good ol' boys on 75m

richards at richards at
Tue Feb 6 19:38:19 EST 1996

I think I've got this thing figured out. I was subjected to one
of those tirades a few years ago (the first and only time I've
dared go near those frequencies) and didn't know what to make of
it. Oh sure, I could recite the psycho-babble answer but even
that is somehow lacking. I have the real answer now.
On the way home tonight I heard a news story on the radio about
school yard bullies. It seems somebody has found elevated levels
of lead in the blood and bone marrow of these kids. This is
theorized to be the cause of the anti-social behavior. These guys
on 75m aren't pig farmers, they're Solder Suckers(tm)  ;-)
Sure does explain a lot.

72 de Rick WZ2T  NNY

richards at

>From David Robbins <robbins at>  Wed Feb  7 08:30:19 1996
From: David Robbins <robbins at> (David Robbins)
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 00:30:19 -0800
Subject: YCCC www page
Message-ID: <3118631B.2088 at>

The YCCC now has an 'official' www page.  the address is:

for now this is just a pointer to the page that I have had for
a while now at:
Please use the address as the official link since the
page should move there sometime in the future.
I am the temporary custodian of it so send me your feedback.

ky1h at   or   robbins at
WWW Page now has New England Flea Market list from W1GSL

>From Jim Lowman <jlowman at>  Wed Feb  7 01:34:12 1996
From: Jim Lowman <jlowman at> (Jim Lowman)
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 96 17:34:12 -0800 (PST)
Subject: CC&R's , a growing danger to contesting

>To: "David L. Thompson" <thompson at>
>From: Jim Lowman <jlowman at>
>Subject: Re: CC&R's , a growing danger to contesting
>At 02:58 PM 2/6/96 -0500, you wrote:
>>Sorry for this bandwidth, but CC&R's are growing and we are in danger.  All
>>new subdivisions in Seattle and Metro Atlanta have them and now in my area
>>homeowners are banding into umbrella groups call "Civic" associations that
>>add CC&R's to older, existing subdivisions!
>>I hope someone can help Tom as he moves to Seattle!    
>I agree that CC&Rs are a big problem for hams.  We tend to be more sensitive
>to this sort of restriction because of the direct effect on us.  Others
probably see
>our towers and antennas from a different point of view, much like we might view
>a neighbor who parked on the lawn, let his property run down, painted his house
>some outlandish color, or allowed a bunch or old cars or other junk to
>on the property.  Apart from aesthetics, property values are the reason
that these
>restrictions exist.
>Interestingly enough, the California Legislature recently passed a bill
voiding any
>provisions of CC&Rs that prohibit the installation of satellite dishes that
are 18"
>in diameter or less.  Like PRB-1 it's no panacea, but it's a step in the
right direction.
>Too bad that our lobby isn't as strong as the DSS providers.
>We currently live in a neighborhood with no restrictions on antennas,
except that our
>newly-formed city limits towers to 45' and requires a building permit.
Prior to 
>incorporation, we were just "out in the county."
>What worries me is what we will do after retirement, as we definitely plan
to move
>from this area.  We are considering an arrangement like Hilo in the winter
>and Anchorage or Fairbanks in the summer.  Perhaps someone on the list who
>is familiar with these areas would care to comment.  Ham radio will
definitely be a
>major part of the retirement picture, where we'll finally have the time
available to devote
>to developing a world-class QTH.  We certainly don't want to have to live
in the "boondocks"
>or in a declining area, just to be free of the restrictions.
>Just some thoughts,
>72/73 de Jim - KF6CR
>San Bernardino, CA

>From claver at (Chuck Claver)  Wed Feb  7 02:01:18 1996
From: claver at (Chuck Claver) (Chuck Claver)
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 96 19:01:18 MST
Subject: Tower height and Angle (more)
Message-ID: <9602070201.AA02555 at>

Fellow contesters and antenna fiends,

I have gotten several responses to my posting responding to small
changes in antenna height having a significant impact on the high
angle radiation pattern.

First: I do understand what I posted was over hypothetical "perfect"
ground and that the effect diminishes as the ground conductivity gets
poorer.  However, the effect is still real.  My only intent was to point
out there are other things to consider when deciding what height is best
for you and your antenna.  It is wise to examine the entire radiation
pattern of the antenna and base your decision on that.

Second: I hope I did not imply that ultimate performance has a higher
weight over safety.  Practical mechanical sensibility must play a
role too.  Safety is top priority in any tower installation.

Cheers - Chuck Claver
         de NJ6D

Go forth and communicate ye ionospheric ones...

>From Pete Soper <psoper at>  Wed Feb  7 02:43:23 1996
From: Pete Soper <psoper at> (Pete Soper)
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 21:43:23 EST
Subject: Polyphaser reply about balanced line protection
Message-ID: <25010.9602070243 at>

Bob Wanderer,  AA0CY, a consultant for Polyphaser, reported that his company
doesn't provide a balanced line suppressor. He cautioned that such a suppressor,
if it is designed to tolerate relatively high VSWR values, might pass high
potentials to the transceiver during a strike. He suggested use of a coax
suppressor between the tuner and/or balun and transceiver where the VSWR is
nominal. If is was the only suppressor the balan and/or tuner would be
sacrificed of course. (Dave, W5DN also suggested translating into coax and
putting the protection there)


More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list