Create Vertical... Specs/Source ??
Jastaples at aol.com
Jastaples at aol.com
Wed Nov 27 16:06:13 EST 1996
The ZL8RI article in Dec. CQ listed a "Create 10-40 M Vertical" as part of
their equipment.
I'd like to know more.. who is the manufacturer, what's special about this
particular vertical, has anyone got/used one, any product reviews in the
magazines. ??
Please reply direct (jastaples at aol.com)
Thanks,
Joe, W5ASP
>From jbmitch at vt.edu (John Mitchell) Wed Nov 27 21:06:03 1996
From: jbmitch at vt.edu (John Mitchell) (John Mitchell)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 16:06:03 -0500
Subject: Remote Coax Switches?
Message-ID: <199611272106.QAA14133 at sable.cc.vt.edu>
I am well into the planning stages for a remotely-switched tower site to
take advantage of better terrain. I would be interested in any experience
in the contesting community regarding remote switching at considerable
distances (>1000 ft). The only real option I see at present is the
Ameritron RCS-4, which feeds the control voltage through the coax. I wonder
about several things: will the control voltage work at extended distances?
are there any reliability problems with the switching apparatus
(temperature-related, etc.)? are there power handling problems (available
literature supports 1.5KW)? and, are there better available options than
the RCS-4? I wish to avoid multi-conductor cable since that is another
large expense (the hardline is enough!)
Maybe some out there have solved this problem in a more creative way.
Please email me direct, and I will summarize if there is interest.
73,
JOHN
K4IQ
>From foggie at dtx.net (foggie) Wed Nov 27 21:14:28 1996
From: foggie at dtx.net (foggie) (foggie)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 15:14:28 -0600 (CST)
Subject: open logger proposal
Message-ID: <XFMail.961127152041.foggie at dtx.net>
David, and all interested. :)
I have been waiting for my ISP to set up a mailing list for our Open Logger
proposal. Unfortunately they are battling some serious hacker attacks. In the
meantime I have set up a message forum accessible from my web page,
(http://www.dtx.net/~foggie) or directly via
(http://www.dtx.net/~foggie/wwwboard) I have tested it so it at least works for
me. Check it out. Add your comments to the proposal availble from David's
page. Programmers and non-programmers alike are invited to participate.
73,
Al - kk5zx
------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: foggie <foggie at dtx.net>
Date: 11/27/96
Time: 15:14:30
-----------------------------------------------------------
Geek Code: GAT d H-- s:+ g+ p2 au+ a w+ v+ C++++ UL++++ P+
L++++ 3- E--- N++ K W--- M-- po Y+ t+ 5++ j R-
G' tv b++ D+ B--- e+ u+ h--- f r+++ n- z+++
-----------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent by XF-Mail, and is totally M$ Free
-----------------------------------------------------------
>From steve at austin.ibm.com (Steve Runyon WQ5G 512-838-7008) Wed Nov 27 22:01:06 1996
From: steve at austin.ibm.com (Steve Runyon WQ5G 512-838-7008) (Steve Runyon WQ5G 512-838-7008)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 96 16:01:06 -0600
Subject: Looking for a Copy of CIB-2
Message-ID: <9611272201.AA27112 at runyon.austin.ibm.com>
Apparently FCC has discontinued CIB-2!
Does anyone have a spare copy of CIB-2 that they could send to
me? I'd be happy to cover any postage...
Thanks to Bill N3RR and to H. L Serra for the info on ordering the
Interference Bulletins on home electronic equipment (CIB-2) and on
telephones (CIB-10) via the 800 number (1-800-418-3676).
Once I fought my way through the menu system, I was able to order
the last CIB-10 they had on hand, (they expect more in stock soon).
However, the two ladies I spoke with both indicated that the FCC
had discontinued the CIB-2 document! (Seems that it just generated
more questions and they didn't feel that it really helped consumers,
so they decided to discontinue it... too bad, it looked quite helpful
to me!).
It appears to be still available on the Internet at
http://www.fcc.gov/cib/Publications/tvibook.html
but I am unable to print it.
Appreciate any help!
73 de Steve WQ5G
>From aa8u at voyager.net (AA8U) Wed Nov 27 22:12:05 1996
From: aa8u at voyager.net (AA8U) (AA8U)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 17:12:05 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 160 M DX window
Message-ID: <3.0.16.19961127171342.36df4c8c at voyager.net>
Dear ARRL and Fellow Contesters,
I would like to see the definition of the "DX window" as published by
the ARRL, modified in such a way as to FIRMLY DISCOURAGE US/VE stations
from using it to call "CQ" or "CQ DX" during any ARRL sponsored Contest.
It should be made clear that the "DX window" is to be used by stations
outside the US/VE area that are soliciting contacts and by US/VE
stations that are responding to these calls. You will likely find even
more appropriate text to get this point across to all participants.
During the ARRL 160 contests especially, it has often been difficult to
find and work DX stations because of the numerous strong US/VE stations
that fill this band. I feel it is vital to keep the announced "DX
window" open for this purpose. Without a viable "DX window", this
contest becomes just another version of ARRL SS migrated to 160 with a
short exchange.
On many occasions in the past, several "big gun" east coast stations
have routinely parked in the 1830-35 kHz DX window, calling "CQ" and
even "CQ DX". This blocks the "view" of everyone else trying to "see
through" this very small and precious "DX window".
One station that does this nearly every contest, KC1XX, should know
better. This station and other similar stations don't even need the
luxury of a "DX window" given their geographic location, impressive
stations, and otherwise fine operating skills.
When I have heard KC1XX confronted about this activity on the air during
the contest, he usually responds that he "IS working DX", and "that is
what the window is for!" At which point, he continues working the DX,
much to the disdain of many "geographically challenged" contesters west
of his QTH.
I only use KC1XX to illustrate my point, AND because he is one of the
more flagrant and well known violators of the "DX window" concept, as I
see it. Also, I feel stations in the "super station" category such as
this set the operating standards for a lot of budding contesters. If
their operating practices are accepted or ignored, then by default, they
become role models for numerous others.
KC1XX might be entirely correct in his obvious interpretation of the "DX
window" definition. If so, this "DX window" is going to get really
crowded during the next ARRL 160 contest. If he is not, then it is
likely the fault of the ARRL published definition which I feel is not
specific enough.
(I don't have any "ax to grind" with KC1XX, really! He just is the
un-lucky example used here.)
If I am wrong about my perception of the purpose of the "DX window", I
sure would appreciate hearing from you about it. If it is indeed
acceptable for US/VE stations to call "CQ DX" within the "DX window",
then you can bet I will be there using it in this way in the future even
though I don't feel this is appropriate.
Given the current definition of the "DX window" as presented in QST and
on your web page, there sure seems to be a loop-hole deserving firm
closure.
I strongly suggest the person(s) responsible for the ARRL definition of
the "DX window" make some public clarification of the current definition
before the ARRL 160 contest. I would like to see a post to the various
"reflectors" soon, AND a clarification in all the appropriate ARRL
publications/media as soon as possible.
If I don't see a response to this email one way or the other before the
ARRL 160 contest, I think you can count on me using the "DX window" to
call "CQ DX", at least long enough to make my point.
I send this email to you in hopes that it will have a positive benefit
for all that share and enjoy my favorite radio pastime, contesting.
Thank you very much for your kind attention and thoughtful
consideration.
73,
Bruce Lallathin
AA8U ZK1AAU FP/AA8U
aa8u at voyager.net
CC: the contest reflector
>From foggie at dtx.net (foggie) Wed Nov 27 22:57:36 1996
From: foggie at dtx.net (foggie) (foggie)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 16:57:36 -0600 (CST)
Subject: open logger proposal
Message-ID: <XFMail.961127165829.foggie at dtx.net>
Opps. I forgot to upload the new page to my homepage. It is now fixed, and
available from my homepage.
73,
Al - kk5zx
On 27-Nov-96 foggie at dtx.net wrote:
>>David, and all interested. :)
>
>I have been waiting for my ISP to set up a mailing list for our Open Logger
>proposal. Unfortunately they are battling some serious hacker attacks. In the
>meantime I have set up a message forum accessible from my web page,
>(http://www.dtx.net/~foggie) or directly via
>(http://www.dtx.net/~foggie/wwwboard) I have tested it so it at least works for
------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: foggie <foggie at dtx.net>
Date: 11/27/96
Time: 16:57:37
-----------------------------------------------------------
Geek Code: GAT d H-- s:+ g+ p2 au+ a w+ v+ C++++ UL++++ P+
L++++ 3- E--- N++ K W--- M-- po Y+ t+ 5++ j R-
G' tv b++ D+ B--- e+ u+ h--- f r+++ n- z+++
-----------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent by XF-Mail, and is totally M$ Free
-----------------------------------------------------------
>From kt4ld at juno.com (Andrew H Lewis) Wed Nov 27 23:08:43 1996
From: kt4ld at juno.com (Andrew H Lewis) (Andrew H Lewis)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 18:08:43 EST
Subject: Yess!
Message-ID: <19961127.190152.8151.2.KT4LD at juno.com>
The vanity callsign system has worked for me today. Today I called the
FCC and I was issued K4HQ. It was my fourth choice and I was a third day
applicant so there is still hope for those still waiting. Sorry for the
Bandwith.
73
K4HQ (Formerly KT4LD)-16
YEARS OLD-ANDREW LEWIS
>From brad4 at roanoke.infi.net (Melvin G. Brafford) Wed Nov 27 23:23:11 1996
From: brad4 at roanoke.infi.net (Melvin G. Brafford) (Melvin G. Brafford)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 18:23:11 -0500
Subject: No subject
Message-ID: <199611272324.SAA27593 at mh004.infi.net>
sendme cq-contest-ARCHIVE.1996-11
>From brad4 at roanoke.infi.net (Melvin G. Brafford) Wed Nov 27 23:31:23 1996
From: brad4 at roanoke.infi.net (Melvin G. Brafford) (Melvin G. Brafford)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 18:31:23 -0500
Subject: No subject
Message-ID: <199611272332.SAA12740 at mh004.infi.net>
sendme cq-contest-Archive.1996-11
>From brad4 at roanoke.infi.net (Melvin G. Brafford) Wed Nov 27 23:55:59 1996
From: brad4 at roanoke.infi.net (Melvin G. Brafford) (Melvin G. Brafford)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 18:55:59 -0500
Subject: NEED A COPY OF ZL1ANJ'S CQWW MESSAGE
Message-ID: <199611272357.SAA09820 at mh004.infi.net>
Can someone please send me a copy of ZL1ANJ 'S reflector message. I just
got on the reflector today, 27-NOV, and don't know how to call up back
messages.Thanks, Mick W4YV..... brad4 at roanoke.infi.net
>From steven at zianet.com (Steven Nace KN5H) Thu Nov 28 06:59:16 1996
From: steven at zianet.com (Steven Nace KN5H) (Steven Nace KN5H)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 23:59:16 -0700
Subject: New Mexico QSO Party this weekend
Message-ID: <23582868714740 at zianet.com>
What appears to be the first ever running of the New Mexico QSO party is
this weekend. It starts at 1800Z Saturday the 30th and lasts 24 hours.
Exchange RS(T) and state.
I shall spread the word about this (to me) surprise event. If you are bored
with Turkey, get on and work us Roadrunners.
73 de KN5H, N5AV, K7UP and the rest
>From k4lt at fuse.net (Doug Klein) Wed Nov 27 23:53:24 1996
From: k4lt at fuse.net (Doug Klein) (Doug Klein)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 96 18:53:24 -0500
Subject: WD8AUB E-mail change
Message-ID: <199611272350.SAA10904 at enterprise.fuse.net>
-- [ From: Doug Klein * EMC.Ver #2.5.03 ] --
Actually, a callsign change notice, too. Sorry for bandwidth on the
reflector.
Doug Klein, WD8AUB is now K4LT living in Independence, KY
K4LT at FUSE.NET
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list