Vanity Call-What me worry?
Zack Widup
w9sz at prairienet.org
Mon Sep 16 13:29:53 EDT 1996
>
>Ladies and Gentlemen....
>
>I am so glad that I don't have to go through the angst of picking a new
>call, because I already have a great call. I'm feel for all of you who are
>going to go through this mayhem in the next few weeks. Our thoughts are
>with you all.
>
>I think it is the great Alfred E. Newman who said, "What, me worry?"
>
>Glad it is you and not me!
>
>Cheers to you all.
>
>Lee Buller - K0WA
>
>Lee
>k0wa at southwind.net
I thought it was "What - me W0RRY ?" :-)
(My apologies to the REAL W0RRY)
73, Zack
--
>From sjb at rfpo2.rfc.comm.harris.com (Bauer, Scott J) Mon Sep 16 14:41:00 1996
From: sjb at rfpo2.rfc.comm.harris.com (Bauer, Scott J) (Bauer, Scott J)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 96 13:41:00 DST
Subject: Vanity - Again
Message-ID: <323D9029 at smtpgate.rfc.comm.harris.com>
Is this great or what ?
Update on Vanity "Contest Calls": Sorry to those uninterested and those who
already know.
All Saturday, Sunday and Monday 610V's will be keyed into the FCC computer.
Once ALL applications (including your call choices) are in, they will press
the "GO" button and the 610V applications will be randomly selected for
processing, thus randomizing the "fairness". All Mellon does is take your
money and send the applications to Gettysburg.
This from Dick at the FCC at 800-322-1117.
Did you know you can now have FCC forms FAXed to you ? Call the FAX line
202-418-0177, type in the form ID number 610V - ID# 006108, form 159 ID#
000159 and back comes the form. You must call from your FAX machine.
73 Scott WA2LCC
>From jtw2 at NIOSR1.EM.CDC.GOV (Wassell, James T., Ph.D.) Mon Sep 16 20:23:00 1996
From: jtw2 at NIOSR1.EM.CDC.GOV (Wassell, James T., Ph.D.) (Wassell, James T., Ph.D.)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 96 14:23:00 EST
Subject: FW: Vanity Call-What me worry?
Message-ID: <323D2B5B at SmtpOut.em.cdc.gov>
I have no callsign worries, mine is Just Terrific......
K3JT
>From kb8nnu at cris.com (R. David Eagle) Mon Sep 16 19:51:41 1996
From: kb8nnu at cris.com (R. David Eagle) (R. David Eagle)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 14:51:41 -0400
Subject: 160 tx antenna ideas wanted
Message-ID: <199609161857.OAA14531 at cliff.cris.com>
Howdy all....I am currently trying to find some ideas and comments on
antennas used for 160. I live in regular city lot which limits me from
stringing huge antennas. My main purpose for this antenna would be
contesting and dx-ing. I've been considering the inverted L or maybe some
other form of verticle. Any comments and ideas would be very helpful.
Thanks
Dave Eagle (KB8NNU)
E-Mail: kb8nnu at cris.com
>From kr4uj at mindspring.com (Paul Pescitelli) Mon Sep 16 21:15:18 1996
From: kr4uj at mindspring.com (Paul Pescitelli) (Paul Pescitelli)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 15:15:18 -0500
Subject: Vanity Callsigns..Twisted
Message-ID: <v01530500ae636149b614@[207.69.140.47]>
OK, I know that we have all seen more than enough about callsigns but I an
addition twist..
I have seen nothing mentioned about sending multiple applications to the
"lottery" on the weekend before the 23rd. Lets say 5000 (not a realistic
number, but one easy to work with) applications show up that weekend. That
would mean I have a one in 5000 chance of getting my first choice. Well
what if I send in
5 applications. They will only process the first one, and I now have a 1 in
1000 chance of getting first call on the list. What do you guys think. I
would almost bet that before they figured out what happened I would have
the first application processed and new call in hand before they firgured
out I had multiple apps in.
Always a twisted viewpoint... Paul KR4UJ
>From john.devoldere at innet.be (John Devoldere) Mon Sep 16 21:17:14 1996
From: john.devoldere at innet.be (John Devoldere) (John Devoldere)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 20:17:14 +0000
Subject: 80M Wire 4-square owners?
Message-ID: <199609162019.WAA18247 at mail.be.innet.net>
>On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, John Devoldere wrote:
>
>> WHERE DID YOU GET THE IDEA I USE SLOPING ELEMENTS?? THE ELEMENTS ARE NOT
>> SLOPING AT ALL! LOOK AT THE DRAWING IN THE BOOK (fig 11-66): PERFECTLY
>> VERTICAL ELEMENTS. IT USES SLOPING CATERNARY SUPPORT (NYLON) ROPES TO
>> SUPPORT THE PREFECTLY VERTICAL FULL-SIZE ELEMENTS, WHICH ARE ELEVATED 5 M
>> (17 FT) FROM THE GROUND AT THEIR FEED POINT.
>> THE ELEMNTS ARE NOT TOP LOADED AS SHOWN IN THE SKETCH, THEY ARE FULL-SIZE.
>
>The picture I saw was of a wire
>elevated vertical system with one radial pulled out from each radiator.
>Fed at 15' above the ground. The radiator was pulled up to a 24' boom
>that was at 85' above the ground and the slope of the wire was 20 degrees.
WELL THAT DEFINITELY WAS NOT MY ANTENNA. WHERE DID YOU SEE THAT PICTURE?
>What was also interesting to me about the system pictured was that the
>feed points were 34' 6" away from the center of the tower. This would
>make the each vertical less than 1/4 wave spacing. Can you tell us why
>the system I am referring to used less than 1/4 wave spacing? My guess is
>that it was due to the slope of the radiators?
>
NO IDEA. MAYBE THEY GUY DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH ROOM. WOULD HAVE TO MODEL THE
THING TO SEE WHAT ARE THE RESULTS.
>Thanks for the note John. I thought you were using the system I noted
>above. I don't have my book right now, but I'm pretty sure the book said
>you were using this system.
>
WHAT BOOK ARE YOU REFERRING TO? I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW? THE BOOK I WROTE SAYS
CLEARLY THAT I USE 4 PERFECTLY VERTICAL VERTICALS, HI..
73 JOHN
>73
>
>Bill
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
john.devoldere at innet.be
Call us in all major 1996 contests: ON4UN (OT6T in WPX)
John Devoldere (ON4UN-AA4OI)
POBOX 41
B-9000 Ghent (Belgium)
>From snace at tdrss.wsc.nasa.gov (Steven Nace) Mon Sep 16 22:35:05 1996
From: snace at tdrss.wsc.nasa.gov (Steven Nace) (Steven Nace)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 14:35:05 -0700
Subject: Vanity Callsigns..Twisted
Message-ID: <v02120d06ae63778ead9d@[192.77.86.212]>
KR4UJ writes:
>Lets say 5000 (not a realistic number, but one easy to work with)
>applications >show up that weekend. That would mean I have a one in 5000
>chance of getting my >first choice. Well what if I send in 5 applications.
>They will only process the >first one, and I now have a 1 in 1000 chance
>of getting first call on the list.
I think by sending in 5 applications instead of 1, your chances go from one
in 5000 to 5 in 5000, not 1 in 1000.
de Hose KN5H
____________________________________________________________________
| Steven K. Nace KN5H Phone: 505-525-6205 |
| AlliedSignal Technical Svcs E-Mail: Snace at tdrss.wsc.nasa.gov |
| Spacecraft Engineering Group Alt E-mail:steven at zianet.com |
| NASA White Sands Complex Fax: 505-525-6229 |
| Las Cruces, NM 88004 Alt Fax: 505-527-7223 |
+____________________________________________________________________+
>From oo7 at astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) Mon Sep 16 22:03:03 1996
From: oo7 at astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) (Derek Wills)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 16:03:03 -0500
Subject: Vanity Callsigns..Twisted
>I have seen nothing mentioned about sending multiple applications
>to the "lottery" on the weekend before the 23rd. Lets say 5000
>(not a realistic number, but one easy to work with) applications
>show up that weekend. That would mean I have a one in 5000 chance
>of getting my first choice. Well what if I send in 5 applications.
>They will only process the first one, and I now have a 1 in 1000
>chance of getting first call on the list. What do you guys think.
>I would almost bet that before they figured out what happened I
>would have the first application processed and new call in hand
>before they firgured out I had multiple apps in. Paul KR4UJ
Ah, but what would happen is that they would get around to your second
application, not give you the first on the list because they had already
allocated it (on your first application...), so you would get whichever
unassigned one was next on your list. Then they open envelope #3 and
you end up with a call even lower on your list. Then along comes the
fourth envelope.... and each time, the call you have to use is the most
recently-issued one.
The end result would be that the more applications you submit, the lower
down your list you end up - and you have spent $150 to put yourself in
this powerful position.
I already have 2,000 unused QSL cards so I'm not changing. The vanity
call program should be a windfall for W4MPY et al -
Derek AA5BT, G3NMX
oo7 at astro.as.utexas.edu
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list