20031204.qrp v03_n124.qrl.20031204 Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 19:03:14 EST From: qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: QRP-L digest 3124 QRP-L Digest 3124 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) [162288] FS DSW-20 II by "ross bell" 2) [162289] Elecraft XG1 Receiver Test Oscillator/S-Meter Calibrator by Wayne Burdick 3) [162290] Re: [Elecraft] Elecraft XG1 Receiver Test Oscillator/S-Meter Calibrator by Eric Swartz WA6HHQ - Elecraft 4) [162291] FOX: Log of the Low Fox K5DI by Karl Larsen 5) [162292] 160 meter test by "Fred \(VE3FAL\)" 6) [162293] Re: "ET phone home" ? by "Stuart Rohre" 7) [162294] Cable Modem Interference by "W. Keith Hibbert" 8) [162295] ET phone home! by "tmyers" 9) [162296] Re: Many sources of analog panel meters / Answers on Ten Tec SWR meter sensors by "Stuart Rohre" 10) [162297] NEQRP CW Net, Thursday, 4 Dec 03, 08:30 PM EST, 3.566 MHz by Chuck Ludinsky 11) [162298] I'm Hungry by "Jerry Ford" 12) [162299] Re: ET phone home! by Nick Yokanovich 13) [162300] RE: Part Source by "JAKidz" 14) [162301] FOX: Peliminary Log of KV2X fox V1.0000000 by tjennin2@rochester.rr.com 15) [162302] Elecraft KX1 Shortwave Listening Adventure by "Bruce Prior" 16) [162303] Re: [azqrp] AZ ScQRPion List by "Floyd Smithberg" 17) [162304] Re: Cable Modem Interference by Thom LaCosta 18) [162305] Looking for a KD1JV "0-10 Watt RMS RF Power Meter Kit" by "Meier, Peter H." 19) [162306] Re: Cable Modem Interference by wd8civ@att.net 20) [162307] December Spartan Sprint Results by "John Huffman" 21) [162308] Why have mono phone plugs and cables? by Kenneth Cooperstein 22) [162309] FS: KK7B MINI R2 RECEIVERS by "Donald Dorn" 23) [162310] Re: "ET phone home" ? by "n2cx" 24) [162311] Re: "ET phone home" ? by "n2cx" 25) [162312] AZ ScQRPions Paddle S/N List by Jerry Haigwood 26) [162313] RE: [Elmer160] C compilers by "Ray Goff" 27) [162314] Re: Why have mono phone plugs and cables? by wd8civ@att.net 28) [162315] The TOP 100 list is posted by "Joe Martin" 29) [162316] Re: Cable Modem Interference by "carl seyersdahl" 30) [162317] MP-1 band lock nylon screw...> by "Pat Armstrong" 31) [162318] Re: "ET phone home" ? by "Michael Melland, W9WIS" 32) [162319] Re: KK7B MINI R2 RECEIVERS by "Donald Dorn" 33) [162320] Re: MP-1 band lock nylon screw...> by Chuck Carpenter 34) [162321] Re: MP-1 band lock nylon screw...> by "Mike WA8BXN" 35) [162322] Re: AZ ScQRPions Paddle S/N List by Lee Mairs 36) [162323] Re: [Elmer160] C compilers by Lee Mairs 37) [162324] Re: [fpqrp] RUN FOR THE BACON by "Jerry Ford" 38) [162325] RE: L-1682B1J Availability Last Bite by Davewb4@aol.com 39) [162326] Re: MP-1 band lock nylon screw...> by "Mike WA8BXN" 40) [162327] Re: MP-1 band lock nylon screw...> by "Rod N0RC" 41) [162328] Fw: MP-1 band lock nylon screw...> by "Rod N0RC" 42) [162329] Re: ET phone home! by Garie Halstead K8KFJ 43) [162330] Re: AZ ScQRPions Paddle S/N List by Jerry Haigwood 44) [162331] RE: [Elmer160] C compilers by Dale Botkin 45) [162332] Re: Elecraft KX1 Shortwave Listening Adventure by Wayne Burdick 46) [162333] Re: MP-1 band lock nylon screw...> by "Mike WA8BXN" 47) [162334] RE: Elecraft KX1 Shortwave Listening Adventure by "Mark Rauchfuss" 48) [162335] Re: Elecraft KX1 Shortwave Listening Adventure by Wayne Burdick 49) [162336] Iowa QRP Club CW Net by Mark Milburn 50) [162337] Re: "ET phone home" ? by Bruce Muscolino 51) [162338] Re: AZ ScQRPions Paddle S/N List by John Sielke 52) [162339] Unmitigated Self-Aggrandizment by John Sielke 53) [162340] RE: [Elmer160] C compilers by Chuck Adams 54) [162341] RE: [Elmer160] C compilers by "Ray Goff" 55) [162342] Re: [Elmer160] C compilers by Bruce Muscolino 56) [162343] I Need a DL34M 4 digit LED display! by "Michael Pupeza" 57) [162344] RE: Elecraft KX1 Shortwave Listening Adventure by "Mark Rauchfuss" 58) [162345] Re: "ET phone home" ? by "Michael Melland, W9WIS" 59) [162346] RE: [Elecraft] Orion added to Elecraft rig RX comparison page by "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" 60) [162347] RE: BPL article in Nov. 24 "Electronic Design" by "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" 61) [162348] OT: Cable Modem Interference by "Goody K3NG" 62) [162349] RE: [Elmer160] C compilers by "Brian.Buydens@usask.ca" 63) [162350] Antenna Compendium Vol 3 by "M.M." 64) [162351] RE: [Elmer160] C compilers by "Mark Rauchfuss" 65) [162352] RE: [Elmer160] C compilers by Dale Botkin 66) [162353] RE: [Elmer160] C compilers by "Andreas Junge - ARRL.NET" 67) [162354] RE: BPL article in Nov. 24 "Electronic Design" by "Mark Rauchfuss" 68) [162355] Re: [Elmer160] C compilers by "John J. McDonough" 69) [162356] RE: [Elmer160] C compilers by "Ray Goff" 70) [162357] Re: [Elmer160] C compilers by "John J. McDonough" 71) [162358] Re: [Elmer160] C compilers by Dale Botkin 72) [162359] RE: [Elmer160] C compilers by "Ray Goff" 73) [162360] RE: [Elmer160] C compilers by Dale Botkin 74) [162361] PSK31 on PDA Device? by 75) [162362] Paddle making hints by Karl Larsen 76) [162363] VLF simple receiver, was ET phone home by "Stuart Rohre" 77) [162364] RE: PSK31 on PDA Device? by "Lyle Johnson" 78) [162365] Looking for an old Handbook cd to send to a new friend by w2bvh 79) [162366] RE: AZ ScQRPions Paddle S/N List by "Paul Womble" 80) [162367] Re: AZ ScQRPions Paddle S/N List by "Tim Kass" 81) [162368] Re: PSK31 on PDA Device? by "Bill Smith" 82) [162369] Re: AZ ScQRPions Paddle S/N List by Thom LaCosta 83) [162370] Re: AZ ScQRPions Paddle S/N List by "richqrp" 84) [162371] Re: AZ ScQRPions Paddle S/N List by Barry Minsky 85) [162372] RE: PSK31 on PDA Device? by "Lyle Johnson" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:31:22 -0700 From: "ross bell" To: Subject: [162288] FS DSW-20 II Message-ID: <001f01c3b9f5$9005c850$182c13d8@bellfamily> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Already built DSW-20 II looks and works includes the jackon pic chip latest revision. $150.00 shipping included Ross - K7RSB ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 16:01:58 -0800 From: Wayne Burdick To: Elecraft , qrp Subject: [162289] Elecraft XG1 Receiver Test Oscillator/S-Meter Calibrator Message-ID: <3FCE7976.74E21940@elecraft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ever wonder how well an HF receiver is really working--or how one receiver compares to another? One of the most important performance measurements is sensitivity. But measuring sensitivity (MDS or signal-to-noise ratio) usually requires an expensive, lab-grade signal generator. At just $39, our new XG1 Receiver Test Oscillator is an inexpensive alternative. The XG1 is a fixed-frequency (7.040 MHz) signal source with highly-accurate 1 microvolt and 50 microvolt output levels. Thanks to its precision, low-level crystal oscillator, the XG1 achieves absolute output accuracy of better than +/- 2 dB, and extremely small unit-to-unit variation of typically +/- 1 dB. This ensures that measurements made with different XG1s can be compared, which can be helpful when evaluating used equipment found at flea markets or on the web. The 1-microvolt level can be used to determine a receiver's MDS (minimum discernable signal), as well as its overall receive gain. 50 microvolts is widely used as the standard "S9" reference, so this level can be used for S-meter calibration. Step-by-step procedures are included for receiver performance measurement and S-meter alignment. Additional features of the XG1 include an on-board 3-volt battery (standard coin cell), low-battery LED (yellow), power-on LED (green), and reverse-transmit warning LED (red). The unit is protected against brief accidental transmit, and has been tested at up to 10 watts for 2 seconds. But the provided test procedures include warnings about disconnecting the key, mic, etc., so accidental transmit into the XG1 is unlikely. An output frequency of 7040 kHz was selected because nearly all multi-band HF transceivers, as well as many monoband transceivers, cover the 40 meter CW band. But the XG1 also provides reduced output levels at harmonics of 7040 kHz, so it can be used for receiver alignment and qualitative tests on 20, 15, and 10 meters. Since the oscillator itself puts only 10 nanowatts, the unit requires no enclosure and no interstage shielding. Careful PC board layout and component selection ensure that RF leakage is virtually eliminated. Assembly takes only about an hour, and the only alignment step--which is optional--is fine-tuning the frequency of the crystal oscillator while listening on a calibrated receiver. The XG1 is the fourth in our series of easy-to-build mini-module kits, which can be seen at: http://www.elecraft.com/elecraft_prod_list.htm Like our other mini-modules, the XG1 is quite small: the PC board is just 1.5"W by 3.5"L. You can use a BNC male-to-male adapter such as our #BNC-MM to eliminate the coax cable and directly connect the XG1 to the back of a receiver or transceiver. Stick-on rubber feet are also included so the unit can be used on your work bench. The XG1 will begin shipping on or before December 12th. 73, Wayne, N6KR Eric, WA6HHQ -- http://www.elecraft.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:00:42 -0800 From: Eric Swartz WA6HHQ - Elecraft To: Elecraft Cc: qrp Subject: [162290] Re: [Elecraft] Elecraft XG1 Receiver Test Oscillator/S-Meter Calibrator Message-ID: <3FCE873A.9010003@elecraft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The correct link for our Mini-Modules page, which includes the XG1, is: http://www.elecraft.com/mini_module_kits/mini_modules.htm :-) 73, Eric WA6HHQ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 18:19:00 -0700 (MST) From: Karl Larsen To: qrp-l@lehigh.edu Subject: [162291] FOX: Log of the Low Fox K5DI Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Log of Karl K5DI, Low Fox on December 2 evening. Things were fine until the flare hit the earth. Please send me any errors you would like corrected. I have been Fox 2 times last year and I do make a lot of errors. Sorry. Time Call Report 0202 N9NE 559 WI TODD 5W 0205 W5TB 559 TX DOC 5W 0206 N1FN 559 CO ET 5W 0207 KL7V 559 OK SAM 5W 0208 N0UR 579 MN JIM 5W 0209 K5JHP 559 TX BILL 5W 0210 KT5V 559 TX DAVID 5W 0211 K3PH 559 PA BOB 5W 0212 K5OI 559 OK TIM 5W 0213 W9XU 559 WI LON 5W 0214 W5YR 559 TX GEORGE 5W 0215 N0EA 559 MO WAYNE 5W 0216 W9XT 559 WI GARY 5W 0217 KI0II 559 CO RON 5W 0218 N0DT 559 MO DAN 5W 0219 W9TZE 559 WI JIM 5W 0220 N0TK 559 CO DAN 5W 0221 W0CH 559 MO DAVE 900 MW 0222 AC5JH 559 OK TOM 5W 0225 N4ROA 559 VA DAN 5W 0226 N9AU 559 WI RON 5W 0227 K3ESE 559 MD LLOYD 5W 0229 W0UFO 559 MN MERT 5W 0230 W6ZYY 559 MD CURT 5W 0231 K5EAD 559 LA WAYNE 5W 0232 K2ZN 559 NY AL 5W 0233 NK6A 559 CA DON 5W 0235 N0JRN 559 MO JERRY 5W 0236 NA5O 559 LA VERN 5W 0237 N1TP 559 FL TOM 5W 0238 AJ4AY 559 AL JAY 5W 0239 K6VNX 559 CA ARLEN 5W 0242 N9AW 559 WI JERRY 5W 0244 K6XR 559 CA REGGIE 5W 0245 KD5UDB 559 LA CHRIS 5W 0246 N3GOV 559 MD STEVE 5W 0247 N9KW 559 IL JOHN 5W 0248 N4DD 559 TN DENNIS 5W 0251 W4FOA 579 GA TONY 5W 0252 N5IB 559 LA JIM 5W 0254 N3BJ 559 VA ALAN 5W 0255 K9IS 559 WI STEVE 5W 0300 KB9YIG 559 IN TONY 5W 0307 AF4PP 559 GA CHUCK 5W 0310 NV4V 559 KY PETE 5W 0312 K9NX 559 IND TIM 5W 0320 WB8BHG 559 WI LEE 5W 0324 WB8BXN 559 OH MIKE 5W 0325 AG0T 559 ND TOOD 5W 0336 K7TQ 559 ID RANDY 5W 0340 NK9G 559 WI RICK 5W 0341 KD5UDB 559 LA CHRIS 5W DUPE 0344 WA9TZE 559 WI JIM 5W 0345 AB9CA 559 AL DAVE 5W 0347 W9HL 559 IL RANDY 5W 0348 K9DI 559 IL WAYNE 5W 0400 K5DI KARL FOX 0400 KV2X TOM FOX -- - Karl Larsen k5di Las Cruces,NM Az ScQRPions - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 21:45:44 -0500 From: "Fred \(VE3FAL\)" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [162292] 160 meter test Message-ID: <018301c3ba10$b71b7960$e405d3d8@flesnick> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well worked 4 folks on 160 in the test tonight: N9NE KF9D K7RE K9FO And at 0244 they are the only folks with readable workable signals, will need to wait a while before others peak up. Fred VE3FAL ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 21:01:16 -0600 From: "Stuart Rohre" To: , Subject: [162293] Re: "ET phone home" ? Message-ID: <000301c3ba12$e2453570$4e100a0a@rohredt2000> When I was teaching electronics in 9M2 land, (W. Malaysia), in 1966, we copied one of the Navy VLF stations on about 20 kHz with a receiver built from one of the lab demo kits. This was a kit similar, or perhaps by Canadian Heath Co. What I remember was the local oscillator was a flip flop of two transistors, and maybe there was a third transistor as the mixer/ detector, and we ran the detected audio out to a lab amplifier. I remember we copied the CW just fine. And this was across the Pacific and in the area of the E. edge of the Indian Ocean. Antenna was 30 feet of hook up wire run about 10 feet high inside the outer wall of the lab in a masonry building. Those 1 or 2 million watt signals really get out! Does anyone remember the exact circuit of the receiver using the flip flop oscillator? I would like to replicate that experimental set up, but any notes have escaped me after 37 years! Thanks for the memory and 72, Stuart K5KVH ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 22:11:38 -0500 From: "W. Keith Hibbert" To: qrp-l@lehigh.edu Subject: [162294] Cable Modem Interference Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20031203220133.009e7040@pop3.frontiernet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Hi. Keith here in the Depths of the Great Bergen Swamp I had the oddest experience today, I found out that my QRP 10-Meter beacon is disrupting the local Road Runner service. I got a visitor from Time-Warner about 1130 local. He had a portable RX with him and asked if I was a ham. I confirmed this, then he asked if I had any equipment on the air on or near 28.3 MHz. I told him yes, and it was the beacon I ran under the local club call, actually on 28.2873 MHz. Well, it seems that the beacon has been causing a problem with packet dropout and loss of connectivity on the Road Runner system over most of the village. Now, this was alarming as I had a picture in my mind of Time-Warner trying to get me off the air, or something. The tech went on to say that the cable modems in this system have a center frequency of 29 MHz and the beacon signal fell within the "nominal' bandwidth. Then he said, "You have everything running OK, the problem is ingress due to a loose connector or broken line." At that point he indicated that they would be checking all of the cable TV boxes and cable modems in my half of town to find the problem. I have to say, the level of training evident from this conversation was refreshing. Also, the tech's familiarity with the regs and recognizing ingress to be their problem, not mine, was a bit of a surprise. Now, why did they pick 10-Meters to run Road Runner??? 73, Keith, WB2VUO, Trustee of the NQ2RP/B 10-Meter Beacon 28.2873 MHz on Your Radio Dial - 24/7 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 03:20:45 -0600 From: "tmyers" To: "QRP-L Post" Subject: [162295] ET phone home! Message-ID: <000b01c3ba47$e75a3940$1700a8c0@newkid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I did a little looking on the net and found a couple of good sites to whet your appetites on the VLF stuff. Sound Samples The VLF station at Cutler Mane and the Jim Creek station are sister stations, but I think the antenna at Jim Creek is one of the highest in the system as it is strung between two mountain tops and it is BIG. Try some goggle searches like: "Jim Creek" Washington or "Jim Creek" radio or "Jim Creek" antenna and you will find a lot more stuff on VLF and sub activities. I found lots of information I didn't even think would be on the net about VLF. They even have frequencies posted. Have fun and learn more than you ever wanted to know about VLF sites. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 21:31:02 -0600 From: "Stuart Rohre" To: , Subject: [162296] Re: Many sources of analog panel meters / Answers on Ten Tec SWR meter sensors Message-ID: <000701c3ba17$0ad9b5c0$4e100a0a@rohredt2000> Jason, If you get back issues of QRP ARCI Quarterly to Fall 96 I believe; you can read my review article on the Ten Tec Wattmeter Kit. Briefly, there is a Stockton style, (RF core transformer), pick up for the HF SWR and power, and a strip line pick up for the VHF/UHF side. There are two amplifiers, going to the common -to -both meter. Scales are provided for directly reading SWR or Power depending on switch selection. Went together well, and worked first time. Very easy on batteries, I think only the second one is in there, and only because I left the thing on all field day weekend and then in the carrying box coming home. I did not take it out to hook into the station as I have SWR meters built into my main rigs, and so did not notice the switch on for awhile. On those analog meters, Ten Tec still uses them widely, as do others in the music trade. I think they will be around awhile, and I imagine that you can get a good price if you buy a lot of 500 from Chinese manufacturers. There are also a lot made in Taiwan if memory serves. -Stuart Rohre K5KVH ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 22:38:25 -0500 From: Chuck Ludinsky To: neqrp@jonal.net, qrp-l@lehigh.edu Subject: [162297] NEQRP CW Net, Thursday, 4 Dec 03, 08:30 PM EST, 3.566 MHz Message-ID: <3FCEAC31.1050801@comcast.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The New England QRP Club's 80M CW net, WQ1RP, will meet again on Thursday, 4 December 2003, at 8:30 PM EST (01:30Z, 5 Dec 03) on or near 3.566 MHz. All hams are welcome. Net control operator will be Chuck, K1CL, operating from Chelmsford, MA. There was no net last week. Hope everyone had a happy and safe Thanksgiving. Looking forward to hearing you all again this week. 72 DE K1CL, Chuck ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 20:51:13 -0600 From: "Jerry Ford" To: "qrp-l" , "FPigs" Subject: [162298] I'm Hungry Message-ID: <00ab01c3ba11$7b45fae0$4a78da0c@mchsi.com> OK piggies: Just a note to say thanks very much to those of you that stopped by freq tonight. It was great to hear so many of you get in there and mix it up. Ton's of fun and works real well to take my mind off some other things. Just the medicine I needed !! So now, for the rest of the story !!!! LOL Anyone still around that wants to chew the fat at bit?? 7044 be there or be square !! 72 oo Jerry N0JRN FP # 546, 4SQRP, ARS # 923, ARCI # 11049, ARRL, Springfield, Mo. MP + #8 http://home.mchsi.com/~n0jrn ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 23:17:45 -0500 From: Nick Yokanovich To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [162299] Re: ET phone home! Message-ID: <3FCEB569.2010502@cablespeed.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NSS was the callsign of the Navy's Radio Transmitter Facility at Annapolis, MD. The station was in operation from 1918 to 1996. I live nearby and was lucky to get a tour of the station in 1998, before it was completely demolished. (Most of the transmitter parts were sent to Cutler and Jim Creek. There are great pictures on Jim Hawkins' web site at http://hawkins.pair.com/nss.shtml -- the size of the components is staggering! Plug "NSS Annapolis" into your browser for several very informative sites about NSS. 73 Nick K3NY Arnold, MD ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 20:39:43 -0800 From: "JAKidz" To: Subject: [162300] RE: Part Source Message-ID: <000001c3ba20$a40337e0$2fb57e40@jmgay> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I need a Microtemp TCO (temperature cutoff) or similar in the > 110 C range, 15A 125V. FWIW, found one ("thermal" rather than "temperature") - Mouser 526-NTE8108. John, K7JG. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 00:02:06 -0500 From: tjennin2@rochester.rr.com To: qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU Subject: [162301] FOX: Peliminary Log of KV2X fox V1.0000000 Message-ID: <3FCE797E.11547.BCCFAD9@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body Hi Hounds! Here is my log as promised but a little late in the day!!! Looks like only one dup this time and is marked as such. I noticed that the Hound population is growing in CO. Please send me corrections. There was a lot of qsb so there may have been a few dits and dahs dropped. Thanks again for you all "hounding" me and I hope to pass a pelt to those who missed out next time. UTC Call RST SPC Name Power 2101 K0UU 559 MN JEFF 5 2102 N1FN 559 CO ET 5 2102 N0UR 579 MN JIM 5 2103 K0EVZ 559 NM DOC 5 2104 N0EA 559 MO WAYNE 5 2105 N0DT 559 MO DAN 4 2105 AG0T 559 ND TODD 5 2108 AJ4AY 559 AL JAY 5 2109 N0JRN 559 MO JERRY 5 2110 KI0II 599 CO RON 5 2111 N0TK 579 CO DAN 5 2113 W0CH 579 MO DAVE 5 2113 K2ZN 569 NY AL 5 2114 W5HNS 559 TX HENRY 5 2116 VA6RF 559 AB EARL 5 2117 W0UFO 559 MN MERT 5 2118 KT5V 559 TX DAVE 5 2121 W5YR 559 TX GEORGE 5 2123 KK5LD 559 TX DAN 5 2124 KL7V 539 OK SAM 5 2126 AB5XQ 559 AR BILL 5 2126 K5JHP 559 TX BILL 5 2127 AC5JH 559 OK TOM 5 2129 AK7Y 559 AZ GREG 5 2129 AA5O 559 LA VERN 5 2131 N1TP 559 FL TOM 5 2132 K6VNX 459 CA ARLEN 5 2134 K2TER 559 NY BILL 5 2135 K5EOA 559 LA WAYNE 5 2136 W5TN 559 TX DOC 5 2137 AC7A 559 AZ TOM 5 2138 K5OI 559 OK TIM 5 2139 AG4PJ 559 AL DAVE 5 2140 N5IB 559 LA JIM 5 2140 N5ZE 559 TX LEW 5 2142 N5YFC 559 LA WAYNE 5 2146 K9DI 559 IL WAYNE 5 2148 KD5UDB 559 LA CHRIS 5 2154 AK5X 569 TX BILL 5 2155 W4FOA 559 GA TONY 5 2158 K6XR 559 CA REGGIE 5 2200 K5ZTY 559 TX BILL 5 2202 KG0PP 559 CO JIM 5 2204 NK0E 559 CO DAVE 5 2205 VE5RC 229 SK BRUCE 5 2208 NN5E 559 TX VERN 5 2213 KD5CMN 559 TX MIKE 5 2215 K5DW 559 TX DON 5 2215 W9XT 559 WI GARY 5 2218 N9AU 559 WI RON 5 2222 N0HRL 559 IA KEN 5 2225 N9AW 559 WI JERRY 5 2226 WA9TZE 579 WI JIM 5 2227 NK9G 559 WI RICK 5 2230 W0PWE 559 IA JERRY 5 2230 W9HL 559 IL RANDY 5 2232 W0ANM 559 MN CHRIS 5 2233 KD5UDB 559 LA CHRIS 5 <--- DUP 2234 AB9CA 559 AL DAVE 5 2237 AB0CD 559 CO DICK 5 2240 W0MPR 559 CO GREGG 5 2241 AA5TA 559 TX LARRY 5 2242 K5TR 559 TX GEORGE 5 2243 WA8ZBT 559 TX DENNIS 5 2244 W5TB 559 TX DOC 5 2249 KR0U 559 CO TIM 5 2251 KI0RB 599 CO VINCE 5 2254 KB5FCF 559 OK JOEL 4 2255 K0LOA 559 TX DWAIN 5 0400 K5DI NM KARL FOX 0400 KV2X NY TOM FOX ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:32:06 +0000 From: "Bruce Prior" To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input) Subject: [162302] Elecraft KX1 Shortwave Listening Adventure Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed The KX1, especially with the KXB30 installed, makes an excellent shortwave receiver with the bandpass filter at its widest setting. Double sideband AM transmissions can be detected by zero-beating in LSB or USB modes. If tuned to the 40 m band, reception is possible from 5.0 to 9.505 MHz; the 30 m band yields a range from 8.0 to 12.505 MHz; the 20 m band allows shortwave tuning from 12.0 to 16.505 MHz. (The USB mode employs the better filter shape for the highest band.) Since most shortwave broadcast stations transmit on frequencies evenly divisible by 5 kHz, the very coarse 5 kHz/step tuning speed makes tuning convenient. To calibrate the steps properly in LSB or USB modes, begin in the finest tuning speed and tune until 0.00 or 5.00 is displayed, then push and hold the encoder knob until the decimal marker disappears. The entire 4.505 MHz range can be covered in 11 rotations of the tuning encoder. In addition to shortwave broadcasting, there's lots more to listen to outside of the amateur bands with the KX1. For example, USB commercial aviation covering the Atlantic and/or Arctic Oceans can be heard on 5565, 5598, 5616, 5649, 6535, 8825, 8861, 8864, 8879, 8891, 11 279, 11 291, 13 291, 13 315, and 13 357 kHz. Caribbean USB aviation is on 5520, 5555, 6577, 6586, 8846, 8918, 11 387, and 11 396 kHz. Pacific Ocean USB aviation communications are on 5547, 5574, 5628, 5643, 6532, 6562, 8843, 8867, 10 048, 11 282, 11 330, 11 384, 13 300, 13 336, and 13 354 kHz. The aviation channels are open frequencies which are not constantly active: just park on one while you're doing something else and wait for activity. Time/frequency standard stations are on 5.0, 10.0 and 15.0 MHz AM, so either LSB or USB will do. CHU Ottawa is on 7335 and 14 670 kHz USB. 72, J. Bruce Prior N7RR Kairos Research 853 Alder Street Blaine, WA 98230-8030 360-332-6046 Patronize tobacco-free enterprises and institutions. _________________________________________________________________ Tired of slow downloads and busy signals? Get a high-speed Internet connection! Comparison-shop your local high-speed providers here. https://broadband.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 23:47:06 -0700 From: "Floyd Smithberg" To: Cc: "QRP-L Message" Subject: [162303] Re: [azqrp] AZ ScQRPion List Message-ID: <002001c3ba32$6f6a3b70$8a1056d1@FloydNQ7X> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Sorry I've been a bit slow answering your email. I run from before daylight > to late evening. You seem to be on the azqrp list just fine as we see your > posts. Don't know why you don't seem to be receiving the mail from the > list... I'll post a test message to see if you get it FSXXXX> Well I got yhis msg ok if it was sent to the list not my regular address. I can post to the list but haven't been receiving any from it > > I just plain forgot about your machine having trouble. I really do > apologize. Memory is getting worse and worse. Were you able to make any > headway on getting it fixed? Please let me know. > FSXXXX> Well, I have Flight Simulator working finally and seem to have gotten rid of the VeriSign problem......still get all the extra icons from my desktop when shutting down but that isn't a big bother..... > Hope to see you at the hamfest on Saturday. We had planned to meet at 10am > at the entrance to the swap area, then move over to Mike's table so he and > Gale can attend a quick meeting without having to leave the table. Paddle > status is on the list and maybe see if anyone has any ideas about how to > rejuvinate the FYBO. FSXXXX> I won't be at the ham fest but Mike will fill me in on the meeting we LL frequently. > Yep, you heard right. We could use some volunteers for the paddles. Mainly > in the kitting and hole tapping areas right now. Gale, Jerry, and I > finished up the first 100 tonight at Jerry's place in Peoria. He'll mail > this batch Thursday. We'll cut metal stock on Saturday after the hamfest to > start the next run of 200. Yep, 200 more. This next 200 is nearly 2/3 sold > out. We haven't even hit the other lists like Elecraft, HFPACK, FT817, and > FISTS. First run went in about four hours. > FSXXXX> I've noticed all the posts on QRPL....sounds great. Mike knows my setup here and can let me know how I can help.........tapping ok. 73 Floyd NQ7X Phoenix,AZ DM33VQ > 73 john k5js > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 05:57:05 -0500 (EST) From: Thom LaCosta To: "W. Keith Hibbert" Cc: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [162304] Re: Cable Modem Interference Message-ID: <20031204055502.J30481-100000@unix1.vhost.min.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, W. Keith Hibbert wrote: > > Now, why did they pick 10-Meters to run Road Runner??? Calculated guess that: A. There would be little activity B. Activity would not be constant(you fooled them) C. Active users would be operating equipment that wasn't "dirty". Thom baltimoremd@baltimoremd.com Thom LaCosta K3HRN Webmaster http://www.baltimoremd.com/ Baltimore's Home Page http://www.baltimorehon.com/ Home of the Baltimore Lexicon http://www.zerobeat.net Home of The QRP Web Ring and DrakeList http://www.tlchost.net Web Hosting as low as $3.49/month ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 05:31:28 -0600 From: "Meier, Peter H." To: "'qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU'" Subject: [162305] Looking for a KD1JV "0-10 Watt RMS RF Power Meter Kit" Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Looking to purchase or trade for built or unbuilt KD1JV "0-10 Watt RMS RF Power Meter Kit". It has not been available for some time now. Just thought someone out there may be willing to part with one. Please respond off the list to pmeier@mac.com Pete WK8S ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 11:48:33 +0000 From: wd8civ@att.net To: qrp-l@lehigh.edu (Qrp-l Qrp-l) Subject: [162306] Re: Cable Modem Interference Message-ID: <120420031148.25159.1ecd@att.net> > I have to say, the level of training evident from this conversation was > refreshing. Also, the tech's familiarity with the regs and recognizing > ingress to be their problem, not mine, was a bit of a surprise. > > Now, why did they pick 10-Meters to run Road Runner??? Keith, Because 11 meters is worse? (Grin) My guess is because it fits in the bandwidth of their system but is outside of the frequencies that are used for television signals. This is only a guess, though. Dave ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:48:14 -0500 From: "John Huffman" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [162307] December Spartan Sprint Results Message-ID: <003801c3ba5c$85e1c830$8e9159cf@jhuffmanlt> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Results of the December 2003 Spartan Sprint It was a good night for 40 meters! Conditions varied across the country, but most places enjoyed good conditions on 40. However, 20 meters only lasted the first hour, if at all. Ten and fifteen were non-existent. Eighty meters is coming on strong as winter approaches. The total number of logs was 87. That's one of the highest totals we've had in a while. Here's the band statistics: Band This Month Last Month 80M - 383 162 QSOs 40M - 1402 1189 QSOs 20M - 198 349 QSOs 15M - 0 2 QSOs 10M - 0 0 QSOs Total - 1983 1702 QSOs Skinny Winners - Doc K0EVZ may have changed QTH's, but continues his winning ways. His 72 contacts and a weight just over half a pound were a successful combination. Bob N4BP managed to take second in both Skinny and Tubby categories. High QSO number, 95, and modest weight, 1.13 pounds, were winners. Check out the www.ARSqrp.com web page on the link to "Weight Rules" and there's a photo of Bob's rig on the scales at the bottom of the page. Phil K4PQC was third with 25 forty meter QSOs and only a third of a pound for weight. Tubby Division Winners - Jim WA9TZE won the overall this month by spreading out over three bands. His high total was 95 QSOs. Bob N4BP was second in this category also with 95 QSOs, just behind Jim. Todd N9NE took third with a strong effort mostly on 40 and 80. Special Recognition, Outside Operation - NE5DL K2 with internal battery. 88ft doublet at 28ft on Poles. 40ft of 300 ohm feedline into Elecraft Balun. Operated outside on the back patio here in Mansfield TX, temp about 55 degs. FB contest and had 1st qso ever with my Elmer K2OH in NY. AE7RW Myself and Worth, W7WG, parked my VW van in a large damp field near Olympia and set up in the dark. We used an Inv V doublet @ 23 ft in center @ 10 ft on each end with twin lead thru a window in the van. Power out was 2 watts from Yaesu 817 & Z-11 and a 3 a/h gel cel. Used a straight key most of the time. TU to Al, K7PUC, for the use of his field. WA8REI (well, portable) Op'd from dinette of motor home in driveway. WX: 22 F, clear, strong WNW wind gusting to 30 mph! N8HSP (also portable, for a while) Well I started out in the car using a mag mount, tried both 20 es 40 mtr. Waste of time, cudn't hear a thing. Ran upstairs to the attic and tried to string up some speaker cable that I normally use with my DK9SQ mast. (dang near as cold up there as it is outside ;-) ) And remember, If it's portable and outdoors, it's Adventure Radio! Well I got 50% of the above. ;-) Late Logs - In November KG4GVL had three contacts and three pounds; K4BAI had 30 contacts and 30 pounds; W7WG had nine contacts with a borrowed Orion at 2 watts; and N0EA had 23 QSOs. RESULTS - Each contact received one point. If you didn't tell us the weight of your station, or if your station weighed more than my car, we assigned a weight of 30 pounds. The soapbox is published separately in the December issue of The ARS Sojourner which comes out soon. Don't miss it! www.ARSqrp.com We hope everyone had a good time. See you in January! THE SKINNY DIVISION (results sorted in the order of points per pound) Call 80M 40M 20M 15M 10M Points Weight Points Per Pound K0EVZ 0 67 5 0 0 72 0.56 128.57 N4BP 0 94 1 0 0 95 1.13 84.07 K4PQC 0 25 0 0 0 25 0.33 75.76 K3ESE 0 34 2 0 0 36 0.88 40.91 AC3A 0 10 0 0 0 10 0.32 31.25 N3AO 0 22 3 0 0 25 0.9 27.78 KB9ZUR 0 33 0 0 0 33 1.2 27.5 W6ZH 0 26 19 0 0 45 2.45 18.37 KF0N 0 43 0 0 0 43 3 14.33 N0TK 0 25 0 0 0 25 2 12.5 K5LN 0 47 9 0 0 56 5 11.2 K4GT 0 18 0 0 0 18 2 9 N4HAY 12 24 6 0 0 42 5 8.4 WB8RTJ 0 21 2 0 0 23 2.8 8.21 AE6N 0 16 2 0 0 18 2.31 7.79 W1PID 0 9 0 0 0 9 1.2 7.5 KI0II 7 14 2 0 0 23 3.5 6.57 WA1ZCB 0 13 0 0 0 13 2.06 6.31 N7RVD 3 18 10 0 0 31 5 6.2 KA9UDA 6 5 5 0 0 16 2.6 6.15 NN4CW 0 5 0 0 0 5 1 5 N6IZ 3 26 6 0 0 35 7 5 WA8REI 9 17 1 0 0 27 5.5 4.91 K6III 0 40 27 0 0 67 14.12 4.75 KB7Q 0 13 0 0 0 13 3 4.33 NE5DL 1 22 5 0 0 28 6.5 4.31 W2BVH 30 0 0 0 0 30 7 4.29 KG4LDY 0 8 0 0 0 8 1.9 4.21 KK3B 0 12 1 0 0 13 3.1 4.19 K9YT 0 0 4 0 0 4 0.979 4.09 AF4LQ 38 0 0 0 0 38 10 3.8 W6AZ 8 11 6 0 0 25 6.58 3.8 KB9LCK 3 5 0 0 0 8 2.4 3.33 WA9TZE 23 53 21 0 0 97 30 3.23 KA3WMJ 9 13 0 0 0 22 7 3.14 KG7GA 0 0 6 0 0 6 2.04 2.94 WB8ICN 0 10 3 0 0 13 4.5 2.89 N9NE 24 51 6 0 0 81 30 2.7 K5MVR* 0 8 3 0 0 11 4.1 2.68 AF4PP 4 6 0 0 0 10 4 2.5 W3ANX 14 7 4 0 0 25 10 2.5 K3TW 17 56 1 0 0 74 30 2.47 KE0G 27 0 0 0 0 27 11 2.45 N0AR 4 8 0 0 0 12 5 2.4 W0UFO 0 35 0 0 0 35 15 2.33 K7RE 4 61 0 0 0 65 30 2.17 K6LG 6 17 8 0 0 31 15 2.07 W0PWE 10 51 0 0 0 61 30 2.03 VE3WMB 0 5 0 0 0 5 2.5 2 N0IBT 0 9 0 0 0 9 4.5 2 AE7RW 0 11 1 0 0 12 6.6 1.82 WA4CIT 0 14 2 0 0 16 8.82 1.81 VE3XT 0 17 1 0 0 18 10 1.8 AL7FS 0 0 13 0 0 13 8 1.62 KD5UDB 0 12 0 0 0 12 7.6 1.58 NA8M 15 4 0 0 0 19 13 1.46 N4DMI 0 5 1 0 0 6 4.2 1.43 K7TQ 0 42 0 0 0 42 30 1.4 NK6A 0 7 3 0 0 10 7.6 1.32 N0YGY 4 5 0 0 0 9 7 1.29 N5IB 0 27 1 0 0 28 30 0.93 KB2FEL 15 11 0 0 0 26 30 0.87 K5JHP 0 25 0 0 0 25 30 0.83 WN1B 18 1 2 0 0 21 30 0.7 K8KFJ 17 4 0 0 0 21 30 0.7 AA0VE 0 8 0 0 0 8 12.3 0.65 NK0E 0 12 0 0 0 12 20 0.6 KD3FG 13 4 0 0 0 17 30 0.57 KA8LLE 13 3 0 0 0 16 28 0.57 AC7XR 0 9 0 0 0 9 16 0.56 W4NJK 5 6 3 0 0 14 30 0.47 W8YMO 7 7 0 0 0 14 30 0.47 N8XD 4 0 0 0 0 4 9.5 0.42 KG6WP 0 5 0 0 0 5 12 0.42 WB6BWZ 0 12 0 0 0 12 30 0.4 KL7RHJ 0 2 3 0 0 5 16 0.31 W8VE 0 9 0 0 0 9 30 0.3 K4JPN 0 8 0 0 0 8 30 0.27 AD6FR 3 3 0 0 0 6 25 0.24 AJ1J 0 2 0 0 0 2 9.6 0.21 K3AS 0 6 0 0 0 6 30 0.2 AA8IV 2 0 0 0 0 2 12 0.17 KO4PY 0 5 0 0 0 5 30 0.17 WA1VGB 3 1 0 0 0 4 30 0.13 N3FZX 1 1 0 0 0 2 30 0.07 N8HSP 0 1 0 0 0 1 16 0.06 N1AOK 1 0 0 0 0 1 30 0.03 THE TUBBY DIVISION (results sorted in the order of points) Call 80M 40M 20M 15M 10M Points WA9TZE 23 53 21 0 0 97 N4BP 0 94 1 0 0 95 N9NE 24 51 6 0 0 81 K3TW 17 56 1 0 0 74 K0EVZ 0 67 5 0 0 72 K6III 0 40 27 0 0 67 K7RE 4 61 0 0 0 65 W0PWE 10 51 0 0 0 61 K5LN 0 47 9 0 0 56 W6ZH 0 26 19 0 0 45 KF0N 0 43 0 0 0 43 K7TQ 0 42 0 0 0 42 N4HAY 12 24 6 0 0 42 AF4LQ 38 0 0 0 0 38 K3ESE 0 34 2 0 0 36 N6IZ 3 26 6 0 0 35 W0UFO 0 35 0 0 0 35 KB9ZUR 0 33 0 0 0 33 N7RVD 3 18 10 0 0 31 K6LG 6 17 8 0 0 31 W2BVH 30 0 0 0 0 30 NE5DL 1 22 5 0 0 28 N5IB 0 27 1 0 0 28 WA8REI 9 17 1 0 0 27 KE0G 27 0 0 0 0 27 KB2FEL 15 11 0 0 0 26 K5JHP 0 25 0 0 0 25 N3AO 0 22 3 0 0 25 N0TK 0 25 0 0 0 25 W3ANX 14 7 4 0 0 25 K4PQC 0 25 0 0 0 25 W6AZ 8 11 6 0 0 25 WB8RTJ 0 21 2 0 0 23 KI0II 7 14 2 0 0 23 KA3WMJ 9 13 0 0 0 22 WN1B 18 1 2 0 0 21 K8KFJ 17 4 0 0 0 21 NA8M 15 4 0 0 0 19 K4GT 0 18 0 0 0 18 AE6N 0 16 2 0 0 18 VE3XT 0 17 1 0 0 18 KD3FG 13 4 0 0 0 17 WA4CIT 0 14 2 0 0 16 KA9UDA 6 5 5 0 0 16 KA8LLE 13 3 0 0 0 16 W4NJK 5 6 3 0 0 14 W8YMO 7 7 0 0 0 14 WB8ICN 0 10 3 0 0 13 KB7Q 0 13 0 0 0 13 KK3B 0 12 1 0 0 13 AL7FS 0 0 13 0 0 13 WA1ZCB 0 13 0 0 0 13 KD5UDB 0 12 0 0 0 12 WB6BWZ 0 12 0 0 0 12 AE7RW 0 11 1 0 0 12 NK0E 0 12 0 0 0 12 N0AR 4 8 0 0 0 12 K5MVR* 0 8 3 0 0 11 AC3A 0 10 0 0 0 10 AF4PP 4 6 0 0 0 10 NK6A 0 7 3 0 0 10 W1PID 0 9 0 0 0 9 N0IBT 0 9 0 0 0 9 N0YGY 4 5 0 0 0 9 AC7XR 0 9 0 0 0 9 W8VE 0 9 0 0 0 9 AA0VE 0 8 0 0 0 8 KB9LCK 3 5 0 0 0 8 K4JPN 0 8 0 0 0 8 KG4LDY 0 8 0 0 0 8 KG7GA 0 0 6 0 0 6 K3AS 0 6 0 0 0 6 AD6FR 3 3 0 0 0 6 N4DMI 0 5 1 0 0 6 VE3WMB 0 5 0 0 0 5 KL7RHJ 0 2 3 0 0 5 NN4CW 0 5 0 0 0 5 KO4PY 0 5 0 0 0 5 KG6WP 0 5 0 0 0 5 N8XD 4 0 0 0 0 4 WA1VGB 3 1 0 0 0 4 K9YT 0 0 4 0 0 4 N3FZX 1 1 0 0 0 2 AA8IV 2 0 0 0 0 2 AJ1J 0 2 0 0 0 2 N1AOK 1 0 0 0 0 1 N8HSP 0 1 0 0 0 1 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:39:00 -0500 From: Kenneth Cooperstein To: qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU Subject: [162308] Why have mono phone plugs and cables? Message-ID: <3FCF2AE4.8090600@att.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT I am about to order 3.5mm patch cords. I am trying to decide whether I need mono plugs (for mono jacks) or can I use stereo patch cords for everything? Is there any reason that a stereo phone jack and cable won't work in a mono jack? Are mono jack ground contact positions non-standard? It wouldn't be OK if one mono jack ground was tapping ring3 and the other end was tapping ring2. Ken KC2JDY ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 07:13:29 -0600 From: "Donald Dorn" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio" Subject: [162309] FS: KK7B MINI R2 RECEIVERS Message-ID: <000501c3ba68$6a561f60$1c182641@computer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am selling two of these little receivers. Have use both on several bands and they work very well. Both have 1K filters installed rather than the wider filters which come with the kits. Receiver boards and documentation only, no vfo or phase shift circuit. 25 bucks each, postpaid US. 73, Don K5AAR ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 08:13:53 -0500 (EST) From: "n2cx" To: qrp-l@lehigh.edu Cc: rohre@arlut.utexas.edu Subject: [162310] Re: "ET phone home" ? Message-ID: <200312041313.hB4DDrdB017494@email2.voicenet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Stuart, The receiver you mention was from an article in QST back in the 60's so that jibes with your remembered time frame. Alas I tried a QST title search on the ARRL Member's Only site and came up empty. It did indeed use a two-transistor astable multiivrator as the LO and another transistor as the mixer. Here on the east coast I could hear all kinds of stuff - not surprising since the US gummint stations ran enough power to be heard by submerged subs on the other side of the globe. There are a lot fewer VLF stations these days.... I noted an interesting phenomenon in mine. I had only a wirewound pot to use for frequency control so when I adjusted it the tuning freq jumped in steps as the wiper went from turr to turn. It sounded like todays synthesized rigs when you tune them. Perhaps you can find a full yearly QSR index for the 60's and do a manual search. 72/73, Joe E., N2CX ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 08:19:46 -0500 (EST) From: "n2cx" To: qrp-l@lehigh.edu Cc: rohre@arlut.utexas.edu Subject: [162311] Re: "ET phone home" ? Message-ID: <200312041319.hB4DJktS021238@email2.voicenet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Stuart, I found the reference! Oct 1962, QST, p. 36 NAA Receiver, An, Pearson, E.E., W3QY ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:08:36 -0700 From: Jerry Haigwood To: QRP-L Reflector Subject: [162312] AZ ScQRPions Paddle S/N List Message-ID: <3FCF3FE4.6C9A5815@swlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks, The latest S/N list has been posted to the web. To check for your name, go to: and then click on "serial numbers list." On Saturday we will start cutting brass for batch 2 and hope to be shipping it around December 20. Jerry W5JH ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:09:35 -0000 From: "Ray Goff" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [162313] RE: [Elmer160] C compilers Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > At any rate, I highly recommend learning and getting reasonably good with > assembly before jumping to C or BASIC compilers. You really need to > understand the little critters' internal workings and instruction set if > you're going to do non-trivial things with them, and do them reasonably > well. > I could not disagree more about the use of C compilers. As somebody who has professionally built embedded systems for the past 20 years, I can assure you that there is absolutely no need to know any of the assembly language instructions for the PIC or any other microprocessor in order to make best use of it. You do, however, have to understand the architecture of the beast and the routines provided by the C compiler supplier to attack the various goodies the chip contains, but that is about it. I personally use the CCS compiler for both professional and ham radio related PIC projects and I have yet to find a reason to code anything in assembly language. If the C code seems slow, choose a faster processor or look at optimising your code to make it more efficient. That also goes for the size of the code, if you cannot get it into the chip, look at a chip with more memory or again look at your code design and optimise it. With the CCS compiler you get a combined listing of the C source and the assembler output. If you are having problems with either speed or size, try doing the operation a number of different ways in C and look at the combined listing to see how much code is created for each statement. Don't worry about the code itself, you are only interested in the number of bytes created by the compiler. Often by slightly re-arranging the code you can significantly increase or decrease the number of bytes of assembly code created. C code is many times more readable than assembly language and therefore much easier to both write and debug. Good tight coding is entirely possible with C, design in it and let the compiler take care of generating the assembly language code! Should you ever decide to port the code to another family of microprocessors, you simply need to find a compiler for the chip rather than having to completely recode the software in a different assembly language. Just my tuppence worth. Ray, G4FON Incidentally, if you are looking for shareware PIC tools, look at ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:17:47 +0000 From: wd8civ@att.net To: cprstn54@att.net Cc: qrp-l@lehigh.edu (Qrp-l Qrp-l) Subject: [162314] Re: Why have mono phone plugs and cables? Message-ID: <120420031417.28206.6f1a@att.net> Ken, The ring conductor on a stereo plug will usually contact the ground conductor of a mono jack. Depending on your application, that might not be a problem. I have discovered that it can allow you to use a stereo headphone with a mono output device - by leaving the headphone ground open, it essentially places the two speakers in series. If you're only connecting mono devices to other mono devices with your patch cords it might work, but the ring will be used as the ground. If they're supposed to be shielded cords, the shields won't connect to anything. Dave > I am about to order 3.5mm patch cords. I am trying to decide whether I > need mono plugs (for mono jacks) or can I use stereo patch cords for > everything? > > Is there any reason that a stereo phone jack and cable won't work in a > mono jack? Are mono jack ground contact positions non-standard? It > wouldn't be OK if one mono jack ground was tapping ring3 and the other > end was tapping ring2. > > Ken KC2JDY > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 08:20:32 -0600 From: "Joe Martin" To: "QRP" Subject: [162315] The TOP 100 list is posted Message-ID: <002401c3ba71$c7cf0590$de4cd6d0@JoesHome1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ok it has been posted, go see if you made the cut. http://www.swlink.net/~w5jh/serial_numbers.htm Folks thanks for making such a popular toy for us old hams. 73 de KM5CW, Joe ARCI #11368 FP#-697 FISTS#4217 GRID EM13kf FtWorth,Tx 32:49:31N 97:06:13W (http://web.wt.net/~km5cw) ---------| Virus Scanned by Symantec |--------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 09:29:57 -0500 From: "carl seyersdahl" To: , "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [162316] Re: Cable Modem Interference Message-ID: <008101c3ba73$21083fe0$7a3cca44@tampabay.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It's a good thing you don't have a KW on that freq.!!!!!! ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 6:48 AM Subject: Re: Cable Modem Interference > > > I have to say, the level of training evident from this conversation was > > refreshing. Also, the tech's familiarity with the regs and recognizing > > ingress to be their problem, not mine, was a bit of a surprise. > > > > Now, why did they pick 10-Meters to run Road Runner??? > > Keith, > > Because 11 meters is worse? (Grin) > > My guess is because it fits in the bandwidth of their system but is > outside of the frequencies that are used for television signals. This is only > a guess, though. > > Dave ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:32:57 -0600 From: "Pat Armstrong" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [162317] MP-1 band lock nylon screw...> Message-ID: <001d01c3ba62$c1408be0$2f7ee143@vectravl400mt> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello to all, I just acquired an Super Antenna MP-1 portable vertical and found that the nylon band lock screw that secures the sliding collar to the coil is stripped... I am attempting to contact the vendor, but was wondering if someone here has an extra piece or perhaps a better solution to use... Also, has anyone tried the mobile kit accessory to improve efficiency and if so how did it work out... Sure appreciate the help and many thanks... Pat, AA7FG - Oregon ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 08:31:41 -0600 From: "Michael Melland, W9WIS" To: rohre@arlut.utexas.edu, Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [162318] Re: "ET phone home" ? Message-ID: <000601c3ba73$5762e450$4986e98d@winad.it.uwosh.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Although I'm sure they utilize other modes/codes the coded messages to subs under water take a long time to be transmitted and received at 76 Hz. IIRC I was told up to 3 minutes per character. But I suspect advancements in the system may have cut that time down substantially. Mike, W9WIS ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 08:35:44 -0600 From: "Donald Dorn" To: , "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [162319] Re: KK7B MINI R2 RECEIVERS Message-ID: <002701c3ba73$e7c41aa0$3a182641@computer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry folks. Both receivers are spoken for. 73, Don K5AAR ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:05:27 -0600 From: Chuck Carpenter To: aa7fg@gte.net, "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [162320] Re: MP-1 band lock nylon screw...> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.20031204090527.00841870@mail.9plus.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Pat, I ordered some 1/4-20 thumb screws from Mouser for that purpose. They are nylon so still subject to stripping if torqued too much. Mouser P/N -- 561-T2520050 Eagle Plastics If some could be found made with delrin or other more durable plastics they would be better. I'm looking into sources. I have the longer mobile base and whip section and it works a whole lot better at least for 20 meters and up. Probably helps for 40 too but I haven't tried it. At 06:32 AM 12/04/2003 -0600, Pat Armstrong wrote: >Hello to all, > >I just acquired an Super Antenna MP-1 portable vertical and found that the >nylon band lock screw that secures the sliding collar to the coil is >stripped... I am attempting to contact the vendor, but was wondering if >someone here has an extra piece or perhaps a better solution to use... Also, >has anyone tried the mobile kit accessory to improve efficiency and if so >how did it work out... Sure appreciate the help and many thanks... > >Pat, AA7FG - Oregon > > Chuck Carpenter, W5USJ, Point, Rains Co., TX - EM22cv, NETXQRP #1 QRP-ARCI #5422, QRP-L #1306, QRPp-I #115, ARS #1280, SOC #57 Zombie #759, COG #11, 6 Club #201, FP #601 oo http://www.netxqrp.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 10:28:41 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: "Mike WA8BXN" To: , Subject: [162321] Re: MP-1 band lock nylon screw...> Message-ID: <3FCF52A9.000047.03692@compaq1500> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0D A good hardware store should have nylon screws, you could use aluminum o= r stainless steel or plain steel as well, steel will of course rust. The mobile accessory kit is quite worth it, you really don't want to drive wi= th the collapsible whip. I did use the stock model a few days ago while park= ed to talk to a fellow in KY from here near Cleveland on 40 M using a KX1, i= t worked fine. =0D =0D 73/72 - Mike WA8BXN ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:27:11 -0500 From: Lee Mairs To: w5jh@swlink.net, Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [162322] Re: AZ ScQRPions Paddle S/N List Message-ID: <058c01c3ba7b$1be1c330$3b6d020a@J4> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Geez! My number still isn't posted, and I've been practicing polishing and sanding brass all week... Jerry, you guys are doing a great job with this kit. It's popularity is an indicator of the debt that the rest of us owe you for making this opportunity available to. You sure have my thanks! 73 de Lee KM4YY/8 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Haigwood" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 9:08 AM Subject: AZ ScQRPions Paddle S/N List > Folks, > The latest S/N list has been posted to the web. To check for your > name, go to: > and then click on "serial > numbers list." On Saturday we will start cutting brass for batch 2 and > hope to be shipping it around December 20. > > Jerry W5JH > > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:34:01 -0500 From: Lee Mairs To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [162323] Re: [Elmer160] C compilers Message-ID: <059201c3ba7c$0fa0bfd0$3b6d020a@J4> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Boy, do I disagree with Ray on this one. I developed and managed a group of microprocessor software developers since the early days of the 8080. The folks that had an early grounding in assembly language always seemed to write tighter high level code with fewer bugs. Plus, they knew the benefit of proper and complete in-line comments/documentation. It is sort of like the benefits of an engineering education (aka life in a calculus monastery). You might not learn much that is directly transferable over the rest of your life, but it sure taught you how to think and approach problems. 73 de Lee KM4YY/8 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Goff" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 9:09 AM Subject: RE: [Elmer160] C compilers > > > > At any rate, I highly recommend learning and getting reasonably good with > > assembly before jumping to C or BASIC compilers. You really need to > > understand the little critters' internal workings and instruction set if > > you're going to do non-trivial things with them, and do them reasonably > > well. > > > > I could not disagree more about the use of C compilers. > > As somebody who has professionally built embedded systems for the past 20 years, > I can assure you that there is absolutely no need to know any of the assembly > language instructions for the PIC or any other microprocessor in order to make > best use of it. You do, however, have to understand the architecture of the > beast and the routines provided by the C compiler supplier to attack the various > goodies the chip contains, but that is about it. > > I personally use the CCS compiler for both professional and ham radio related > PIC projects and I have yet to find a reason to code anything in assembly > language. If the C code seems slow, choose a faster processor or look at > optimising your code to make it more efficient. That also goes for the size of > the code, if you cannot get it into the chip, look at a chip with more memory or > again look at your code design and optimise it. > > With the CCS compiler you get a combined listing of the C source and the > assembler output. If you are having problems with either speed or size, try > doing the operation a number of different ways in C and look at the combined > listing to see how much code is created for each statement. Don't worry about > the code itself, you are only interested in the number of bytes created by the > compiler. Often by slightly re-arranging the code you can significantly increase > or decrease the number of bytes of assembly code created. > > C code is many times more readable than assembly language and therefore much > easier to both write and debug. Good tight coding is entirely possible with C, > design in it and let the compiler take care of generating the assembly language > code! Should you ever decide to port the code to another family of > microprocessors, you simply need to find a compiler for the chip rather than > having to completely recode the software in a different assembly language. > > Just my tuppence worth. > > Ray, G4FON > > Incidentally, if you are looking for shareware PIC tools, look at > > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 09:37:58 -0600 From: "Jerry Ford" To: "Elecraft@mailman.qth.net" , "qrp-l" , "FPigs" Subject: [162324] Re: [fpqrp] RUN FOR THE BACON Message-ID: <002a01c3ba7c$98e8a3c0$4a78da0c@mchsi.com> Hi folks: Jim bring up a good point here. For those of you just joining the club this year, the WAP stands for " Worked All Pigs for 2003 " This is a contest in which we the membership compete to see who can work the most Flying Pig members in 2003. It would be great if a great number of members were on the air for this event. WHY ?? Because that makes it much more fun for all involved and because it will give those who are interested in scoring well in this compitition the opportunity to do so. ( realistically, the last opportunity as Jim says. ) So, please consider making time and being on the air for this sprint. That said, we've been getting some awsome support from those of you who just like to work sprints and are not Flying Pig club members. I certainly don't want to discourage you from participating in this event. Your support adds much more to the enjoyment of putting this together and working it. The Flying Pig QRP Club International is happy to sponcor this event and we hope each and every one of you will jump in and have some fun with us. Again the date is DEC 15th starting at 0100z and running until 0300z http://www.fpqrp.com/fpqrprun.html See you there: 72 Jerry N0JRN ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Sheldon" > There better be a bunch of Piggies there. This will be the last good chance > for some of us to pick up enough piggie numbers to really give LL and Jerry > a run for their money in the WAP contest! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:10:37 EST From: Davewb4@aol.com To: qrp-l@lehigh.edu Subject: [162325] RE: L-1682B1J Availability Last Bite Message-ID: <1a7.1d3270c0.2d00b67d@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit All orders for the LCD have been filled. There were some stations who missed out on ordering, so I will place one last order for those who are still interested. To refresh, these LCD'S are the exact part called for on Trev's DDS. The cost is $ 14.76 including shipping to your QTH via USPS Priority mail. Personal checks are OK and please include a shipping label. Please respond off the list, I will wait a few days before I place the order and will confirm each order. 73 Dave Rogers 1760 SW 72 Ave. Plantation, FL 33317 WB4CHK ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:24:09 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: "Mike WA8BXN" To: , Subject: [162326] Re: MP-1 band lock nylon screw...> Message-ID: <3FCF5FA9.000049.03692@compaq1500> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Isn't that the point, to get a good contact between the outer metal shel= l and the coil at the point of resonance? The used part of the coil is belo= w the shell/screw contact point, the top whip connects to the shell. Am I missing something here? =0D =0D 73/72 - Mike WA8BXN =0D =0D ------------=0D =0D Don't use a metal screw! The lock-screw contacts the coil windings, a=0D metal screw will create a dead-short to ground possibly damaging the=0D finals in your rig.=0D =0D 73, Rod N0RC ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 09:48:26 -0700 From: "Rod N0RC" To: "Mike WA8BXN" , Subject: [162327] Re: MP-1 band lock nylon screw...> Message-ID: <01c701c3ba86$72746300$6501a8c0@greyrock> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mike, No! The locking screw secures the coil from moving, contact fingers in the outer coil housing provide the contacts to couple the radiator element. 73, Rod N0RC **Happy Holidays** ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike WA8BXN" To: ; Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 9:24 AM Subject: Re: MP-1 band lock nylon screw...> Isn't that the point, to get a good contact between the outer metal shell and the coil at the point of resonance? The used part of the coil is below the shell/screw contact point, the top whip connects to the shell. Am I missing something here? 73/72 - Mike WA8BXN ------------ Don't use a metal screw! The lock-screw contacts the coil windings, a metal screw will create a dead-short to ground possibly damaging the finals in your rig. 73, Rod N0RC ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 09:49:36 -0700 From: "Rod N0RC" To: "qrp-l" Subject: [162328] Fw: MP-1 band lock nylon screw...> Message-ID: <01d101c3ba86$9b60c420$6501a8c0@greyrock> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mike, et.al., Don't use a metal screw! The lock-screw contacts the coil windings, a metal screw will create a dead-short to ground possibly damaging the finals in your rig. 73, Rod N0RC **Happy Holidays** ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike WA8BXN" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 8:28 AM Subject: Re: MP-1 band lock nylon screw...> > > A good hardware store should have nylon screws, you could use > aluminum or > stainless steel or plain steel as well, steel will of course rust. The > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 08:59:46 -0800 (PST) From: Garie Halstead K8KFJ To: Nick Yokanovich Cc: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [162329] Re: ET phone home! Message-ID: <20031204165946.8571.qmail@web60302.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- Nick Yokanovich wrote: > NSS was the callsign of the Navy's Radio Transmitter Facility at > Annapolis, MD. The station was in operation from 1918 to 1996. I live > > nearby and was lucky to get a tour of the station in 1998, before it > was > completely demolished. (Most of the transmitter parts were sent to > Cutler and Jim Creek. There are great pictures on Jim Hawkins' web > site > at http://hawkins.pair.com/nss.shtml -- the size of the components is > > staggering! Plug "NSS Annapolis" into your browser for several very > informative sites about NSS. Nick, I'm thinking NSS was the station I used to copy for the location of Icebergs in the North Atlantic that might be hazardous to shipping and military vessels. Am I correct? 72, Gary -K8KFJ- __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:20:37 -0700 From: Jerry Haigwood To: Lee Mairs Cc: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [162330] Re: AZ ScQRPions Paddle S/N List Message-ID: <3FCF6CE5.36F1A138@swlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lee Mairs wrote: > Geez! My number still isn't posted, and I've been practicing polishing and > sanding brass all week... > > Jerry, you guys are doing a great job with this kit. It's popularity is an > indicator of the debt that the rest of us owe you for making this > opportunity available to. You sure have my thanks! > 73 de Lee > KM4YY/8 > Lee, You are in the middle of batch 2 - about S/N 155 or so. Jerry W5JH ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:23:43 -0600 (CST) From: Dale Botkin To: Ray Goff Cc: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [162331] RE: [Elmer160] C compilers Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Ray Goff wrote: > > At any rate, I highly recommend learning and getting reasonably good with > > assembly before jumping to C or BASIC compilers. You really need to > > understand the little critters' internal workings and instruction set if > > you're going to do non-trivial things with them, and do them reasonably > > well. > As somebody who has professionally built embedded systems for the past 20 years, > I can assure you that there is absolutely no need to know any of the assembly > language instructions for the PIC or any other microprocessor in order to make > best use of it. You do, however, have to understand the architecture of the > beast and the routines provided by the C compiler supplier to attack the various > goodies the chip contains, but that is about it. I think we're in pretty complete disagreement on that point. > I personally use the CCS compiler for both professional and ham radio related > PIC projects and I have yet to find a reason to code anything in assembly > language. Then you're not pushing hard enough. 8-) There are times when the C code to do something is simply unworkable. For example: Write code in C to swap the order of bits in a byte. Now try it with a little inline assembly. There are numerous other examples I have found. Granted, if you have some code or speed headroom, you're fine to let the compiler od its thing. But if you find yourself needing to wring every last cycle or (in my case) quite literally every last instruction location out of the thing, you MUST know your instruction set, AND the architecture, AND the compiler's weak and strong points. If not for some inline ASM code, my keyer would not have several features it has. In fact, much of the time I spend on maintaining and updating the code is devoted to code shrinks. All of what I find looks like perfectly fine C code (and is), but the ASM listing shows where there are gains to be made. If you can't tell what the ASM code is doing, you don't know if there are gains to be made or not. > If the C code seems slow, choose a faster processor or look at > optimising your code to make it more efficient. That also goes for the > size of the code, if you cannot get it into the chip, look at a chip > with more memory or again look at your code design and optimise it. That works, IF you have the luxury of a faster or larger processor. In my own case, there is precisely one chip that meets me hardware requirements, so everything hinges on the ability to squeeze as much code as possible into that amount of program memory. And how can you optimize your code design if you don't know what the compiler is doing? If you're going to shrink code, you absolutely must be able to read the compiler's output listing and see where changes can be made. > With the CCS compiler you get a combined listing of the C source and the > assembler output. If you are having problems with either speed or size, try > doing the operation a number of different ways in C and look at the combined > listing to see how much code is created for each statement. Don't worry about > the code itself, you are only interested in the number of bytes created by the > compiler. Often by slightly re-arranging the code you can significantly increase > or decrease the number of bytes of assembly code created. Agreed, but trial and error is a pretty inefficient way of doing things. It's far easier and faster if you understand *why* things change. Anyway, this is probably pretty OT for the QRP-L, so I'm willing to shut up on the subject and/or take it off-list if people are sick or hearing it. 73, Dale -- It's a thankless job, but I've got a lot of Karma to burn off. PicoKeyer Analog with pot speed control now available! Or add memory and more to your Rock-Mite -- http://www.hamgadgets.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:35:04 -0800 From: Wayne Burdick To: n7rr@hotmail.com Cc: qrp Subject: [162332] Re: Elecraft KX1 Shortwave Listening Adventure Message-ID: <3FCF7046.C6F6EFB9@elecraft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Bruce, Thanks for describing your experiences using the KX1 for short-wave listening. I would like to correct one point. You said: > ....(The USB mode employs the better filter shape for the highest band.) This is actually not the reason USB is recommended on the 20 m band. The real reason is that the mixer injection level is somewhat reduced on this band in LSB mode. This is due to rolloff by the DDS low-pass filter, and has nothing to do with crystal filter passband shape. (This is mentioned in the manual, but could possibly be clarified.) If there is any difference between USB and LSB in terms of crystal filter passband shape, it will be true for all three bands, not just the highest one. But I have not noticed such an effect myself when listening to AM or SSB stations. 73, Wayne N6KR ----------- www.elecraft.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:05:46 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: "Mike WA8BXN" To: , Subject: [162333] Re: MP-1 band lock nylon screw...> Message-ID: <3FCF777A.000001.01672@etower> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0D The point of contact of the finger stock on the coil is about half an in= ch from the screw thread; at worst there would be several shorted turn insid= e the shell which would have minimal impact on operation, certainly would cause no damage to the transmitter. There is no possibility of being=20 shorted to ground". Metal screws have many disadvantages (including nicki= ng the coil) and should not normally be used but could be until something better is found. For fixed operation the screw is not really necessary. =0D =0D 73/72 - Mike WA8BXN=0D =0D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =0D No! The locking screw secures the coil from moving, contact fingers in=0D the outer coil housing provide the contacts to couple the radiator=0D element.=0D =20 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:17:00 -0500 From: "Mark Rauchfuss" To: , "'Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion'" Subject: [162334] RE: Elecraft KX1 Shortwave Listening Adventure Message-ID: <000001c3ba92$d4bfd880$1f164b0c@LIFEBOOK> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Wayne, Why doesn't Elecraft create a version of the K2 with General Coverage capability or perhaps an external GC or even a GC RX? Mark -----Original Message----- From: owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU [mailto:owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU] On Behalf Of Wayne Burdick Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 12:35 PM To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: Re: Elecraft KX1 Shortwave Listening Adventure Hi Bruce, Thanks for describing your experiences using the KX1 for short-wave listening. I would like to correct one point. You said: > ....(The USB mode employs the better filter shape for the highest band.) This is actually not the reason USB is recommended on the 20 m band. The real reason is that the mixer injection level is somewhat reduced on this band in LSB mode. This is due to rolloff by the DDS low-pass filter, and has nothing to do with crystal filter passband shape. (This is mentioned in the manual, but could possibly be clarified.) If there is any difference between USB and LSB in terms of crystal filter passband shape, it will be true for all three bands, not just the highest one. But I have not noticed such an effect myself when listening to AM or SSB stations. 73, Wayne N6KR ----------- www.elecraft.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:32:08 -0800 From: Wayne Burdick To: Mark Rauchfuss Cc: "'Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion'" Subject: [162335] Re: Elecraft KX1 Shortwave Listening Adventure Message-ID: <3FCF7DA4.4BE34D8F@elecraft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mark Rauchfuss wrote: > Why doesn't Elecraft create a version of the K2 with General Coverage > capability or perhaps an external GC or even a GC RX? Hi Mark, This is on our list. Meanwhile, the KX1 makes a great pocket SWL receiver, and the K2 covers most of the popular SWL bands. It can even tune the high end of the AM broadcast band. 73, Wayne N6KR -- http://www.elecraft.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 11:14:27 -0600 From: Mark Milburn To: QRP-L Reflector Subject: [162336] Iowa QRP Club CW Net Message-ID: <3FCF6B73.F962F9A7@ispwest.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Is it my neighbor's Christmas lights or band conditions? Fighting with S9+ noise, we had the following check-ins Wednesday night: KQ0I Mark Iowa WA0ITP Terry Iowa WA8BXN Mike Ohio NI0I Tom S.D N9MZP Walt IL Thanks to those hearty souls! 72 Mark KQ0I Des Moines, Iowa ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 13:32:25 -0500 From: Bruce Muscolino To: "Michael Melland, W9WIS" Cc: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [162337] Re: "ET phone home" ? Message-ID: <3FCF7DB9.7E932394@erols.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mike, That was probably after about 1975 when the navigation business was upset by the availability of GPS. Prior to that point in time the Naval Navigation Satellite System (NNSS) was used to transmit targeting information to Polaris Submarines. The submarine had to come up to periscope depth to receive the data, but also got a very accurate (about 60 feet) at the same time. Though I was never associated with the submarine equipment, the AN/WRN-4, I believe, I was the Project Engineer for the surface ship equivalent, the AN/SRN-9. We used the same satellites so we received the same data. The data was encrypted and was ignored by my system. The sub would have to remain at periscope depth until it had copied a full six minutes of data as I remember. The principle problems, aside from having to come up ti periscope depth, were wave wash over the antenna (periscope mounted whip) and the availability of satellites! I suspect that with the advent of GPS the satellites were only updated for a specific period of time. The satellites were updated about every 8 hours by a network of earth tracking ststions locates around the world. The systems at JHU/APL and Point Mugu, both close to where I have lived have since been scrapped. Boy I would like to have one of their old dishes, I would be a killer in EME contests! 73 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 13:52:26 -0500 From: John Sielke To: qrp-l@lehigh.edu Subject: [162338] Re: AZ ScQRPions Paddle S/N List Message-ID: <3FCF826A.90507@pobox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Whooppee! I made it! Serial Number 66! John W2AGN ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 13:57:29 -0500 From: John Sielke To: qrp-l@lehigh.edu Subject: [162339] Unmitigated Self-Aggrandizment Message-ID: <3FCF8399.1000308@pobox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have been trying for years to make the Top 10 in one of the ARCI QSO Parties. I have come close, but never made it. UNTIL NOW! I just received a Certificate for the Fall Party and I made the Top 10! (Actually, #4). I owe it all to: 1. Pacificon keeping a lot of contesters off the air. 2. Lousy conditions. 3. My trusty K2! (Actually, it's about 80% #1, but who's counting). OK, bragging over. Just couldn't help it.... John W2AGN ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:00:51 +0000 From: Chuck Adams To: dale@botkin.org, "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [162340] RE: [Elmer160] C compilers Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20031204183512.00b44d90@mail.commspeed.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 11:23 AM 12/4/2003 -0600, Dale Botkin wrote: >...snip snip... >Anyway, this is probably pretty OT for the QRP-L, so I'm willing to shut >up on the subject and/or take it off-list if people are sick or hearing >it. > >73, >Dale Dale et.al., Well written and I agree with the need for assembly language understanding and the architecture of a processor. It is not off topic for the discussion. Just as long as we don't get into flame wars on what is the best. John M. picked the Microchip architecture to do and he has a hard row to hoe over the next year. But he stepped forward and is doing the job. You can't do any better than that. Some will argue that newbies should go with Atmel or other uPs. If you think that, then step forward and do a course. Time has passed long enough that a majority of this group (and the world) wasn't there in the 70's when we had to build systems like the Altair 8800, SWTP 6800 and 6809 systems, and others. There were no hard drives, much less floppy discs, etc. We used front panel switches to load loaders and then used things like Oliver Audio Engineering optical paper tape readers to pull by hand the paper tape through to load a BASIC interpreter. I still have in the museum an autographed copy from Bill Gates. Systems ran at clock speeds of 1MHz (NOT GHz) We wrote monitors for 1K (that's not M) of ROM if we were lucky enough to have the latest EPROM memory. We used things like the Kansas City Standard to store programs onto audio cassette (audio tones to store the ASCII codes, one tone for 1 and one tone for 0). We should write some code to do the same thing using the new CD recorders.... :-) Any have the Kansas City standard notes? Harold Mauch (Percom Data systems. SK) and others be proud of us. The Elmer160 thread will allow a new generation to experience what it was like back in the old days, except the development tools are now several orders of magnitude better. It seems like cheating to sit down at a 2.0GHz system with 1.0GB of ram and 120GB hard drives and do this stuff..... :-) Some of us went through a lot of trouble using an IBM 360/65 main frame to create a mag tape to take to a PDP-11/20 and punch a paper tape to read into the microprocessor system in a corner attached to a Tektronix raster display terminal that cost more than some people made in a year. :-) I wrote the cross-assembler in IBM 360 assembly language. That was what you'd call home brewing..... The cycle time on the extended memory for the main frame was 500 microseconds. QRP rigs are beginning more and more to rely on uPs. You'll note that Elecraft and Small Wonder Labs both use Microchip processors. Steve Weber uses the Atmel processors, but he doesn't do large production runs that I have seen in his designs. Elmer160 allows many of us the opportunity to gets hands on experience in doing things like write code for a keyer, etc. I'm sure new applications will come from the project. Heck, maybe even some new kits for all of us to enjoy and play with. FYI Chuck Adams K7QO k7qo@commspeed.net http://www.qsl.net/k7qo CP-60 Moving to Arizona? Please bring your own water. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 19:08:26 -0000 From: "Ray Goff" To: "Dale Botkin" Cc: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [162341] RE: [Elmer160] C compilers Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Then you're not pushing hard enough. 8-) There are times when the C code > to do something is simply unworkable. For example: Write code in C to > swap the order of bits in a byte. Now try it with a little inline > assembly. Dale, You are right, it probably is time to take this off list, but I disagree that I'm not pushing hard enough. Two examples which immediately spring to mind are an embedded 68000 system which manipulates video images using a real-time multi-tasking environment which I wrote from scratch in C - here the software is required to respond to a 20 millisecond video refresh rate whilst also handling user input via up to four RS232 ports. The only assembly code in the entire system (which fills 2 OneMegabyte EPROM's) is the task switcher which has to diddle with all the 68000 registers. The second example is an engine management system an dashboard display for a racing motorcycle, this time written entirely in C and running on a PIC16F876. Even having completed those projects, if you were to ask me to write code in either 68000 or PIC assembly language, I have so little knowledge of the instruction sets that I could not do it for you. I am not necessarily proud of this, it is just that my brain does not need the additional clutter. You can always find examples of situation where C (or any other high level language) cannot be used, but for the most part writing in a high level language is less error prone, less frustrating and much faster than assembly language. Incidentally, my C routine to transpose all the bits in a byte takes 21 machine code instructions when compiled for a PIC16F876 and took me a couple of minutes to write. 73 Ray, G4FON ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:07:36 -0500 From: Bruce Muscolino To: lmairs@direcway.com Cc: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion , radioham@gmx.co.uk Subject: [162342] Re: [Elmer160] C compilers Message-ID: <3FCF85F8.3CBB209@erols.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well now, U agree with both of you; ain't that strange. Over the 35 + years of my career I goth worked and managed hardware groups and wrote software. My software period began in 1983 and lasted, with hardware interruptions, until 1993. I wrote software or took care of applications in both APL and Basic. I transferred two very significant applications from a System 370 to a desktop IBM PCs. It is probably true that programmers who have written assembly language write tighter code and make better use of incline comments, but tight code is not as important in most computer applications as it used to be. Modern computers are almost never memory limited. The use of PIC's are memory limited, but they are a very recent development (at least the last 10 years). And comments are more a matter of discipline than the programming language in use. Just troubleshoot a program that is more than a year old and you understand the value of comments. The PIC is utilized by a very few outside professional applications. Hobbyists tend to use "full size" PC's! These are far from being memory limited. Also remember the "sea change" that hit the computing business with Windows. The PC on your desk actually used to be used to compute; now it is used as a substitute for your telephone, your darkroom, and the games you play. With Windows came a total reorganization of the software business. No longer was it important to write tight code, the compilers used by windows were not optimized for tight code! You didn't even have to have a background in programming to use the software! So, you can see why I agree and disagree with both of you! Bruce ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:14:38 -0500 From: "Michael Pupeza" To: "QRP-L" Subject: [162343] I Need a DL34M 4 digit LED display! Message-ID: <001501c3ba9a$f1904640$3f38d0d8@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All; My older A&A Engineering Frequency Counter has some burnt out LED Segments in the display. If anyone can spare one, or a couple, and would be willing to pop them into an envelope and mail them to FL, I would be very appreciative and would send a few bucks for them. DL34M FYI they are a 4 digit common anode Bubble LED display, about the size and pins of a 14 pin DIP. Contact my email directly, please. Thanks for any help. 73 Mike VE3EQP/W4 (shortly!) mpupeza@sympatico.ca ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:25:26 -0500 From: "Mark Rauchfuss" To: , "'Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion'" Subject: [162344] RE: Elecraft KX1 Shortwave Listening Adventure Message-ID: <000701c3ba9c$63349200$1f164b0c@LIFEBOOK> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Again Wayne, Thanks for the quick reply. I travel in Europe (Austria, Germany, Sweden Switzerland, and Italy) quite a lot, and normally I take a Grundig YB-400PE or an Icom PCR-10007 with me depending on whether I have my laptop with me. I enjoy the ability to listen to music and to the ham bands. But if my K2 could receive Short and Medium wave (including the equivalent to our FM bands) and wide band FM, well I'd be able to operate my K2 on my trips, as well. This would be really great. Thanks again & 73s, Mark -----Original Message----- From: owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU [mailto:owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU] On Behalf Of Wayne Burdick Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 1:32 PM To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: Re: Elecraft KX1 Shortwave Listening Adventure Mark Rauchfuss wrote: > Why doesn't Elecraft create a version of the K2 with General Coverage > capability or perhaps an external GC or even a GC RX? Hi Mark, This is on our list. Meanwhile, the KX1 makes a great pocket SWL receiver, and the K2 covers most of the popular SWL bands. It can even tune the high end of the AM broadcast band. 73, Wayne N6KR -- http://www.elecraft.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 13:38:27 -0600 From: "Michael Melland, W9WIS" To: Bruce Muscolino Cc: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [162345] Re: "ET phone home" ? Message-ID: <000701c3ba9e$32e651e0$4986e98d@winad.it.uwosh.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit ELF is used to communicate only with deep runners so it's a bit of a different purpose then what you are describing. I know that communications with subs as deep as 400+ feet is common... I've also been told that most of the messages that are sent via ELF are launch codes etc. The ICBM boats can lay on the bottom and receive information without having to move at all. Must be like a high tech version of the EAM's often heard on the USAF Global HF Frequencies..... "Sky King Sky King do not answer.... message follows..." Mike, W9WIS ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:39:50 -0500 From: "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" To: "Doug Hendricks" , "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [162346] RE: [Elecraft] Orion added to Elecraft rig RX comparison page Message-ID: <721D3436A7C2B344A301FD4A413C71A901735848@kosh.arrlhq.org> content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Guys, for clarification, my comments were not cynical at all,=20 > they were > serious questions that I did not know the answer to, so I=20 > asked. I also > never intended nor do I think that I implied that the integrity of the > principals involved was being questioned. Please do not=20 > read things into > what I say. I think that I am fairly straight forward, and=20 > if I were to > question someone's integrity, I would do it plainly for=20 > everyone to see. Having known Doug for a number of years, I will personally vouch for his integrity and candor. I took his question as just a question and=20 answered it as such. =20 Generally, QST would probably not review a rig by NORCAL. This is=20 nothing at all against NORCAL, because they have done some mighty fine work, IMHO, but they generally do a run of kits, sell them off, and then they are no longer available. Most often, by the time the review got to = print, the kit would not be in production. Short-run products, by any = organization or manufacturer, are not good review candidates. 73,=20 Ed Hare, W1RFI ARRL Lab 225 Main St Newington, CT 06111 Tel: 860-594-0318 Internet: w1rfi@arrl.org Web: http://www.arrl.org/tis > -----Original Message----- > From: Doug Hendricks [mailto:ki6ds@dpol.net] > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 10:09 AM > To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Orion added to Elecraft rig RX comparison page >=20 >=20 > Guys, for clarification, my comments were not cynical at all,=20 > they were > serious questions that I did not know the answer to, so I=20 > asked. I also > never intended nor do I think that I implied that the integrity of the > principals involved was being questioned. Please do not=20 > read things into > what I say. I think that I am fairly straight forward, and=20 > if I were to > question someone's integrity, I would do it plainly for=20 > everyone to see. >=20 > I don't know what NorCal products that have been reviewed by=20 > QST other than > the SMK-1. This is how they got the SMK-1. I gave a kit to Joe > Bottiglieri, AA1GW when he photographed Gary Diana and I at=20 > Dayton several > years ago. Joe built the kit, and liked it so well that he=20 > wrote it up for > a product review. I had no idea that he was going to a=20 > review when I gave > it to him, it was just a gesture of kindness. I did a search=20 > on the web > site and the only NorCal product that shows up is the SMK-1. =20 > Bruce, no > other NorCal kit has ever been reviewed in a product review=20 > by QST, go check > for yourself. Your comment that the League has reviewed=20 > "several pieces of > NorCal equipment" is not true. They have reviewd one, the=20 > SMK-1, and it was > not purchased anonymously, and I bet that Joe still has the=20 > rig. Ahh, but > the casual reader of this may say I saw the Sierra, NorCal=20 > 40A and the SST > mentioned in QST, I know I did. Yes you did, but those were=20 > all Wilderness > Radio Kits, not NorCal kits. In fact many people mistakenly=20 > believe that > the SST was a NorCal kit. It was not, Wilderness Radio has=20 > been the only > vendor to sell an SST. >=20 > I have never been contacted by the ARRL to provide any NorCal=20 > kit for a > product review, so I have no knowledge of how the procedure works. I > believe that they worked through Wayne Burdick and Bob Dyer=20 > on the Sierra, > NorCal 40A and the SST. >=20 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bruce Muscolino" > To: "Doug Hendricks" > Cc: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" > Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 4:30 PM > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Orion added to Elecraft rig RX comparison page >=20 >=20 > > Doug, (and the group where applicable), > > > > > > Eric, I am addressing this to you via the list as I have=20 > always wondered > > > about the ARRL testing procedure. How are the rigs=20 > selected? Does the > > > manufacturer send a sample to them? Do they pick one at=20 > random from a > > > dealer? It would seem to be easy to get an Orion from=20 > Tentec having a > > > "blind" person buy it and then give it to the ARRL, just=20 > as it would be > to > > > have someone order a K2 and then build it and send to the ARRL for > testing. > > > > > Such a cynical view of the testing policies and procedures=20 > used by the > > organization that has shown itself above question for=20 > nearly a century. > > The league has published its review policies since about 1975 when a > > noted QRPer who worked for the ARRL at the time wrote a QST article > > explaining the policy. That was Bruce Williams, WA6IVC, SK, who was > > Product Review Editor back then. > > > > To avoid questions of honesty the League adopted the policy of NOT > > accepting equipment sent in for review. All review=20 > equipment is bought > > by League employees from established ham equipment dealers. Retail > > price is paid for the equipment, and the dealer may or may=20 > not recognize > > the buyer as a League employee. The purchaser then reviews the > > equipment for QST. > > > > After the review has been published the equipment is sold=20 > to anybody via > > a sealed bid process. The use of the sealed bid process=20 > means even the > > purchaser or builder has to win the competition to get the rig! > > > > If the item in question is a kit, the purchaser builds the item > > himself. They may use league lab facilities to build and test the > > unit, but the use of lab space is strictly not on working time. > > > > All product review tests are then performed on the unit by League > > staffers who generally have not been associated with the purchase or > > build of the unit. Product review numbers are the numbers=20 > that have > > been obtained during these tests. > > > > If a unit receives a bad review it receives a bad review. =20 > Manufacturers > > may repair the test unit, but the review is published as it=20 > was tested > > before any repair is attempted. If the equipment warrants=20 > it it may be > > reviewed again, with separate results published. > > > > In actual practice the unit that kicked off Bruce's article=20 > was an MFJ > > product. After publication MFJ apparently went through the=20 > roof asking > > why they weren't given a chance to repair the unit before=20 > the review was > > published. The response was something to the effect that=20 > we don't do > > that. I understand it almost cost QST the advertisements! > > > > The League is honest. It is above reproach in this area. =20 > There have > > been many articles published about their review procedures,=20 > usually by > > the new Product Review Editor. Doug, you should know the=20 > process, they > > have reviewed several pieces of NORCAL equipment! > > > > Bruce > > >=20 >=20 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:50:37 -0500 From: "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" To: , "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [162347] RE: BPL article in Nov. 24 "Electronic Design" Message-ID: <721D3436A7C2B344A301FD4A413C71A9025121BB@kosh.arrlhq.org> content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The article was actually fairly positive, as these things go. Unfortunately, BPL operates at the emissions limits in Part 15 -- 30 = uV/m at 30 m from the radiating source. The laws of physics predicts = that a halfwave dipole or HF Yagi placed in a 30 uV/m field will pick up = an S9-level signal. This will happen with any Part 15 radiator near = that antenna. In most cases, however, the interference potential from a = Part-15 device is local. We can and do hear devices in our neighbors' = houses, but typically not the ones from several blocks away. Most = Part-15 devices that generate "legal" signals do so on only a few = frequencies, and most are not on 24 hours a day. So 30 uV/m at 30 m = does help to limit the interference potential from Part-15 emitters. How well can this apply to BPL? First, when a BPL system is built as = large as entire community, all HF users within that community will have = part of the BPL system "next door," or on the power lines outside his or = her house. BPL systems don't just use a few narrowband freqeuncies, but = occupy tens of MHz of spectrum simultaneously. From what ARRL has seen, = they are not intermittent, but have some activity 24 hours a day. Trying = to apply Part-15 to BPL would be like trying to live with the noise of = the occasional airplane that passes overhead. What can be acceptable = for a few minutes once in a while in only portions of town would be = entirely unacceptable 24 hours a day at all locations simultaneously.=20 This is not just an amateur radio problem. BPL will use spectrum = allocated to amateur radio; shortwave broadcast; commercial; military = and into low VHF public-service communications channels. It will cause = a change in ambient noise levels of up to 60 or 70 dB, or more in some = cases where receiving antennas are located close to power-line wiring. =20 73,=20 Ed Hare, W1RFI ARRL Lab 225 Main St Newington, CT 06111 Tel: 860-594-0318 Internet: w1rfi@arrl.org Web: http://www.arrl.org/tis ARRL is the National Association for Amateur Radio. It is supported by = membership dues, individual contributions and the sale of publications = and advertising. For more information about ARRL, go to = http://www.arrl.org/news/features/inside-your-league.html. For more = information about membership, go to http://www.arrl.org/join.html. Your = contribution can also help support ARRL's ongoing efforts to protect = Amateur spectrum. Go to = https://www.arrl.org/forms/development/donations/basic/ to learn more = about the ways you can support the ARRL programs and activities of most = importance to you. You can help ARRL protect Amateur Radio for you and = future generations to enjoy. > -----Original Message----- > From: AI2Q [mailto:ai2q@adelphia.net] > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 9:05 AM > To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion > Subject: RE: BPL article in Nov. 24 "Electronic Design" >=20 >=20 > Jeff: >=20 > When you consider how many hams are engineers and technicians=20 > (who read > Electronic Design magazine----and who even work on its=20 > staff), those of us > who are in the business should get on over to ED's Web site=20 > and add our > comments. Every little bit of opposition helps. >=20 > Vy 73, AI2Q, Alex in Kennebunk, Maine QRP-L #687 > http://users.adelphia.net/~alexmm/ai2q.htm >=20 > .-.-. >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU=20 > [mailto:owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU]On Behalf Of > Jeff Furman > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 2:36 AM > To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion > Subject: BPL article in Nov. 24 "Electronic Design" >=20 >=20 > A brief mention of our problems is in the current issue of > "Electronic Design," a trade magazine for engineers: >=20 > http://www.elecdesign.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=3D6850 >=20 > They also solicit readers' comments. >=20 > 73, AD6MX, Jeff >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:54:03 -0500 From: "Goody K3NG" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [162348] OT: Cable Modem Interference Message-ID: <002901c3baa0$5e7622c0$33c893cd@corp.fast.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Use of HF frequencies on cable isn't a new thing. There's HF band video channels called T channels that are typically used for transmitting video in the reverse direction, towards the cable headend. You can see the frequencies here http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/catv-ch.html . When I was working in wireless cable back in the day, I heard use of these channels was avoided due to ingress interference from CB, Amateur Radio, etc. (Kind of ironic BPL is the same frequencies on an unshielded system :-) I presume cable companies used these low frequencies so they could bypass line amplifiers going in the reverse direction, and it would require minimal amplification due to low losses at these low frequencies, and of course, standard TVs can't receive them. 72 Goody K3NG ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 06:48 Subject: Re: Cable Modem Interference > > > I have to say, the level of training evident from this conversation was > > refreshing. Also, the tech's familiarity with the regs and recognizing > > ingress to be their problem, not mine, was a bit of a surprise. > > > > Now, why did they pick 10-Meters to run Road Runner??? > > Keith, > > Because 11 meters is worse? (Grin) > > My guess is because it fits in the bandwidth of their system but is > outside of the frequencies that are used for television signals. This is only > a guess, though. > > Dave > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:12:35 -0600 (CST) From: "Brian.Buydens@usask.ca" To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [162349] RE: [Elmer160] C compilers Message-ID: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I for one am enjoying this thread and I hope people keep it on list. I think it is relevant to the Elmer160 class. Speaking of the old days... If I am not mistaken C was orignally designed by Kernighan and Richie to be a language for systems programming on a PDP 8 or maybe it was a PDP 11. Anyway the language was supposed to be high level enough to allow ease of use while being low level enough to map many things directly into how the processor actually worked. If I can recall, the debate in the late '70s and early '80s was whether C actually delivered this promise or if it was better to program in assembly. Now, 20 plus years later it seems we are still having the same debate, only now it is with microcontrollers. I am interested to see how this one will resolve itself. Perhaps history will repeat itself in that microcontrollers will get more powerful and this debate will become mute? Plus ca change, plus c'est pareille! Brian. On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Chuck Adams wrote: > At 11:23 AM 12/4/2003 -0600, Dale Botkin wrote: > > > >...snip snip... > >Anyway, this is probably pretty OT for the QRP-L, so I'm willing to shut > >up on the subject and/or take it off-list if people are sick or hearing > >it. > > > The Elmer160 thread will allow a new generation to experience what it was > like back in the old days, except the development tools are now several orders > of magnitude better. It seems like cheating to sit down at a 2.0GHz system Brian Buydens Veterinary Electronic Data Specialist Computing Services, University of Saskatchewan email: Brian.Buydens@usask.ca http://duke.usask.ca/~buydens VE5RDV -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am a proud citizen of "Soviet Canuckistan" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 13:59:17 -0700 From: "M.M." To: qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU Subject: [162350] Antenna Compendium Vol 3 Message-ID: <6.0.0.22.0.20031204135519.02676808@pop.west.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed I'm looking for an article that I think is in the ARRL Antenna Compendium, Vol 3. Anyone have a copy of this book and would be willing to check the index for me? I'm willing to buy it but I want to make sure it's the right one first. I haven't found the compendium indexes on the ARRL site (yet...). Contact off-list would probably be best... Thanks & 73... Mark AA7TA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 16:11:08 -0500 From: "Mark Rauchfuss" To: , "'Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion'" Subject: [162351] RE: [Elmer160] C compilers Message-ID: <001401c3baab$27a2cae0$1f164b0c@LIFEBOOK> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Actually, I find it to be very interesting. In the old days (6801U4, 68HC-11) it was essential to write code that achieved the highest level of density and that not one bit was wasted. I have found that in recent years in the 32 bit automotive universe with the movement to model based engineering using Matlab, Simulink (controller models) and Stateflow (state machines) that everyone finds computational and memory resources to be "cheap" and hand-written (and, of course, auto generated) code gets very sloppy and there is a lot of waste (resources). The most efficient 32 bit software engineers come from the 4,8 and 16 but universe! However, in the automotive 4, 8 and 16 bit universe, this ain't so. Good engineers fight for every bit...and it is absolutely essential to do so since this is an industry that counts fractions of pennies. Just my two cents... Mark -----Original Message----- From: owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU [mailto:owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU] On Behalf Of Chuck Adams Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 2:01 PM To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: RE: [Elmer160] C compilers At 11:23 AM 12/4/2003 -0600, Dale Botkin wrote: >...snip snip... >Anyway, this is probably pretty OT for the QRP-L, so I'm willing to shut >up on the subject and/or take it off-list if people are sick or hearing >it. > >73, >Dale Dale et.al., Well written and I agree with the need for assembly language understanding and the architecture of a processor. It is not off topic for the discussion. Just as long as we don't get into flame wars on what is the best. John M. picked the Microchip architecture to do and he has a hard row to hoe over the next year. But he stepped forward and is doing the job. You can't do any better than that. Some will argue that newbies should go with Atmel or other uPs. If you think that, then step forward and do a course. Time has passed long enough that a majority of this group (and the world) wasn't there in the 70's when we had to build systems like the Altair 8800, SWTP 6800 and 6809 systems, and others. There were no hard drives, much less floppy discs, etc. We used front panel switches to load loaders and then used things like Oliver Audio Engineering optical paper tape readers to pull by hand the paper tape through to load a BASIC interpreter. I still have in the museum an autographed copy from Bill Gates. Systems ran at clock speeds of 1MHz (NOT GHz) We wrote monitors for 1K (that's not M) of ROM if we were lucky enough to have the latest EPROM memory. We used things like the Kansas City Standard to store programs onto audio cassette (audio tones to store the ASCII codes, one tone for 1 and one tone for 0). We should write some code to do the same thing using the new CD recorders.... :-) Any have the Kansas City standard notes? Harold Mauch (Percom Data systems. SK) and others be proud of us. The Elmer160 thread will allow a new generation to experience what it was like back in the old days, except the development tools are now several orders of magnitude better. It seems like cheating to sit down at a 2.0GHz system with 1.0GB of ram and 120GB hard drives and do this stuff..... :-) Some of us went through a lot of trouble using an IBM 360/65 main frame to create a mag tape to take to a PDP-11/20 and punch a paper tape to read into the microprocessor system in a corner attached to a Tektronix raster display terminal that cost more than some people made in a year. :-) I wrote the cross-assembler in IBM 360 assembly language. That was what you'd call home brewing..... The cycle time on the extended memory for the main frame was 500 microseconds. QRP rigs are beginning more and more to rely on uPs. You'll note that Elecraft and Small Wonder Labs both use Microchip processors. Steve Weber uses the Atmel processors, but he doesn't do large production runs that I have seen in his designs. Elmer160 allows many of us the opportunity to gets hands on experience in doing things like write code for a keyer, etc. I'm sure new applications will come from the project. Heck, maybe even some new kits for all of us to enjoy and play with. FYI Chuck Adams K7QO k7qo@commspeed.net http://www.qsl.net/k7qo CP-60 Moving to Arizona? Please bring your own water. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 15:12:21 -0600 (CST) From: Dale Botkin To: Ray Goff Cc: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [162352] RE: [Elmer160] C compilers Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Ray Goff wrote: > You can always find examples of situation where C (or any other high > level language) cannot be used, but for the most part writing in a > high level language is less error prone, less frustrating and much > faster than assembly language. Exactly my point, really. On most of this I think we're in violent agreement. 8-) That's why I use C, with the occasional function done with inline assembly. > Incidentally, my C routine to transpose all the bits in a byte takes > 21 machine code instructions when compiled for a PIC16F876 and took me > a couple of minutes to write. 11 instructions, thus allowing me to add a prosign for pausing message playback to, for example, insert RST or a sequence number. You work really, really hard when you absolutely have to make it fit into 1K. 8-) 73, Dale -- It's a thankless job, but I've got a lot of Karma to burn off. PicoKeyer Analog with pot speed control now available! Or add memory and more to your Rock-Mite -- http://www.hamgadgets.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:21:09 -0800 From: "Andreas Junge - ARRL.NET" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [162353] RE: [Elmer160] C compilers Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Interesting to see how C has survived for so long. And yes, I am making a living programming PIC controllers with C and occasional inline Assembler. To ME, C applications are easier to maintain. And what happens when you outgrow that one processor and want to change to a different model or even manufacturer? Try that with assembler. It's a matter of picking the right tool for the right application depending on your abilities. If you can you get the job done with C - do it in C. You like Assembler better - do it in Assembler. Maybe you have to mix C/Assembler. There is no one solution. It's like Chevy/Ford, Code/NoCode. I am using the full version of the HiTech compiler that is shipped with the Microchip starter kit and it is a high quality one. It integrates very nicely with the Microchip IDE - MPLAB. Just my thoughts, Andreas, N6NU > > I for one am enjoying this thread and I hope people keep it on list. I > think it is relevant to the Elmer160 class. > > Speaking of the old days... If I am not mistaken C was orignally designed > by Kernighan and Richie to be a language for systems programming on a PDP > 8 or maybe it was a PDP 11. Anyway the language was supposed to be high > level enough to allow ease of use while being low level enough to map many > things directly into how the processor actually worked. > > If I can recall, the debate in the late '70s and early '80s was whether > C actually delivered this promise or if it was better to program in > assembly. Now, 20 plus years later it seems we are still having the same > debate, only now it is with microcontrollers. I am interested to see how > this one will resolve itself. Perhaps history will repeat itself in that > microcontrollers will get more powerful and this debate will become mute? > > Plus ca change, plus c'est pareille! > > Brian. > > On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Chuck Adams wrote: > > > At 11:23 AM 12/4/2003 -0600, Dale Botkin wrote: > > > > > > >...snip snip... > > >Anyway, this is probably pretty OT for the QRP-L, so I'm > willing to shut > > >up on the subject and/or take it off-list if people are sick or hearing > > >it. > > > > > The Elmer160 thread will allow a new generation to experience > what it was > > like back in the old days, except the development tools are now > several orders > > of magnitude better. It seems like cheating to sit down at a > 2.0GHz system > > > Brian Buydens > Veterinary Electronic Data Specialist > Computing Services, University of Saskatchewan > email: Brian.Buydens@usask.ca > http://duke.usask.ca/~buydens > VE5RDV > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > I am a proud citizen of "Soviet Canuckistan" > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 16:23:20 -0500 From: "Mark Rauchfuss" To: , "'Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion'" Subject: [162354] RE: BPL article in Nov. 24 "Electronic Design" Message-ID: <001701c3baac$db775d00$1f164b0c@LIFEBOOK> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Ed, BPL will also affect any receiver with a first or second IF that happend top fall within the BPL frequency allocation...and this means virtually ALL receivers! Keep up the great work & 73s, Mark -----Original Message----- From: owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU [mailto:owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU] On Behalf Of Hare,Ed, W1RFI Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 2:51 PM To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: RE: BPL article in Nov. 24 "Electronic Design" The article was actually fairly positive, as these things go. Unfortunately, BPL operates at the emissions limits in Part 15 -- 30 uV/m at 30 m from the radiating source. The laws of physics predicts that a halfwave dipole or HF Yagi placed in a 30 uV/m field will pick up an S9-level signal. This will happen with any Part 15 radiator near that antenna. In most cases, however, the interference potential from a Part-15 device is local. We can and do hear devices in our neighbors' houses, but typically not the ones from several blocks away. Most Part-15 devices that generate "legal" signals do so on only a few frequencies, and most are not on 24 hours a day. So 30 uV/m at 30 m does help to limit the interference potential from Part-15 emitters. How well can this apply to BPL? First, when a BPL system is built as large as entire community, all HF users within that community will have part of the BPL system "next door," or on the power lines outside his or her house. BPL systems don't just use a few narrowband freqeuncies, but occupy tens of MHz of spectrum simultaneously. From what ARRL has seen, they are not intermittent, but have some activity 24 hours a day. Trying to apply Part-15 to BPL would be like trying to live with the noise of the occasional airplane that passes overhead. What can be acceptable for a few minutes once in a while in only portions of town would be entirely unacceptable 24 hours a day at all locations simultaneously. This is not just an amateur radio problem. BPL will use spectrum allocated to amateur radio; shortwave broadcast; commercial; military and into low VHF public-service communications channels. It will cause a change in ambient noise levels of up to 60 or 70 dB, or more in some cases where receiving antennas are located close to power-line wiring. 73, Ed Hare, W1RFI ARRL Lab 225 Main St Newington, CT 06111 Tel: 860-594-0318 Internet: w1rfi@arrl.org Web: http://www.arrl.org/tis ARRL is the National Association for Amateur Radio. It is supported by membership dues, individual contributions and the sale of publications and advertising. For more information about ARRL, go to http://www.arrl.org/news/features/inside-your-league.html. For more information about membership, go to http://www.arrl.org/join.html. Your contribution can also help support ARRL's ongoing efforts to protect Amateur spectrum. Go to https://www.arrl.org/forms/development/donations/basic/ to learn more about the ways you can support the ARRL programs and activities of most importance to you. You can help ARRL protect Amateur Radio for you and future generations to enjoy. > -----Original Message----- > From: AI2Q [mailto:ai2q@adelphia.net] > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 9:05 AM > To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion > Subject: RE: BPL article in Nov. 24 "Electronic Design" > > > Jeff: > > When you consider how many hams are engineers and technicians > (who read > Electronic Design magazine----and who even work on its > staff), those of us > who are in the business should get on over to ED's Web site > and add our > comments. Every little bit of opposition helps. > > Vy 73, AI2Q, Alex in Kennebunk, Maine QRP-L #687 > http://users.adelphia.net/~alexmm/ai2q.htm > > .-.-. > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU > [mailto:owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU]On Behalf Of > Jeff Furman > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 2:36 AM > To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion > Subject: BPL article in Nov. 24 "Electronic Design" > > > A brief mention of our problems is in the current issue of > "Electronic Design," a trade magazine for engineers: > > http://www.elecdesign.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=6850 > > They also solicit readers' comments. > > 73, AD6MX, Jeff > > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 16:24:36 -0500 From: "John J. McDonough" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [162355] Re: [Elmer160] C compilers Message-ID: <006201c3baad$04dc4980$090044c0@BrianBoru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Man, am I glad the XYL dragged me shopping today. I would have spent all day responding to emails. Instead, Chuck and Dale did the job for me, and the XYL is a bunch happier. Thanks guys! And this really is a good discussion. There are 1000 ways to skin a cat, and if you have the long history that some of us have, more of those ways are realistic than for folks with less background. The PIC is pretty simple, and it's a good way for folks who don't have the long background get in there. Assembler code is a pain to maintain, especially if it gets very big, but mostly we'll be doing little things, and it will help folks get a really good feel for the architecture. I suspect those of us that have seen dozens of processors could get away with a decent job in C or COBOL, for that matter, without a lot of insight into the particular architecture. But we ain't the guys this thing is aimed at. It looks like most of the folks have relatively little idea of what's going on under the covers. By doing the course in assembler, they get to see that up close and personal, rather than through the filters of software layers. It's a little like the whole processor choice thing. The 628 is way more powerful, and cheaper, the 819 is cheaper AND has on board A/D, but they all have these complicating factors that are lacking in the 84. So lets get folks up to speed in a simple environment, nice and close to the metal, and when they need that A/D they will know enough to reach for an '877 or whatever. When they decide to solve systems of differential equations, they'll figure out that's a whole lot easier in C. But at least they will have the foundation. 72/73 de WB8RCR http://www.qsl.net/wb8rcr didileydadidah QRP-L #1446 Code Warriors #35 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Adams" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 2:00 PM Subject: RE: [Elmer160] C compilers > At 11:23 AM 12/4/2003 -0600, Dale Botkin wrote: > > > >...snip snip... > >Anyway, this is probably pretty OT for the QRP-L, so I'm willing to shut > >up on the subject and/or take it off-list if people are sick or hearing > >it. > > > >73, > >Dale > > Dale et.al., > > Well written and I agree with the need for assembly language understanding > and the architecture of a processor. It is not off topic for the discussion. > Just as long as we don't get into flame wars on what is the best. > > John M. picked the Microchip architecture to do and he has a hard row > to hoe over the next year. But he stepped forward and is doing the job. > You can't do any better than that. > > Some will argue that newbies should go with Atmel or other uPs. If you > think that, then step forward and do a course. > > Time has passed long enough that a majority of this group (and the world) > wasn't there > in the 70's when we had to build systems like the Altair 8800, SWTP 6800 > and 6809 systems, and others. There were no hard drives, much less > floppy discs, etc. We used front panel switches to load loaders and then > used things like Oliver Audio Engineering optical paper tape readers to > pull by hand the paper tape through to load a BASIC interpreter. I still > have in the museum an autographed copy from Bill Gates. Systems > ran at clock speeds of 1MHz (NOT GHz) We wrote monitors for 1K (that's not M) > of ROM if we were lucky enough to have the latest EPROM memory. > We used things like the Kansas City Standard to store programs onto > audio cassette (audio tones to store the ASCII codes, one tone for 1 and > one tone for 0). We should write some code to do the same thing > using the new CD recorders.... :-) Any have the Kansas City standard notes? > Harold Mauch (Percom Data systems. SK) and others be proud of us. > > The Elmer160 thread will allow a new generation to experience what it was > like back in the old days, except the development tools are now several orders > of magnitude better. It seems like cheating to sit down at a 2.0GHz system > with 1.0GB of ram and 120GB hard drives and do this stuff..... :-) Some of us > went through a lot of trouble using an IBM 360/65 main frame to create a > mag tape to take to a PDP-11/20 and punch a paper tape to read into > the microprocessor system in a corner attached to a Tektronix raster > display terminal that cost more than some people made in a year. :-) > I wrote the cross-assembler in IBM 360 assembly language. That was > what you'd call home brewing..... The cycle time on the extended memory > for the main frame was 500 microseconds. > > QRP rigs are beginning more and more to rely on uPs. You'll note that > Elecraft and Small Wonder Labs both use Microchip processors. Steve > Weber uses the Atmel processors, but he doesn't do large production > runs that I have seen in his designs. Elmer160 allows many of us the > opportunity to gets hands on experience in doing things like write code > for a keyer, etc. I'm sure new applications will come from the project. > Heck, maybe even some new kits for all of us to enjoy and play with. > > > FYI > > > > Chuck Adams K7QO k7qo@commspeed.net > http://www.qsl.net/k7qo CP-60 > > Moving to Arizona? Please bring your own water. > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 21:31:14 -0000 From: "Ray Goff" To: , "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [162356] RE: [Elmer160] C compilers Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > If I can recall, the debate in the late '70s and early '80s was whether > C actually delivered this promise or if it was better to program in > assembly. Now, 20 plus years later it seems we are still having the same > debate, only now it is with microcontrollers. I am interested to see how > this one will resolve itself. Perhaps history will repeat itself in that > microcontrollers will get more powerful and this debate will become mute? > Brian, I think the difference between now and the late 1970's is that C compilers have become much more sophisticated. Lots and lots of work has been done on code optimisation, which means that if you have a good compiler not only will it create tight code, but it will also spot your coding inefficiencies and optimise them out for you. I started coding in C in around 1981 when Dr Dobbs Journal published Ron Cain's small C compiler, prior to that I had been writing in assembly code for a whole range of devices. For the most part the Dr Dobbs compiler worked but you really would not want to look too closely at the code. There were plenty of situations where the compiler produced code to load the same variable into the same register several times before making use of it. Fortunately those days have gone, the CCS compiler, for example, will not create assembly code for functions which are not actually referenced in the code. To my mind, the big advantage is that over the years I have learned to write good tight C code and now I leave it up to the compiler writer to take that code and generate optimised assembly code from it. I don't have to worry about the differences in register addressing between different microprocessors so that I can get the last ounce of power out of the microprocessor. I don't need to understand which bits to set in order to turn a generic input/output port into output mode, I simply call the C library function and it is take care of for me. Does that make me a bad programmer, I think not, it saves me from the distractions of the underlying hardware and the frustration that comes from mis-reading the datasheet. There will always be a place for dedicated assembly language for microprocessor applications where the last byte and the last machine cycle counts, but for general ham use, I contend that a high level language is a much better approach to the programming. All power to those stepping out on the Elmer 160 course, the challenge of getting a microprocessor to do what you want it to do, rather than zip off into cyberspace is always fun whether you do it in assembler or a high level language. 73 Ray, G4FON ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 16:33:35 -0500 From: "John J. McDonough" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Cc: Subject: [162357] Re: [Elmer160] C compilers Message-ID: <006e01c3baae$460144f0$090044c0@BrianBoru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian.Buydens@usask.ca" Subject: RE: [Elmer160] C compilers > Anyway the language was supposed to be high > level enough to allow ease of use while being low level enough to map many > things directly into how the processor actually worked. Actually, people still accuse C of being a write only language! But I still tend to listen to the words of the song (to the tune of "Let it be") When I find my code in tons of trouble Friends and collegues come to me Speaking words of wisdom Write in C When the deadline's fast approaching And bugs are all that I can see Somewhere someone whispers Write in C Write in C, Write in C, Write in C, Write in C, BASIC is for sissies, write in C I used to write a lot of FORTRAN For science it worked flawlessly Try using it for graphics Write in C etc... 72/73 de WB8RCR http://www.qsl.net/wb8rcr didileydadidah QRP-L #1446 Code Warriors #35 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 15:35:59 -0600 (CST) From: Dale Botkin To: Bruce Muscolino Cc: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [162358] Re: [Elmer160] C compilers Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Bruce Muscolino wrote: > It is probably true that programmers who have written assembly language > write tighter code and make better use of incline comments, but tight > code is not as important in most computer applications as it used to > be. Modern computers are almost never memory limited. 8< snip... > So, you can see why I agree and disagree with both of you! Yep, and so do I. 8-) I have two applications that illustrate the point perfectly. One uses a 16F877, is a couple thousand lines of C, does a menu driven user interface on an LCD, real time clock, floating point math, complex calculations, table lookups, measures the speed of a rotating sensor, the works. Not a line of assembly code in it, anywhere. It's perfectly confortable in 8K of program space with about 10% to spare, performance is not an issue at 20 MHz, life is good. The other lives in a 12F629 or 12F675, uses literally every single available program memory location, and cannot be ported to any other chip. I had to drop to inline ASM in half a dozen places to get it to the state it's in now, and every time I want to change something I have to make room somewhere... so the code gets gone over often. The first one I could do even if I knew nothing of PIC assembler... but definitely no the second, no way. In fact, any sane person would have used ASM in the first place -- but while I can read ASM fine, I can't write it worth squat in any serious quantity. 73, Dale -- It's a thankless job, but I've got a lot of Karma to burn off. PicoKeyer Analog with pot speed control now available! Or add memory and more to your Rock-Mite -- http://www.hamgadgets.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 21:38:21 -0000 From: "Ray Goff" To: "Dale Botkin" , "Ray Goff" Cc: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [162359] RE: [Elmer160] C compilers Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > 11 instructions, thus allowing me to add a prosign for pausing message > playback to, for example, insert RST or a sequence number. You work > really, really hard when you absolutely have to make it fit into 1K. 8-) I thought of an optimisation which got mine down to 19 instructions (18 if I do it inline and not as a subroutine), but you didn't say how much time you spent crafting your 11 instruction routine. I contend that if you don't need to get the last byte out of the chip the extra time spent isn't worth it? 73 Ray, G4FON ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 15:48:53 -0600 (CST) From: Dale Botkin To: Ray Goff Cc: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [162360] RE: [Elmer160] C compilers Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Ray Goff wrote: > > 11 instructions, thus allowing me to add a prosign for pausing message > > playback to, for example, insert RST or a sequence number. You work > > really, really hard when you absolutely have to make it fit into 1K. 8-) > > I thought of an optimisation which got mine down to 19 instructions > (18 if I do it inline and not as a subroutine), but you didn't say how > much time you spent crafting your 11 instruction routine. I contend > that if you don't need to get the last byte out of the chip the extra > time spent isn't worth it? About 10 minutes, maybe a little less, and if I didn't need those last few words of program space I wouldn't have. Oh - did I mention it's not a whole byte, but a variable number of BITS that need to be reversed, and with one extra bit set? Once again we stridently agree. 8-) char morse, length, scratch, x; bit_set(morse,0); for(x=0;x To: Subject: [162361] PSK31 on PDA Device? Message-ID: <20031204222155.JQBO12902.out004.verizon.net@outgoing.verizon.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry for redundant bandwidth but I have come to the realization that my laptop is *far* too cumbersome to lug to the field and I was wondering if anyone had recommendations for smaller, lighter, kinder, gentler devices for doing PSK-31? Are there new PDAs on the market that could be used for this purpose? My thanks in advance for any help. 72, Bill, K6WHP ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 15:32:51 -0700 (MST) From: Karl Larsen To: qrp-l@lehigh.edu Subject: [162362] Paddle making hints Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII If you are buying the ScQRPion paddle what you get is a bag of parts and some brass cut from stock with a saw. You can put it together without sanding a thing and it will be a working paddle. But since I am a ScQRPion I want mine to be pretty. I just got back from Home Depot and it took 30 minutes to find the stuff. I can maybe save you some time. First go to Tools and you will find a huge number of sandpapers in bins. I got Norton (Blue back) 9x11 sheets Metal Sanding assorted grits for $4.48. Nearby is paint and you MUST get a salesperson who can open the spraypaint locker. I got Rust-Oleum Specialty Lacquer High Luster Coating $3.97. None of the sales people had ever heard of MASS. It comes in a Blue and Silver box with MASS Metal Polishing Creme $4.96. This was in the Garden area of my store... I hope this helps. -- - Karl Larsen k5di Las Cruces,NM Az ScQRPions - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 16:33:03 -0600 From: "Stuart Rohre" To: Subject: [162363] VLF simple receiver, was ET phone home Message-ID: <029b01c3bab6$94c330a0$4e100a0a@rohredt2000> Joe, Good work! With the 1962 QST, p. 36, Oct. one can see how to do a simple NAA receiver, for listening to the high power Navy stations. Some of the high power stations like the ones at Annapolis have closed. AFAIK, the ones in Cutler Maine, and in Washington state are still active and used. Thanks and 73, Stuart K5KVH ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:45:48 -0800 From: "Lyle Johnson" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [162364] RE: PSK31 on PDA Device? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Sorry for redundant bandwidth but I have come to the realization > that my laptop is *far* too cumbersome to lug to the field and I > was wondering if anyone had recommendations for smaller, lighter, > kinder, gentler devices for doing PSK-31? Are there new PDAs on > the market that could be used for this purpose? The Micro908 project from AmQRP looks like it will have a way to handle PSK31 without a laptop or PDA... One problem with using a PDA for this sort of thing is that the CPU can't sleep much if it is doing all the DSP work, so the batteries quickly discharge. If a rig had a PSK31 system built in such that it only needed an ASCII terminal, then an old TRS80 model 100 or NEC 8201A would give days of battery life, or a Poqet PC would give many hours and not be too cumbersome. 72, Lyle KK7P ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 18:07:19 -0500 From: w2bvh To: njqrp@njqrp.org, Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion , Subject: [162365] Looking for an old Handbook cd to send to a new friend Message-ID: <3FCFBE27.6090209@comcast.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, A new friend, Ciro, CO6CR, who I just met on 14070 psk asked me if I have an old copy of the Handbook CD. I don't, but I promised him I'd ask around the mailing lists. If someone has an old Handbook CD they'd be willing to part with, I'm sure Ciro would be very appreciative. He's currently using a '70s vintage German made rig that was designed for 40 meter operation. He modified its PLL for 20 meter operation without having a schematic! A pretty resourceful fellow. His rig produces no psk output at all with low audio drive, and then when it finally does output, it has an IMD of -8 or higher and 3 or 4 visible sideband pairs. I'm sure he's looking for a way to improve this situation. Anyway, if you do have a cd you can part with, send it direct to him at his QRZ.COM address, or send it to me and I'll forward it. 73 and Season's Greetings, Lenny W2BVH ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 18:06:52 -0500 From: "Paul Womble" To: "'Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion'" Subject: [162366] RE: AZ ScQRPions Paddle S/N List Message-ID: <001d01c3babb$4e2a94d0$6401a8c0@house> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Now the waiting begins for list #2. Or maybe #3! Paul K4FB > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU [mailto:owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU] > On Behalf Of Jerry Haigwood > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 12:21 PM > To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion > Subject: Re: AZ ScQRPions Paddle S/N List > > Lee, > You are in the middle of batch 2 - about S/N 155 or so. Jerry W5JH > > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 18:17:29 -0500 From: "Tim Kass" To: w5jh@swlink.net, qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU Subject: [162367] Re: AZ ScQRPions Paddle S/N List Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed LUCKY DOG! 72/72 K8WBL - mine is probably lost.....hi hi >From: Jerry Haigwood >Reply-To: w5jh@swlink.net >To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" >Subject: Re: AZ ScQRPions Paddle S/N List >Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:20:37 -0700 > >Lee Mairs wrote: > > > Geez! My number still isn't posted, and I've been practicing polishing >and > > sanding brass all week... > > > > Jerry, you guys are doing a great job with this kit. It's popularity is >an > > indicator of the debt that the rest of us owe you for making this > > opportunity available to. You sure have my thanks! > > 73 de Lee > > KM4YY/8 > > > >Lee, > You are in the middle of batch 2 - about S/N 155 or so. >Jerry W5JH > > _________________________________________________________________ Don t worry if your Inbox will max out while you are enjoying the holidays. Get MSN Extra Storage! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 15:20:27 -0800 From: "Bill Smith" To: , "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [162368] Re: PSK31 on PDA Device? Message-ID: <00a601c3babd$385e5f40$0200a8c0@HBCO> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There is a VT-100 terminal emulation program available for palm devices. Is in the $30 range, but you also need a serial cable for a similar amount. Problem is the encoder/decoder (TU) hardware. Seems that development in that direction has all but stopped in the last two years, with efforts redirected toward soundcard program development. Am not sure *all* has stopped, but don't know of any simple TU solution. I'd also like to see a MT-63 hardware TU. Also, the PSK-40 is not available at this time, and don't know of a simple SSB transceiver which could replace it. Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: Lyle Johnson To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 2:45 PM Subject: RE: PSK31 on PDA Device? > Sorry for redundant bandwidth but I have come to the realization > that my laptop is *far* too cumbersome to lug to the field and I > was wondering if anyone had recommendations for smaller, lighter, > kinder, gentler devices for doing PSK-31? Are there new PDAs on > the market that could be used for this purpose? The Micro908 project from AmQRP looks like it will have a way to handle PSK31 without a laptop or PDA... One problem with using a PDA for this sort of thing is that the CPU can't sleep much if it is doing all the DSP work, so the batteries quickly discharge. If a rig had a PSK31 system built in such that it only needed an ASCII terminal, then an old TRS80 model 100 or NEC 8201A would give days of battery life, or a Poqet PC would give many hours and not be too cumbersome. 72, Lyle KK7P ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 18:28:13 -0500 (EST) From: Thom LaCosta To: John Sielke Cc: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [162369] Re: AZ ScQRPions Paddle S/N List Message-ID: <20031204182701.C93365-100000@unix1.vhost.min.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, John Sielke wrote: > Whooppee! I made it! Serial Number 66! Has to be be that Jersey Devil at work! Hopefully I'll make the second batch....and I'll have more time to find one of them old time solder melter deals. Thom baltimoremd@baltimoremd.com Thom LaCosta K3HRN Webmaster http://www.baltimoremd.com/ Baltimore's Home Page http://www.baltimorehon.com/ Home of the Baltimore Lexicon http://www.zerobeat.net Home of The QRP Web Ring and DrakeList http://www.tlchost.net Web Hosting as low as $3.49/month ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 15:34:40 -0800 From: "richqrp" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [162370] Re: AZ ScQRPions Paddle S/N List Message-ID: <007401c3babf$307fd630$c1770744@wd6fddstssz5sg> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit And I thought mine was going to be on the next list also.. but somehow ended up with 33. I guess the pony was riding extra hard the day it was mailed.. and the funniest thing about this is, some said we could live without it.. and now , we are on the third list already.. A job well done to all that were involved... I just knew, I HAD TO HAVE ONE.. no matter what is was.. when it was first announced , Doug did a good sell job.. 73's Rich, #33.................... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Womble" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 3:06 PM Subject: RE: AZ ScQRPions Paddle S/N List > Now the waiting begins for list #2. > > Or maybe #3! > > Paul K4FB > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU [mailto:owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU] > > On Behalf Of Jerry Haigwood > > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 12:21 PM > > To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion > > Subject: Re: AZ ScQRPions Paddle S/N List > > > > > Lee, > > You are in the middle of batch 2 - about S/N 155 or so. Jerry W5JH > > > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 18:42:03 -0500 From: Barry Minsky To: , Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [162371] Re: AZ ScQRPions Paddle S/N List Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit On 12/4/03 9:08 AM, "Jerry Haigwood" wrote: > Folks, > The latest S/N list has been posted to the web. To check for your > name, go to: > and then click on "serial > numbers list." On Saturday we will start cutting brass for batch 2 and > hope to be shipping it around December 20. > > Jerry W5JH > > > I was surprised that I was not on the list. Maybe I will be in the next batch. Barry, W2BJ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 15:45:13 -0800 From: "Lyle Johnson" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [162372] RE: PSK31 on PDA Device? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The ShineMicro SM2496 would have been ideal. It was a DSP plug-in for a Handspring Visor, and did 1200 and 9600 bps packet, APRS, etc. Even had open source DSP code! But Handspring cancelled the Springboard expansion slot about the time ShineMicro was releasing their product... Lyle > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU [mailto:owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU]On Behalf Of > Bill Smith > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 3:20 PM > To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion > Subject: Re: PSK31 on PDA Device? > > > There is a VT-100 terminal emulation program available for palm > devices. Is > in the $30 range, but you also need a serial cable for a similar amount. > > Problem is the encoder/decoder (TU) hardware. Seems that development in > that direction has all but stopped in the last two years, with efforts > redirected toward soundcard program development. Am not sure *all* has > stopped, but don't know of any simple TU solution. > > I'd also like to see a MT-63 hardware TU. Also, the PSK-40 is not > available at this time, and don't know of a simple SSB transceiver which > could replace it. > > Bill > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Lyle Johnson > To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 2:45 PM > Subject: RE: PSK31 on PDA Device? > > > > Sorry for redundant bandwidth but I have come to the realization > > that my laptop is *far* too cumbersome to lug to the field and I > > was wondering if anyone had recommendations for smaller, lighter, > > kinder, gentler devices for doing PSK-31? Are there new PDAs on > > the market that could be used for this purpose? > > The Micro908 project from AmQRP looks like it will have a way to handle > PSK31 without a laptop or PDA... > > One problem with using a PDA for this sort of thing is that the CPU can't > sleep much if it is doing all the DSP work, so the batteries quickly > discharge. If a rig had a PSK31 system built in such that it > only needed an > ASCII terminal, then an old TRS80 model 100 or NEC 8201A would > give days of > battery life, or a Poqet PC would give many hours and not be too > cumbersome. > > 72, > > Lyle KK7P > > > ------------------------------ End of QRP-L Digest 3124 ************************ --------------------------------