No subject

K8DO at K8DO at
Tue Feb 13 09:11:41 EST 1996

re of 6 mos old Tic Ring, which has had truly, minimal
The direction indicating meter follows the preset knob on the controller, as
you turn it back and forth.. It does not rotate the motor when the start
button is depressed, nor does the led glow to indicate that the motor circuit
is powered... 

Measuring the shack end of the motor wiring harness shows about 4.5 ohms dc
resistance across the leads and no short to ground....

The direction pot wiring harness shows about 550 ohms across the pot and
about 230
ohms ccw end to wiper and about 320 ohms cw end to wiper (which approximates
the current NE heading of the beam)... there does not appear to be any short
to ground, or a short between the pot wiring and the motor wiring, with the
vom on X100,000 scale...

When I talked to Tic, they stated they did not know what would cause such a
problem, and that they would talk with their "technician"... 3 phone calls,
and a week and a half later, they had not managed to locate the
"technician"... at this point I threw a tantrum because it was only 2 weeks
to arrl dx contest... they promised to ship me a new controller by 2nd day
air... a week later, and another hostile phone call,  it arrived by surface
shipment... it is now 4 days to the contest....
I just hooked it up... when powered up it indicated a 45 deg heading,
matching the beam heading...  so far so good... I set the preset knob to
north and pressed start... the relays clicked and immediately dumped out..
and this unit now does the same as the other, i.e. the meter follows the
preset knob and does not work.... it is now obvious to me that the problem is
at the motor box.. but in looking at their schematic, it is not clear to me
at all what
could cause such a catastrophic failure of the controller, and still have the
motor and the direction pot show normal values with a vom and no short
Another phone call with Tic, and now they blame the  heading potentiometer in
the motor... Yet, it measures perfectly with the VOM!... They now want to air
mail a new pot and have me change it... That motor box is a long ways up in
blowing snow and wind chill that is way below zero, and it is 2 complete
round trips up the tower in these harsh conditions to change the pot and
reinstall the motorbox... I am willing to do this, if it is THE answer, but
I'm gonna be an unhappy camper if it is not....

Does anyone have specific experience or knowledge with the Tic Rotor doing
this?....Please drop me an Email if you have specifics to share...


>From Del Seay <seay at>  Tue Feb 13 14:51:22 1996
From: Del Seay <seay at> (Del Seay)
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 06:51:22 -0800
Subject: Reflector Use
Message-ID: <3120A56A.3CC9 at>

I've only been watching the reflector for a few months now, but I
am impressed with a lot of the activity. The technical assistance from
engineers and the guys who have been around forever, to those building 
stations is what "Ham Radio" should be about.
If you could perpetuate this attitude to other segments of the game,
then our pastime would never die out.
By the way - I've been in this biz 39 years now, and learn something
from the reflector durn near every day!
de KL7HF

>From Jimmy R. Floyd" <floydjr at  Tue Feb 13 15:09:42 1996
From: Jimmy R. Floyd" <floydjr at (Jimmy R. Floyd)
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 11:09:42 -0400
Subject: WPX IDRA RTTY Contest 96 Scores II
Message-ID: <199602131613.LAA13001 at>


Compiled by:

Posting Date: 02/13/96

CALL                 HRS           SCORE         Q'S       PTS     MULTI


SM3KOR                26          585,296        640      1864      314
S59A                              465,000        346      1607      290
VE7IN                             377,300        563      1540      245
W7LZP                 30          314,925        683      1235      255
OH2LU                             308,220        484      1401      220
S56A                              287,000        415      1311      219
OI2GI                             269,019        426      1263      213
WA0ACI                            238,053        580      1087      219
K0RC                  25          164,920        420       868      190
ZS6BRH                            134,972        249       823      164
N0LEF                              59,940        267       444      135
KF4BU                              17,017        100       221       77


AA5AU                             435,656        742      1534      284
KA4RRU                            360,096        589      1364      264
N1RCT                 30          340,780        580      1280      266
V31JU                             306,527        507      1387      221
K2NJ                              304,720        506      1172      260
K4GMH                             173,900        403       925      188
WA4ZXA                28          147,312        346       792      186
A92GD                             146,560        291       916      160
WA4JQS                            137,370        309       726      190
VE6KRR                            129,300        323       862      150
KF2OG                              89,517        266       563      159
JE2UFF                             63,837        168       519      123
N7UJJ                              49,731        242       411      121
AA6TY                 26           22,440        154       264       85
VE3XAG                             12,375         70       225       55
KQ4QM/WN8                             100          5        20        5

Single Band

WU3V/5                            137,016        301       792      173
K1IU HP                           133,128        266       774      172

I2EOW                             465,290        546      1445      322
S55T  (S55OO)                     275,476        423      1129      244
VE6JR                             263,526        452      1002      266
N4SR                              225,616        412       844      239  
CF7OR                             137,750        327       725      190


AF4Z                              378,378        668      1386      273
VE3FJB                            333,889        454      1433      233



Also if you do not mind, please do not attach summary files. It means I have
to go into a separate program to read them. Since I am doing several contests
and also have my own logs to handle, this will save me time. 

Also remember when you see the FINAL POSTING on a contest that is what it 
means. I will not accept scores after that. I assume two weeks is plenty of
time for anyone to get their scores on here. Remember these are only claimed
scores and not the real ones. You must remember that it is only 3 weekends
till ARRL DX PHONE and that will consume most of my time doing them. I hope
everyone understands this.

73's Jim

           * Jimmy R. Floyd  (Jim)   Thomasville, NC                *
           *                                                        *
           * Amateur Call:              >> WA4ZXA <<                *
           * Packet Node:               >> N4ZC <<                  *
           * Internet Address: **NEW**  >> floydjr at << *

>From Pete Smith <n4zr at>  Tue Feb 13 16:27:14 1996
From: Pete Smith <n4zr at> (Pete Smith)
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 08:27:14 -0800
Subject: Linn County Ordinance
Message-ID: <199602131627.IAA25722 at>

At 07:51 PM 2/12/96 -0800, al crespo wrote:
>        Praise the Lord the Linn County Tower Ordinance applies only to that
>         If you read the document, there is NO mention of the special status
>of Amateur Radio under PRB-1. Commercial towers do not have the same special
>status that amateurs have under FCC guideline- this ordinance never
>differentiates  between the two totally different types of classes.
>        For those in need of help concerning tower ordinates, contact the ARRL-
>        Or was this ordinance really an early April Fool's joke?
>                                Aloha, Al, WR6R/KH6

Al, I think you have it backwards.  At best, PRB-1 and the public service
arguments for amateur radio help to correct our fundamental weakness, which
is that this is a hobby.  Local authorities see little reason to cut hams
any slack -- particularly if our towers are perceived to infringe on others'
rights.  But the Linn County ordinance puts ham towers in the same category
as cellular telephone towers and all the other commercial installations,
which bring jobs, money and services to the community.  I would fight hard
to retain that linkage.


Pete Smith N4ZR (n4zr at

>From sawyers" <sawyers at  Tue Feb 13 16:59:35 1996
From: sawyers" <sawyers at (sawyers)
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 96 10:59:35 cst
Subject: Re[2]: Linn County Ordinance
Message-ID: <9601138242.AA824230828 at>

Wade requested that I forward his response, as he is not an active member of 
this Reflector. I screen stuff for him here and he does the same on other 
Reflectors for me.

de n0yvy steve

Discalimer: Our company and we agree on at least one thing: 
Our opinions are our own.

______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________
Subject: Re[2]: Linn County Ordinance
Author:  wade at
Date:    02/13/96 10:43 AM

> Date:          Mon, 12 Feb 1996 19:51:41 -0800 > 
> To:            cq-contest at
> From:          al crespo <wr6r at> 
> Reply-to:      al crespo <wr6r at> 
> Subject:       Linn County Ordinance

>Praise the Lord the Linn County Tower Ordinance applies only 
>to that county!
>If you read the document, there is NO mention of the special status
>of Amateur Radio under PRB-1. Commercial towers do not have the same 
>special status that amateurs have under FCC guideline- this
>ordinance never differentiates  between the two totally different 
>types of classes.

>For those in need of help concerning tower ordinates,
>contact the ARRL- Or was this ordinance really an early 
>April Fool's joke?
>                                 Aloha, Al, WR6R/KH6 

Al - 

I appreciate your comments concerning the ordinance drafted for Linn County.  A 
little more background on the situation here may be helpful before you condemn 
our efforts completely.

Prior to adoption of this ordinance there was an exclusion from many county 
regulations that was applied to towers.  Unfortunately, there was an assistant 
county attorney that did not hold hams in high regard that interpreted this 
exclusion to apply to commercial towers only.  So prior to the ordinance we had 
the special dual status you mentioned, just in reverse.

I urge you to study PRB-1 carefully.  If you will be satisfied with a 60 foot 
limit, by all means go ahead and use it.  We felt we could do better  --- and we
did.  PRB-1 did serve its purpose for us in that the county bureaucrats knew it 
was there and knew we would use it if we felt it necessary.  They also knew, as 
did we, that PRB-1 had been successfully challenged in some courts.

We made this a political effort rather than a legal one.  For this situation 
here, I am convinced that tactic was the correct one. That may not be the case 
for others.  

For us here, the adoption of the ordinance is not the end.  Because of this 
effort I have become more politically active than I ever imagined.  We are 
continuing to watch the make-up of the county board and will propose 
modifications to the ordinance when the time is right.

Cedar Rapids is in Linn County.  Cedar Rapids was Art Collins home and the home 
and starting place of Collins Radio Company.  The company, now owned by Rockwell
International, is still here and employs many of us in the amateur radio 
community. We have a large amateur radio community here and feel we have a rich 
amateur radio history and tradition.  With this history and tradition, we did 
not expect to have this kind of a problem.  Trouble came anyway.  

It is local governments that pose the greatest threat to the future of amateur 
radio in this country. For those in communities with little or no regulation of 
towers, congratulations and I hope they count their blessings.  Be assured, 
however, that they WILL have to deal with this same problem.  It is not a matter
of "if", but "when".  

Vigilance is the key!


Wade    W0EJ

>From sawyers" <sawyers at  Tue Feb 13 17:46:40 1996
From: sawyers" <sawyers at (sawyers)
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 96 11:46:40 cst
Subject: FCC Update
Message-ID: <9601138242.AA824233675 at>

I received the following from our Director and thought it was of interest 
to the Contest community, in light of current and previous discussions.

de n0yvy steve

______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________
Subject: FCC Update
Author:  Todd LeMense <tlemense at> at ccmgw1
Date:    02/12/96 05:07 PM


To all e-mail subscribers of the Midwest Newsletter:

I believe that the following is of such significant importance 
that am forwarding it to e-mail subscribers immediately.  
Please share it with others.

73/Lew, K4VX

On February 7, 1996, the ARRL petitioned the FCC to review and 
modify its policies and procedures governing preemption of state 
and local regulation of the siting and maintenance of antennas and 
antenna support structures for use by licensees in the Amateur 
Radio Service.

In addition it requested further the Commission to issue a notice 
of proposed rule making (NPRM) looking toward the amendment of 
Section 97.15e of the commissions Rules [47 C.F.R 97.15 (e)] to 
clarify the Commission's preemptive intent with respect to state 
and local regulation of amateur radio antennas.

Specifically, the League has requested the following:

(1) Specify that it has no less interest in the effective 
performance of an amateur radio station simply because it is 
located in an area regulated by deed restrictions, covenants, 
CC&Rs, or condominium regulations, rather than by zoning 

(2) Clarify that the role of local governments and municipalities 
in applying the FCC's preemption policies regarding amateur radio 
antennas is to make reasonable accommodation for radio amateurs, 
rather than to "balance" their own local interests against the 
Federal interest in effective public service amateur 

(3) Delineate an antenna height, on the order of 60 to 70 feet, 
as the minimum that could be construed as a "reasonable 
accommodation" for amateur communications.

(4) Clarify that the imposition on radio amateurs of excessive 
costs for local approvals, or the imposition of overly burdensome conditions 
in land use authorizations, where the cost of 
compliance approaches the cost of the antenna installation, are 

(5) Clarify that the denial of a particular use permit or special 
exception does not relieve a municipality of the basic obligation 
to make reasonable accommodation for amateur communications.

(6) Determine that conditional use permit procedures are valid 
means of regulation of amateur antenna support structures, but 
only as an adjunct to a basic, minimum permitted height which is 

(7) Specify that safety-related land use restrictions which have 
the effect of significantly limiting overall height of antennas, 
or which determine by lot size whether a functional amateur 
antenna can be installed at all, are invalid unless there is no 
less burdensome alternative which would accomplish the same 

                      Lew Gordon, K4VX
                        P.O. Box 105
                  Hannibal, MO 63401-0105
                      k4vx at
            >> Most faults are not in our 
                  Constitution, but in ourselves. <<

Received: from global3 by (SMTPLINK V2.11)
    ; Mon, 12 Feb 96 17:07:13 cst
Return-Path: <tlemense at>
Received: from by global3 (5.0/SMI-4.1)
    id AA12599; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 17:07:18 +0600
Received: by
    ( id AA286875928; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 16:58:48 -0600
Received: from by via smap (V1.3)
    id sma028678; Mon Feb 12 16:58:30 1996
Received: by; id AA13114; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 17:02:35 -0600
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 17:01:34 -0600 (CST)
From: Todd LeMense <tlemense at>
Subject: FCC Update
To: Lew Gordon <k4vx at>
Message-Id: <Pine.3.87.9602121734.A13126-0100000 at>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
content-length: 3022

>From fhays at (Franklin M. Hays  VE6NU)  Tue Feb 13 18:20:36 1996
From: fhays at (Franklin M. Hays  VE6NU) (Franklin M. Hays  VE6NU)
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 11:20:36 -0700
Subject: IntelliRotor HD 1780
Message-ID: <199602131820.LAA06463 at>

Hi there anyone out there who is using the IntelliRotor HD 1780 
by Heath?
I have lost the manual and need the basic setup commands.
If anyone can help, please e-mail the basic setup commands to 
fhays at

tu es 73 de Frank VE6NU (ex VE6INA)

>From fhays at (Franklin M. Hays  VE6NU)  Tue Feb 13 18:26:05 1996
From: fhays at (Franklin M. Hays  VE6NU) (Franklin M. Hays  VE6NU)
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 11:26:05 -0700
Subject: IntelliRotor
Message-ID: <199602131826.LAA07369 at>

Hi there anyone out there who is using the IntelliRotor
HD 1780 by Heath?
I have lost the manual, and need the basic setup commands.
If anyone can help, please e-mail the setup commands to
fhays at

Tu es 73, de VE6NU (ex VE6INA)

>From Dean Norris <dnorris at>  Tue Feb 13 19:08:41 1996
From: Dean Norris <dnorris at> (Dean Norris)
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 12:08:41 -0700
Subject: M0AAA
Message-ID: <199602131913.TAA29127 at>

At 17:42 2/12/96 -1000, you wrote:
>this whole (or 2%) discussion is moot, 
>Aloha from Mooui Hawaii
>                 09:30 PM 2/12/96 GMT, you wrote:
>>	"you're 5 by do you cowpie???.......over"
>>This I like!
>>Derek/Derrick AA5BT

Ahhh... It is obvious that the 'cream always rises to the top'.  Some of
these never o'curd' to anyone.   Whey to go fellers.  Cheese but this is fun! 

cdn   (;)-

         C. Dean Norris, Esq.
      Amateur Radio Station K7NO             
      e-mail to dnorris at             

>From David L. Thompson" <thompson at  Tue Feb 13 19:50:54 1996
From: David L. Thompson" <thompson at (David L. Thompson)
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 14:50:54 -0500
Subject: Lost E-mail
Message-ID: <199602131943.OAA16822 at>

If you sent me an E-mail between 4Pm and 2AM EST yesterday and this AM it
has been lost due to a power failure.  Please re-send.

Sorry,  Dave K4JRB

>From w7ni at (Stan Griffiths)  Tue Feb 13 20:42:35 1996
From: w7ni at (Stan Griffiths) (Stan Griffiths)
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 12:42:35 -0800
Subject: Tower Load Distribution
Message-ID: <199602132042.MAA28479 at>

>Hi Stan,
>My point was that you can take the calculations done by a professional
>engineer and modify them to your situation -- specifically mounting
>an antenna on a longer mast than assumed by the engineer (as all hams
>do). This information will provide you far more insight than just simply
>putting it up and hoping for the best. Obviously, these calcs are all
>static load calcs and do not take into account the dynamics than can
>occur under windy conditions (as someone else pointed out). If you want
>to do dynamic modeling, then you're probably talking a level of complexity
>far beyond what a professional engineer is going to do and will need
>a supercomputer to run it.

Hi Bruce,

Here is an example of what I mean when I say I haven't seen the calculations
I think we need.  Assume a Rohn 25 tower with the rotator mounted in the
normal place, about 3 feet below the top guys.  assume a 20 foot mast
sticking out the top of the tower about 17 feet.  Assume 3 stacked Yagis,
say a 10/15 duo bander on top, a 4 element 20 in the middle, and a 2 element
shorty 40 on the bottom.  It is no real trick to calculate the stresses on
the mast to determine if it will fold over at the top of the tower or not.
What I want to know is whether the tower itself will bend where the rotator
is mounted using the top guy point as the axis of bending.  I have NEVER
seen any engineering calculations addressing that potential problem so I
have nothing I can modify with my own numbers.  By the way, I have never
seen a tower fail in that mode either, so maybe it is not a problem.  Common
sense tells me there has to be a lot of stress at that point, however.  How
much is there and how much will it take?

>The engineering calcs for towers furnished by manufacturers and required
>by building departments are not "rocket science." There just a series
>of fundamental engineering calculations. What a professional brings to
>the calculation is judgment -- not calculational ability. In this case
>I already have the professional engineer's set of calculations, so I
>can "see" how he applied his judgment in certain situations. I'm not
>advocating that hams do their owns engineering calcs to submit to a 
>building department. The fact is that most hams erect towers and mount
>antennas on them in a way that violates the configuration used by the
>engineer for his calculations. If that's the case, why is it better to
>just put up whatever one wants and hope it stays up than it is to "get
>a handle on" the ability of the tower and antennas to stay up by
>doing some calculations?
>73 de Bruce, WA7BNM   (bhorn at

I think you are right in that it is always better to do some calculations
where you can even if your model is not perfect.  We are really talking
about two separate problems here.  The first one is satisfying the
City/County Building Department and the second one is trying to determine if
the thing will actually stay up or not.  I frankly do not have enough
confidence in City/County Engineers to trust that what they accept as "good
design" will actually stay up.  All you need to do is study a few
City/County regulations to know the people who write them are often not very
smart about towers.  They could make errors either direction.  The bottom
line is that once you get the permit in your hand, you are only half way
there.  Now you need to find out if your design is REALLY SAFE or not.

Stan  W7NI at

>From w7ni at (Stan Griffiths)  Tue Feb 13 20:42:57 1996
From: w7ni at (Stan Griffiths) (Stan Griffiths)
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 12:42:57 -0800
Subject: Tower Help
Message-ID: <199602132042.MAA28691 at>

>A tower really does not need that much maintainence except, of course, to
>take it down every 2-3 years to grease the joints between the sections...

I'd say it depends a lot on how much you crank it up and down.  Some people
use motorized crankups so they can keep it down most of the time to avoid
offending neighbors and protect it from the wind.  If you do this a lot, you
need to keep the cable well greased to avoid wear on the pulleys as well as
keeping the pulley shafts well greased.

One guy I know didn't bother with the grease and the cable wore the edges
off the pulleys.  The cable dropped down on the pulley shaft and jammed
tight.  The motor snapped the cable and the whole crankup telescoped down
REAL FAST.  The tower was permanently damaged and one element bent due to
the sudden stop at the bottom.  Nobody was hurt.  Lucky.  I hate crankups.

BTW, the reason the motor snapped the cable instead of just stalling and
blowing a breaker like it should, is because the owner installed an extra
large motor because he ran it up and down a lot and it was too slow with the
orignal motor . . .

Stan  W7NI at

>From KS9K Paul Hellenberg <paulh at>  Tue Feb 13 08:45:09 1996
From: KS9K Paul Hellenberg <paulh at> (KS9K Paul Hellenberg)
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 14:45:09 +0600
Subject: No subject
Message-ID: < at>

Hello All

I am looking for an E_mail address for K3ZO and K4ISV  can anyone help????

73 Paul KS9K
KS9K Paul Hellenberg
Tru Line Lithograhing Inc.
Work    414 554 7300  -125
Fax       414 554 8217
Home    414 554 9170

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list