Charlie's FD hints
foggie
foggie at dtx.net
Thu Jun 20 05:46:38 EDT 1996
Dave;
Some rather pointed observations. Although our local club effort yielded only 60
0
some QSO's most of those observations would apply. :) I manned the only CW rig a
t our
effort. It was the only rig with cw filters. Also I used Trey's TRlog for the 2n
d
time. I still haven't figured out why it didn't automatically send the exchange.
:)
At any rate we had a half hearted effort, but we did have fun. Of course they te
ll me
after an hour and 100 some Q's that we NEVER turn in the logs. Which would expla
in
why they wanted to take the beam away from me. Otherwise I probably would have h
ad a
respectable effort. Unfortunately the rest of the world does not view fd as a co
ntest
which the rest of us KNOW it is. :)
I ended up coming home at midnight, and doing a 1e effort from here that yielded
only
200 Q's. But then I only have wire up right now.
Al - KK5ZX
>1. Don't give up if signals are weak.
>
>2. Don't drink too much beer before or during the contest.
>
>3. Get on the air any chance you get.
>
>4. Don't drink too much coke.
>
>5. Get at least one hour of sleep.
>
>6. Don't eat too much food.
>
>7. It's Field Day - Have fun!!!
>
>8. Make sure no wires are near water and make sure nothing is in
>a dangerous position.
>
>9. Make as many contacts as you can.
>
>10. Don't get _too_ much sleep.
>
>11. Ignore your wife's complaints.
>
>12. If another contester comes on the frequency, get him off. Keep
>on talking/sending!
>
>13. Put up a "No Smoking" sign.
>
>14. Eat _Something_.
>
>15. Try to set an alarm to wake up.
>
>16. When somebody tries to steal your frequency, press the button! (the
>CQ button on the voicekeyer - LL)
>
>Dave, K6LL
>k6ll at juno.com
____________________________________________________________________________
E-Mail: foggie at dtx.net | Snail-Mail: Allen Fogleson
Date: 06/20/96 | 6121-A Nowak Court
| Fort Polk, La 71459
____________________________________________________________________________
This message was sent by XF-Mail free of charge, and is 100% microsoft free!
For more information on remaining microsoft free try http://www.redhat.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From jreid at aloha.net (Jim Reid) Sun Jun 23 19:18:21 1996
From: jreid at aloha.net (Jim Reid) (Jim Reid)
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 08:18:21 -1000
Subject: 21st Century Licensing
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19960623181821.00693538 at aloha.net>
Steve, KR4DL wrote:
---A bunch of stuff snipped:
>Jim, I obviously disagree with your proposal. I oppose any lowering of the
>standards for licensing and think your "layer cake" approach to license
>classes is simplistic and unweildy. It doesn't provide uniform access to HF
>during various portions of the sunspot cycle.
>I also object to your inference that this proposal is the result of a
>substantive polling of the amateur community on the internet. Your
>definition of a "reasonable quantity of discussion" and mine clearly differ.
>Just my opinion, submitted without the weight of substantial discussion on
>the internet (yet).
>73, Steve KR4DL
Aloha Steve,
Appriciate your rapid respons. Last time I posted these thoughts,
here, on this reflector, no one took the bait!
I had to do it again after Gary, KN0Z, on June 21st,
posted (to the dx reflector) Mendelsohn's letter to
the ARRL Board of Directors.
If you havn't seen it you should. You will like a whole
lot less the direction the ARRL Board will head if they
take Mendelsohn's thoughts to action!!! Or so it would seem
to me.
We are going to lose CW altogether unless some compromise
can be worked out. Mendelsohn is the #2 guy at ARRL, and
HE wants to drastically lower or drop the CW test speeds, and do
all possible to grant no-coders as much HF priveledge as
possible. Also, per him, ARRL views their membership core as the
HF operator. HF license holders will clearly be the
minority license class by 1999. And the VHF operators
view the ARRL as irrelevant, again per him -- this is alarming to the
ARRL, obviously. He also writes that, per their statistics,
no-coders have no interest in upgrading to obtain HF access.
So, they want to map a strategy which
will appear to the no-coders as if the ARRL is resposible
for bringing them into HF operating rights, almost
completely unrestrcted. Plus, the equipment builders
will have several hundred thousand potential new
customers for all sorts of neat HF band hardware.
So, to save QRM free CW sub-bands, we are going to have
to give something, it seems to me, or we might loose
everything!
My thoughts were pretty well hashed over the last several
weeks both on the contest reflector and in the rec.radio
newsgroups on policy and misc. I modified my post to Mendlesohn
to reflect many of the suggestions made there, from what I
had originally posted back earlier in May.
Steve, we need to face it, forces are at work which are
going to bring changes. We had better do whatever it is
going to take to save something of the Amateur Radio
Service as, at lesast, I have know it these 46 years since I was
first licensed as W6KPI (the "key pounding imp", as I
was known as across the entire 40 meter CW band in
those years when all of 40 was CW only!).
Please give these issues some thought, do research the
FASC IARU document posted via the ARRL web page, and
get a look at Mendelsohn's letter posted a couple of
days ago on the dx reflector. We are going to need thoughts
such as your to build up whatever the RIGHT solution is
going to be for Amateur Radio in the 21st century!
73, Jim, AH6NB
>From jreid at aloha.net (Jim Reid) Mon Jun 24 05:03:00 1996
From: jreid at aloha.net (Jim Reid) (Jim Reid)
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 18:03:00 -1000
Subject: 21st Century Licensing
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19960624040300.006996e0 at aloha.net>
>Return-Path: smendelsoh at arrl.org
>Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 21:55:00 -0400
>From: "Mendelsohn, Steve (1st VP)" <smendelsoh at arrl.org>
>Subject: RE: 21st Century Licensing
>To: Jim Reid <jreid at aloha.net>
>Cc: "Olson, Tod (Dakota Dir)" <k0to at arrl.org>
>
>
>Thank you for your thoughtful input Jim. The group that is considering
>options and
>making recommendations to the League Board is the WRC99 Committee chaired
>by Director Tod Olson.
>
>That is the proper channel of input for your suggestions and I am taking
>this opportunity
>to forward your ideas to Director Olson.
>
>The memo you quote was my own attempt to coalesce fragments of thought other
>ARRL
>Board members had expressed. It represents only my opinion in spite of the
>continuous
>effort of at least one east coast individual to mis-represent it.
>
>As I have found with many things, misrepresentation is high on his list.
>
>Again, thanks for your thoughtful input. -73- Steve Mendelsohn, WA2DHF
> ----------
>From: Jim Reid
>To: wa2dhf
>Subject: 21st Century Licensing
>Date: Saturday, June 22, 1996 8:24PM
>
>To: Stephen A. Mendelsohn
> First Vice President, ARRL
>
>Aloha Steve,
>
>With regard to your memo to the ARRL Board of Directors, "The Coming
>Storm....or Opportunity": I wish to suggest the following "solutions" for
>consideration. It is the result of a reasonable quantity of discussion
>among amateurs subscribing to various amateur radio interest reflectors and
>discussion
>groups on the world-wide internet. Our attempt has been to keep a broad
>outlook on the present state of affairs in amateur radio as expressed by the
>April document realesed by the IARU "The Future of the Amateur Radio
>Service". Also, we are mindful of the interests of the ARRL, as outlined by
>you; and other groups who have an interest in the future of the amateur
>radio service, for example, the equipment
>manufacturers.
>
>We propose the following for your review:
>
>1. Whatever the future Amateur operating spectrum bands are determined to
>be made available by the ITU between 1.8 and 30 mHz, each band is divided
>into exclusive mode operating frequency segments (in proportions and
>frequency range increments to be determined) among three types of exclusive
>Amateur operating activity: analog mode, digital mode and CW mode.
>
>2. All countries will issue only three classes of Amateur Operating/Station
>licenses. The two higher grade licenses, General and Expert, will be
>endorsable with one, two or three operating privilege certifications:
> analog mode band access; digital mode band access; CW mode band access.
>The licensee may hold any or all of the endorsements as his interests in
>learning the material and passing the tests to earn the endorsements is
>demonstrated by appropriate examination.
>
>3. This idea, if adopted, might result in the United States, in something
>similar to the following set of license classes and operating privleges:
>
>3.1 Basic Phone----28mhz and up...license examination includes
> basic electronics and radio theory
> including VHF, UHF and microwave
> propogation theory, regulation rules,
> and basic phone modulation theory (SSB
> and FM) and operating procedures tests.
>
>3.2 General-----18mhz and up...Hold/pass Basic Phone elements as
>above, plus HF propagation theory test and
> HF band rules as applicable, 18 to 30mHz.,
> plus 5 WPM code for access endorsement
> for CW subbands; OR, plus digital mode
> theory for access endorsement to digital
> mode subbands; OR, plus analog mode (SSB,
> SSTV) theory for access endorsement
> to the phone subbands; OR any two OR all
> three privilege endorsements.
>
>3.2 Expert---- All HF Amateur Bands..Hold/pass Basic Phone and
>General elements as above, plus advanced radio
>and lower band propagation theory; plus 12 WPM
>for access endorsement for CW
> subbands; OR, plus advanced digital mode
> theory for access endorsement to digital
> mode subbands; OR, plus advanced analog
> mode theory for access endorsement to the
> phone subbands; OR, any two OR all
> three privilege endorsements.
>
>Under this license structure, all present license class holders would be
>"grandfathered-in". That is, in the US, all present General, Advanced and
>Extra Class holders become licensed as Expert with all band/mode access
>privileges. All Novice and Technician Plus license holders become General
>Class license holders; Technician/No-Code license holders become licensed as
>Basic Phone holders. Also, all present Novice and Technician Class license
>holders are granted CW frequency mode allocation access in all HF amateur
>bands, a privelge they now partially hold.
>
>In this way, no one has to ever learn Morse Code skills to be licensed to
>operate somewhere within each world wide allocated amateur HF frequency
>band, and those that care to be CW operators may do so, and have clear CW
>frequency bands available to pursue that mode.
>
>This proposed licensed structure should offer plenty of incentive for the
>amateur, not interested in learning the CW Morse code, to continue to
>upgrade his/her skills as a radio operator and to be examined as such. This
>will continue to demonstrate the committmint to self-training, a tradition
>of the international amateur radio service.
>
>If, for whatever reason, a nation should choose not to offer a CW
>examination or license endorsement to citizens of that nation, they may so
>elect. Under the new (coming) international reciprocal license structure,
> should an amateur live in a nation not offering CW endorsement, he/she may
>be examined and licensed for CW endorsement by any other nation offering
>such examinations/endorsements and then may operate with the CW mode in the
>applicable HF band segments from within any ITU treaty signing nation,
>including the nation of his native/home citizenship.
>
>These ideas should provide a way for the amateur radio service to continue
>to grow during the 21st century, and satisfy most, if not all elements
>within the current discussion regarding the future of the amateur radio
>service, as outlined in the April 1996 IARU "Future of the Amateur Radio
>Service"
>document. These thoughts can also provide input to the solution of issues
>introduced by you in your notes to the ARRL Board of Directors.
>
>Mahalo for reading this wordy submittal, Steve.
>
>73, Jim, AH6NB
>
>
>From k6ll at juno.com (David O. Hachadorian) Mon Jun 24 06:45:05 1996
From: k6ll at juno.com (David O. Hachadorian) (David O. Hachadorian)
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 21:45:05 PST
Subject: Charlie's FD hints
Message-ID: <19960623.214509.4951.1.k6ll at juno.com>
Two of the operators at Field Day this year (K6LL, 1E, AZ, 2400 Q's)
were Charlie, KC7DBU, age 9, and his sister Catherine, KC7DBT, age 11.
While most of the adults at Field Day were busy schmoozing, eating,
and drinking, these two jr. ops were constantly observing, listening
on the spare headphones, and trying to get as much operating time
as they could wrangle.
On Saturday, I noticed that Charlie was making some kind of a list,
but I didn't pay much attention to it. On Sunday, after Field Day was
over, he showed me the final list, which turned out to be a compilation
of his observations of our FD participants, other FD stations heard
on the air, and his personal on the air experiences. I thought some of
you might get a kick out of it.
-----------------
Charlie's (age 9) Field Day Hints:
1. Don't give up if signals are weak.
2. Don't drink too much beer before or during the contest.
3. Get on the air any chance you get.
4. Don't drink too much coke.
5. Get at least one hour of sleep.
6. Don't eat too much food.
7. It's Field Day - Have fun!!!
8. Make sure no wires are near water and make sure nothing is in
a dangerous position.
9. Make as many contacts as you can.
10. Don't get _too_ much sleep.
11. Ignore your wife's complaints.
12. If another contester comes on the frequency, get him off. Keep
on talking/sending!
13. Put up a "No Smoking" sign.
14. Eat _Something_.
15. Try to set an alarm to wake up.
16. When somebody tries to steal your frequency, press the button! (the
CQ button on the voicekeyer - LL)
Dave, K6LL
k6ll at juno.com
>From wb4iuy at nando.net (Dave Hockaday) Mon Jun 24 13:20:17 1996
From: wb4iuy at nando.net (Dave Hockaday) (Dave Hockaday)
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 08:20:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Torque compensation??
Message-ID: <199606241220.IAA00727 at bessel.nando.net>
>close together on the same end of the boom. Now let's turn the antenna so
>the boom is not directly into the wind and set the brake. I say the wind
>will put torque on the mast tending to rotate the boom end with no elements
>on it into the wind and the boom end with all the elements on it away from
>the wind, just like a weather vane.
Not that it's relavent to this thread, but I wanted to share with the group
a mod I did to an A-3 many years ago that worked for me. Perhaps someone on
the reflector can enlighten me why this isn't cool...but it did work ok for
a number of years.
I had the A-3 and a long, vertically polarized, 2 meter yagi on a
dangerously light duty telescopic mast. The mast was a collection of 21 foot
long sections of cast iron and galvanized pipe. Since my father was a
plumber, I had access to all this stuff I wanted. I think it was something
like 4" cast iron, 3" cast, 2" galvanized, and 1 1/2" galvanized.
Installation was a nightmare, but that is another story.
Anyway, I placed a large vertical fin of plexi-glass on the tail-end of the
A-3's boom. I modified my rotator control to include a switch that would
keep the brake released when activated. When I would leave home, or during a
storm, I would release the brake. The yagi would weathervane into the wind,
and I felt like the side loading on my mast wast was reduced (wether or not
it was may be up for grabs, hehehe).
I would never attempt such an installation again. In retrospect, it's a
wonder that no one was injured during it's installation.
Dave Hockaday Wb4iuy
wb4iuy at nando.net
http://www.webbuild.com/~wb4iuy/
http://www.webbuild.com/~wb4iuy/teara.html
http://www.RTPnet.org/~fcarc/
http://www.RTPnet.org/~rdrc/
http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/3349/
http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/3341/
http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/3489/
http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/3212/
>From fisher at hp-and2.an.hp.com (Tony Brock-Fisher) Mon Jun 24 14:14:58 1996
From: fisher at hp-and2.an.hp.com (Tony Brock-Fisher) (Tony Brock-Fisher)
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 09:14:58 -0400
Subject: The view From The Summit
Message-ID: <9606241314.AA00579 at hp-and2.an.hp.com>
I'm sure the number of people in this country who have never been to,
or cared to go to a National Park far outnumber the folks who have experienced
their beauty. I'm sure the sheer numbers of inner city poverty level
people far outnumber the total visitors to all of our Parks each year.
Does this mean we should close the parks, sell them for their real estate
value, and use the money to fund a food stamp program? I think not.
I use the above parallel to illustrate a point about CW, and the protection
of the mode. As Field Day was winding down, a fellow club member, who
is NOT a contester, but has been a ham for longer than Incentive Licensing,
commented to me:
" When I get on 40 CW at night in Field Day, the entire world as I know
it ceases to exist. It's just me and the band ".
There is something very special about CW. The only human digital mode
ever invented, it takes a serious commitment to ever arrive at the point
of reasonable appreciation. Sort of like climbing Mount Everest, one has
to put in a serious personal investment of time and ambition, before
one can ever appreciate the view from the summit.
What has been lost in all of the rancor about CW/NO-Code is that the
traditional entry into the world of HF was made only after the personal
achievment of CW ability sufficient to permit an operator to appreciate
the view. I personally feel that many desired to get to the top,
but wanted to be ferried there in helicopters and avoid going to
rock climbing school. The allure was so great.
The pressure on licensing authorities is too great now, and it is
my personal diagnosis that the CW requirements will be removed, first
from international, and then from national regulations. And with the
requirements, so too will the incentive to invest the personal
effort to get to the point where one can appreciate the view.
Comparing the CW requirement for Amateur Radio Licensing with the
hand-cranking requirement of Driver's Licensing of the past conjures
up an inappropriate view of CW. CW is no longer required for
operating any more than hand-cranking is required for driving - but
we still appreciate hand-cranked automobiles, and provide room for them
on our highways.
America has at it's roots the concept of equal opportunity - opportunity
towards the pursuit of happiness. For some, that pursuit requires
a National Park. For others, a few tens of kiloHertz. I say that
the preservation of the CW subbands is just as consistent with our
country's goals and morals as is the preservation of large areas
of land for the appreciation of ourselves and our children.
In the near future, it is imperative that hams of different groups
and interests realize that we are all "citizens of the same country" -
we are all hams; and if any of our interests are to survive, we must
stand together to protect the interests of all of us. We cannot
allow ourselves to be broken down into Coders and No-Coders, or
HF'ers and VHF'ers. We must remember that together we have the greatest
chance of defending our frequencies. We must not let our opponents
"divide and conquer".
-Tony, K1KP, fisher at hp-and2.an.hp.com
>From barry at w2up.wells.com (barry) Mon Jun 24 14:16:03 1996
From: barry at w2up.wells.com (barry) (barry)
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 96 09:16:03 EDT
Subject: Steve Mendelsohn's letter
Message-ID: <g241PD2w165w at w2up.wells.com>
kr2j at ix.netcom.com (Robert E. Naumann) writes:
> Maybe we should try something less drastic at first, like lower the code =
> speed for the general to 9 or 10 wpm ? Maybe have 13 or 15 wpm for =
> advanced ? There's no harm in that - is there ? We'd sure have a lot =
> more generals.
>
I don't think it will help, Bob. Yes, there may be more generals, but
they still won't operate CW. Remember the "hump" at 10-12 WPM? These guys
are still counting dots and dashes, and CW certainly isn't fun unless you
can copy it in your head.
> Maybe this will make CW more attractive since the phone bands will be =
> more crowded. I'm afraid that eventually the pressure will grow to give =
> up the CW segments in order to allow the majority of codeless or =
> slow-code types to spread out.
This is the BIG problem. The phone bands will get worse than they are
now. If we move our phone bands down, then the "rest of the world" will
lower it further to keep a "US free segment." Then, the digital ops will
have to move down, squeezing CW, etc. etc.
--
Barry N. Kutner, W2UP Internet: barry at w2up.wells.com
Newtown, PA Packet Radio: W2UP @ WB3JOE.#EPA.PA.USA.NA
Packet Cluster: W2UP >WB2R (FRC)
.......................................................................
>From jbmitch at vt.edu (John Mitchell) Mon Jun 24 14:35:39 1996
From: jbmitch at vt.edu (John Mitchell) (John Mitchell)
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 09:35:39 -0400
Subject: Steve Mendelsohn's letter
Message-ID: <199606241347.JAA17433 at sable.cc.vt.edu>
Gentlemen,
Here are a couple of points I believe we should be considering. First, and
foremost, do we really want to consider the mechanism of change in ham radio
licensing policy as being tied to a democratic "one-person, one-vote"
motivator? I would submit that the road to hell is paved with such
intentions. We have already diluted our ranks with no-code HF operators -
just give a listen to 10 meters (when it's open). That decision may have
been the "camel's nose under the tent." Now, a few years later, equipment
manufacturers are putting pressure on policy brewers to find ways to keep
numbers of new hams growing (quantity, not quality) and preserve and develop
marketing niches for new equipment. We have lost our bearings on quality in
search of the ever growing bottom line.
Ham radio needs to continue to hold out rewards to those who are willing to
invest the time and effort to earn them. I remember taking the advanced
test in the seventies, failing by one question, coming back to face the FCC
a month later (after driving three hours to reach a site) and failing again
by one question. It was a little tougher and required more investment of
personal effort twenty years ago. After climbing to Extra after many years
and some periods of inactivity, I recognize the need to have difficult goals
out there. If the prize is not worth reaching for, why make the effort? I
especially resist any motion to eliminate code requirements from our rank.
It is pretty clear to me that people don't value what they haven't earned,
and I'll never be convinced that any written test is a substitute for the
"language requirement" which (language) Morse code is. Why do we suppose
universities used to (and some still do) require foreign language
proficiency for matriculation? Not just so one can carry on conversations
in Latin, mind you. It's the discipline - the mental work of learning a new
language that is its own reward.
As far as league support, why should people who have been "given" something
recognize the need to rally with others in their ranks to preserve hard-won
priveleges? Mark these words, if we further dilute licensing requirements,
League support will drop, regardless of how much our numbers increase.
There will just not be a perceived need for grass-roots coordinated efforts
by the new hams.
After witnessing some pretty sorry behavior on the part of some (nominally)
code-qualified hams, I would support some kind of periodic proficiency
testing, as we have for automobile drivers, to weed out those who don't
really have the skills - but I realize this is not practical. But for
goodness sakes, let's not dilute our ranks any further! Encourage others to
oppose "democratic mathematics" in determining the future of amateur radio.
After all, if numbers were the primary determinant of policy, Extra class
operators would have had their enhanced privileges "voted" away from them
years ago, and hams like you and me would not have invested time and effort
to upgrade.
People do not value that which they do not "pay for".
73,
John, WD4MUR
>From rsolomon at textron.com (Richard Solomon) Mon Jun 24 16:19:27 1996
From: rsolomon at textron.com (Richard Solomon) (Richard Solomon)
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 11:19:27 -0400
Subject: Antenna Reflector
Message-ID: <9606241507.AA27285 at textron.com>
Can anyone give me the route to the Antenna/Tower Reflector?
Tnx, Dick, W1KSZ.
>From harpole at pegasus.cc.ucf.edu (Charles H. Harpole) Mon Jun 24 15:57:19 1996
From: harpole at pegasus.cc.ucf.edu (Charles H. Harpole) (Charles H. Harpole)
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 10:57:19 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: No code and new hams
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.93.960624104550.16008B-100000 at Pegasus>
To me, the only reason new hams are not up to the snuff that old hams want
them to be is :
THE OLD HAMS HAVE FAILED TO ACULTURATE THE NEW HAMS.
Old hams (smoked or plain) simply must put in more time helping new hams
and wanna-be hams into the culture of hamming--i.e., teach the LORE of ham
radio, the mystery, the fun, and HOW TO OPERATE on HF with ease. I don't
care if a ham knows Morse code or not so long as he/she can responsibly
operate his/her rig. Lots of those loudmouth bigots on 75m know the code,
but who wants them to be hams?
It is in our hands to bring into the fold--through education--the kind of
operators we want:
we do the license testing ourselves, for gosh sakes. de K4VUD
>From ke7gh at primenet.com (Brian Short) Mon Jun 24 17:06:34 1996
From: ke7gh at primenet.com (Brian Short) (Brian Short)
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 16:06:34 +-100
Subject: Field Day Computer Help? (long)
Message-ID: <01BB61E7.1FA57F60 at ip183.phx.primenet.com>
For several reasons, I decided to do a very casual 1E operation
from home this year (CW only, mostly just for the practice). I
used the TR program with rig control and CW keying on a 5x86
133 computer along with my FT-990DC.
Everything was fine until...Sunday morning while working a few
on 40m CW. I had a slow run going when suddenly the computer
just quit dead. I turned off the power switch quickly and started
to smell the aroma of very warm electronics. A small bit of smoke
got out of the power supply. I disconnected the computer, pulled
it out, and opened it abandoning any further Field Day activities.
After letting it sit for a couple hours, I decided to determine if my
power supply had fried (my first theory). Since this computer had
been running 24/7 with PacketCluster for some time, I was shocked
that it failed in the middle of Field Day. My shack is located in an
"Arizona Room" and I don't always run the air conditoning when I'm
not in here. Since it was early Sunday morning, I had not yet turned
the A.C. on, but it was beginning to get hot.
I disconnected all internal power connectors and applied power to the
supply. No smoke. All appeared nominal. I reconnected the mother-
board and the CPU responded. Subsequently, I reconnected all power
cables to the 2 HDs, CDROM, tape drive, floppies, etc. Everything came
back to life..I operated the computer for some time (with air conditioning
on) and all worked fine. I am afraid, however, to return this computer to
operation or begin another contest with it.
As I type this on computer #2, the old, reliable full tower case sits idle
with the 250w power supply at rest. I have had this case for a number of
years, updating the motherboard and other components as needed.
One present theory is that "something" drew a large amount of current, causing
the computer to suddenly go "dead" and the supply to subsequently smoke.
I am seeking advice in this situation as it seems the problem could be anything
in the case including the power supply.
Has anyone else had a similar experience with a contest computer, possibly in a
warm environment? Again, I am afraid to return that computer to normal operation,
but with it working 100% how can I fix it?
73 de Brian ke7gh at primenet.com
>From jrouse at dc.infi.net (John Rouse / Capital Gazette) Mon Jun 24 17:23:13 1996
From: jrouse at dc.infi.net (John Rouse / Capital Gazette) (John Rouse / Capital Gazette)
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 12:23:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Mendelsohn to ARRL Board
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.91.960624121430.14714A-100000 at larry.infi.net>
As is usual here, some have gone dashing off a hyperbolic cliff in
reaction to Steve's very incisive observations about the future of
the league (and, by default, ham radio). Like it or not, campers,
what he says is absolutely correct. If the subject isn't addressed
forcefully, and soon, then we'll probably all find more comfort
in trying to commune with the spirit world than in operating
20 meters. Cling to the joys of yesteryear if you desire, but you'd
better take a good hard look at the reality of ham radio in 1996.
It's far too often not a pretty sight, to be sure, but the majority is
eventually
going to rule. That's political (and economic) reality. Give Steve
credit for addressing the issue rather than wallowing in nostalgia
for a ham radio era that's going, going.......gone.
I applaud Steve's effort.
73,
John KA3DBN
=========
John L. Rouse Packet: ka3dbn at ka3rfe.md.usa.noa
Capital-Gazette Communications FAX: 301-464-7027
jrouse at dc.infi.net PHONE: 301-262-3700 X200
john.rouse at reporters.net 410-268-5000
>From k6ll at juno.com (David O. Hachadorian) Tue Jun 25 02:17:39 1996
From: k6ll at juno.com (David O. Hachadorian) (David O. Hachadorian)
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 17:17:39 PST
Subject: cw forever?
Message-ID: <19960624.171741.4951.4.k6ll at juno.com>
Several years ago, I borrowed a friend's TONO rtty terminal
unit and operated the ARRL RTTY Roundup. I came in second in
the USA, so everything was working properly. Being unaccustomed
to tuning rtty stations, I found it helpful to listen to the
signals in the headphones as a tuning aid. It was interesting
to me that the TONO refused to lock up on those weak, fluttery,
European rtty signals that would have been perfectly good copy
on cw. Since that time, I have been smugly confident that cw
would be around for a long time, since the digital stuff simply
couldn't compete with cw on the type of weak signal work encountered
in contest operation.
Now this morning, as I was perusing the July issue of QST, I was
very surprised to see figure 7 on page 39, which apparently shows
PACTOR II copying error-free 96 wpm, at a signal to noise ratio of
zero, in the presence of selective fading and multipath distortion.
I would like to hear from contesters with digital mode and cw experience
regarding their thoughts on how cw, rtty, and state of the art digital
modes compare for contest-style weak signal work.
Dave, K6LL
k6ll at juno.com
>From rlboyd at CapAccess.org (Rich L. Boyd) Mon Jun 24 18:22:49 1996
From: rlboyd at CapAccess.org (Rich L. Boyd) (Rich L. Boyd)
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 13:22:49 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: W4BVV's QSLs
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91-FP.960624132212.8895J-100000 at cap1.capaccess.org>
Seeing K3KMO's mention of W4BVV's non-QSLing, I recall W4BVV mentioning
on the local repeater that he had 5BDXCC unsolicited. hi. 73
Rich Boyd KE3Q
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list