20040120.qrp v03_n171.qrl.20040120 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 19:03:13 EST From: qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: QRP-L digest 3171 QRP-L Digest 3171 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) [165791] Re: ARRL Directors Meeting by "Kevin M., W8VOS" 2) [165792] Re: ARRL Board proposals made public...I *SUPPOSE* I can live with 'em... by "n3drk" 3) [165793] RE: ARRL Board proposals made public...I *SUPPOSE* I can live with 'em... by "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" 4) [165794] RE: Fw: ARRL Directors Meeting by "Bill Rowlett" 5) [165795] Re: ARRL Board proposals made public...I *SUPPOSE* I can live with 'em... by "Mike Yetsko" 6) [165796] RE: Palm PDA + accessories by "Ray Goff" 7) [165797] RE: ARRL Board proposals made public...I *SUPPOSE* I can live with 'em... by "Thom R. Lacosta" 8) [165798] Re: ARRL Board proposals made public...I *SUPPOSE* I can live with 'em... by Jason Buchanan 9) [165799] RE: ARRL Board proposals made public...I *SUPPOSE* I can live with 'em... by "Thom R. Lacosta" 10) [165800] QRP ARCI Certificates completed for TopBand & Homebrew Sprint by "Tom WB5KHC" 11) [165801] WWVB by "w8diz_qrpl_2" 12) [165802] Getting back in the saddle by KJ7UN 13) [165803] Re: ARRL Board proposals made public...I *SUPPOSE* I can live with 'em... by "steve" 14) [165804] I CAN SEE IT NOW ! by Rick McKee 15) [165805] RE: ARRL Board proposals made public...I *SUPPOSE* I can live with 'em... by "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" 16) [165806] Re: WWVB by "John J. McDonough" 17) [165807] RE: Getting back in the saddle by "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" 18) [165808] Re: ARRL Board proposals made public...I *SUPPOSE* I can live with 'em... by Jason Buchanan 19) [165809] Re: ARRL Directors Meeting by "Lawrence Makoski" 20) [165810] Portable/Mobile QRP with Laptop by "Dennis W. Farrell" 21) [165811] Re: ARRL Proposal by "Brian Murrey" 22) [165812] QRPp SWR/wattmeter kit? by "Kevin H. Miller" 23) [165813] PC Board Stock extender style needed by Bob KB2FEL 24) [165814] Re: ARRL Directors Meeting by w9ya 25) [165815] Re: ARRL Directors Meeting by Bob KB2FEL 26) [165816] Re: ARRL Proposal by "Brian Murrey" 27) [165817] RE: [qrp-l] QRPp SWR/wattmeter kit? by "Nick Kennedy" 28) [165818] Re: WWVB by "Larry - WA2DGD" 29) [165819] RE: Getting back in the saddle by 30) [165820] Re: ARRL Proposal by "Thom R. Lacosta" 31) [165821] ARRL Board proposals made public..and ARRL polls by Tom Mc 32) [165822] Re: ARRL Directors Meeting by "Bill Rowlett" 33) [165823] FS: K1-4 by "NZ8J" 34) [165824] RE: ARRL Board proposals made public...I *SUPPOSE* I can live with 'em... by "Thom R. Lacosta" 35) [165825] standoffs by "Rich Johnson" 36) [165826] Re: WWVB by Karl Larsen 37) [165827] Re: standoffs by Bob KB2FEL 38) [165828] Re: Portable/Mobile QRP with Laptop by Jeff Chambers 39) [165829] NEW PROPOSAL AND DUMMING DOWN.... HEE HEE by Joel M Denison 40) [165830] RE: ARRL Board proposals made public..and ARRL polls by "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" 41) [165831] Re: ARRL Directors Meeting by Richard Clem 42) [165832] Re: standoffs by 43) [165833] RE: ARRL Proposal by "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" 44) [165834] Re: ARRL Directors Meeting by Bob Nielsen 45) [165835] Re: QRPp SWR/wattmeter kit? by "Mike WA8BXN" 46) [165836] RE: ARRL Directors Meeting by "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" 47) [165837] Re: standoffs by Tim Hodges <7twh@mtintouch.net> 48) [165838] Code requirements by Peter Burbank 49) [165839] RE: WWVB by "JBCrafts" 50) [165840] Re: QRP-L Archives or PC address books by Tim Groat 51) [165841] Re: ARRL Proposal by JClinton46@aol.com 52) [165842] hw-8 parts.. by sergio 53) [165843] Re: ARRL Directors Meeting by Lee Mairs 54) [165844] RE: ARRL Proposal by "Thom R. Lacosta" 55) [165845] RE: ARRL Board proposals made public...I *SUPPOSE* I can live with 'em... by Adam Farson 56) [165846] Proposed CW freqs for new "Novices"? by Ed Tanton 57) [165847] Re: [NoGaQRP] Proposed CW freqs for new "Novices"? by w5xe@juno.com 58) [165848] Re: QRPp SWR/wattmeter kit? by "Lew Paceley" 59) [165849] Re: [NoGaQRP] Proposed CW freqs for new "Novices"? by Bob KB2FEL 60) [165850] Re: WWVB by "Bill Jones" 61) [165851] ARRL Petition by "Dennis Ponsness" 62) [165852] Re: [NoGaQRP] Proposed CW freqs for new "Novices"? by Ed Tanton 63) [165853] Re: WWVB by Chuck Adams 64) [165854] Re: WWVB by "Rod N0RC" 65) [165855] Re: QRPp SWR/wattmeter kit? by Chuck Carpenter 66) [165856] re: NEW PROPOSAL AND DUMMING DOWN.... HEE HEE by John R Kirby 67) [165857] Re: ARRL Directors Meeting by "Kevin M., W8VOS" 68) [165858] Re: WWVB by 69) [165859] re.WWVB by Peter Burbank 70) [165860] Michigan QRP Net by kwike@gdls.com 71) [165861] Heil HC-4 , HC-5 elements by "John Cook" 72) [165862] Re: ARRL Petition by John Sielke 73) [165863] Re: WWVB by "n2cx" 74) [165864] RE: ARRL Directors Meeting by "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" 75) [165865] WWVB Update by "w8diz_qrpl_2" 76) [165866] RE: PC Board Stock extender style needed by "AI2Q" 77) [165867] Beacon Report W5USJ/B 1/11/01 [Finally!] by Chuck Carpenter 78) [165868] ARRL and CW by "crbink" 79) [165869] Beacon Report W5USJ/B 1/10/01 [Rev1a] by Chuck Carpenter 80) [165870] RTV (silicone) sealant (again) by "Glen Leinweber" 81) [165871] Re: ARRL Petition by Alex 82) [165872] RE: ARRL Directors Meeting by Curt Milton 83) [165873] RE: ARRL Proposal by Curt Milton 84) [165874] RE: ARRL Petition by "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" 85) [165875] ScQRPions Paddles S/N 429-456 by Jerry Haigwood 86) [165876] Re: ARRL Petition by "n3drk" 87) [165877] Single-Electron Transistors: The Ultimate in Scaling? by Ed Tanton 88) [165878] RE: ARRL Directors Meeting by Ed Tanton 89) [165879] Re: ARRL and CW by "Mike Yetsko" 90) [165880] WWV and WWVB by "John Paul Keon" 91) [165881] Thanks Keith (WB2VUO)!! by Michael Danchi 92) [165882] Re: ARRL and CW by "sjolin" 93) [165883] FT 114-43 Toroid needed by "John" 94) [165884] RE: WWVB by "Joshua Gould" 95) [165885] UPS - a warning by Paul Erickson 96) [165886] Re: RTV (silicone) sealant (again) by "Tim, N9PUZ" 97) [165887] ARRL Board proposals, code/nocode, etc. by Jim Eshleman 98) [165888] Re: WWVB by "Larry - WA2DGD" 99) [165889] Re: FT 114-43 Toroid needed by "w8diz_qrpl_2" 100) [165890] Help with Homebrew QRP Transmitter by "Steve Ghertner" 101) [165891] Re: standoffs by Tayloe Dan-P26412 102) [165892] How to QSL by kwike@gdls.com 103) [165893] ScQRPions Paddles question for Canadian Hams by "Brian.Buydens@usask.ca" 104) [165894] RH-20 transceiver kit by "Joseph Trombino Jr" 105) [165895] Re: QRPp SWR/wattmeter kit? by "Marshall Emm" 106) [165896] Re: OT: Measuring Ground Resistance by "E. Roswell" 107) [165897] Truffle anouncement by "Juan Ferrari" 108) [165898] AZScQRPions Paddles # 340 by "John Paul Keon" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:20:00 -0500 From: "Kevin M., W8VOS" To: , "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [165791] Re: ARRL Directors Meeting Message-ID: <00df01c3dee2$c31eb2d0$66dc0a0a@magnus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It has been my experience both in the military and in college afterward that when you lower your requirements for entry into an organization you recruit people that you wouldn't want in your organization. That is my 2 cents. 73/72 - Kevin, W8VOS ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:28:55 -0500 From: "n3drk" To: , "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [165792] Re: ARRL Board proposals made public...I *SUPPOSE* I can live with 'em... Message-ID: <007e01c3dee4$01913870$6400a8c0@n3drk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 5:43 PM Subject: RE: ARRL Board proposals made public...I *SUPPOSE* I can live with 'em... > I am curious; have you publically criticized the other sites' surveys, or do you have an > issue only with ARRL's? Do you think that ARRL should stop doing the surveys on > its web page? > > Ed Hare, W1RFI The ARRL should discontinue these surveys. They are NOT in the Entertainment Industry. Eham is one too many in that regard. The ARRL has lost its sight and goals. A survey of this nature should not happen on any page of the leagues website. I expect the league to show commitment and determination in regards to its function. This survey was not very funny, doctored voting or not. It is quite embarassing to commited people of the league. Whoever thought this one up needs to do something more constructive. This was in poor taste. john-n3drk ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:36:27 -0500 From: "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [165793] RE: ARRL Board proposals made public...I *SUPPOSE* I can live with 'em... Message-ID: <721D3436A7C2B344A301FD4A413C71A902512651@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 Just to be sure I understand, John, are you saying that all of the=20 surveys ARRL has run have been an embarrassment, or were you concerned with just one of them? If just one, I have one or two on my groaner list, too. :-) http://www.arrl.org/survey.php3 Now, I will disagree with you that ARRL should not be entertaining. I give numerous talks to local clubs and conventions, and one of my=20 goals is to make sure that those that come to see me have a good time while they are at it. I say the things that I came to say, but I do so = in a way that makes it clear that I and they can and should have fun while we are at it. I would not be embarrassed by a survey on the bottom of a web page, = John. Ed Hare, W1RFI > -----Original Message----- > From: n3drk [mailto:n3drk@triad.rr.com] > Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 6:29 PM > To: Hare,Ed, W1RFI; Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion > Subject: Re: ARRL Board proposals made public...I *SUPPOSE* I can live > with 'em... >=20 >=20 >=20 > ----- Original Message -----=20 > From: "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" > To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" > Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 5:43 PM > Subject: RE: ARRL Board proposals made public...I *SUPPOSE* I=20 > can live with > 'em... > > I am curious; have you publically criticized the other=20 > sites' surveys, or > do you have an > > issue only with ARRL's? Do you think that ARRL should stop doing the > surveys on > > its web page? > > > > Ed Hare, W1RFI >=20 > The ARRL should discontinue these surveys. They are NOT in=20 > the Entertainment > Industry. Eham is one too many in that regard. The ARRL has=20 > lost its sight > and goals. A survey of this nature should not happen on any=20 > page of the > leagues website. I expect the league to show commitment and=20 > determination in > regards to its function. This survey was not very funny,=20 > doctored voting or > not. It is quite embarassing to commited people of the league. Whoever > thought this one up needs to do something more constructive.=20 > This was in > poor taste. >=20 > john-n3drk >=20 >=20 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:37:06 +0000 From: "Bill Rowlett" To: n3drk@triad.rr.com, qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU Subject: [165794] RE: Fw: ARRL Directors Meeting Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed A couple of points here. They keep 5 wpm on the EXTRA for those who wanted to keep a code requirement. Those who passed 20 wpm are no more special than those who passed 5 wpm. With the EXTRA written being a compined extra/advanced test, most of the 20 wpm extra's would be unable to pass the test as it is today, and more will be added to it. If you want to be tested on an operating mode, lets include all modes. Operating modes are just that, operating modes. More complete technical test are needed, covering the nuts and bolts of general electronics as well as radio. Now, before you ask, I started as an old novice back in the eighties. I use cw most on 6 meters. I agree with Ed, we need to come togather and NOT START UP THE STUPID INFIGHTING OVER CW. This does more harm than good. Make all newcomers welcome and help them to see the joy of QRP an CW. If you are excited, they will become excited. Lets pull togather and make this hobby grow. 73, Bill kc4atu If you want to get out of the hobby over this, my address is good on qrz.com, all donations of gear are greatly accepted. >From: "n3drk" >Reply-To: n3drk@triad.rr.com >To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" >Subject: Fw: ARRL Directors Meeting >Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:41:23 -0500 > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" > > > To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" > > > Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 3:53 PM > > > Subject: RE: ARRL Directors Meeting > > > > Although I would have personally kept code testing in the amateur >radio > > > > service differently than the ARRL proposal, I can hardly argue with >its > > > > statement that if the Extra is the highest testing achievement, it >is > > not > > > > unreasonable to expect that it would include proficiency in the >2nd-most > > > > used HF operating mode. > > > Ed, in all due respect but i beg to differ. If the Extra is the highest > testing achievement > the requirement of 5wpm code is very unreasonable. Those ops who prove > themselves > at 20wpm should have the first 25khz of each band for their > accomplishement. > Plain > and simple. Why dont they just do away with the code if they are > promoting > the 5 wpm for an Extra Class. This purely shows a lack of > leadership and commitment to the values and traditions in >Amateur Radio. > > > > > > At this point, we have two choices -- we can choose to continue the > > > divisions > > > > between the code- and no-code sides, or we can get behind a proposal > > that > > > > contains some elements of both sides and try to rebuild the sense of > > > oneness > > > > and camraderie that once made amateur radio one community united in >a > > > common > > > > cause. > > Well I choose to continue my division which exists between the code and > no-coders. > Why should I reach out and extend my hand to these people? I have >nothing > in > common > with them. But I support an organization which does not represent me so >why > should I > continue to belong. I really dont belong. For 40 bucks a year this is >the > best the ARRL > can offer? This is a joke. I would much rather perfered them to eliminate > the code and just > give everyone a license than this attitude of compromise. I > have > heard a few say > if the ARRL does go against our recomendations that we should continue >to > support them. > I am certainly not. I am not being represented so once I send off the >last > batch of qsls to > the bureau I am going to cancel my membership for good. If the ARRL >wants > new members > they are sure going about it the wrong way. > 10-4 Good Buddy. > > john-n3drk > > > > > > Ed Hare, W1RFI > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU > > > > > [mailto:owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU]On Behalf Of > > > > > Bob Nielsen > > > > > Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 3:21 PM > > > > > To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion > > > > > Subject: Re: ARRL Directors Meeting > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Considering that just about any position the ARRL board could > > > > > take would > > > > > have significant dissent among the members, I find this proposal >to >be > > > > > quite well thought-out. It's not necessarily what I would choose, >but > > > > > makes sense to me as a compromise between the various positions >and > > > > > hopefully the FCC will receive it favorably. > > > > > > > > > > Let the flames begin! > > > > > > > > > > 72/73, Bob N7XY > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Check out the coupons and bargains on MSN Offers! http://shopping.msn.com/softcontent/softcontent.aspx?scmId=1418 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:25:54 -0500 From: "Mike Yetsko" To: "Bill Rowlett" , Subject: [165795] Re: ARRL Board proposals made public...I *SUPPOSE* I can live with 'em... Message-ID: <007301c3dee3$969fbfa0$0200a8c0@charter.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > One, I will be surprized if the FCC goes for the new entry class. The quick > way to solve this is to leave the classes as they are and maintain the 5 wpm > for the extra. The FCC wants to keep any change simple and easy to bring > about with the least paper trail. > > Will be interesting to see what falls out in its final form. > > 73, Bill kc4atu Actually, I think you have a point. I'm not sure how the FCC will react, but I do agree that the FCC will probably not take the ARRL proposal as it is, and it will probably be more like what you suggest. But, regardless of all else, the message has materialized out of the fog. It's been hanging out there for years, and finally it's breaking through. And that is that CW no longer be the mandatory entry into HAM radio for HF privileges. The gel hasn't taken final form, but you can tell it's coming. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:02:46 -0000 From: "Ray Goff" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [165796] RE: Palm PDA + accessories Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Because of this, my older PDA is available for sale. > Once you have a Palm PDA, such as this one, you can go to my web site www.g4fon.co.uk and pick up a free logging programme called QSO Diary. No connection with Palm, Handspring or N4NMR... 72/73 Ray, G4FON ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:07:17 -0500 (EST) From: "Thom R. Lacosta" To: "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" Cc: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [165797] RE: ARRL Board proposals made public...I *SUPPOSE* I can live with 'em... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Hare,Ed, W1RFI wrote: > Do you really think that this should be a reason for ARRL not to feature its surveys > on its web page? If so, I disagree, because when the idiots don't decide to play their > games, reading the surveys and the tabulation of responses, on ARRL's site and others, > can be interesting and fun. I do not think that any of us should change what we are > doing in response to such immature and irresponsible behaviour. There was little choice > but to pull the defrauded survey, but to take it one step further and stop doing them > altogether would not have been helpful at all, IMHO. If you had read/or remembered my previous posts on the subject, you'd realize that I don;t think much at all of on line surveys...and I even recounted a story of one one mine that was abused. > I am curious; have you publically criticized the other sites' surveys, or do you have an > issue only with ARRL's? Do you think that ARRL should stop doing the surveys on > its web page? See above...I've even criticized my own use of web based surveys... Should the ARRL stop using them? Oh they can continue...but they might want to announce that they are strictly for entertainment, are not valid opinion polling devices and open to abuse by viewers. What's even more interesting is that you don't even have to be a member to participate. I'd be a lot more comfortable, as a Life Member, if your webmaster labeled the things for what they are. If teh ARRL didn't operate a flawed online polling system...no one could abuse it. The parallel in the non-internet world is the legal concept of attractive nusciance(sp). PS... Lest anyone misunderstand...I am a member of ARRL and I appreicate your efforts in the BPL issue and those of the League...but I do reserve the right to be critical. Thom http://www.baltimorehon.com/ Home of the Baltimore Lexicon http://www.tlchost.net/ Web Hosting as low as 3.49/month ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:09:24 -0500 From: Jason Buchanan To: kb8rtz@comcast.net Cc: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [165798] Re: ARRL Board proposals made public...I *SUPPOSE* I can live with 'em... Message-ID: <400C71B4.6050602@Digistar.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Patrick Schwarz - KB8RTZ wrote: >>AND, it would make the claim of the Novice not needing to >>"know that RF Field stuff." more believable. >> >>John W2AGN >>"10-4 good buddy, I'm destinated...." > > > Let me make sure I read this correctly: are you saying Novices need no > exposure to safe rf limits or never to touch an antenna when the radio is > keyed? Yikes. That was some dry saracasm on John's part ;-) heh 73 Jason N1SU ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:10:44 -0500 (EST) From: "Thom R. Lacosta" To: "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" Cc: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [165799] RE: ARRL Board proposals made public...I *SUPPOSE* I can live with 'em... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Hare,Ed, W1RFI wrote: > > I guess the next step would be to insure that all commercial transmitters > > that now use CW to identify the transmitter use something else. > > Do I sense another lobster-dinner wager in the making here? :-) Na...but if you come to Baltimore, I'd be more than happy to meet you for an eyeaball and enjoy the premim shellfish...steamed crabs...they are far more flavorful and ender than the items you mentioned...and I've NEVER heard a commercial crabber tell me he can;t afford to eat what he harvests. (g) Thom http://www.baltimorehon.com/ Home of the Baltimore Lexicon http://www.tlchost.net/ Web Hosting as low as 3.49/month ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:11:43 -0600 From: "Tom WB5KHC" To: "QRP L Mailing List" Subject: [165800] QRP ARCI Certificates completed for TopBand & Homebrew Sprint Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The QRP ARCI certificates for the 2003 TopBand Sprint and the 2003 Holiday Spirits Homebrew Sprint will be posted tomorrow. Congratulations are in order for 1st Place contesters, KF9D Roger Scott in the TopBand Sprint and our consummate contester, N4BP Bob Patten in the Holiday Homebrew Sprint! These are the last two certificates that Randy and I jointly issued and are available to view online at the ARCI Contest Info webpage along with the format of the 9 previous certificates. For 2004, the top scoring contester will get his certificate posted where the "?" is under Certificate. Just my way of putting the winner in the spotlight for more recognition among his peers. Remember the thrill of QRP? Try QRP contesting for a new thrill - come join us! 72, 73 and oo if you're a FP Tom Owens, WB5KHC QRP ARCI Contest Manager & Certificate Manager QRP ARCI 10645 FISTS #7865, CC #1026, WAS-FISTS #123, SILVER #192, GOLD #200, 1X-QRP #69, 2X-QRP #7, PLATINUM #194, PLATINUM-250 #81 FISTS USA Club Station Operator & Achievement Certificates http://2hams.net wb5khc@2hams.net contest@qrparci.org wb5khc@arrl.net AMATEUR RADIO: The ONLY fail-safe communications system in the world. Dit Dah Dit - the ONLY "roger" signal I ever want to hear! If it ain't CW; it's CB. ARRL: The reason Amateur Radio is! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:22:26 -0500 From: "w8diz_qrpl_2" To: Subject: [165801] WWVB Message-ID: <00a601c3deeb$7ba493d0$6601a8c0@cinci.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All, I just noticed that my Atomic Clock has difficulty receiving WWVB near Cincinnati, OH. Can't get enough signal to lock in. I had no problem receiving it last month on my $10 Walgreen's Special. Anyone else having problems receiving WWVB? 72 & "oo's" - Dieter (DIZ) Gentzow - W8DIZ - Loveland, Ohio Clermont County - EM79uf - near Cincinnati; 39:13:05N 84:18:18W RIG:multiPIG+ ANT:67 FT Vertical Dipole http://kitsandparts.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:26:29 -0700 From: KJ7UN To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [165802] Getting back in the saddle Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-15 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I love cw and have recently started operating cw/qrp again after over 4 years away. The first thing I did was re-join this list. I learned the code the WRONG way and took a break hoping to "clear" those bad habits and start over. I learned it fast instead of well the first time and in the long run, when I fell in love with the code, I wasn't good enough to enjoy it fully. My code mentor warned me, but I had already memorized charts before I met him, and it was just too late to fix it. Well, I'm back and it is better, even if it's not great yet. Some things I just can't "purge" from my Gray-RAM, but I'm trying. I'm rusty and I thank those of you who've put up with my less than articulate QSOs while practicing and getting back up to speed. I'm going to keep learning and practicing and thanking you all for helping me. Hope the Foxii are ready, 'cause I'll be gunning for you, soon! I don't know what to make of the ARRL Proposed License Restructuring. Hopefully it will all turn out ok and we can keep huddling around our rigs at night listening for Foxii and Piggies in the crackling noise... isn't that what it's all about?? 72 de KJ7UN, Laura dahdidah ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:26:48 -0500 From: "steve" To: , "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [165803] Re: ARRL Board proposals made public...I *SUPPOSE* I can live with 'em... Message-ID: <00be01c3deec$19c2a2a0$220110ac@STEVESL7X513D0> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit actually they had to apologize for hams stuffing the survey by no coders and coders .Not their doing . ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thom R. Lacosta" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 5:28 PM Subject: RE: ARRL Board proposals made public...I *SUPPOSE* I can live with 'em... > On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Hare,Ed, W1RFI wrote: > > > > Curious....is there still a requirement for RTTY stations to ID in cw? > > > > No. > > Ah...thank you for the information. > > > > > Couldn't help noticing that the league website is still using silly surveys. > > > > Some people enjoy them. I believe that ARRL, QRZ and eham.net all have surveys. > > And of the three mentioned ARRL recently had to apologize all over the > place for theirs. > > Thom > > http://www.baltimorehon.com/ Home of the Baltimore Lexicon > http://www.tlchost.net/ Web Hosting as low as 3.49/month ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:28:09 -0500 From: Rick McKee To: qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU Subject: [165804] I CAN SEE IT NOW ! Message-ID: <20040119.192813.10054.2.kc8aon@juno.com> THE NEW IMPROVED AMATEUR RADIO - DON'T ASK - DON'T TELL ! Flame suit and balistic vest on ! 72/73 de: Rick McKee, KC8AON <> Willow Wood, Ohio <> Grid: EM88rl SW-20+, SW-30+, SW-40+, Norcal BLT, Yaesu FT-7, Homebrew 6V6 tube TX QRP-L #2112, FPqrp #33, AR QRP, AmQRP, Ohio Valley Fists, MQFD #1 Monthly QRP Field Day info at : http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/mqfd I'll give up CW & QRP when I'm dead ! MAYBE ! didididadidah ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:35:01 -0500 From: "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [165805] RE: ARRL Board proposals made public...I *SUPPOSE* I can live with 'em... Message-ID: <721D3436A7C2B344A301FD4A413C71A90251265D@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 ARRL web page survey results say: "Note: You may vote only once. This ARRLWeb poll is not scientific and = reflects the opinions of only those ARRLWeb users who have chosen to = participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of = the amateur community as a whole, or of the ARRL." Are you finding fault with the choice of words? If so, it might be a bit = clearer for you to say that rather than say that the ARRL webmaster = should label the surveys for what they are. I personally find the above = disclaimer to be consise, clear and unambiguous. > Lest anyone misunderstand...I am a member of ARRL and I=20 > appreicate your efforts in the BPL issue and those of the League...but = I do=20 > reserve the right to be critical. Understood, but I am here as a member and a ham just like you, so I = reserve the right to be supportive! :-) Ed Hare, W1RFI > -----Original Message----- > From: Thom R. Lacosta [mailto:lacosta@bcpl.net] > Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 7:07 PM > To: Hare,Ed, W1RFI > Cc: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion > Subject: RE: ARRL Board proposals made public...I *SUPPOSE* I can live > with 'em... >=20 >=20 > On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Hare,Ed, W1RFI wrote: > > Do you really think that this should be a reason for ARRL=20 > not to feature its surveys > > on its web page? If so, I disagree, because when the=20 > idiots don't decide to play their > > games, reading the surveys and the tabulation of responses,=20 > on ARRL's site and others, > > can be interesting and fun. I do not think that any of us=20 > should change what we are > > doing in response to such immature and irresponsible=20 > behaviour. There was little choice > > but to pull the defrauded survey, but to take it one step=20 > further and stop doing them > > altogether would not have been helpful at all, IMHO. >=20 > If you had read/or remembered my previous posts on the subject, you'd > realize that I don;t think much at all of on line surveys...and I even > recounted a story of one one mine that was abused. >=20 > > I am curious; have you publically criticized the other=20 > sites' surveys, or do you have an > > issue only with ARRL's? Do you think that ARRL should stop=20 > doing the surveys on > > its web page? >=20 > See above...I've even criticized my own use of web based surveys... >=20 > Should the ARRL stop using them? Oh they can continue...but=20 > they might > want to announce that they are strictly for entertainment,=20 > are not valid > opinion polling devices and open to abuse by viewers. >=20 > What's even more interesting is that you don't even have to=20 > be a member > to participate. >=20 > I'd be a lot more comfortable, as a Life Member, if your=20 > webmaster labeled > the things for what they are. >=20 > If teh ARRL didn't operate a flawed online polling=20 > system...no one could > abuse it. >=20 > The parallel in the non-internet world is the legal concept=20 > of attractive > nusciance(sp). >=20 > PS... >=20 > Lest anyone misunderstand...I am a member of ARRL and I=20 > appreicate your > efforts in the BPL issue and those of the League...but I do=20 > reserve the > right to be critical. >=20 > Thom >=20 > http://www.baltimorehon.com/ Home of the Baltimore Lexicon > http://www.tlchost.net/ Web Hosting as low as 3.49/month >=20 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:40:21 -0500 From: "John J. McDonough" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Cc: Subject: [165806] Re: WWVB Message-ID: <021c01c3deed$fc7ad670$090044c0@BrianBoru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Diz My MFJ atomic clock with the great big numbers (and presumably a decent sized antenna under there) has some trouble depending on the season and the orientation I have the thing. It's in the basement which may have something to do with it. It's been pretty good since I moved it to a wall at right angles to where it used to be. I did notice that in the evening if I brought it upstairs it would always find WWVB within a few minutes. Santa brought me one of those MFJ watches this Christmas and it has had no trouble at all. But then, it doesn't sit in one place all the time so it has more opportunities. 72/73 de WB8RCR http://www.qsl.net/wb8rcr didileydadidah QRP-L #1446 Code Warriors #35 ----- Original Message ----- From: "w8diz_qrpl_2" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 7:22 PM Subject: WWVB > Hi All, > > I just noticed that my Atomic Clock has difficulty receiving WWVB > near Cincinnati, OH. Can't get enough signal to lock in. > I had no problem receiving it last month on my $10 Walgreen's Special. > > Anyone else having problems receiving WWVB? > > 72 & "oo's" - Dieter (DIZ) Gentzow - W8DIZ - Loveland, Ohio > Clermont County - EM79uf - near Cincinnati; 39:13:05N 84:18:18W > RIG:multiPIG+ ANT:67 FT Vertical Dipole http://kitsandparts.com > > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:42:16 -0500 From: "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [165807] RE: Getting back in the saddle Message-ID: <721D3436A7C2B344A301FD4A413C71A90251265F@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 > I don't know what to make of the ARRL Proposed License Restructuring. = > Hopefully it will all turn out ok and we can keep huddling around our = rigs=20 > at night listening for Foxii and Piggies in the crackling noise... = isn't=20 > that what it's all about?? Nothing in that proposal is going to change what I am doing with ham = radio by one dit. :-)=20 I did promise the Flying Pigs I would get on the air more this year, so = maybe we will run across each other one night on 40. I will be pretty weak out there, = but if you hear me, give me a call -- at any speed! Are you going to make it to Dayton this = year? I will probably=20 bring a rig with me and have a bit of fun working other DX on the other = side of the hotel!=20 Ed Hare, W1RFI > From: owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU=20 > [mailto:owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU]On Behalf Of > KJ7UN > Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 7:26 PM > To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion > Subject: Getting back in the saddle >=20 >=20 > I love cw and have recently started operating cw/qrp again=20 > after over 4=20 > years away. The first thing I did was re-join this list. >=20 > I learned the code the WRONG way and took a break hoping to=20 > "clear" those=20 > bad habits and start over. I learned it fast instead of well=20 > the first=20 > time and in the long run, when I fell in love with the code,=20 > I wasn't good=20 > enough to enjoy it fully. My code mentor warned me, but I had already=20 > memorized charts before I met him, and it was just too late to fix it. >=20 > Well, I'm back and it is better, even if it's not great yet. =20 > Some things=20 > I just can't "purge" from my Gray-RAM, but I'm trying. I'm=20 > rusty and I=20 > thank those of you who've put up with my less than articulate=20 > QSOs while=20 > practicing and getting back up to speed. I'm going to keep=20 > learning and=20 > practicing and thanking you all for helping me. >=20 > Hope the Foxii are ready, 'cause I'll be gunning for you, soon! >=20 > I don't know what to make of the ARRL Proposed License=20 > Restructuring. =20 > Hopefully it will all turn out ok and we can keep huddling=20 > around our rigs=20 > at night listening for Foxii and Piggies in the crackling=20 > noise... isn't=20 > that what it's all about?? >=20 > 72 de KJ7UN, Laura dahdidah >=20 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:58:17 -0500 From: Jason Buchanan To: myetsko@insydesw.com Cc: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [165808] Re: ARRL Board proposals made public...I *SUPPOSE* I can live with 'em... Message-ID: <400C7D29.5060005@Digistar.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mike Yetsko wrote: > But, regardless of all else, the message has materialized out of the fog. > It's been hanging out there for years, and finally it's breaking through. > And that is that CW no longer be the mandatory entry into HAM radio > for HF privileges. The gel hasn't taken final form, but you can tell > it's coming. It sure is - I just received a draft copy of the new Novice question pool - the first 20 of the 25 questions are multiple guess for song lyrics by Red Sovine. Nothing in there about removing the parasitic supressors to show more output power on a wattmeter, surprisingly. On the other hand, I see the proposed changes will have a positive benefit to the hobby in terms of a larger user base. The number of hams will certainly grow and those of us who enjoy CW will continue to have our slice of the bands. Let the "CQ Skip Land!" users infiltrate the phone portions; maybe some of them will discover what they have and at least we'll still have spectrum to use. I strongly believe that if we can hold together for another 15 to 20 years things will improve. Amateur radio thrived 80 years ago because it was the "latest thing" - computers and internet technology are the current "latest thing" but they will see their days of doldrums soon leaving the purists behind to hold things together. We are the purists of radio, we must not forget that the pendulum will eventually swing back in our favor. Kate Smith will start singing and flags start waving if I keep typing so I will send this now. 73 Jason N1SU ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:59:29 -0500 From: "Lawrence Makoski" To: , "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [165809] Re: ARRL Directors Meeting Message-ID: <01dd01c3def0$a9593920$63d84b0c@larrysahyqy001> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kevin, Excellent - I agree with you completely on this! I have been ruminating on this for a few hours and am not sure yet exactly how I feel about this "momentous" board meeting. I am coming to the conclusion that I'm not so upset about losing the CW exam as I am about losing the "specialness" of Amateur Radio. Ed Hare and others have stated that the exams today are far tougher than they used to be. Maybe he's right - I can't be sure, as memory is a tricky thing. The tests that I took in front of FCC examiners after studying texts and not knowing the questions in advance sure seemed pretty darned hard to me! Maybe they are tougher now; but as a VE (with the ARRL VEC) for over a decade and from what I hear from my own Ham buddies makes me disheartened at times. I DON'T LIKE giving 2 or 3 versions of an exam for one class of license to a candidate at one session - just because he can afford to try them all at one sitting! I don't like hearing from some of my own friends how they would have NEVER gotten their General, Advanced, or Extra if they hadn't know ahead of time what the questions would be like. What do you say to someone who has become a real good friend (and an Extra class to boot) when he asks you how long does a dipole for 15M need to be? Do you make him angry and tell him that as an Extra this is something he should be able to figure out on his own? Or do you just sigh inwardly and explain the calculations to him - hoping that in memorizing answers he learned a little about something anyway? I have been involved in Amateur Radio since the late 70's. I wanted to be a Ham when I was much younger; but just couldn't "get" the code - no matter how hard I tried. After high school and college, I decided to buckle down and "just do it". And you know what? I did do it; and I felt really good because I had finally accomplished something I had wanted to do for a very long time. In the 80's my involvement in Amateur Radio led me to get involved with our county's Office of Emergency Management. After being with them for a while, I decided to take some training and become an EMT. In my county, however, the final part of the EMT test was to assist in a submerged rescue of an accident victim. Problem is that I'm one of those rare adults who never learned to swim as a kid. So while I could take the course, I knew I would never be able to take the final exam. Unfortunately, I never became an EMT. Did I whine and whimper and demand they change the requirements? No, I accepted them as they were and moved on. Maybe some would condemn me for that; but I felt it was the mature thing to do. And maybe, someday I'll take adult classes - learn to swim and go back for that EMT training. Right now, I don't have the time to devote to it; but I am sure not looking for a way "to beat the system". My grandparents and parents taught me that for most things in life, if you wanted something bad enough and you worked hard enough - you would eventually get it. I guess maybe there's too many folks out there who don't agree with that anymore. The foot is now in the door. I fear the CW subbands are now officially on the "endangered species list". 73 de Larry W2LJ - Vivat Morse! W2LJ@arrl.net http://www.qsl.net/w2lj ARRL Lifemember QRP ARCI #4488 NJQRP #47 FISTS #1469 QRP-L #778 FP #612 QRPp-I #759 ARS #1528 --- K1 #1647 --- AmQRP, CQC #746 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin M., W8VOS" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 6:20 PM Subject: Re: ARRL Directors Meeting > It has been my experience both in the military and in college afterward > that when you lower your requirements for entry into an organization you > recruit people that you wouldn't want in your organization. > That is my 2 cents. > 73/72 - Kevin, W8VOS > > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:05:57 -0800 From: "Dennis W. Farrell" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [165810] Portable/Mobile QRP with Laptop Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.0.20040119165438.026dfa90@mail.ridgenet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed I wanted to start with the required QRP content (:->) I'm starting to put together a mobile/portable APRS and HF PSK-31 station. I need to buy a static inverter. There are lots of choices and prices. The major differences seem to be between sine wave and modified sine wave outputs , and in power level. The pure sine wave output inverters are noticeably more expensive. Questions: Will a modified sine wave inverter cause problems with my laptop's switching power supply or otherwise with its operation? (I realize there are various quality/price levels which may affect this) Will a modified sine wave inverter be a problematical RFI generator? Is it better to buy significantly higher capacity than needed, so that the inverter is not heavily loaded, or will one operating with little reserve not be a problem. Opinions and experiences are welcome, as are recommendations for specific brands and models. Thanks for any help -- W6DWF ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 20:11:30 -0500 From: "Brian Murrey" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [165811] Re: ARRL Proposal Message-ID: <00ef01c3def2$56775960$02fea8c0@bjmw2k> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I want to see exactly what band segments are goin gto be suggested for the new Novice. Have they been published? 72 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karl Larsen" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 5:13 PM Subject: ARRL Proposal > > I printed out the ARRL Proposal from the web page and have > studied it. In general I really like what was done. The new Novice Class > should be easy enough for young people who have a desire to be a Ham and > join us on our 75 meter net. They will not be able to use 20 meters. > They have a 25 question test and no code required. > > The General is just about the same as it is now. Tech and Tech+ > will become General automatically. There is no code test for General. > > The Extra Class remains exactly as it is today. Same 50 > question test and 5 WPM code. > > > So it does not eliminate the Code Test from the Amatuer Radio > examinations but it does allow HF privleges to classes that do not > require a code test. > > Now my changes. I would require the new Extra Class Ham to have > 20 WPM code. I would not have a 50 watt limit on 10 meters. The New > Novice can run 100 watts output on all frequencies they can use. > > I figure if a guy wants to be Extra, he needs to prove he is > extra good. > > -- > > - Karl Larsen k5di Las Cruces,NM Az ScQRPions - > > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 20:13:11 -0500 From: "Kevin H. Miller" To: qrp-l@lehigh.edu Subject: [165812] QRPp SWR/wattmeter kit? Message-ID: <400C80A7.1000802@coastalnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit QRP-L folks, I am a new ham interested in QRP and homebrewing who has recently built a 20m Rock-Mite (my first rig). I am having difficulty finding an appropriate SWR/wattmeter to use with the RM and future QRP rigs. As I built the RM, modified to run off 9V, it only puts out about 300mW. According to my calculations, to get down below SWR 1.3:1 (which is what my elmers have suggested) I have to be able to read reflected power levels less than 5mW (at 300 mW total power, I calculate SWR 1.3:1 is about 5mW reflected, 1.2:1 is 2.5mW and 1.1:1 is <1mW). I suppose if I had a rig that would put out more power this wouldn't be an issue, but right now the RM is it. I have contacted Steve Weber (KD1JV) about his digital HF power/SWR meter--he says it's minimum is about 5mW (BTW, although all these kits have already been snapped up, he said more are coming through 4SQRP). The Oak Hills Research WM-2 looks like it will read 5mW or less, but it's specs say the accuracy is 5%, which means 5mW on the lowest scale (100mW). I have also considered the NoGaWatt, but it seems to only go down to 100mW or so. I've looked back through the QRP-L archives and this seems to be the best selection of QRP SWR/wattmeter kits I could find. Does anyone know of any other SWR/wattmeter kits that might be able to measure at these levels? Is 5mW the best I can hope to do without spending big bucks? How do other QRPp'ers deal with this issue, assuming you don't have a higher power rig to use to trim or tune your antennas? In my case, one of my elmers came over with a SWR analyzer and checked my homebrew dipole; it showed SWR 1.6:1 (made by careful measurement alone; untrimmed and untuned). This doesn't seem to be causing any problems to the RM, but I am loosing something like 15mW to reflected power. Maybe SWR <1.3:1 is an unreasonable (even unnecessary?) goal, and I shouldn't worry about measuring so low, especially with such a low power transceiver. But this nags at me--it seems that running such low power is just when it matters most! Any suggestions or advice anyone can offer would be much appreciated. 72, Kevin KI4DEF Kevin H. Miller Washington, NC khmiller@coastalnet.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:16:05 -0800 (PST) From: Bob KB2FEL To: Low Power Amateur Radio Subject: [165813] PC Board Stock extender style needed Message-ID: <20040120011605.93143.qmail@web60509.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi All, I am designing a project that will use plug in modules. I am trying to locate a supplier of lined bread board style pc board stock with edge connectors. Not full cooper clad PC stock, but the type of board you could use as a pc extender card. I would prefer the board be perforated so I could easily bread board. Hope I explained that correctly...any help will be appreciated. 72 Bob KB2FEL/8 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 20:18:11 -0500 From: w9ya To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [165814] Re: ARRL Directors Meeting Message-ID: <200401192018.11819.w9ya@arrl.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On Monday 19 January 2004 07:59 pm, Lawrence Makoski wrote: > Kevin, > > Excellent - I agree with you completely on this! > > I have been ruminating on this for a few hours and am not sure yet > exactly how I feel about this "momentous" board meeting. I am coming to > the conclusion that I'm not so upset about losing the CW exam as I am > about losing the "specialness" of Amateur Radio. > > Ed Hare and others have stated that the exams today are far tougher than > they used to be. Maybe he's right - I can't be sure, as memory is a > tricky thing. The tests that I took in front of FCC examiners after > studying texts and not knowing the questions in advance sure seemed > pretty darned hard to me! > > Maybe they are tougher now; but as a VE (with the ARRL VEC) for over a > decade and from what I hear from my own Ham buddies makes me > disheartened at times. I DON'T LIKE giving 2 or 3 versions of an exam > for one class of license to a candidate at one session - just because he > can afford to try them all at one sitting! I don't like hearing from > some of my own friends how they would have NEVER gotten their General, > Advanced, or Extra if they hadn't know ahead of time what the questions > would be like. > > What do you say to someone who has become a real good friend (and an > Extra class to boot) when he asks you how long does a dipole for 15M > need to be? Do you make him angry and tell him that as an Extra this is > something he should be able to figure out on his own? Or do you just > sigh inwardly and explain the calculations to him - hoping that in > memorizing answers he learned a little about something anyway? > > I have been involved in Amateur Radio since the late 70's. I wanted to > be a Ham when I was much younger; but just couldn't "get" the code - no > matter how hard I tried. After high school and college, I decided to > buckle down and "just do it". And you know what? I did do it; and I > felt really good because I had finally accomplished something I had > wanted to do for a very long time. > > In the 80's my involvement in Amateur Radio led me to get involved with > our county's Office of Emergency Management. After being with them for > a while, I decided to take some training and become an EMT. In my > county, however, the final part of the EMT test was to assist in a > submerged rescue of an accident victim. Problem is that I'm one of > those rare adults who never learned to swim as a kid. So while I could > take the course, I knew I would never be able to take the final exam. > Unfortunately, I never became an EMT. Did I whine and whimper and > demand they change the requirements? No, I accepted them as they were > and moved on. Maybe some would condemn me for that; but I felt it was > the mature thing to do. And maybe, someday I'll take adult classes - > learn to swim and go back for that EMT training. Right now, I don't > have the time to devote to it; but I am sure not looking for a way "to > beat the system". > > My grandparents and parents taught me that for most things in life, if > you wanted something bad enough and you worked hard enough - you would > eventually get it. I guess maybe there's too many folks out there who > don't agree with that anymore. > > The foot is now in the door. I fear the CW subbands are now officially > on the "endangered species list". Hey Larry; Of all the items you discuss here in such a good and insightful way, this one is a *gem*. Everytime I hear that CW use is not threatened the hairs on the back of my neck just straighten and stick right up. Vy 72; Bob w9ya > > 73 de Larry W2LJ - Vivat Morse! > > W2LJ@arrl.net > http://www.qsl.net/w2lj > > ARRL Lifemember QRP ARCI #4488 NJQRP #47 > FISTS #1469 QRP-L #778 FP #612 QRPp-I #759 > ARS #1528 --- K1 #1647 --- AmQRP, CQC #746 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kevin M., W8VOS" > To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" > Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 6:20 PM > Subject: Re: ARRL Directors Meeting > > > It has been my experience both in the military and in college > > afterward > > > that when you lower your requirements for entry into an organization > > you > > > recruit people that you wouldn't want in your organization. > > That is my 2 cents. > > 73/72 - Kevin, W8VOS ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:31:25 -0800 (PST) From: Bob KB2FEL To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [165815] Re: ARRL Directors Meeting Message-ID: <20040120013125.63720.qmail@web60505.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi All, These are the things I have been hearing on 2 meters from FL to NY. I will not pass on the call signs of the stations heard. QSO 1 This is foxy lady are you around papa bear QSO 2 Ok so how can I tell if my antenna is horizontal or vertical. QSO 3 You are over modulating maybe try and turn your volume down .. that should help. If I read it correctly these folks will be able to op in the Digital..CW portion of the bands. Good Luck with your new ideas for the HF bands ARRL. I was surprised to see in your proposal that you did not include 11 meter ops in your HF reorganization. 72 Bob KB2FEL/8 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 20:40:14 -0500 From: "Brian Murrey" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [165816] Re: ARRL Proposal Message-ID: <004701c3def6$5a271e20$02fea8c0@bjmw2k> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ooops...missed it at the end of the article. So, no WARC, and no 20m for Novice....but khz's to spare on the rest. This will be interesting. I just hope we don't start getting clobbered by PSK and other digital modes on 7050... Gangue...if you enjoy CW like I do, we must face the facts that unless we recruit new CW users into our fold, our days are probably numbered. There is no better way to hook a person on CW than QRP rig building, in my opinion. It's what got me here. 72 de KB9BVN ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Murrey" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 8:11 PM Subject: Re: ARRL Proposal > I want to see exactly what band segments are goin gto be suggested for > the new Novice. > > Have they been published? > > 72 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Karl Larsen" > To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" > Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 5:13 PM > Subject: ARRL Proposal > > > > > > I printed out the ARRL Proposal from the web page and have > > studied it. In general I really like what was done. The new Novice > Class > > should be easy enough for young people who have a desire to be a Ham > and > > join us on our 75 meter net. They will not be able to use 20 meters. > > They have a 25 question test and no code required. > > > > The General is just about the same as it is now. Tech and Tech+ > > will become General automatically. There is no code test for General. > > > > The Extra Class remains exactly as it is today. Same 50 > > question test and 5 WPM code. > > > > > > So it does not eliminate the Code Test from the Amatuer Radio > > examinations but it does allow HF privleges to classes that do not > > require a code test. > > > > Now my changes. I would require the new Extra Class Ham to have > > 20 WPM code. I would not have a 50 watt limit on 10 meters. The New > > Novice can run 100 watts output on all frequencies they can use. > > > > I figure if a guy wants to be Extra, he needs to prove he is > > extra good. > > > > -- > > > > - Karl Larsen k5di Las Cruces,NM Az ScQRPions - > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:54:54 -0600 From: "Nick Kennedy" To: , "'Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion'" Subject: [165817] RE: [qrp-l] QRPp SWR/wattmeter kit? Message-ID: <000501c3def8$666e82c0$0400000a@wa5bdu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The W7EL SWR / wattmeter (QST February 1990) has one scale that is 100 mW forward power. I believe it can show that 1.3 to 1 null pretty easily, probably lower. It may be a little more complicated than you have in mind however (uses a couple op-amps). Often, these circuits use transformers to transform DOWN the voltages and currents on the line, because the circuits needs less amplitude. The W7EL meter uses 10:1 ratios. I would think you could take a detection circuit and use lower ratios to get more sensitivity. A popular bridge seen recently doesn't use transformers at all, but applies the TX output directly to the resistive bridge, with the antenna as an unknown. (See Rainbow Tuner and Rainbow Antenna Analyzer on the NJQRP page.) I'd imagine it's fairly sensitive. In all cases, it's necessary for the sampled voltage & current to turn on a diode. It's interesting that peak voltage into a 50 ohm load is: 5 watts 22 volts 1 watt 10 volts 300 mw 5.5 volts 5 mw 0.707 volts 72 & GL-- Nick, WA5BDU -----Original Message----- From: owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU [mailto:owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU] On Behalf Of Kevin H. Miller , I am a new ham interested in QRP and homebrewing who has recently built a 20m Rock-Mite (my first rig). I am having difficulty finding an appropriate SWR/wattmeter to use with the RM and future QRP rigs. As I built the RM, modified to run off 9V, it only puts out about 300mW. According to my calculations, to get down below SWR 1.3:1 (which is what my elmers have suggested) I have to be able to read reflected power levels less than 5mW (at 300 mW total power, I calculate SWR 1.3:1 is about 5mW reflected, 1.2:1 is 2.5mW and 1.1:1 is <1mW). I suppose if I had a rig that would put out more power this wouldn't be an issue, but right now the RM is it. 72, Kevin KI4DEF Kevin H. Miller Washington, NC khmiller@coastalnet.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 20:55:36 -0500 From: "Larry - WA2DGD" To: , "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [165818] Re: WWVB Message-ID: <003001c3def8$7f260680$6579a8c0@hamroom> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, For about the past 2 months, both my atomic clocks lock in maybe once a week. It used to be just about every day. I'm located in Newtown, Pa. (FN20md) 73 Larry WA2DGD K2 #1672 ARCI QRP #11215 NJ-QRP# 395 ----- Original Message ----- From: "w8diz_qrpl_2" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 7:22 PM Subject: WWVB > Hi All, > > I just noticed that my Atomic Clock has difficulty receiving WWVB > near Cincinnati, OH. Can't get enough signal to lock in. > I had no problem receiving it last month on my $10 Walgreen's Special. > > Anyone else having problems receiving WWVB? > > 72 & "oo's" - Dieter (DIZ) Gentzow - W8DIZ - Loveland, Ohio > Clermont County - EM79uf - near Cincinnati; 39:13:05N 84:18:18W > RIG:multiPIG+ ANT:67 FT Vertical Dipole http://kitsandparts.com > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:02:31 -0500 From: To: Subject: [165819] RE: Getting back in the saddle Message-ID: <003501c3def9$77ec3e60$6425ad80@f1n5n8> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Wish I could say the same, Ed. I've only checked in a few times but... I will miss hearing Dortha and the gang on the SunRise Net on 7148 KHz CW. Then again, my old Novice crystals...7159, 7170, 7181, 7184 haven't seen any action in a long time either... 73. Bill, N4QA http://www.n4qa.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:03:30 -0500 (EST) From: "Thom R. Lacosta" To: Brian Murrey Cc: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [165820] Re: ARRL Proposal Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Brian Murrey wrote: > > Gangue...if you enjoy CW like I do, we must face the facts that unless > we recruit new CW users into our fold, our days are probably numbered. I believe that's a fair statement. > > There is no better way to hook a person on CW than QRP rig building, in > my opinion. It's what got me here. And one would hope that many of us get on the bands and court the new CW ops...and infect them with the magic and mystery. I went off the air for 40 years...and when I got my ticket back, I jumped back into CW. Way back when, people told me I had a beautiful fist...I didn't know enough to know if they were right or wrong. But when I got back on, I had to struggle to send again, and copy again....but I did it...and the magic and the music came back. But it's not only CW...I really believe that we need to infect the new folks, and some of the old folks with the magic..otherwise it's simply a hobby that can be replaced with another one. Thom http://www.baltimorehon.com/ Home of the Baltimore Lexicon http://www.tlchost.net/ Web Hosting as low as 3.49/month ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:04:55 -0500 From: Tom Mc To: w1rfi@arrl.org, Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [165821] ARRL Board proposals made public..and ARRL polls Message-ID: <010601c3def9$d1a0b8a0$b34ab818@x2f6a2> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Ed, Tnx for the updates and explanations...I for one am appalled to read what you relayed below...to me its just catastrophic to think that someone, or group would do this. This is quite troubling -- makes you wonder what else is going on out there! I personally voted to keep the code (only once, though), and my feelings are still the same. Do I blame the League? No, but others may and that is certainly their prerogative. I think the ARRL is looking out for the best interest of ham radio, we are very fortunate to have a voice that the FCC, pretty much, listens to. If it were not for the League, the FCC would have a bunch of hams on its doorstep with all sorts of different opinions. And, they would probably get one of those opinions over 25,000 times. So thanks Ed, for being our laison and also for keeping us posted. I for one am embarrassed that some sore losers (although I think your term definitely applies here) among our ranks have done such a thing, but I have faith and confidence in the overwhelming majority to meet the challenge of this change and come out with a healthier hobby which will welcome new and young members. Tom McCulloch WB2QDG -----Original Message----- From: Hare,Ed, W1RFI To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Date: Monday, January 19, 2004 6:10 PM Subject: RE: ARRL Board proposals made public...I *SUPPOSE* I can live with'em... ARRL ran a survey that included code testing as one of the possible things that hams wanted to see accomplished for amateur radio in 2004. A few idiots (and I use that word rarely) decided to spoil everyone's fun by setting up scripts to vote their position again and again -- running the total votes above 25,000. At that point, the survey had no meaning at all, even for the enjoyment of seeing a snapshot of what those that chose to respond to the survey thought about the subject. ARRL pulled the survey and ran a web-page article to explain why. It included an apology, but the ones that really SHOULD have apologized were those that thought that destroying the survey was the best thing they could accomplish that day. --big snip-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 02:05:48 +0000 From: "Bill Rowlett" To: qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU Subject: [165822] Re: ARRL Directors Meeting Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed You hear that on the repeaters not because of the requirements being lowered but because the radios are at the Radio Shack and EBAY and they do not check for a Ham Ticket. Just like all the people on the HF bands who just buy a rig off of EBAY. Ham ticket, whats that? Do not blame that which is not at fault. 73, Bill kc4atu >From: Bob KB2FEL >Reply-To: kb2fel@yahoo.com >To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" >Subject: Re: ARRL Directors Meeting >Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:31:25 -0800 (PST) > >Hi All, > >These are the things I have been hearing on 2 meters >from FL to NY. I will not pass on the call signs of >the stations heard. > >QSO 1 >This is foxy lady are you around papa bear > >QSO 2 >Ok so how can I tell if my antenna is horizontal or >vertical. > >QSO 3 >You are over modulating maybe try and turn your volume >down .. that should help. > >If I read it correctly these folks will be able to op >in the Digital..CW portion of the bands. > >Good Luck with your new ideas for the HF bands ARRL. >I was surprised to see in your proposal that you did >not include 11 meter ops in your HF reorganization. > > >72 >Bob >KB2FEL/8 > > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes >http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus _________________________________________________________________ Find high-speed net deals comparison-shop your local providers here. https://broadband.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:08:00 -0500 From: "NZ8J" To: Subject: [165823] FS: K1-4 Message-ID: <045901c3defa$3b4edc00$6400a8c0@NZ8J> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Excellent condition K1 (serial number 474) 4 bands (40-30-20-15) with internal tuner and latest firmware. Also have a 2 band board for 80/17 meters that needs to be finished, it is 90% completed, all the parts are there. Noise blanker and internal battery kits as I got them from Elecraft ready to build and install. All manuals and documentation. Works and looks great. $400 + shipping. Might consider a small 40 meter rig like a Wilderness 40A or DSW-40 as part trade. Thanks Tim NZ8J ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:09:17 -0500 (EST) From: "Thom R. Lacosta" To: "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" Cc: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [165824] RE: ARRL Board proposals made public...I *SUPPOSE* I can live with 'em... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Hare,Ed, W1RFI wrote: > The ARRL web page survey results say: > > "Note: You may vote only once. This ARRLWeb poll is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those ARRLWeb users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of the amateur community as a whole, or of the ARRL." > > Are you finding fault with the choice of words? If so, it might be a bit clearer for you to say that rather than say that the ARRL webmaster should label the surveys for what they are. I personally find the above disclaimer to be consise, clear and unambiguous. How can I fault the disclaimer? Let's just say it gives me the same amount of confidence that I'd get if I went out on a date and the YL got me to sign a release against STDs, etc. I don't want to get moderated, or fill up mailboxes...so I'll not continue the thread...enough other folks have pointed out the negatives about web based surveys. > > > Lest anyone misunderstand...I am a member of ARRL and I > > appreicate your efforts in the BPL issue and those of the League...but I do > > reserve the right to be critical. > > Understood, but I am here as a member and a ham just like you, so I reserve the right to be supportive! :-) Right...but, in actuality, neither of our approaches does anything to advance Amateur Radio. So, I'll stop posting about the ARRL and their web page. Thom http://www.baltimorehon.com/ Home of the Baltimore Lexicon http://www.tlchost.net/ Web Hosting as low as 3.49/month ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:19:30 -0800 From: "Rich Johnson" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [165825] standoffs Message-ID: <003401c3defb$d5d37af0$2605ab43@END0EB86CD98A1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit So where do you people recommend i get 1/4 in, brass, male-female standoffs? The kind where one end screws into a nut and the other end gets screwed into. cheers, rich ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:33:36 -0700 (MST) From: Karl Larsen To: Larry - WA2DGD Cc: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [165826] Re: WWVB Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Larry - WA2DGD wrote: > Hi, > > For about the past 2 months, both my atomic clocks lock in maybe once a > week. It used to be just about every day. I'm located in Newtown, Pa. > (FN20md) Must be poor band conditions. > > 73 > Larry > WA2DGD > K2 #1672 > ARCI QRP #11215 > NJ-QRP# 395 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "w8diz_qrpl_2" > To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" > Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 7:22 PM > Subject: WWVB > > > > Hi All, > > > > I just noticed that my Atomic Clock has difficulty receiving WWVB > > near Cincinnati, OH. Can't get enough signal to lock in. > > I had no problem receiving it last month on my $10 Walgreen's Special. > > > > Anyone else having problems receiving WWVB? > > > > 72 & "oo's" - Dieter (DIZ) Gentzow - W8DIZ - Loveland, Ohio > > Clermont County - EM79uf - near Cincinnati; 39:13:05N 84:18:18W > > RIG:multiPIG+ ANT:67 FT Vertical Dipole http://kitsandparts.com > > > > > > -- - Karl Larsen k5di Las Cruces,NM Az ScQRPions - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:27:31 -0800 (PST) From: Bob KB2FEL To: rjohnson390@comcast.net, Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [165827] Re: standoffs Message-ID: <20040120022731.82902.qmail@web60506.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- Rich Johnson wrote: > So where do you people recommend i get 1/4 in, > brass, male-female standoffs? > The kind where one end screws into a nut and the > other end gets screwed > into. > > cheers, > rich > > Hi Rich, Try Dans Small Parts http://www.danssmallpartsandkits.net 72 Bob KB2FEL/8 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:30:47 -0700 From: Jeff Chambers To: dennisw.farrell@verizon.net, qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU Subject: [165828] Re: Portable/Mobile QRP with Laptop Message-ID: <400C92D7.1090401@cableone.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dennis, I use a 400W sine wave converter for my laptop APRS station in my vehicle. I don't have any trouble with RFI. The laptop is an IBM Thinkpad (kind of old and slow, but works like a champ) and a KPC3+ TNC. It's not much work for the converter. I got it for $45.00 at Target. I'm suprised, as the vehicle it is in is a police car with lots of potential RFI makers (a couple of UHF radios, MDT, radar, scanner, audio/video recorder, and the 144.39 radio), and it's quieter than my personal vehicle. Good luck! 72, Jeff Chambers KK7MQ -- _________________________________________________ Build a mile of road, you can travel a mile...... Build a mile of runway, you can travel the world! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:31:52 -0500 From: Joel M Denison To: fpqrp-l@mpna.com, qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU Subject: [165829] NEW PROPOSAL AND DUMMING DOWN.... HEE HEE Message-ID: <20040119.213416.2680.0.hamjoel@juno.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Once, when ah was wondering about things in general... I went on down to bayou self and watched the day unfold.... soon nuf... this fella come up in a fancy off road vehicle and come outta that thing dressed like a fishing commercial, with hip boots, fishing vest, what musta been the latest fly fishing outfit....and he even done warm up exercises and read from an expert's guide to bass fishing book before he went to edge of the water and started fishing... bout ah hour later this young kid come by holding a cane pole and some string and a can of worms.... Well.... come later on in the day both them fellas left with some fish, and a big smile on thair faces... one cause he did it all with his new super delux whatever , after hours of practice and schooling , and using all the latest technics..... and the other.... the kid was smiling cause he went fishing and caught some fish.... fishin is fishin and radio is radio and some folks would make u believe it's sumthin elaborate and some would have u believe it just comes naturally if ur so inclined... KE1LA Joel Denison Strong, Maine, 04983 Freezin solid up heah ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:21:57 -0500 From: "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [165830] RE: ARRL Board proposals made public..and ARRL polls Message-ID: <721D3436A7C2B344A301FD4A413C71A90251266F@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 What was worse was that it was apparently more than one group. The = deck was stacked by both the pro- and no-code folks. To what end, I = can't imagine, but it was kinda' like the kid who peed in sandbox = because he didn't like the color of the ball the other kid was playing = with. It would have been interesting to see whether the early lead for BPL = over code testing in the questions help up. Not scientific, mind you, = but interesting. It would have provided food for thought and for = interesting discussions. What everyone ended up with was not even worth = that, and at that point, it had been so tainted that the League simply = removed it. I suggested that we run a story explaining why, because on = a few sites, I saw all sorts of speculation that the survey was removed = because the League wasn't happy with the results. Of course, the = theories ran at both ends of the issue, where they killed it because it = was pro-code or they killed it because it was anti-code. The League = killed it because it ended up not even being good for fun, unless you = count the fun of those that had to ruin it for everyone. Ed Hare, W1RFI > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Mc [mailto:redmen1969@optonline.net] > Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 8:21 PM > To: Hare,Ed, W1RFI; Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion > Subject: ARRL Board proposals made public..and ARRL polls >=20 >=20 > Ed, >=20 > Tnx for the updates and explanations...I for one am appalled=20 > to read what > you relayed below...to me its just catastrophic to think that=20 > someone, or > group would do this. This is quite troubling -- makes you=20 > wonder what else > is going on out there! >=20 > I personally voted to keep the code (only once, though), and=20 > my feelings are > still the same. Do I blame the League? No, but others may=20 > and that is > certainly their prerogative. I think the ARRL is looking out=20 > for the best > interest of ham radio, we are very fortunate to have a voice=20 > that the FCC, > pretty much, listens to. If it were not for the League, the=20 > FCC would have > a bunch of hams on its doorstep with all sorts of different=20 > opinions. And, > they would probably get one of those opinions over 25,000 times. >=20 > So thanks Ed, for being our laison and also for keeping us posted. >=20 > I for one am embarrassed that some sore losers (although I=20 > think your term > definitely applies here) among our ranks have done such a=20 > thing, but I have > faith and confidence in the overwhelming majority to meet the=20 > challenge of > this change and come out with a healthier hobby which will=20 > welcome new and > young members. >=20 > Tom McCulloch > WB2QDG >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Hare,Ed, W1RFI > To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion > Date: Monday, January 19, 2004 6:10 PM > Subject: RE: ARRL Board proposals made public...I *SUPPOSE* I can live > with'em... >=20 >=20 > ARRL ran a survey that included code testing as one of the=20 > possible things > that hams > wanted to see accomplished for amateur radio in 2004. A few=20 > idiots (and I > use that > word rarely) decided to spoil everyone's fun by setting up=20 > scripts to vote > their position > again and again -- running the total votes above 25,000. At=20 > that point, the > survey had no > meaning at all, even for the enjoyment of seeing a snapshot=20 > of what those > that chose to > respond to the survey thought about the subject. ARRL pulled=20 > the survey and > ran a > web-page article to explain why. It included an apology, but=20 > the ones that > really > SHOULD have apologized were those that thought that=20 > destroying the survey > was > the best thing they could accomplish that day. >=20 > --big snip-- >=20 >=20 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 20:39:04 -0600 From: Richard Clem To: Subject: [165831] Re: ARRL Directors Meeting Message-ID: <345iaTcne5872S10.1074566344@cmsweb10.cms.usa.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "Tony Martin W4FOA" wrote: Pray tell where are these "codeless" "entry level" licensees going to "practice" their HF CW? The answer is right at the end of the ARRL proposal: 3.550-3.700 MHz = 7.050-7.125 MHz = 21.050-21.200 = and 28.050-28.300 = When I got my novice ticket in 1974, these were the bands I had to practi= ce on....they're just going to be a little bid wider now. When I wrote to m= y director about my thoughts, this was the one thing I told him was most important: If we give no-code access to HF, then PLEASE make sure that t= he new HF ops are given the opportunity to use CW. When I got on the air for the first time, it was several months after I h= ad passed a test saying that I could copy 25 characters in a row, all of whi= ch were sent dreadfully slowly. Frankly, my CW probably wasn't very good ei= ther. The first several pages of my first log book are nothing but CQ's. I su= spect that I had lots of replies--I just wasn't able to copy any of them. = In my opinion, this is a great opportunity to promote CW. After I got my= FT-817, I got on the air on VHF for the first time, and I was very impres= sed at how many good ops there are up there--and most of them are no-code tec= hs. = When my signal is weak (which it often is with 5 watts on VHF), it's amaz= ing how many of them will get my callsign on CW, even those who never passed = the test. If this proposal gets adopted, I plan to loan out my MFJ-9040 to some of = the new HF ops, give them a crib sheet with the code, and let them start call= ing CQ at 1 WPM in the new novice band. Eventually, someone will come back t= o them and they will be hooked on HF CW. = My CW speed went from <5 to >13 WPM without any conscious effort on my pa= rt. = I just had fun working QSO's until one day I decided to try out for the W= 1AW qualifying run. Much to my amazement, I qualified at 15 WPM. = I still remember the calls of the first two contacts I actually made. Th= ey were K9BYE and W3GIL. I never worked them ever again, and I really don't= know anything about those two particular hams. I can bet that it was probably= frustratingly slow for them, but they hung in there, and made it into the= WN0MEB logbook. And it was thrilling beyond belief when those two QSL's showed up in my mailbox. So someday soon, if you hear someone "practicing" their 1 WPM CW on the a= ir, please give them a call. It might be a bit of a frustrating experience f= or you, but more likely than not, that 1 WPM op will probably turn into a proficient CW op, and will treasure your QSL. I suspect there are a lot of potential good CW operators out there who be= lieve that learning the code is impossible. And now, we just might have a way = of proving them wrong. 73, Rick W0IS ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:44:38 -0500 (EST) From: To: Rich Johnson Cc: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [165832] Re: standoffs Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi, Rich - I believe that DigiKey stocks them. I get most of mine from hamfest swapmeets, though. 72 de Rich, WB9LPU On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Rich Johnson wrote: > So where do you people recommend i get 1/4 in, brass, male-female standoffs? > The kind where one end screws into a nut and the other end gets screwed > into. > > cheers, > rich > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:46:43 -0500 From: "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [165833] RE: ARRL Proposal Message-ID: <721D3436A7C2B344A301FD4A413C71A90173594E@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 > But it's not only CW...I really believe that we need to infect the new > folks, and some of the old folks with the magic..otherwise it's simply = a > hobby that can be replaced with another one. I couldn't agree more, Thom, and this group is the one to do it. Ham = radio over the=20 years has gone through more regulatory changes and requirement changes = than I=20 can keep track of. And all through that, our health as a service has = not been very=20 much related to the nature of those changes; what has counted more than = anything else is the way that we treat each other. We will all have our say before the FCC, and those that disagree with = ARRL's proposal should do just that, although from what I have seen, the most common = disagreeement seems to be over the grandfathering proposals. That aside, what do you = think? But when it is over, if we do not let these new hams know that we bear = them no ill will for doing no more wrong than doing what the rules require to get a = license -- just like we did -- then the harm we would do to amateur radio would = greatly exceed that which could come from the FCC accepting the League's proposal. Most people are not going to go through all the work of getting licensed = not to learn, so we should show them how to do it, and offer the same patient guidance = that the old timers that first led us showed us. If we want them to learn the same = love of learning that=20 we learned, we need to do it by example and with kindness. If we turn it = into a battle=20 right from the getgo we will have lost before it even begins. Ed Hare, W1RFI > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU=20 > [mailto:owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU]On Behalf Of > Thom R. Lacosta > Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 9:04 PM > To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion > Subject: Re: ARRL Proposal >=20 >=20 > On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Brian Murrey wrote: >=20 > > > > Gangue...if you enjoy CW like I do, we must face the facts=20 > that unless > > we recruit new CW users into our fold, our days are=20 > probably numbered. >=20 > I believe that's a fair statement. >=20 > > > > There is no better way to hook a person on CW than QRP rig=20 > building, in > > my opinion. It's what got me here. >=20 > And one would hope that many of us get on the bands and court=20 > the new CW > ops...and infect them with the magic and mystery. >=20 > I went off the air for 40 years...and when I got my ticket=20 > back, I jumped > back into CW. Way back when, people told me I had a=20 > beautiful fist...I > didn't know enough to know if they were right or wrong. >=20 > But when I got back on, I had to struggle to send again, and copy > again....but I did it...and the magic and the music came back. >=20 > But it's not only CW...I really believe that we need to infect the new > folks, and some of the old folks with the magic..otherwise=20 > it's simply a > hobby that can be replaced with another one. >=20 >=20 > Thom >=20 > http://www.baltimorehon.com/ Home of the Baltimore Lexicon > http://www.tlchost.net/ Web Hosting as low as 3.49/month >=20 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:48:41 -0800 From: Bob Nielsen To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [165834] Re: ARRL Directors Meeting Message-ID: <20040120024841.GA23165@bob> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:05:48AM +0000, Bill Rowlett wrote: > You hear that on the repeaters not because of the requirements being > lowered but because the radios are at the Radio Shack and EBAY and they do > not check for a Ham Ticket. Just like all the people on the HF bands who > just buy a rig off of EBAY. Ham ticket, whats that? > > Do not blame that which is not at fault. In 52 years of hamming, I have never been asked to produce my license when buying equipment from (obviously disreputable by that logic) establishments as HRO, AES, Jun's, Henry Radio, etc. The only unlicensed operator (we used to call them bootleggers) I ever met had a home-brewed transmitter and later became a ham. 73, Bob N7XY ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:49:33 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: "Mike WA8BXN" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" , Subject: [165835] Re: QRPp SWR/wattmeter kit? Message-ID: <400C973D.000006.03776@compaq1500> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think there are several different issues here. You could always adjust your antenna/tuner at a higher power level with other equipment and then connect the qrpp rig. Do you really need to know what the value is of the swr, or just tune the antenna/tuner for minimum? A 25 mW variation will not be noticable at the receiving end at 300 mW power levels. Many things I have read suggest you don't have to worry a lot if your SWR is less than 2:1. High values of SWR can damage final amplifier transistors that are driven at or above their ratings. Other issues include the output Z of the RM. Is it really 50 ohms? Which problem are you trying to solve? Sometimes we get a bit too concerned about the technical issues, sometimes just putting it on the air and taking enough time to make contacts pays off well. 73/72 - Mike WA8BXN -------Original Message------- From: khmiller@coastalnet.com Date: 1/19/2004 8:20:01 PM To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: QRPp SWR/wattmeter kit? QRP-L folks, I am a new ham interested in QRP and homebrewing who has recently built a 20m Rock-Mite (my first rig). I am having difficulty finding an appropriate SWR/wattmeter to use with the RM and future QRP rigs. As I built the RM, modified to run off 9V, it only puts out about 300mW. According to my calculations, to get down below SWR 1.3:1 (which is what my elmers have suggested) I have to be able to read reflected power levels less than 5mW (at 300 mW total power, I calculate SWR 1.3:1 is about 5mW reflected, 1.2:1 is 2.5mW and 1.1:1 is <1mW). I suppose if I had a rig that would put out more power this wouldn't be an issue, but right now the RM is it. I have contacted Steve Weber (KD1JV) about his digital HF power/SWR meter--he says it's minimum is about 5mW (BTW, although all these kits have already been snapped up, he said more are coming through 4SQRP). The Oak Hills Research WM-2 looks like it will read 5mW or less, but it's specs say the accuracy is 5%, which means 5mW on the lowest scale (100mW). I have also considered the NoGaWatt, but it seems to only go down to 100mW or so. I've looked back through the QRP-L archives and this seems to be the best selection of QRP SWR/wattmeter kits I could find. Does anyone know of any other SWR/wattmeter kits that might be able to measure at these levels? Is 5mW the best I can hope to do without spending big bucks? How do other QRPp'ers deal with this issue, assuming you don't have a higher power rig to use to trim or tune your antennas? In my case, one of my elmers came over with a SWR analyzer and checked my homebrew dipole; it showed SWR 1.6:1 (made by careful measurement alone; untrimmed and untuned). This doesn't seem to be causing any problems to the RM, but I am loosing something like 15mW to reflected power. Maybe SWR <1.3:1 is an unreasonable (even unnecessary?) goal, and I shouldn't worry about measuring so low, especially with such a low power transceiver. But this nags at me--it seems that running such low power is just when it matters most! Any suggestions or advice anyone can offer would be much appreciated. 72, Kevin KI4DEF Kevin H. Miller Washington, NC khmiller@coastalnet.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:37:24 -0500 From: "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [165836] RE: ARRL Directors Meeting Message-ID: <721D3436A7C2B344A301FD4A413C71A90173594D@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 > QSO 1 > This is foxy lady are you around papa bear I think I have heard one QSO like that myself. Of course I don't get on = 2 meters=20 very often. What Part 97 rule do you think they were breaking? I know = that if I=20 had voice privileges I could have used in 1963, I might have used CBisms = had I run=20 across a former CBer on the bands. I was an 11-meter op myself a bit = before getting=20 into ham radio. Instead of CBisms, I developed that famous "Novice = Accent" that=20 Lew McCoy decried in an article back then. Think the old timers were = saying how I=20 had ruined ham radio? Of course, now we don't use any lingo in ham = radio, such as=20 misusing Q signals on voice, do we? ... > QSO 2 > Ok so how can I tell if my antenna is horizontal or vertical. And what kind of antenna was he using? Was it a quad? I have to think a = bit about how the polarization from a quad antenna will vary with the way it is = fed and around=20 the azimuth pattern from its main beam. What about an inverted vee? Is = it vertically=20 polarized off the ends, or does that vertical energy cancel because the = two halves are=20 out f phase? How about a short rubber ducky helically wound -- what = percentage of its=20 radiation is vertical and what percentage is horizontal? How about when = I hold that HT=20 with the antenna pointed toward the back of my head. Do you think that = every newcomer=20 would know just how antenna polarization varies? I sure didn't when I = took that "smartened=20 up" Novice test in 1963 that had no questions on antennas at all... =20 > QSO 3 > You are over modulating maybe try and turn your volume > down .. that should help. And this is wrong how? Some rigs or microphones actually have volume = controls for the=20 microphone audio. And of course, that is exactly what the "deviation" = control is on an FM=20 rig, even if it is an internal adjustment. Okay, so I am playing Devil's advocate a bit, but I gotta' tell you, I = have heard far more QSOs=20 today that remind me of the half-educated things that WA1DOI and I used = to talk about in the=20 good old days. We sure had some wild misunderstandings back then, and I = bet that there was=20 at least one old timer proudly proclaiming how amateur radio was ruined = now because it had let=20 in the likes of me. Little did I know: I was too busy having fun. You have a choice here. You can publically hold folks who maybe aren't = as bright as you or I=20 been since the days of our birth, or you can help them become the hams = that I sure wasn't then,=20 but thanks to the help of no small number of people along the way, I = have become today. 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 Member: IEEE C63 - Accredited Standards Committee on Electromagnetic = Compatibility Chairman: C63 SC-5, Immunity Chairman: C63 ad hoc PLC/BPL Working Group Member: SAE EMC/EMR committees Member: ICES/IEEE SCC-28 International Committee on Electromagnetic = Safety Member/staff: ARRL, The National Association for Amateur Radio Member/Board of Directors: QRP Amateur Radio Club International > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU=20 > [mailto:owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU]On Behalf Of > Bob KB2FEL > Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 8:31 PM > To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion > Subject: Re: ARRL Directors Meeting >=20 >=20 > Hi All, >=20 > These are the things I have been hearing on 2 meters > from FL to NY. I will not pass on the call signs of > the stations heard. >=20 > QSO 1 > This is foxy lady are you around papa bear >=20 > QSO 2 > Ok so how can I tell if my antenna is horizontal or > vertical. >=20 > QSO 3 > You are over modulating maybe try and turn your volume > down .. that should help. >=20 > If I read it correctly these folks will be able to op > in the Digital..CW portion of the bands. >=20 > Good Luck with your new ideas for the HF bands ARRL. > I was surprised to see in your proposal that you did > not include 11 meter ops in your HF reorganization. >=20 >=20 > 72 > Bob > KB2FEL/8=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes > http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus >=20 ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jan 2004 20:12:59 -0700 From: Tim Hodges <7twh@mtintouch.net> To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [165837] Re: standoffs Message-ID: <1074568379.3572.0.camel@daystar> Content-Type: text/plain Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cyberguys.com has a good selection of hardware.. Tim On Mon, 2004-01-19 at 19:27, Bob KB2FEL wrote: > -- Rich Johnson wrote: > > So where do you people recommend i get 1/4 in, > > brass, male-female standoffs? > > The kind where one end screws into a nut and the > > other end gets screwed > > into. > > > > cheers, > > rich > > > > > Hi Rich, > > Try Dans Small Parts > http://www.danssmallpartsandkits.net > > 72 > Bob > KB2FEL/8 > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes > http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus -- Tim Hodges <7twh@mtintouch.net> ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 22:26:13 -0500 From: Peter Burbank To: qrp-l@lehigh.edu Subject: [165838] Code requirements Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040119220854.00a4a880@mail.qx.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed I can't see getting excited or ulcers about a 5wpm code test. The problem/argument will take care of itself. Any one with the brains and enthusiasm to take any written test who uses the CW mode will either die of boredom at 5wpm or improve voluntarily. If that person opts for other modes and follows band use allocations, we CW fans won't hear them so what's the problem? my thrupney bit Cheers and 73 Pete NV4V ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 22:52:25 -0500 From: "JBCrafts" To: , "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [165839] RE: WWVB Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My watch last locked 1/18/04 ar 04:05A... and that was while I was sleeping, with the watch on, not exactly a good position for a good lock. Bob K8YS ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 20:52:57 -0700 From: Tim Groat To: qrp-l@lehigh.edu Subject: [165840] Re: QRP-L Archives or PC address books Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.2.20040119185806.00a30e80@mail.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed The graphic method works as a robot blocker, but has the undesired side-effect that it makes your mail address inaccessible to those with serious vision limitations. If it can't be deciphered by 'bots, then it's also incomprehensible to "screen-speaking" software. It's unfortunate that plain text is the best method for universal accessibility, but also the easiest victim for the harvest 'bots. 72, --Tim (KR0U) >"Rod N0RC" : > >One small thing that can help, maybe, is to not post your email address >in a "mailto" link on web sites. Too easy to harvest. Place the info in >a graphic image so that it can be read by humans, but not machines. You >can also link that image to a small chunk of Javascript to send email >when clicked. This obfuscates your address from harvesting techniques. I >say maybe about this method because "harvesting" techniques may have >become more sophisticated since I dug into the matter long ago. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:07:39 EST From: JClinton46@aol.com To: qrp-l@lehigh.edu Subject: [165841] Re: ARRL Proposal Message-ID: <1f0.17afbf54.2d3e038b@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sometime in the last century I attended and graduated from a small school in Atlanta (GA Tech) and joined the Navy becoming a pilot. There were several times when I faced what were to me significant challenges. Calculus (and later calculus based courses), swimming (drownproofing), celestial navigation and carrier landings. I felt a great deal of satisfaction (and some relief) when I received my sheepskin and later my wings. Today some requirements are quite different. Celestial navigation is only part of a semester vs a whole year and not nearly as intensive. Carrier landing qualifications are required only for those actually flying off a carrier (I didn't). And I think you can opt out of drownproofing. Is it easier because of these "reduced" requirements? In some respects I think those coming along today have it easy. If you have Navy Wings you ought to know how to land on a carrier, right?? ;^) But they are also learning skills and systems that were unknown when I went to school. And a P-3 pilot really doesn't need tailhook skills. What does have to do with code or lack of? Several people have mentioned that today's required level of knowledge is much larger than it was 30-50 years ago. (200-400 page books vs 10-25 page pamphlets) That would seem to indicate some requirements are harder. So even with dropping the code it is not necessarily easier overall. Now about code itself. Ask yourself - Do I support the code because its a skill every ham needs or because I had to do it and its just part of being a radio operator? Is it really an essential skill? Where does it fit with understanding propogation and how to calculate SWR, etc? What is the justification for retaining code proficiency? Before you pull out the flame throwers, understand I am just asking you to consider the reasons for retaining or eliminating the requirement. Unless you come up with some reasons this list hasn't seen, you may not want to add to the noise. (Like I did - sorry, I type no more) 73, Clint Poss KE4FDT BTW: Tho I am currently a no-code, I support a code requirement. Go figure. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:16:36 -0500 From: sergio To: qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU Subject: [165842] hw-8 parts.. Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20040119231231.01d51020@mail.neobright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed i pulled him apart.. and i see that ZD2, the zener diode is fully blasted.. it is just a broken piece of plastic now.. i have not pulled Q9, but i will.. the next culprit is RFC3.. i found Q9 on mouser.. $3.. now, i need to find the rest of the parts.. i could not find a 26 uH choke, or a suitable cross reference for the zener diode.. the part number in the manual for the diode is: VR-36 does this ring any bells with anyone? also... i just ordered that new hw-8 book today! ____ peace, ...sergio photographer, journalist, visionary www.village-buzz.com <- read my blog www.coffee-black.com <- my photography ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:20:57 -0500 From: Lee Mairs To: kb2fel@yahoo.com, Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [165843] Re: ARRL Directors Meeting Message-ID: <01f301c3df0c$d4f0ac50$0200a8c0@J4> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Bob hits the nail square on the head. Today's question pool examinations are almost impossible to not pass with but a few days reading the license manuals. You will never convince me that it wasn't a lot harder in the days when you had to learn stuff because you didn't have access to every single possible question and answer. To think otherwise is just being silly. Amateur radio has really been "dumbed down" since the FCC turned over license examination authority. Just like most every thing else in life if you try to recruit more folks by dumbing down the requirements, then you end up with the type of folks you don't want. ARRL management has succumbed to pressure to expand its role. I prefer the old days where you had only a few publications and not splashy color. I guess Wayne Green was right. The League had no business competing with private sector publishers, and now the League doesn't have to worry competition. They have killed it all. We get many more technical articles out of the various QRP news letters including stuff that appears later in QST. The League can concentrate on selling ad space and publishing technical stuff aimed at its new hams. Maybe even an article about how to tell whether your antenna is vertically or horizontally polarized. It is a sad day... 73 de Lee km4yy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob KB2FEL" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 8:31 PM Subject: Re: ARRL Directors Meeting > Hi All, > > These are the things I have been hearing on 2 meters > from FL to NY. I will not pass on the call signs of > the stations heard. > > QSO 1 > This is foxy lady are you around papa bear > > QSO 2 > Ok so how can I tell if my antenna is horizontal or > vertical. > > QSO 3 > You are over modulating maybe try and turn your volume > down .. that should help. > > If I read it correctly these folks will be able to op > in the Digital..CW portion of the bands. > > Good Luck with your new ideas for the HF bands ARRL. > I was surprised to see in your proposal that you did > not include 11 meter ops in your HF reorganization. > > > 72 > Bob > KB2FEL/8 > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes > http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:27:09 -0500 (EST) From: "Thom R. Lacosta" To: "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" Cc: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [165844] RE: ARRL Proposal Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Hare,Ed, W1RFI wrote: > > But it's not only CW...I really believe that we need to infect the new > > folks, and some of the old folks with the magic..otherwise it's simply a > > hobby that can be replaced with another one. > > I couldn't agree more, Thom, and this group is the one to do it. I'm not sure if this is "the" group...but I do think that any group that believes and practices the "magic", whether its QRP, DX, QRO or even Public Service, is the right venue. > can keep track of. And all through that, our health as a service has not been very > much related to the nature of those changes; what has counted more than anything > else is the way that we treat each other. Right..and now, to survive, we need to extend that "brotherhood" to new hams...even more than we did in the past. When I started I got a rig from an Elmer...he attached one condition to the gift...and that was that I pass it along with the same condition to another beginner. I followed his edict....and you can imagine how disappointed I was to see it for sale at a ham fest. So..I bought it, and gave it away again to another "newbee". > > We will all have our say before the FCC, and those that disagree with ARRL's proposal > should do just that, although from what I have seen, the most common disagreeement > seems to be over the grandfathering proposals. That aside, what do you think? I think that not only should we not penalize newcomers...but we need to determine some method, either by regulation/testing or mentoring to encourage them to strive for accomplishment. I know from my personal experience that things that came easy or were given to me have little value. thom ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 20:45:35 -0800 From: Adam Farson To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [165845] RE: ARRL Board proposals made public...I *SUPPOSE* I can live with 'em... Message-ID: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi John, That is precisely why all the Japanese radio manufacturers offer 10W versions of their HF transceivers. There was even a 10W IC-780 for the well-heeled novice. Cheers for now, 73, Adam VA7OJ/AB4OJ << At least the UK and the Japanese limit their "Novices" to 10 watts >> ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:16:15 -0500 From: Ed Tanton To: CW Reflector , QRP-L , noga Subject: [165846] Proposed CW freqs for new "Novices"? Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20040120000524.01f5e160@pop.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed I didn't see the range of CW freqs (for CW) to be available to the new "Novice" No-code license. The ARLB003 Bulletin from the League said: QUOTE: The entry-level license class--being called ''Novice'' for now--would require a 25-question written exam. It would offer limited HF CW/data and phone/image privileges on 80, 40, 15 and 10 meters as well as VHF and UHF privileges on 6 and 2 meters and on 222-225 and 430-450 MHz. Power output would be restricted to 100 W on 80, 40, and 15 meters and to 50 W on 10 meters and up. UNQUOTE. Note the phrase: "It would offer limited HF CW... ... privileges..." . What limited HF CW privileges? To operate WHERE within the bands? My only comment (excluding long, disgusted sighs), personally, about this whole thing is to wonder what they have been smoking up there in Newington if they think for a minute these newbies are going to stay off 20M when he 'spots go away, and 20M becomes THE DX band. As an OO, I expect I'll have all the 'business' I want just sending out notices for Out-of-Band/Class. Maybe I'll get a rubber stamp to save the writer's cramp. 73 Ed Tanton N4XY Ed Tanton N4XY 189 Pioneer Trail Marietta, GA 30068-3466 website: http://www.n4xy.com All emails & checked by Norton AntiVirus with AutoProtect LM: ARRL QCWA AMSAT & INDEXA; SEDXC NCDXA GACW QRP-ARCI OK-QRP QRP-L #758 K2 (FT) #00057 -------------------------------------------------- "He that gives up a little liberty to gain temporary security will lose both and deserve neither". --Benjamin Franklin "Suppose you were an idiot ... and suppose you were a member of Congress... but I repeat myself." --Mark Twain -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 22:28:00 -0700 From: w5xe@juno.com To: nogaqrp@mailman.qth.net, qrp-l@lehigh.edu Subject: [165847] Re: [NoGaQRP] Proposed CW freqs for new "Novices"? Message-ID: <20040119.222800.-469065.0.w5xe@juno.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ed, The bands were not listed on the ARRL notice but were on the website, which I listed below. The ARRL license restructuring design calls for no changes in privileges for Extra and General class licensees on 160, 60, 30, 20, 17 or 12 meters. Novice licensees would have no access to those bands. Proposed Phone/Image HF Subbands (Includes Novice Refarming Proposal) 80 Meters Extra: 3.725-4.000 MHz (gain of 25 kHz) General: 3.800-4.000 MHz (gain of 50 kHz) Novice: 3.900-4.000 MHz (new) 40 meters Extra: 7.125-7.300 MHz (gain of 25 kHz) General: 7.175-7.300 MHz (gain of 50 kHz) Novice: 7.200-7.300 MHz (new) 15 meters Extra: 21.200-21.450 MHz (no change) General: 21.275-21.450 MHz (gain of 25 kHz) Novice: 21.350-21.450 MHz (new) 10 meters Extra and General: 28.300-29.700 MHz (no change) Novice: 28.300-28.500 MHz (no change) Proposed CW/Data-Exclusive HF Subbands (Includes Novice Refarming Proposal) 80 meters Extra: 3.500-3.725 MHz General: 3.525-3.725 MHz Novice: 3.550-3.700 MHz 40 meters Extra: 7.000-7.125 MHz General: 7.025-7.125 MHz Novice: 7.050-7.125 MHz 15 meters Extra: 21.000-21.200 MHz General: 21.025-21.200 MHz Novice: 21.050-21.200 MHz 10 meters Extra/General: 28.000-28.300 MHz Novice: 28.050-28.300 MHz ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:28:21 -0600 From: "Lew Paceley" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Cc: , "Lew Paceley" , "Chuck Carpenter" Subject: [165848] Re: QRPp SWR/wattmeter kit? Message-ID: <001401c3df16$38c03120$6501a8c0@swbell.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Kevin, A few semi-organized thoughts... 1) Most reflected power is re-radiated. It's not lost. Your SWR calculations are probably giving you reflected power NOT incremental lost power. This is a misconception that snags many, unfortunately. Any incremental loss due to a > 1:1 SWR comes from the return trips of the reflected wave up and down your transmission line. If your matched transmission line loss is low then a > 1:1 SWR, even a relatively high SWR, is often acceptable as long as your rig's power amp can safely and efficiently operate into the mismatched condition. You should be able to find a great graph/chart in the transmission line chapter of your ARRL Handbook that shows the incremental power loss due to >1:1 SWR for popular transmission lines. The ARRL Antenna book should have it as well. For someone concerned about a SWR of 1.6:1, it may surprise you. :-) Many of us use a transmatch to match our antenna system's high SWR to the 50 ohms (or so) that our rigs need to work best. IMO, a goal of 1.3:1 is pretty arbitrary unless you have an especially long, lossy transmission line to your antenna. My crude rule of thumb for "typical" 50 ohm coax of a "typical" length is that any SWR less than 2:1 is just fine as long as your rig can tolerate it. Like all generalizations, this one is wrong in some cases. :-) 2) In the case of the RockMite, the 2n2222a-based power amp doesn't forgive much abuse at high supply voltages (13.8V) and long key down times. Chuck, W5USJ, recommends and uses a resistive bridge to keep the SWR < 2:1 for his RockMites. You might wander over to the RockMite group on Yahoo and read the archives and/or email Chuck directly. Given that you're running at 9V you are in far less danger of a 2n2222a PA failure. Two frequent killers of QRP power amps are thermal runaway due to long key down times with insufficient heat removal (a good heatsink) and/or poor antenna system conditions that cause the Vce of the transistor to be exceeded. Spend some time keying your 2n2222a rig without a load and you can get personal experience with the latter. Been there, done that, got the tee shirt. 3) 300mW is an awesome result from a RockMite on 9V. My first RockMite would only do 220mW on a 9V battery. 4) I also use and recommend the simple resistive (absorptive) SWR bridges popularized by Dan Tayloe, N7VE. For an example bridge implementation and a link to Dan's design go to http://www.paceley.com/swr I built one of Dan's designs into my RockMite-40 and, running on a 9V battery at 220mW, found the LED extinguished at < 1.5:1 SWR when compared with my MFJ259B antenna analyzer. Plenty good. Simple to build, simple to use, resistive SWR bridges work well. 5) If your dipole has an SWR of 1.6:1 right off the bat with no trimming you've done an excellent job. Attach some suitable coax to it and get on the air! Have fun! 72/73, *Lew* N5ZE ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:43:48 -0800 (PST) From: Bob KB2FEL To: w5xe@juno.com, Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [165849] Re: [NoGaQRP] Proposed CW freqs for new "Novices"? Message-ID: <20040120054348.59106.qmail@web60509.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- w5xe@juno.com wrote: > Ed, > The bands were not listed on the ARRL notice > but were on the website, which I listed below. > > The ARRL license restructuring design calls for no > changes in privileges > for Extra and General class licensees on 160, 60, > 30, 20, 17 or 12 > meters. Novice licensees would have no access to > those bands. SNIP But it does call for "no code Techs" and "Tech Plus" will have all General Class access. Bob __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:42:33 -0800 From: "Bill Jones" To: , "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [165850] Re: WWVB Message-ID: <008b01c3df19$c91d1a50$bbc83542@RadioRoom> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "w8diz_qrpl_2" Subject: WWVB > I just noticed that my Atomic Clock has difficulty receiving WWVB > near Cincinnati, OH. Can't get enough signal to lock in. > I had no problem receiving it last month on my $10 Walgreen's Special. > > Anyone else having problems receiving WWVB? Yes, as a matter of fact my SkyScan Atomic Clock has lost lock and it can't seem to reacquire. I thought it was just me. Thanks for asking. ======================== Bill Jones KD7S <>< http://www.psnw.com/~kd7s Sanger, California ======================== > > 72 & "oo's" - Dieter (DIZ) Gentzow - W8DIZ - Loveland, Ohio > Clermont County - EM79uf - near Cincinnati; 39:13:05N 84:18:18W > RIG:multiPIG+ ANT:67 FT Vertical Dipole http://kitsandparts.com > > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:58:54 -0500 From: "Dennis Ponsness" To: qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU Subject: [165851] ARRL Petition Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Well, it was "kind of" what I expected, but I have to admit that the new "Novice" proposal was a surprise. We need to step back a minute and do some thinking here. This is a proposal, nothing more, that the ARRL BoD decided to support - this isn't the new "law". From what I gather, the ARRL will submit a petition to the FCC for this in the near future - probably will take a few weeks for the lawyers to draft it up. Then there will be the comment period and _then_ the FCC will issue a NPRM with what _they_ propose and the comment period will start all over again! Then we will have to wait and see what the FCC finally decides to do. I forsee at least a year before any changes to Part 97 come out. And if the past is any indicator, the FCC and ARRL have _NOT_ been in lockstep in recent years! No use in getting all worked up about it right now, the time to really support/oppose this matter is WHEN the FCC issues its NPRM. But by all means, when the ARRL petition is put up for public comments, file your comments either pro/con - that is your right! 72 es oo Dennis - WB0WAO EN84ij Iosco County, Michigan MultiPig+ #3 - K2 #3555 DSW-II-20 - SW-40+ - SW-30+ RM-20 - RM-40 FPQRP #-347 FISTS #9299 Charter Member - Michigan DX Association www.wb0wao.com :=) _________________________________________________________________ Rethink your business approach for the new year with the helpful tips here. http://special.msn.com/bcentral/prep04.armx ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 01:38:55 -0500 From: Ed Tanton To: nogaqrp@mailman.qth.net, qrp-l@lehigh.edu, CW Reflector Subject: [165852] Re: [NoGaQRP] Proposed CW freqs for new "Novices"? Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20040120013300.01fceec0@pop.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Thank you very much Bill. Obviously my concern was the possibility of just turning them loose anywhere. One of the beliefs I have had for many years was to allow Novices to BE 'nocode' but operate ONLY CW in their bands. Learn it to use it, so to speak. Of course, we're way beyond that. Alas. 73 Ed Tanton N4XY [CW] [NoGa] [et al] Reflector Manager Ed Tanton N4XY 189 Pioneer Trail Marietta, GA 30068-3466 website: http://www.n4xy.com All emails & checked by Norton AntiVirus with AutoProtect LM: ARRL QCWA AMSAT & INDEXA; SEDXC NCDXA GACW QRP-ARCI OK-QRP QRP-L #758 K2 (FT) #00057 -------------------------------------------------- "He that gives up a little liberty to gain temporary security will lose both and deserve neither". --Benjamin Franklin "Suppose you were an idiot ... and suppose you were a member of Congress... but I repeat myself." --Mark Twain -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 06:51:16 +0000 From: Chuck Adams To: "Bill Jones" , "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [165853] Re: WWVB Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20040120064747.013a8548@mail.commspeed.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > No problems here in Northern AZ with about 7 different clocks on WWVB. One thing to check. Just how close is the clock to a computer system including the system monitor? The higher speed systems really generate some hash at a lot of frequencies and I have one SkyScan sitting about 30 cm or so from a system and it is not locked, but that is not unusual. FYI Posted at 06:50UTC 1/20/2004 Chuck Adams K7QO k7qo@commspeed.net http://www.qsl.net/k7qo CP-60 Moving to Arizona? Please bring your own water. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:36:29 -0700 From: "Rod N0RC" To: , "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [165854] Re: WWVB Message-ID: <00b801c3df28$1f586b00$6501a8c0@bigdog> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Diz, et.al. NIST has a nice website for WWVB: http://www.boulder.nist.gov/timefreq/stations/wwvb.htm I did a quick check but did not find any info on station outages, or reduced power operations that would account for the problem you and others report. There are plenty on email addresses to send to for more info. Not having any trouble receiving the signal here, the antenna site is only about 3 wavelengths from my home. :-) 73, Rod N0RC ----- Original Message ----- From: "w8diz_qrpl_2" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 5:22 PM Subject: WWVB > Hi All, > > I just noticed that my Atomic Clock has difficulty receiving WWVB > near Cincinnati, OH. Can't get enough signal to lock in. > I had no problem receiving it last month on my $10 Walgreen's Special. > > Anyone else having problems receiving WWVB? > > 72 & "oo's" - Dieter (DIZ) Gentzow - W8DIZ - Loveland, Ohio > Clermont County - EM79uf - near Cincinnati; 39:13:05N 84:18:18W > RIG:multiPIG+ ANT:67 FT Vertical Dipole http://kitsandparts.com > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 06:18:36 -0600 From: Chuck Carpenter To: khmiller@coastalnet.com, qrp-l@lehigh.edu Subject: [165855] Re: QRPp SWR/wattmeter kit? Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.20040120061836.008637e0@mail.9plus.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Kevin, With a meter like the one Nick mentioned, you can *indicate* power levels down to low mW levels. That metering circuit is used in the WM-2. The bridge in the WM-2 is similar to one shown in W1FB's QRP Notebook. To measure that very small level of power with a high degree of accuracy, you'd need a meter costing hundreds, even thousands of dollars. The 5% accuracy you mentioned with Steve's meter is quite good for the price. Most power meters in the Amateur grade category are in the 10/15% accuracy range or worse. I'd expect you'd have as much or more resistive and dilectric loss in your coax than you'd experience with an SWR under 2:1. You didn't say what transmision line you are using but 50 ft of RG-8X at 14 MHz has a matched loss of about .5 dB. With 300 mW into the end of the coax you'd be getting about 265 mW to the antenna. RG-213 would be better and RG-58 would be worse. With an additional loss with an SWR of 2:1 the loss would increase by .2 dB. At the 1.3:1 value you mentioned, the additional loss is not on the chart extrapolating to much less than .1 dB. You could easily loose that much in the connection to the various meters used for measurement. You mentioned a dipole at some height above ground. The feed point of the dipole is going to be some value that could be 75 Ohms at a specific height above ground. So the 1.6:1 SWR is actually a complex impedance developed by connecting a length of 50 Ohm coax to an unknown load (the antenna) reflected to the feed point. I suggest a tuner (tansmatch) like the NorCal/AmQRP BLT. The BLT inclused an absorptive bridge to use while adjusting for min SWR. This would let you adjust for maximum power tranfer to the antenna and keep the output of the Rock-Mite happy. By the way. What mods did you make to get 300 mW at 9V? That's a really significant accomplishment on a 20 meter R-