M0AAA
na2n at ifam.com
na2n at ifam.com
Sun Feb 11 17:07:10 EST 1996
On Sun, 11 Feb 1996, k7ss at aloha.net wrote:
>udder disrespect for the reflector
>
>At 11:57 AM 2/11/96 EST, you wrote:
>>-- [ From: Steve Sacco KC2X * EMC.Ver #2.5.03 ] --
>>> >I hope they set aside MM0OOO for Guernsey.
>>> or Jersey, for that matter--just to milk that a little further.
>>>
>>> Garry, NI6T
>>> -------
>>>
>>Come on, guys, let's moooooooove on to another subject.
>>
>>Steve KC2X
Think Trey needs to take the bull by the horns and steer this thread
in a better direction. You guys are milking it for all it's worth.
Cud it out!
Greg NA2N
>From Pete Soper <psoper at encore.com> Sun Feb 11 23:51:18 1996
From: Pete Soper <psoper at encore.com> (Pete Soper)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 18:51:18 EST
Subject: Lightning protection without a tower
Message-ID: <18355.9602112351 at earl.encore.com>
Your replies to the reflector, our followup email, and the huge collection
of reflector postings that Pete Smith sent have all convinced me that I need
some kind of suppressor scheme closer to the antennas as a first line of
defense. This would correspond to the typical grounded tower with coax
feeds having good paths to ground along the way down (not to imply I'd get all
the benefits of a grounded tower of course).
Have to think a while about how to do this (without spark plugs :-). But with
the ice storms and this new wrinkle, I think I won't get quite as much done
this Spring as orginally planned. Starting to feel like a system software
development project as far as blown expectations. Nah, not that bad!
-Pete
KS4XG
>From jfunk at adams.net (jim funk) Mon Feb 12 01:55:50 1996
From: jfunk at adams.net (jim funk) (jim funk)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 19:55:50 -0600
Subject: M0AAA
Message-ID: <9602120155.AA28623 at golden.adams.net>
If MM0OOO is set aside for Guernsey, either KM0O or AC0W should activate
it. Jim N9JF
>From Steve Lufcy <km0l at tyrell.net> Mon Feb 12 02:01:51 1996
From: Steve Lufcy <km0l at tyrell.net> (Steve Lufcy)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 20:01:51 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Sprint heroes
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960211195334.10675A-100000 at tyrell.net>
I worked six stations on all three bands during the CW Sprint. These guys
get my vote as the best ops and stations, especially since I seem to be
rather hard to find (judging from my QSO total) buried in the depths of
the midwest black hole. My thanks to N6AA, N6TR, W6UE, KB4GID, K4PQL, and
WB0O. I have no idea how Bill dug me out on 20! Looks like propagation
was from SE to W.
73 de Steve, KM0L
>From Steve Lufcy <km0l at tyrell.net> Mon Feb 12 02:21:20 1996
From: Steve Lufcy <km0l at tyrell.net> (Steve Lufcy)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 20:21:20 -0600 (CST)
Subject: final shot on 75m "good ol' boys"
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960211200219.10675B-100000 at tyrell.net>
I recieved 35 responses to my post on the 75 meter "good ol' boys".
A summary of responses:
8 people said we should report and publish the calls of the offenders.
7 said to ignore them.
7 suggested we change the contest rules to stay aaway from them.
5 contesters said they have, or are going to, quit ssb contesting.
2 people said to give the "good ol' boys" room and leave everything as is.
1 response each to put them in jail, give them Prozac, and that the "good
ol' boys are right.
Very interesting. I, personally have no problem with someone doing other
things on the ham bands during contests. I do have a problem with someone
who gets on a band for the purpose of interferring and harrassing people
who are doing something legitimate. The folks I am complaining about were
not conducting QSO's- just cursing and QRMing contesters. I wish we could
teach everyone to behave with common courtesy and respect.
Thanks to all who responded.
73 de KM0L
>From Rich L. Boyd" <rlboyd at CapAccess.org Mon Feb 12 02:24:59 1996
From: Rich L. Boyd" <rlboyd at CapAccess.org (Rich L. Boyd)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 21:24:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject: crankup caution
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91-FP.960211211912.5749D-100000 at cap1.capaccess.org>
Was taking down a crankup today, and mindful of the many horror stories
and warnings about crankups, let me relate a couple points I noticed:
1. Of course, as others have said, beward of worn winch cables, climb it
with a ladder not with your toes and fingers through the tower "rungs," etc.
No problem with the cable today and climbed it with a ladder.
2. But...I've heard the winch handle can suddenly start "windmilling"
real fast, your hands let loose, and it whips around and slams you in the
arm, possibly removing it. I was careful. But, this did happen today
and I jumped back and wasn't hurt, but that thing was really spinning
fast. It seems to happen when the safety click latch (like on "come
alongs") is rusted and not working. So, be careful and watch for this!
3. A new problem I've never heard mentioned before: Though the tower
was in good shape, the winch handle was rusted and in fact had rusted
clear through about 2" from the end. It broke off, no big problem,
though it left a somewhat ragged end, not enough to hurt your hand with
reasonable care and gloves on, but enough to snag in the cloth work
gloves I was wearing. In a "runaway winch handle" situation it could
snag in the gloves and break a thumb and some fingers, or pull them off,
or impede your escape from the runaway handle. I recognized the
potential danger of this and took the gloves off.
The job was completed without mishap; these potential mishaps were avoided.
73
Rich Boyd KE3Q
>From Rich L. Boyd" <rlboyd at CapAccess.org Mon Feb 12 02:24:59 1996
From: Rich L. Boyd" <rlboyd at CapAccess.org (Rich L. Boyd)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 21:24:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject: crankup caution
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91-FP.960211211912.5749D-100000 at cap1.capaccess.org>
Was taking down a crankup today, and mindful of the many horror stories
and warnings about crankups, let me relate a couple points I noticed:
1. Of course, as others have said, beward of worn winch cables, climb it
with a ladder not with your toes and fingers through the tower "rungs," etc.
No problem with the cable today and climbed it with a ladder.
2. But...I've heard the winch handle can suddenly start "windmilling"
real fast, your hands let loose, and it whips around and slams you in the
arm, possibly removing it. I was careful. But, this did happen today
and I jumped back and wasn't hurt, but that thing was really spinning
fast. It seems to happen when the safety click latch (like on "come
alongs") is rusted and not working. So, be careful and watch for this!
3. A new problem I've never heard mentioned before: Though the tower
was in good shape, the winch handle was rusted and in fact had rusted
clear through about 2" from the end. It broke off, no big problem,
though it left a somewhat ragged end, not enough to hurt your hand with
reasonable care and gloves on, but enough to snag in the cloth work
gloves I was wearing. In a "runaway winch handle" situation it could
snag in the gloves and break a thumb and some fingers, or pull them off,
or impede your escape from the runaway handle. I recognized the
potential danger of this and took the gloves off.
The job was completed without mishap; these potential mishaps were avoided.
73
Rich Boyd KE3Q
>From David O. Hachadorian" <74752.115 at compuserve.com Mon Feb 12 02:33:27 1996
From: David O. Hachadorian" <74752.115 at compuserve.com (David O. Hachadorian)
Date: 11 Feb 96 21:33:27 EST
Subject: School Club Roundup
Message-ID: <960212023326_74752.115_EHL76-1 at CompuServe.COM>
The 22 members of the Cibola High School Electronics Class, Yuma,
AZ will be operating every weekday afternoon this week from my
station in the School Club Roundup. The school is only a block
away from my QTH, and four or five class members will be
coming over each day to operate from about 2030Z until 0100Z.
None of these youngsters have ever operated an HF radio, although
almost all of them got their no-code tech license a few weeks
ago. They are all seniors.
I gave them a little briefing in class the other day, and now
they DO know at least ONE thing... They want to WIN this CONTEST!
It should be interesting to see how they react to TR-Log and a
pileup, given a little coaching from the control operators. They
should be around 14265 or 21315 +/-15KHz. Stop by and give them a
Q or maybe even a mult! It should even be interesting just to listen.
Dave, K6LL
74752.115 at compuserve.com
>From Bill Turner <wrt at eskimo.com> Mon Feb 12 02:45:14 1996
From: Bill Turner <wrt at eskimo.com> (Bill Turner)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 18:45:14 -0800
Subject: Comparing Radios
Message-ID: <199602120245.SAA25316 at mail.eskimo.com>
At 06:12 PM 2/10/96 -0600, Ralph Fedor wrote:
>We like to compare receivers. Although I've not had the opportunity to line
>up four or five radios of the same make and model and switch from one to the
>other, I have had the feeling that "this 765 (1000D, 940, 980, or what have
>you) is not as 'hot' as another I have used."
>
>Does significant variability exist between radios of the same make and
>model? If so, how much?
>
>And, if it exists, are our reviews meaningful? Is our experience with a
>fortuitous "hot" model that came off the line, or is it with a "not so hot"
>model from the same line.
>
>What does everyone think?
-------------------------------------------------------
I did TV repair for many years back in the '60s and 70's and I noticed the
same thing. Seemingly identical models would perform differently no matter
how carefully they were adjusted. Every now and then we'd get one in the
shop that was so outstandingly perfect that one of the technicians would
call the other guys over just to look at it. Wow! was a typical response.
Probably just a stackup of tolerances all in the right direction. I have no
doubt amateur radios are the same way. That's why I can't win these d***
contests... :-)
73, Bill W7LZP
wrt at eskimo.com
>From Bill Turner <wrt at eskimo.com> Mon Feb 12 02:48:41 1996
From: Bill Turner <wrt at eskimo.com> (Bill Turner)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 18:48:41 -0800
Subject: Tower Help
Message-ID: <199602120248.SAA25923 at mail.eskimo.com>
At 12:00 AM 2/10/96 EST, Fred Hopengarten wrote:
>On Fri, 9 Feb 1996 10:25:01 -0800, "Stan Griffiths" <w7ni at teleport.com> wrote:
>> What do you think of this thought experiment: Suppose I write a tower
>> design software program. I publish it because a lawyer has advised me that
>> a "waiver of liability" clause embedded in it will protect me. Some dunce
>> makes a mistake using my program and his tower falls down and kills
>> somebody. I get sued and I lose. Is the lawyer that essentially advised me
>> that I wouldn't be liable for damage due to misuse of my program liable for
>> his bum advice and can I recover my damages from him?
>
>Dear Stan:
>
> You are a very interesting correspondent, because you
>are smart, articulate, and disagree with me. "Yes men" are
>far less interesting companions.
>
> So here's my answer:
>
> I would feel perfectly comfortable with my level of
>risk in advising you to publish the program, if I can embed
>a "waiver of liability" clause in my legal opinion. That's
>consistent, legally correct, and financially smart. In
>fact, lawyers write self-help books, computer programs, and
>appear on TV and radio all the time, offering advice which
>they expect will be followed, all without fear of suit.
>
> All said and done, however, I have yet to hear why my
>parallel to the Lotus 1-2-3 program, as a tool for financial
>analysts or lay people, is inaposite.
>
> I stand by the position I took last time around. Those
>who are nervous, nay fearful, about being defendants in a
>lawsuit arising from the publication of a software program
>should not be entrepreneurs. The blood pressure isn't worth
>it and the software's author won't sleep at night. More
>fearless types will feel comfortable with the level of
>liability risk involved in writing a software program for
>designing a tower/antenna system, and, in my opinion, they
>should feel comfortable, as the level of risk is highly
>attenuated.
>
>--
> Fred Hopengarten K1VR
> Six Willarch Road * Lincoln, MA 01773-5105
> home + office telephone: 617/259-0088 (FAX on demand)
> internet: k1vr at k1vr.jjm.com
> "Big antennas, high in the sky, are better
> than small ones, low."
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
Fred, you surely are a lawyer. Could you perhaps answer Stan's question
with a yes, no, or maybe?
73, Bill W7LZP
wrt at eskimo.com
>From gmaples at ro.com (Gordon M. Maples) Mon Feb 12 03:41:03 1996
From: gmaples at ro.com (Gordon M. Maples) (Gordon M. Maples)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 21:41:03 -0600
Subject: Stuff
Message-ID: <199602120341.VAA29932 at sh1.ro.com>
Tnx for all your help this evening .. all seems to B working ok ...
Hve not tried the Label Writer software yet .. But I gg move the computer in
the shack next week.. GG put in the second HD B4 I move it ... Hp all goes
well with the boat ... CUL ...
73's >>> Mike...K4ADK... (gmaples at ro.com)
>From Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TCP) <lyndon at ve7tcp.ampr.org> Mon Feb 12 03:45:29 1996
From: Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TCP) <lyndon at ve7tcp.ampr.org> (Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TCP))
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 19:45:29 -0800
Subject: M0AAA
Message-ID: <199602120345.TAA10741 at ve7tcp.ampr.org>
>>>>> "jim" == jim funk <jfunk at adams.net> writes:
jim> If MM0OOO is set aside for Guernsey, either KM0O or AC0W
jim> should activate it.
VE7TCP/IP6 pales in comparison :-)
--lyndon
>From Big Don <bigdon at eskimo.com> Mon Feb 12 03:47:07 1996
From: Big Don <bigdon at eskimo.com> (Big Don)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 19:47:07 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Tower Load Distribution
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960211191356.10136B-100000 at eskimo.com>
On Sun, 11 Feb 1996, Stan Griffiths wrote:
> One topic that seems to be missing from all the tower discussions I see here
> lately is the fact that it is not simply the number of square feet of
> antenna that loads the tower, but how those square feet are distributed on
> the tower as well.
>
> Everything I see published from Rohn shows the ENTIRE antenna load
> concentrated right at the top of the tower in one place. Certainly,
> mounting antennas on a mast that sticks above the tower loads it
> differently, but how differently? I have two towers with antennas above the
> top by about 10 feet. How did I determine it was safe? I didn't! I just
> guessed and I've been lucky for 25 years. I must have made a good guess.
> There has to be a better way . . .
All of these discussions on tower/antenna loading have pretty much
assumed a steady-state constant max wind velocity and max windload
from which you can compare resulting stresses with the manufacturers' specs.
Certainly you need to do this and be in compliance with such limits.
But that's only half of the story.
Go out and watch your stuff in a windstorm. If it's anything like around
here, in a good storm you are gettting hammered by big gusts every few
seconds from directions which can change maybe 30-50 degrees in direction
with each gust. And the timing between gusts can vary. All of this can set
up twisting, stretching,and bending dynamic oscillations in the
tower/mast/guy system. Don't forget slop in the rotor. All this sort of
behavior is virtually impossible to model particularly in the general form
it would require to produce the kind of computer program being discussed
in this thread.
If all these perturbations manage to combine themselves
to locally overload something briefly, you can
kiss your big signal *goodbye*.
It can happen at wind speeds well below the peak wind speed for which you
thought you designed your system. My guess is these effects account for many
of the lost systems due to windstorms.
A classic case of this is the first Tacoma Narrows bridge which was most
certainly designed to withstand a bumper-to-bumper traffic jam of
fully-loaded 18-wheelers in both directions in combination with *static
loads* from some peak windstorm. Yet it failed when lightly loaded in a
rather moderate garden-variety windstorm. For those who have never seen
the video of what came to be known as "Galloping Gertie," the wind set up
a swaying/twisting action in the main span that increased in amplitude
until the whole works deposited itself in Puget Sound.
If you have a big stack, and particularly with some side-mounted
goodies with their interesting torsional loads applied to the tower, with
two or three sloppy rotors banging the structure intermittently,
you may have inadvertently created the ham-radio equivalent of the above.
Good luck...
Big Don
>From Bill Turner <wrt at eskimo.com> Mon Feb 12 03:52:44 1996
From: Bill Turner <wrt at eskimo.com> (Bill Turner)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 19:52:44 -0800
Subject: Cheap thrills
Message-ID: <199602120352.TAA06308 at mail.eskimo.com>
(a true story)
THE EXCITEMENT BEGINS: It's the RTTY WPX contest. I'm tuning across
40 in the wee hours and find VK9XY calling CQ, no takers. The band is
empty. Hee-hee, I think, he's mine!! An all time new one, too!
I call him.
EXCITEMENT TURNS TO CONCERN: Why isn't he answering? I call some
more. Is he working split? That can't be it, there's nobody around.
He's S-7, surely he can hear me, can't he? I retune the amplifier,
gaining several milliwatts. I keep calling. He keeps CQing.
IMAGINATION STARTS TO WORK: Has my antenna fallen down? Is my
transmitter working? Do I smell smoke? Does his language contain
the letters "L" "Z" and "P"?
CONCERN TURNS TO ALARM: Someone calls him and works him easily.
Soon, stations all over the country are working him. I retune for
the nth time. Hours go by, it seems. I keep calling. Nothing.
ALARM TURNS TO EUPHORIA: He answers!! Yay!! We make the exchange
quickly with no repeats. Hey, that wasn't so hard, was it?
THE WORLD IS WONDERFUL AGAIN: Wearing a big grin, I tune up the band.
Hmmmm... now I wonder who this is...?
W7LZP
>From Dale Jones, K5MM" <ddjones at nas.com Mon Feb 12 04:16:00 1996
From: Dale Jones, K5MM" <ddjones at nas.com (Dale Jones, K5MM)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 96 20:16 PST
Subject: M0OOO
Message-ID: <m0tlpgK-00021nC at cleese.nas.com>
Re: M0OOO
Now I've HERD everything, and as I sit here looking
at the mooon, it puts me in a bad moood. My aching
left calf (from stomping on foot switch while hoofing
it through cw Sprint) doesn't help either.
This Guernsey - Jersey discussion is a bunch of BULL!
Some say it sux, and I'm surprised the pig-farmers
aren't here swishing their tails around and flaming
you with methane.
Where is the beef in this discussion???
73,
Dale K5MM (an ex- Guernseyman @ GU5CIA and GU0CIA, and
and Jersey operator at GJ5CIA, few years ago)
>From Dale Jones, K5MM" <ddjones at nas.com Mon Feb 12 04:22:00 1996
From: Dale Jones, K5MM" <ddjones at nas.com (Dale Jones, K5MM)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 96 20:22 PST
Subject: M0OOO
Message-ID: <m0tlpmV-00021nC at cleese.nas.com>
UUUUhhhhhhhh, That should be "cowardly pig farmers"
in previous message!!
Dale K5MM
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list