No subject
K8DO at aol.com
K8DO at aol.com
Tue Feb 13 09:11:41 EST 1996
re of 6 mos old Tic Ring, which has had truly, minimal
use...
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
circuits...
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...
Denny
>From Del Seay <seay at alaska.net> Tue Feb 13 14:51:22 1996
From: Del Seay <seay at alaska.net> (Del Seay)
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 06:51:22 -0800
Subject: Reflector Use
Message-ID: <3120A56A.3CC9 at alaska.net>
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 Interpath.com Tue Feb 13 15:09:42 1996
From: Jimmy R. Floyd" <floydjr at Interpath.com (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 mail-hub.interpath.net>
1996 WPX IDRA RTTY CONTEST
HIGH CLAIMED SCORES
Compiled by:
WA4ZXA
Posting Date: 02/13/96
CALL HRS SCORE Q'S PTS MULTI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOP/HP/AB
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
SOP/LP/AB
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
80M
WU3V/5 137,016 301 792 173
K1IU HP 133,128 266 774 172
20M
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
MULTI/OP
AF4Z 378,378 668 1386 273
VE3FJB 333,889 454 1433 233
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIAL SCORES! I AM NOT A LOG CHECKER! DO NOT SEND ME ANY
LOGS!
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 interpath.com << *
**********************************************************
>From Pete Smith <n4zr at ix.netcom.com> Tue Feb 13 16:27:14 1996
From: Pete Smith <n4zr at ix.netcom.com> (Pete Smith)
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 08:27:14 -0800
Subject: Linn County Ordinance
Message-ID: <199602131627.IAA25722 at ix11.ix.netcom.com>
At 07:51 PM 2/12/96 -0800, al crespo wrote:
> 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 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.
73,
Pete Smith N4ZR (n4zr at ix.netcom.com)
>From sawyers" <sawyers at cacd.rockwell.com Tue Feb 13 16:59:35 1996
From: sawyers" <sawyers at cacd.rockwell.com (sawyers)
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 96 10:59:35 cst
Subject: Re[2]: Linn County Ordinance
Message-ID: <9601138242.AA824230828 at ccmgw1.cacd.rockwell.com>
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 inav.net
Date: 02/13/96 10:43 AM
> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 19:51:41 -0800 >
> To: cq-contest at tgv.com
> From: al crespo <wr6r at ccnet.com>
> Reply-to: al crespo <wr6r at ccnet.com>
> 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!
73,
Wade W0EJ
>From sawyers" <sawyers at cacd.rockwell.com Tue Feb 13 17:46:40 1996
From: sawyers" <sawyers at cacd.rockwell.com (sawyers)
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 96 11:46:40 cst
Subject: FCC Update
Message-ID: <9601138242.AA824233675 at ccmgw1.cacd.rockwell.com>
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 ops.esu19.k12.ne.us> 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
ordinances.
(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
communications.
(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
preempted.
(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
reasonable.
(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
purpose.
Lew Gordon, K4VX
P.O. Box 105
Hannibal, MO 63401-0105
(314)221-7730
k4vx at nemonet.com
>> Most faults are not in our
Constitution, but in ourselves. <<
Received: from global3 by ccmgw1.cacd.rockwell.com (SMTPLINK V2.11)
; Mon, 12 Feb 96 17:07:13 cst
Return-Path: <tlemense at ops.esu19.k12.ne.us>
Received: from stealth.cacd.rockwell.com by global3 (5.0/SMI-4.1)
id AA12599; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 17:07:18 +0600
Received: by stealth.cacd.rockwell.com
(1.37.109.14/16.2) id AA286875928; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 16:58:48 -0600
Received: from ops.esu19.k12.ne.us(162.127.19.1) by stealth.cacd.rockwell.com via smap (V1.3)
id sma028678; Mon Feb 12 16:58:30 1996
Received: by ops.esu19.k12.ne.us; 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 ops.esu19.k12.ne.us>
Subject: FCC Update
To: Lew Gordon <k4vx at mcimail.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.3.87.9602121734.A13126-0100000 at ops.esu19.k12.ne.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
content-length: 3022
>From fhays at agt.net (Franklin M. Hays VE6NU) Tue Feb 13 18:20:36 1996
From: fhays at agt.net (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 agt.net>
Hi all...is 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 agt.com.
tu es 73 de Frank VE6NU (ex VE6INA)
>From fhays at agt.net (Franklin M. Hays VE6NU) Tue Feb 13 18:26:05 1996
From: fhays at agt.net (Franklin M. Hays VE6NU) (Franklin M. Hays VE6NU)
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 11:26:05 -0700
Subject: IntelliRotor
Message-ID: <199602131826.LAA07369 at agt.net>
Hi all...is 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 agt.com.
Tu es 73, de VE6NU (ex VE6INA)
>From Dean Norris <dnorris at k7no.com> Tue Feb 13 19:08:41 1996
From: Dean Norris <dnorris at k7no.com> (Dean Norris)
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 12:08:41 -0700
Subject: M0AAA
Message-ID: <199602131913.TAA29127 at ssi.syspac.com>
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 9....how 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 k7no.com
>From David L. Thompson" <thompson at mindspring.com Tue Feb 13 19:50:54 1996
From: David L. Thompson" <thompson at mindspring.com (David L. Thompson)
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 14:50:54 -0500
Subject: Lost E-mail
Message-ID: <199602131943.OAA16822 at borg.mindspring.com>
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 teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) Tue Feb 13 20:42:35 1996
From: w7ni at teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) (Stan Griffiths)
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 12:42:35 -0800
Subject: Tower Load Distribution
Message-ID: <199602132042.MAA28479 at desiree.teleport.com>
>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 netcom.com)
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 teleport.com
>From w7ni at teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) Tue Feb 13 20:42:57 1996
From: w7ni at teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) (Stan Griffiths)
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 12:42:57 -0800
Subject: Tower Help
Message-ID: <199602132042.MAA28691 at desiree.teleport.com>
>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 teleport.com
>From KS9K Paul Hellenberg <paulh at sparc5.truline.com> Tue Feb 13 08:45:09 1996
From: KS9K Paul Hellenberg <paulh at sparc5.truline.com> (KS9K Paul Hellenberg)
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 14:45:09 +0600
Subject: No subject
Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960213143857.3daf25a6 at truline.com>
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