Antenna Information comment

[JimP911 at aol.com]

//Second: Don't rivets loosen up over time and vibration?//


I can't speak for Force 12 antennas since I do not own any, however properly
installed rivets should remain secure for many years.

Rivets have been used in aircraft for a long time and I can vouch for their
integrity, having used them for years in my race car.

Even hardware store variety solid core aluminum "Pop" rivets have a shear
strength of 650 lbs!  The thinwall element tubing will fail long before the
rivets.

73 -- Jim KC1SJ


>From adnixon at akorn.net (Dan Nixon)  Sat Jun 15 02:23:44 1996
From: adnixon at akorn.net (Dan Nixon) (Dan Nixon)
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 21:23:44 -0400
Subject: Callsigns, gate 1
References: <199606142046.NAA15064 at netcom11.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <31C210A0.1B22 at akorn.net>

Jay O'Brien - W6GO wrote:
> 
> Apparently some of us didn't read the rules correctly!  I
> thought that club calls issued recently were not eligible for gate 1.Agreed! 
Can someone check this out and see if this is indeed a case of deception 
that the FCC did not catch. The holes need to be plugged in any abuses 
of the system as soon as possible. Or is that even feasible?

Dan Nixon, N4DVW
adnixon at akorn.net

>From ki4hn at nando.net (Jim Stevens)  Sat Jun 15 02:56:55 1996
From: ki4hn at nando.net (Jim Stevens) (Jim Stevens)
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 21:56:55 -0400
Subject: FW: Callsigns
Message-ID: <01BB5A3D.621886A0 at grail1415.nando.net>

I did some more research into AA8FW.  According to the '96 callbook, this call was
already issued to the person who appeared to receive it as a vanity call.  I'm
guessing that AA8FW requested some vanity call and for some reason the FCC denied
the request (call not vacated for 2 years?), so they re-issued his original call
to him.  There was another examle of this (no old call for an appearant vanity
call) in the June 13 data.  Anybody have any other ideas?

It is obvious that the FCC is doing minimum checking on the vanity calls being
issued so far.  An obvious cheat is the vanity call KZ5WH issued to WB4FXQ.  I'm
not aware of the FCC ever previously issuing any KZ5 2X2 calls, so how could 
KZ5WH be a previously held call or call of a relative?

73,
Jim Stevens KI4HN
http://www.webbuild.com/~ki4hn -> Vanity Call Info

----------
From: 	ki4hn[SMTP:ki4hn at NANDO.NET]
Sent: 	Friday, June 14, 1996 1:11 PM
To: 	Alan Brubaker
Cc: 	cq-contest at tgv.com; mudcp3 at uxa.ecn.bgu.edu
Subject: 	Re: Callsigns

Somewhat surprisingly nobody has commented on AA8FW having a blank OLD CALL,
but this is correct.  For some unknown reason the old call field for him is
blank in the FCC's database.