8875 tubes(s) for XE2L
bill.lumnitzer at paonline.com
bill.lumnitzer at paonline.com
Thu Nov 28 10:50:18 EST 1996
Happy turkey day everone!
My friend Ray, N6VR, is looking for 1 or 2 8875 tubes (reasonably priced!)
to repair the MLA-2500 amp that blew up during the recent XE2L operation
in CQWW CW. If you can help or can suggest any leads, please email direct.
Thanks!
73 Bill n6cq at paonline.com
>From aa8u at voyager.net (AA8U) Thu Nov 28 16:35:32 1996
From: aa8u at voyager.net (AA8U) (AA8U)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 11:35:32 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 160 M DX window
Message-ID: <3.0.16.19961128113630.301774bc at voyager.net>
Hi Bruce,
You make several really good points. I'll snip some and comment by the
numbers...
>I doubt that any three people have the same understanding of what
constitutes >"DX window",
Right on! The current definition is unclear and that may have led to a lot
of confusion. Also it changes from time to time. Hard to hit a moving target.
>The on-the-air courtesy, or lack thereof, that I see used in
>trying to enforce the private notions of "DX window" isn't a whole lot
>different from what I see coming out of the SSTVers anyway.
Right again. Gee, this is supposed to be a fun hobby, not a battle.
>First off, everybody is DX to somebody else. As hard as it is to believe,
>there are people on the other side of the globe who consider it exciting to
>make contact with places like Ohio, Illinois, and California.
Yup.....you have a good grasp of this one too.
>Secondly, I find there is very little consensus about what constitutes the
>DX window or what the restrictions on it are. The ARRL has stated 1830-1835
>should be "used only for intercontinental QSLs".
IF.. you accept that some sort of DX window is needed, the it must be well
defined and supported by all. Lacking this, it makes no sense to even have
one.
Others have pointed out that this concept may have out-lived its time.
Maybe so.
> Only the bright guys--and there aren't many--know to listen down
>below 1825 for people like me.
160 allocations around the world make it really tough to define a truely
workable DX window........
>"DX window" is being used as a rallying cry to fight, argue, and divide
us. Is >that what this is all about?
With the current tendancy to auction off spectrum, the last thing we need
is more division and strife within our hobby.
>I think we would all be a lot better off if we would junk
>this idea of "DX window" entirely.
Again you are likely correct. From what I have seen in replies to me you
have many that feel as you do.
>I humbly submit that this is nonsense and we would all be vastly better
>off if we would junk this idea of "DX Window". It is being used only as a
>rallying cry to start fights, and that is not what this whole game is
>supposed to be about.
I see we are in agreement. Maybe my original post will in the end result in
positive change to benefit us all. I sure hope so.
Have a happy holiday season,
73,
Bruce
aa8u at voyager.net
>From aa8u at voyager.net (AA8U) Thu Nov 28 16:48:57 1996
From: aa8u at voyager.net (AA8U) (AA8U)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 11:48:57 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 160 m dx window
Message-ID: <3.0.16.19961128115034.30176958 at voyager.net>
Hi Bill,
Another thoughtful post. Good on you!
>Anyway, the PUBLISHED RULES recognize the DX-window on 160 and they are
being >ignored by many prominent stations, which I believe was AA8Us point.
>ARRL should delete any mention of a "DX-window" from the rules since this
idea >is not working.
The current definition is partly at fault. If it can't be better defined to
make the whole concept viable AND respected by all, then it should be
scrapped.
>This is still a gentlemens band and most of us will NOT CQ in the window
>during a contest.
Yes, me included.......:')
73 and happy holidays,
Bruce
aa8u
>From nt5c at easy.com (John Warren) Thu Nov 28 22:37:59 1996
From: nt5c at easy.com (John Warren) (John Warren)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 17:37:59 -0500
Subject: DX Windows
Message-ID: <1362941366-66206632 at BANJO.EASY.COM>
Bruce N6NT wrote:
|Furthermore, promoting this idea of "DX Window" on 160 is causing
|the notion to spread to the other bands as well. People have come
|back and chastised me for being chatty on 7005 because, in their
|words, this was the "DX Window". Bulls**t! See the above! It's
|bad enough that we're all fighting over the concept of a "DX Window"
|on 160 without this spreading to the other HF bands.
HOOOOOLD it! Let's not get carried away here.
In QST Jan 96, P 104, The "Considerate Operator's Frequency Guide", there
is ONE and ONLY one segment explicitly defined as a "DX window", and that's
3790-3800. As you argue about 160M, please DON'T mess with my 75M SSB DX
window, imperfect though it is!
John, NT5C.
>From ddjones at nas.com (Dale Jones K5MM) Thu Nov 28 17:53:14 1996
From: ddjones at nas.com (Dale Jones K5MM) (Dale Jones K5MM)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 09:53:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 160 DX window, Is it DEAD?
Message-ID: <m0vTAeA-000D2EC at cleese.nas.com>
AA8U, N6NT et al:
Beginning in the early 1960's, using my old Heathkit
DX-100 (not the B version), I've had the fun and
excitement of working 160 meters. It is indeed a
fun TOP band, with great memories of W1BB's Inter-
continental (trans-oceanic??) tests, etc. In those
days more than 30 years ago, the USA was very divided
with different frequency assignments for different
states. That was DX Window time in spades. Working
states cross-band from 2.0 Mhz (west coast) to 1.8 Mhz
(east coast) was the norm. WAS was tough, and usually
took years to accomplish. DXCC took Decades.
Today, we have 40 meters divided around the world
with all this cross-band stuff on SSB. What a big pain.
Even the differentiation between the USA and Canada for
phone frequency assingments is a pain for us south of
the 49th degree latitude parallel. At the very least
it is for me.
With virtually everyone using commercial radio equipment
nowadays, receiver performance is good to excellent.
That was not the case in years past.
The 160 DX Window has seen it place in the past, and even
then it was marginal as a contributor to working DX.
The past is now gone. In my opinion (and it ain't humble!)
there is no need that I am aware of which justifies keeping
the DX Window on Top Band now. No matter how one defines the
DX Window, if a Window exists there will be discrimination.
Other amateur band utilization seems to get along quite
well (especially on CW) without DX Window discrimination.
Most operators around the world have the ability to sort
through the pile-ups skillfully. Up a few Khz, spread
the pileup out, call CQ for a specific frequency like the
JA's do now, etc. It works.
The 160 M band is narrow enough, as it is, without slicing
off 5 Khz to cause all the arguments and disgruntlement.
Lets get rid of the Window, and move forward!! Our technology
has, and so has the general skill levels of operators globally.
73
Dale K5MM
At 11:35 AM 11/28/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi Bruce,
>
>You make several really good points. I'll snip some and comment by the
>numbers...
>
>>I doubt that any three people have the same understanding of what
>constitutes >"DX window",
>
>Right on! The current definition is unclear and that may have led to a lot
>of confusion. Also it changes from time to time. Hard to hit a moving target.
>
>>The on-the-air courtesy, or lack thereof, that I see used in
>>trying to enforce the private notions of "DX window" isn't a whole lot
>>different from what I see coming out of the SSTVers anyway.
>
>Right again. Gee, this is supposed to be a fun hobby, not a battle.
>
>
>>First off, everybody is DX to somebody else. As hard as it is to believe,
>>there are people on the other side of the globe who consider it exciting to
>>make contact with places like Ohio, Illinois, and California.
>
>Yup.....you have a good grasp of this one too.
>
>
>>Secondly, I find there is very little consensus about what constitutes the
>>DX window or what the restrictions on it are. The ARRL has stated 1830-1835
>>should be "used only for intercontinental QSLs".
>
>IF.. you accept that some sort of DX window is needed, the it must be well
>defined and supported by all. Lacking this, it makes no sense to even have
>one.
>Others have pointed out that this concept may have out-lived its time.
>Maybe so.
>
>
>> Only the bright guys--and there aren't many--know to listen down
>>below 1825 for people like me.
>
>160 allocations around the world make it really tough to define a truely
>workable DX window........
>
>
>>"DX window" is being used as a rallying cry to fight, argue, and divide
>us. Is >that what this is all about?
>
>With the current tendancy to auction off spectrum, the last thing we need
>is more division and strife within our hobby.
>
>>I think we would all be a lot better off if we would junk
>>this idea of "DX window" entirely.
>
>Again you are likely correct. From what I have seen in replies to me you
>have many that feel as you do.
>
>>I humbly submit that this is nonsense and we would all be vastly better
>>off if we would junk this idea of "DX Window". It is being used only as a
>>rallying cry to start fights, and that is not what this whole game is
>>supposed to be about.
>
>I see we are in agreement. Maybe my original post will in the end result in
>positive change to benefit us all. I sure hope so.
>
>Have a happy holiday season,
>
>73,
>Bruce
>aa8u at voyager.net
>
>
>From aa9ax at iglou.com (Steven Sample) Thu Nov 28 18:01:00 1996
From: aa9ax at iglou.com (Steven Sample) (Steven Sample)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 13:01:00 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 160 M DX window
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.961128125310.3112A-100000 at iglou1>
Bruce:
In your comments (below) you make so many good points that I find it
difficult to take issue with you. I must admit that I guess I even have a
different view of what should be in the "window" than the ARRL's
loosely-worded "suggested rule" implies.
I do think a "window" of some type is in order, in particular one in which
U.S. stations are expected to S&P rather than RUN.
I apologize if I got strong, but I took exceptional issue to another
reply post which seemed too strong in itself, particularly from a non-user
of the band who does not have to suffer what many of us low-power
midwestern users do. I do find the band to be full of "Gentlemen".
Anyway, thanks for your eloquence and good sense, have a Happy
Thanksgiving, and I give up on this subject, since it seems to have no end
or answer!
73...
Steve / N9FD (Ex-AA9AX)
*****************************************************************************
On Thu, 28 Nov 1996, Bruce Sawyer wrote:
> At 02:07 AM 11/28/96 +0000, you wrote:
>
> >If you have any regard for the attempt of the ARRL and others to make the
> >DX Window a viable possibility, I fail to understand your callous
> >comments.
> >
> >There are several flagrant violators who wreck the "window" for others who
> >are not fortunate enough to be well-positioned with geography,
> >equipment, antennas, or even superior operating skill. I personally feel
> >that asking U.S. amateurs to preserve a tiny 5 khz window in the 2000 khz
> >band for DX stations to call CQ is not tantamount to placing a burdon on
> >them.
> >
>
> Well, I'll add my own 2 cents worth in on this one, and I hope I can do it
> without enjoining major warfare.
>
> First off, I do not support the concept of a "DX window" (whatever that is)
> at all; I am absolutely opposed to it. I understand this is a matter of
> religious fervor to a lot of people, even though I doubt that any three
> people have the same understanding of what constitutes "DX window", so I
> just stay away from 1830-1835 completely. Even when I'm outside of the
> U.S., I treat that as a forbidden zone which might as well be taken over by
> the SSTV gang. The on-the-air courtesy, or lack thereof, that I see used in
> trying to enforce the private notions of "DX window" isn't a whole lot
> different from what I see coming out of the SSTVers anyway.
>
> First off, everybody is DX to somebody else. As hard as it is to believe,
> there are people on the other side of the globe who consider it exciting to
> make contact with places like Ohio, Illinois, and California. Beats me why,
> but they do. To them, we are the quarry. I think it's a very U.S.-centric
> view of the world to say that non-US (or non-US/VE) is DX and can/should
> have that slot and everybody else should stay out of it.
>
> Secondly, I find there is very little consensus about what constitutes the
> DX window or what the restrictions on it are. The ARRL has stated 1830-1835
> should be "used only for intercontinental QSLs". (Quote taken directly from
> QST.) My dictionary says that means "carried on between different
> continents". In other words, that does NOT allow for Caribbean-to-US
> contacts, and yet that what you will see during the 160 contests is
> primarily Caribbean stations CQing in the so-called "DX window" with answers
> coming from the US. So if we want diligently to follow the ARRL definition,
> then who is allowed to CQ in the "DX window"? Everybody is DX to somebody,
> and also distinctly not DX to somebody else. If we're trying to dump on
> US/VE operators, which seems to be the intent of this whole thing, then
> since the "intercontinental" phrase in the wording seems to imply that
> stations in the same continent as US/VE are not DX, I would guess it means
> only non-North American stations are allowed to CQ in the range 1830-1835.
> Thus any American who answers a V2 CQ is abusing the window, but it's OK to
> answer a P4 CQ, since that's a different continent. Excuse me, but I think
> this is rediculous. Also, get six different people in a room and they will
> all tell you six different ideas about what the frequency limits of the
> purported window are. I've heard a lot of people try to claim all the way
> down to 1820!
>
> Another big problem with this idea of defining "DX Window", supposing we
> could get some degree of agreement on frequency limits and permissible
> utilization, is that there is too much variation from country to country in
> the 160 frequency limits for that to work. I hate to think of how many
> HOURS I have spent calling CQ from my station in the Cayman Islands (ZF8BS)
> in the only range I am allowed to operate: 1800-1825. Everybody is up
> listening 1830+, because that's where somebody told them the DX was supposed
> to be. Only the bright guys--and there aren't many--know to listen down
> below 1825 for people like me.
>
> Furthermore, promoting this idea of "DX Window" on 160 is causing the notion
> to spread to the other bands as well. I have had people come back and
> chastise me for being chatty on 7005 because, in their words, this was the
> "DX Window". Bulls**t! See the above! It's bad enough that we're all
> fighting over the concept of a "DX Window" on 160 without this spreading to
> the other HF bands.
>
> Every year about this time we see the same discussions erupt about the "DX
> window" on 160. There are challenges and accusations hurled around freely,
> and everybody seems to want to be purer than the next guy in denouncing
> those "abusers". If you stand back and look at this whole situation, it
> surely seems to me like the idea of "DX window" is being used as a rallying
> cry to fight, argue, and divide us. Is that what this is all about? I'll
> stay out of the range 1830-1835 entirely, just because I don't feel like
> fighting. But I think we would all be a lot better off if we would junk
> this idea of "DX window" entirely. And I'm sure not going to criticize
> KC1XX or anybody else for whatever they do in that range. I might even look
> upon it as a laudable act of civil disobedience!
>
> Bruce, N6NT
>
>
>
>
>
> I humbly submit that this is nonsense and we would all be vastly better
> off if we would junk this idea of "DX Window". It is being used only as a
> rallying cry to start fights, and that is not what this whole game is
> supposed to be about.
>
>
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list