SS ROOKIE

Wed May 22 10:51:58 EDT 1996

I second the motion.... in fact, I will send a check to Billy for
one of the plaques.

One minor change suggestion:  Rather than "first licensed" in the
past two years, how about "first full HF license" obtained in the
past two years.  (For "W's" that would be General, and the equivalent
VE class.)  This would give eligibility to those who have had a
Tech or Novice (and VE equivalents) for several years, but who have
recently upgraded to full HF status.  

Not to make Tech or Novice ineligible, but given their small HF
allocations (especially on phone) they likely can't really compete.

Let me know the cost of sponsoring one of the plaques ($50.00???).

73, de Hans, K0HB

---NoSnail v1.17
*******************************************************************
HAM>link< RBBS - Serving the Amateur Radio Community Since 1983

- 612/HAM-0000 v.34                 Ham Radio Spoken Here!!
- 612/HAM-1010 v.32b           Reply to sender @ hamlink.mn.org
********************************************************************

>From n4bp at bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us (Bob Patten)  Wed May 22 17:32:48 1996
From: n4bp at bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us (Bob Patten) (Bob Patten)
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 12:32:48 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: WPX
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9605221200.B119-0100000 at bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>

On Wed, 22 May 1996 k4sb at avana.net wrote:

> For your information, all the calls I mentioned are perfectly legal to use during
> 4-1-96 to 8-31-96. I'm not making up some phony prefix.
> 
All well and good, but how do the contest rules apply to this scenario?  
Is one station permitted to use several calls in the WPX?  Am I allowed 
to knowingly work one station under several calls and use each new prefix 
as a multiplier?
I do not subscribe to CQ Magazine.  The rules as published in March '96 
QST make no mention of this situation...

>From 0006743923 at mcimail.com (Kurt Pauer)  Wed May 22 17:45:00 1996
From: 0006743923 at mcimail.com (Kurt Pauer) (Kurt Pauer)
Date: Wed, 22 May 96 11:45 EST
Subject: VO1/2 Section - Not Yet
Message-ID: <80960522164508/0006743923DF3EM at MCIMAIL.COM>

The CAC had a meeting in Dayton.  Tim, VE6SH, the VE CAC Rep and an
officer of RAC presented information about Newfoundland.  Approval
has been given to create an RAC section, but it has not been formed
yet.  In light of this, the CAC consensus was to table any discussion
until such time as the section has been formed.  So there is no
need to continue speculation for the time being here on CQ-Contest.
Dr Bafoofnik will be taking names of anyone who tries to continue
this thread!!    Very 73,  Kurt, W1PH, New England Division, CAC

>From harpole at pegasus.cc.ucf.edu (Charles H. Harpole)  Wed May 22 18:14:29 1996
From: harpole at pegasus.cc.ucf.edu (Charles H. Harpole) (Charles H. Harpole)
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 13:14:29 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Hy-Tower on WARC?
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.93.960522131146.16093D-100000 at Pegasus>

Anyone ever added any/all WARC bands to a HyGain HyTower HT-18 (it is a
stub-tuned tower-style vertical)?  Also, any tips on adding the 160m coil
to the HyTower???
Anyone willing to use your antenna modeling program to address these
questions?  73, K4VUD

>From steven at zianet.com (Steven Nace KN5H)  Wed May 22 19:40:15 1996
From: steven at zianet.com (Steven Nace KN5H) (Steven Nace KN5H)
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 12:40:15 -0600
Subject: Vertical ant experts, I need info
Message-ID: <18401590601751 at zianet.com>

What, if any effect does a 'tilt' in my vertical have in its performance? My
R7, for lack of a better word, leans a lot. This less than vertical
orientation is due to high winds. The question is, how much can I tolerate
before there is a change in its performance.

Thanks in advance

73 de Hose  KN5H

>From DFREY at maila.harris.com (DFREY)  Wed May 22 17:21:25 1996
From: DFREY at maila.harris.com (DFREY) (DFREY)
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 12:21:25 -0400
Subject: On removing CW
Message-ID: <1a363ca0 at maila.harris.com>

     I sent the following to the FASC (at iaru at iaru.org).  
     I'm posting it here to give fellow contesters some factual, 
     substantive, and non-emotional arguments against removing the code 
     requirement.  Send your comments on the position paper (see it at 
     http://www.arrl.org/iaru/fasc1out.html#fasc1.11)  TO THE IARU, not to 
     me - I've said my piece.
     -Dick
     //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

     Re: 9.12, 9.13 and 9.14 of the IARU Discussion paper.

     It all seems an exercise in subjunctives: 
     ...future technical developments may provide....
     ...there may be the possibility for sufficient expansion.... 
     ...S25.5 (RR 2735) [possibly] being dropped from that agenda....

     On the mere possibility that several events might occur in the future, 
     we are going to cut a critical item which helps maintain what little 
     order there is now.

     If the Morse code requirement is removed, administrations will no 
     longer be compelled to inforce band plans which protect code since 
     that mode is no longer required by law.  This will happen even if 
     other administrations choose to retain the code requirement.  This 
     is not conjecture, this WILL happen.  If CW is removed, the present 
     use allocations should be grandfathered to prevent disenfranchising 
     those using it now.

     Chaos reigns below 30 MHz already.  Phone patches on 80M CW, fish 
     net buoys on 160M, CB migration into 10M, inter-island business 
     traffic on 40M, SSB chatter on 10.000 MHz, ionospheric sounders 
     coursing at will, the list is endless.  Clearly, enforcement is a 
     present problem.  Any future deregulation must be balanced by 
     requiring strict and vigorous enforcement of the remaining rules.  
     Without a mandated requirement for acitive enforcement, the rules, 
     even advisedly bad ones, are just so much worthless paper.  

     If, because of "technical developments", the ITU code requirement 
     is removed, the use of similar "technical developments" should be 
     required to insure compliance with the remaining rules.

     Technical improvement comes at a cost.  The present justification for 
     code is it permits amateurs "to be able to intercommunicate without 
     regard to equipment or language barriers...."  How will placing an 
     additional requirement for modern equipment facilitate improved 
     intercommunication?  Technical improvements notwithstanding, Morse 
     code will probably remain the simplest and most economic form of 
     universal inter-language radio communication.

     Richard Frey,  K4XU

>From dnorris at k7no.com (Dean Norris)  Wed May 22 20:17:11 1996
From: dnorris at k7no.com (Dean Norris) (Dean Norris)
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 12:17:11 -0700
Subject: Hy-Tower on WARC?
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960522191711.0068c37c at mail.syspac.com>

At 13:14 5/22/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Anyone ever added any/all WARC bands to a HyGain HyTower HT-18 (it is a
>stub-tuned tower-style vertical)?  Also, any tips on adding the 160m coil
>to the HyTower???
>Anyone willing to use your antenna modeling program to address these
>questions?  73, K4VUD
>
>

My Hy-Tower loads beautifully on 18 & 12 meters.  Doesn't hear well compared
to other ants but does work.

cdn

           C. Dean Norris
      Amateur Radio Station K7NO             
      e-mail to dnorris at k7no.com             
    http://www.syspac.com/~dnorris/