from Don Daso in which he mentions a magazine
called "Contest Cookbook" vintage 1970's.  He refers to an article by W3EIS
re the design of the W3AU station.  Do you have this magazine?  I'd like
to see it some time just as a matter of curiousity.

73
Jack my email address at work it jdcolson at aplcomm.jhuapl.edu or at home is
jcolson at mail.erols.com and packet DX cluster works just fine as well.

Jack

>From Jan Almedal <janalme at sn.no>  Mon Feb  5 19:10:14 1996
From: Jan Almedal <janalme at sn.no> (Jan Almedal)
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 1996 20:10:14 +0100
Subject: IOTA Contest 1995 Results
Message-ID: <199602051910.UAA15443 at ekeberg.sn.no>

At 01:18 05.02.96 EST, you wrote:
>Here are the results of the 1995 IOTA Contest. Results booklets have been 
>posted to all entrants. The 1996 contest will be on 27-28 August 1200-1200z
>and I will post the rules here next week. If anyone would like the full
>results including IOTA ref, points and mults, please send me an email.
>
>73, Dave G4BUO

Suppose you mean July.....

Best 73 de
Jan / LA9HW

http://www.sn.no/~janalme/hammain.html


>From Pete Soper <psoper at encore.com>  Mon Feb  5 15:42:50 1996
From: Pete Soper <psoper at encore.com> (Pete Soper)
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 1996 10:42:50 EST
Subject: Surge suppressors for balanced feeders?
Message-ID: <1518.9602051542 at earl.encore.com>

Hi Folks,

   I'm finally moving the station from a second floor room, have
built a ground window in the new location and have a pretty clear 
idea of handling everything except balanced feeders. Polyphaser
doesn't appear to have anything suitable. I wonder if ICE makes a 
suppressor for ladder line, or if some of you have found another
effective suppressor scheme?
   Apart from switching the feeders to ground when not in use,
which I of course intend to do, do I have any options to provide
some protection from a surprise strike? Can dual electrode gas tubes
be connected in such a way that the balanced feed isn't screwed up?
I'm worried that the voltages on these lines from RF with 
relatively high SWR will trigger most of the gas tubes I've found,
and the effect on impedance and balance is a black mystery to this
RF-novice.

Regards,
Pete
KS4XG

>From AA3JU George Cook <george at epix.net>  Mon Feb  5 15:08:08 1996
From: AA3JU George Cook <george at epix.net> (AA3JU George Cook)
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 10:08:08 -0500 (EST)
Subject: good ol' boys on 75m (fwd)
Message-ID: <199602051508.KAA00832 at epix.net>

At 01:14 PM 2/4/96 -1000, you wrote:
>Why not give them a little publicity?  Start spreading their call
>letters around,  e-mail them to the FCC and to the ARRL  people
>who are watch the government regulators.  The ARRL ought
>to be able to get some thing done via the FCC.  These guys
>should be pursued and sent letters by the FCC with cautions
>and suitable threats;  then if they don't change their ways,
>the FCC can do their usual Notification of Action,  license and 
>operating privilege cancellation.  Why let it go on and on?
>73,  Jim,  AH6NB

I would add being very annonymous about this!  Last time I locked horns with
these Bozos Ifound myself under a ver vicious attack using the internet.  I
thought that I had done myself a favor posting my address to QRZ but they
found me and the rest is history.

Bottom line is this though I doubt the FCC or the ARRL actually care much
about 75 meters at all.  The FCC never really had any teeth to begin with
and now has even less so.  The ARRL of course would be very interested if it
was a 2 meter repeater being jammmed but an HF freq?  I doubt it since most
hams today are NC techs and have no intrest whatsoever in what happens to
us foolish contesters.

What I would suggest is a concerted effort to try and change the laws. Since
ham radio is in fact a national and international resource and viatal to the
lives and security of so many people perhaps a more fitting punishment for
intentional and repeated malicious interference would be a bit of prison
time.  Mind you not a long period say 6 mo to a year.  I think that you
would need only find a very few of these fellows cooling there heals in the
clink before that aspect of the hobby might not be so entertaining.

But that I am sure is wishful thinking.

george
AA3JU  george at epix.net    AA3JU at W3PYF
Proudly  F R C...........
"FRC When second best just isn't good enough!"