Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 14:11:06 PST
From: Info-Hams Mailing List and Newsgroup <info-hams@ucsd.edu>
Errors-To: Info-Hams-Errors@UCSD.Edu
Reply-To: Info-Hams@UCSD.Edu
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: Info-Hams Digest V94 #156
To: Info-Hams
Info-Hams Digest Tue, 15 Feb 94 Volume 94 : Issue 156
Today's Topics:
Boring WWV Programs
Bosnian Ham Address
Commercial Radio License Exam Opportunity ** Cambridge MA ** 12 March
Copying High-Speed CW: Print or Scr
Daily Summary of Solar Geophysical Activity for 14 February
GAP DX EAGLE comments?
Nude QSL cards
Vision Impaired Ham needs help
Send Replies or notes for publication to: <Info-Hams@UCSD.Edu>
Send subscription requests to: <Info-Hams-REQUEST@UCSD.Edu>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu.
Archives of past issues of the Info-Hams Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/info-hams".
We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text
herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official
policies or positions of any party. Your mileage may vary. So there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 17:39:57 GMT
From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!news.unt.edu!news.oc.com!convex!constellation!osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu!datacomm.ucc.okstate.edu!martin@network.ucsd.edu
Subject: Boring WWV Programs
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu
One day in the late seventies, I was tuned to the 10MHZ output for
WWV and heard a strong aditional carrier appear on the frequency, almost at
zero beat. The carrier lasted a few seconds and then was replaced by a
male voice which said, "Hey! What time is it out there, WWV?" This was
next followed by half a dozen or so hand-typed RTTY characters which were
of the 850HZ shift variety. The transmitter, then left the frequency.
The voice and the RTTY were heterodyned against WWV so that the voice
was audible although I think it was originally SSB. I bet this was a rogue
operator of a military or commercial avaiation system who was fooling around.
If my memory serves me right, there was a 400HZ power supply whine
on the audio like one might hear from an aircraft transmitter and the voice
had that crisp, close-talked sound that usually comes from a headset
microphone.
Martin McCormick WB5AGZ Stillwater, OK
O.S.U. Computer Center Data Communications Group
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 01:50:14 GMT
From: hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!murdoch!darwin.clas.Virginia.EDU!jad8e@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Bosnian Ham Address
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu
I worked Danny, T93M, on 12 May 1993. He said he was in
Sarajevo. Unfortunately, I don't know if he is still
transmitting (or alive, either). We talked on 21.282 SSB at
1842 UTC. I didn't get a chance to chew the rag with him since
he had a big pileup of folks trying to get to him. His QSL
manager is DL8OBC.
I know this info isn't directly relevant to the number that was
posted, but if you managed to reach DL8OBC, he/she might be
able to tell you the current operating situation.
--
__________________________________________________
J. Andrew Dickerson jad8e@virginia.edu
Amateur Radio KD4UKW 71442,547@compuserve.com
__________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: 14 Feb 1994 09:43:29 GMT
From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.kei.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!w1gsl@network.ucsd.edu
Subject: Commercial Radio License Exam Opportunity ** Cambridge MA ** 12 March
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu
** MROP and GROL exams in Cambridge MA ** Sat. March 12th 1994 **
The MIT Radio Exam Team will conduct exams for the General
Radiotelephone Operators License and the Marine Radio Operators
Permit. The exams will be held at 10AM Saturday March 12th
in Cambridge MA at 77 Mass Ave in MIT Room 1-150.
A regular schedule of exams is planned for Cambridge MA. on the
second Saturday of odd numbered months. For more information call
Nick at 617 253 3776 (9-5).
There is a $35 examination fee. Bring the ** original ** and a
copy of any commercial license or proof of passing certificates
you want to claim credit for. Also bring 2 forms of picture
ID, a black pen and a pencil.
Copies of the question pool are available from the Government
Printing office or from W5YI at 1 800 669 9594.
This is probably the best study guide available for the moment.
A few copies are available for pickup in Cambridge.
The General Radio Telephone Operators License is required to
service transmitters in the aviation, maritime and international
radio services. A Maritime Radio Operators Permit is required to
operate radiotelephone stations aboard large ships and certain
aviation and coast stations.
At a later date exams will be available for the Commercial Radio
Telegraph operators licenses and the Global Maritime Distress and
Safety Systems (GMDSS) licenses. Amateur Extra Class operators may
be particularly interested in obtaining a commercial telegraph
license as they will receive credit for the 20 WPM 2nd class code exam.
The MIT Radio Exam Team operates under the auspices of the
National Radio Examiners COLEM, part of the W5YI group.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 18:25:10 GMT
From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!brunix!maxcy2.maxcy.brown.edu!cro@network.ucsd.edu
Subject: Copying High-Speed CW: Print or Scr
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu
In article <9402130630592.gilbaronw0mn.DLITE@delphi.com>, gilbaronw0mn@delphi.com (Gilbert Baron) writes:
|> Printing is not feasabile above 25 WPM. You must learn to use cursive.
This is true if you want to copy everything in the QSO. However as you may
do too, I usually copy in my head the conversation and jot notes on info
such as report, name, etc. This is even more efficient and in my opinion easier.
Christopher Ogren NM1Z
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 00:09:25 MST
From: gulfaero.com!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!cyber2.cyberstore.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!alberta!ve6mgs!usenet@network.ucsd.edu
Subject: Daily Summary of Solar Geophysical Activity for 14 February
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
DAILY SUMMARY OF SOLAR GEOPHYSICAL ACT
14 FEBRUARY, 1994
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
(Based In-Part On SESC Observational Data)
SOLAR AND GEOPHYSICAL ACT
------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Intense stratospheric warming and a strong anticyclone exists over
the North Atlantic and Europe. Warm air is spreading east.
Please also note the inclusion of greater than 2 MeV electron fluence
values (useful for monitoring satellite charging activity).
!!BEGIN!! (1.0) S.T.D. Solar Geophysical Data Broadcast for DAY 045, 02/14/94
10.7 FLUX=101 90-AVG=106 SSN=059 BKI=4433 3534 BAI=023
BGND-XRAY=B2.3 FLU1=6.2E+06 FLU10=1.7E+04 PKI=4443 3544 PAI=028
BOU-DEV=056,052,037,028,022,073,035,044 DEV-AVG=043 NT SWF=00:000
XRAY-MAX= B7.9 @ 0032UT XRAY-MIN= B2.0 @ 1749UT XRAY-AVG= B2.8
NEUTN-MAX= +003% @ 0945UT NEUTN-MIN= -001% @ 2105UT NEUTN-AVG= +0.6%
PCA-MAX= +0.1DB @ 1845UT PCA-MIN= -0.4DB @ 0440UT PCA-AVG= -0.0DB
BOUTF-MAX=55359NT @ 0416UT BOUTF-MIN=55304NT @ 1608UT BOUTF-AVG=55336NT
GOES7-MAX=P:+000NT@ 0000UT GOES7-MIN=N:+000NT@ 0000UT G7-AVG=+065,+000,+000
GOES6-MAX=P:+131NT@ 1727UT GOES6-MIN=N:-084NT@ 0648UT G6-AVG=+088,+040,-034
FLUXFCST=STD:100,105,105;SESC:100,105,105 BAI/PAI-FCST=020,010,015/020,012,018
KFCST=0115 5010 0005 5010 27DAY-AP=022,022 27DAY-KP=3333 5533 3553 4233
WARNINGS=*AURMIDWCH
ALERTS=
!!END-DATA!!
NOTE: The Effective Sunspot Number for 13 FEB 94 was 39.6.
The Full Kp Indices for 13 FEB 94 are: 4+ 3+ 3o 5- 4- 5- 5- 4-
The 3-Hr Ap Indices for 13 FEB 94 are: 33 19 15 41 21 37 42 24
Greater than 2 MeV Electron Fluence for 14 FEB is: 3.6E+08
SYNOPSIS OF ACT
--------------------
Solar activity was very low. Region 7671 (N10E65)
features a large, dark, spot extending over three degrees.
Solar activity forecast: solar activity is expected to be
very low.
STD: Region 7671 is associated with extremely intense Ca XV
emissions. The National Solar Observatory reported extremely
intense emissions as this region rotated around the east limb
on 12 February. Bad weather has prevented attempts to observe
emissions since then. C-class flares are possible from this
region. The threat for possible satellite anomalies may
continue for the next 2 or 3 days before electrons at greater
than 2 MeV fall back toward background levels.
The geomagnetic field has been at unsettled to minor storm
levels at mid-latitudes and major storm levels at high
latitudes. The storm which began 05 February continues at high
latitudes, but appears to have receded at mid-latitudes. The
energetic electron flux is elevated for the seventh day
in a row.
Geophysical activity forecast: the geomagnetic field is
expected to range from unsettled to minor storm for day one.
The field is expected to relax to mostly unsettled levels
for day two. A new coronal hole may disturb the magnetic field
on day three.
Event probabilities 15 feb-17 feb
Class M 05/05/05
Class X 01/01/01
Proton 01/01/01
PCAF Green
Geomagnetic activity probabilities 15 feb-17 feb
A. Middle Latitudes
Active 35/25/30
Minor Storm 20/15/20
Major-Severe Storm 05/05/05
B. High Latitudes
Active 35/25/30
Minor Storm 25/15/20
Major-Severe Storm 05/05/05
HF propagation conditions continue to very slowly improve,
but are still well below normal, particularly on higher
latitude paths. Conditions are expected to remain below-normal
for at least the next 3 to 4 days. Another smaller coronal
hole related disturbance is expected to rejuvenate activity on
about 17 February, although it should primarily affect the
higher latitudes.
COPIES OF JOINT USAF/NOAA SESC SOLAR GEOPHYSICAL REPORTS
========================================================
REGIONS WIT
-----------------------------------------------------------
NMBR LOCATION LO AREA Z LL NN MAG TYPE
7668 N09W29 283 0050 CSO 09 011 BET
7669 N05E32 222 0000 AXX 00 001 ALPHA
7670 N08E48 206 0010 BXO 05 004 BET
7671 N10E65 189 0450 CHO 06 003 BET
7667 S07W80 334 PLAGE
REGIONS DUE TO RET
NMBR LAT
7659 S13 150
LISTING OF SOLAR ENERGETIC EVENTS FOR 14 FEBRUARY, 1994
-------------------------------------------------------
A. ENERGETIC EVENTS:
BEGIN MAX END RGN LOC XRAY OP 245MHZ 10CM SWEEP
NONE
POSSIBLE CORONAL MASS EJECTION EVENTS FOR 14 FEBRUARY, 1994
-----------------------------------------------------------
BEGIN MAX END LOCATION TYPE SIZE DUR II IV
NO EVENTS OBSERVED
INFERRED CORONAL HOLES. LOCATIONS VALID AT 14/2400Z
---------------------------------------------------
ISOLATED HOLES AND POLAR EXT
EAST SOUTH WEST NORTH CAR TYPE POL AREA OBSN
NO DAT
SUMMARY OF FLARE EVENTS FOR THE PREVIOUS UTC DAY
------------------------------------------------
Date Begin Max End Xray Op Region Locn 2695 MHz 8800 MHz 15.4 GHz
------ ---- ---- ---- ---- -- ------ ------ --------- --------- ---------
13 Feb: 0051 0244 0429 C1.3
REGION FLARE STATISTICS FOR THE PREVIOUS UTC DAY
------------------------------------------------
C M X S 1 2 3 4 Total (%)
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- ------
Uncorrellated: 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001 (100.0)
Total Events: 001 optical and x-ray.
EVENTS WIT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Date Begin Max End Xray Op Region Locn Sweeps/Optical Observations
------ ---- ---- ---- ---- -- ------ ------ ---------------------------
13 Feb: 0051 0244 0429 C1.3 IV
NOTES:
All times are in Universal Time (UT). Characters preceding begin, max,
and end times are defined as: B = Before, U = Uncertain, A = After.
All times associated with x-ray flares (ex. flares which produce
associated x-ray bursts) refer to the begin, max, and end times of the
x-rays. Flares which are not associated with x-ray signatures use the
optical observations to determine the begin, max, and end times.
Acronyms used to identify sweeps and optical phenomena include:
II = Type II Sweep Frequency Event
III = Type III Sweep
IV = Type IV Sweep
V = Type V Sweep
Continuum = Continuum Radio Event
Loop = Loop Prominence System,
Spray = Limb Spray,
Surge = Bright Limb Surge,
EPL = Eruptive Prominence on the Limb.
** End of Daily Report **
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 20:55:06 GMT
From: agate!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!darwin.sura.net!news.Vanderbilt.Edu!news@ames.arpa
Subject: GAP DX EAGLE comments?
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu
Hi,
I was wondering if anyone has had any experience with the DX Eagle antenna
which GAP makes. It is a smaller version which is roughly comparable
to the R-7. I have a lot of input on the Cushcraft, but not much
on this particular GAP model. Most of the info I have gotten involves
experience with the larger low band versions, and is negative.
73
Alan
Recommended
four
line
signature.
------------------------------
Date: 15 Feb 94 19:33:48 GMT
From: news-mail-gateway@ucsd.edu
Subject: Nude QSL cards
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu
John Meaker (kr4ah) writes:
|
| I'm curious about nude QSL cards. Would anyone be offended if they
| received a QSL card in the mail with nude people on it? Would it be
| better to mail the card in an envelope? The envelope increases the
| cost of mailing a QSL considerably, and cost a consideration when you
| mail many cards.
There has been considerable discussion about the demography of the
amateur radio community and how we can attract younger people to the
hobby. Although nude QSL cards may attract teen-age boys to the hobby, I
hope we don't have to resort to this method.
My son got his novice license when he was 11 and my daughter when she was
8. Regardless of what you may think about my moral values and religious
convictions, I feel it is my responsibility to teach them to my children
and help guide them through the difficulties of puberty which are before
them. I would feel extremely offended if someone sent a nude QSL card to
either of my kids. I do not wish either of my kids to be receiving nude
photos in sealed envelopes, either.
My opinion is not up for debate here. Remember, the question is whether
nude qsl cards may be offensive. I suspect that there may be some people
who preach tolerance but will not tolerate my position on this issue.
They may even be driven to challenge my beliefs. As this is not the
issue, their comments are being redirected to /dev/null.
Best Wishes. Lowell (kc7dx)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 02:23:02 GMT
From: scubed!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!sdd.hp.com!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!henrys@network.ucsd.edu
Subject: Vision Impaired Ham needs help
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu
Today I spoke with Roy, W8SAG who is a vision impaired ham (age 75)
who lives in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Roy does not have a computer, so I told him that I would do my best
to find out everything that I could about *talking* computers and
programs that can assist the blind ham.
If you know anything about *talking* computers, the software and
hardware, please Email me. I will pass the info along to Roy.
Thanks,
Smitty, NA5K
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Henry B. Smith - NA5K henrys@netcom.com |
| Dallas, Texas |
| |
| "I'm not sure I understand everything that I know" |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 16:09:36 GMT
From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!wa4mei.ping.com!ke4zv!gary@network.ucsd.edu
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu
References <bote.760946660@access1>, <1994Feb12.160701.4407@ke4zv.atl.ga.us>, <1994Feb14.131000.8706@arrl.org>
Reply-To : gary@ke4zv.atl.ga.us (Gary Coffman)
Subject : Re: Medium range point-to-point digital links
In article <1994Feb14.131000.8706@arrl.org> jbloom@arrl.org (Jon Bloom (KE3Z)) writes:
>Gary Coffman (gary@ke4zv.atl.ga.us) wrote:
>: In article <bote.760946660@access1> bote@access1.digex.net (John Boteler) writes:
>: >I have gotten a bug up my rear to configure our point-to-point
>: >repeater linking system with digital paths ranging 20
>: >to 40 miles apart.
>[deleted]
>: Well lets look at some numbers and see. Lets assume
>: you want "broadcast" grade audio. That's a SNR of
>: 50 db. Digital transmission regenerates bits so
>: that above a certain threshold level the effective
>: SNR is only the quantization error of the digital
>: equipment itself. A crude way of looking at this
>: is to consider this error as bit jitter at the lsb-1.
>: So an 8 bit system would have a SNR of 10*log(2^9)=27 db.
>: That's obviously not good enough. 16 bits yields a SNR of
>: 10*log(2^17)=51 db which is close enough for our purposes.
>
>Use 20*log(x), since we're talking about a voltage ratio. An easy rule
>of thumb is 6 dB of SNR per bit of quantization. It's actually a tad
>better than that, since the quantization error is not constant;
>sometimes the error is a small fraction of one LSB, sometimes it's up
>to half an LSB. 8 bits will give you about 50 or so dB of SNR.
Well I don't want to get into a big fight about comparing power spectra
ratios to voltage ratios, I'll just say that it's the power spectrum that
you hear. If you want to use voltage ratios instead, that's fine, but it
means I'll have to raise the "broadcast quality" number to the 90-100 db
range instead of the 45-50 db range.
>: Now the Nyquist limit says we have to sample at a minimum
>: of twice the highest frequency in the audio. If we assume
>: that's 5 kHz, then our minimum sample rate is 10 kilosamples
>: per second. That requires a very good brickwall filter, however,
>: so sampling is usually done at a somewhat higher rate, say 3X
>: or 4X the highest audio frequency. Lets pick 3X. So our required
>: bit rate is 16*15,000=240 kb/s. That's not going to fit in a
>: normal FM two way radio bandwidth, so we're going to have to
>: resort to trickery.
>
>Yes, you sample at that higher rate, but then you digitally filter with
>a near-brick-wall filter and reduce the sample rate to very near the
>Nyquist rate, via decimation. (Consider compact disks.) At the
>receiving end you interpolate to raise the sample rate back to
>something that can use reasonable reconstruction low-pass filters. So,
>a more realistic analysis gives a transmitted 10 kHz sampling rate at 8
>bits per sample, for 80 kbit/s.
I'll buy the digital filtering and decimation, and I'll even allow
that interpolation is acceptable at the Nyquist limit. I won't buy
into 8 bits, however. Whether you need a power spectrum ratio of
50 db, or a voltage ratio of 100 db, 8 bits still doesn't do it.
So we're back with a 160 kb/s data stream before compression.
>: Codecs use various compression schemes to lower the effective
>: bit rate. Delta modulation is one such trick, and LPC (linear
>: predictive coding) is another. These are effective real time
>: compression methods, but do suffer some artifacts. Or we can
>: take a page from the newer high speed telephone modems and use
>: LZW type on the fly lossless compression and complex modem
>: encodings that use less than one baud per bit. Off the shelf
>: modems can deliver up to 56 kb effective data throughput over
>: voice grade channels wsing a base baud rate of 600 baud. That's
>: not quite good enough though.
>
>Even if you could make that degree of m-ary coding work on a radio
>link, which I have my doubts about.
You can, but it has to be a well engineered full duplex link. Of
course if you had voice grade links that good to begin with, you
wouldn't need to be worrying about digital audio to improve SNR. :-)
>: Or we can abandon voice grade radios for the links and use purpose
>: built digital radios with higher baud rates. If we take a 56 kb
>: WA4DSY RF modem (GRAPES), and couple that with an on the fly
>: compression scheme like LZW, we can easily get the required 240 kb/s
>: throughput for broadcast grade audio without dealing with the timing
>: artifacts of delta modulation or LPC. Occupied bandwidth would be
>: less than 70 kHz.
>
>In my experience, LZW doesn't compress speech all that well. You'll be
>lucky to get a 2:1 compression; you certainly won't get 4:1. Worse, you
>won't get that compression consistently. Some parts of the transmission
>will be compressed more than others, leading to timing/buffering
>problems. You really want a compression scheme that is tailored to
>speech.
Yes, LZW is just an example of a compression scheme currently popular
for on-the-fly use in data modems. However, delta modulation can also
be "bursty" leading to time distortion of the audio, and a single
error can propagate for a significant time before the system recovers.
There are tricks that are helpful, however, if we know the nature of
speech, and we do. There are band gaps in the speech power spectrum,
and there are time characteristics to the key sounds that we can use
to tailor a compression scheme to minimize redundancy in the bit stream
without going to excessively lossy methods. We can also make use of
group and run length coding on partial samples of the spectrum before
merging them into the final bit stream, IE we know that a low frequency
speech component is going to presist for several milliseconds so we don't
have to transmit repetitive samples to reproduce it. (This requires a bit
of tricky DSP, but it's doable.)
>: If we can settle for less than perfection, however, Motorola has
>: a codec scheme that they claim can fit a digital voice signal in
>: the same bandwidth as a NBFM voice signal, IE 20 KHz. It won't
>: work through off the shelf FM radios though, a purpose built
>: radio is required, and it won't yield "broadcast" SNRs. I have
>: the write up on it around here somewhere, but can't lay my hands
>: on it right now. I seem to recall that its an 8 bit system so
>: the SNR is going to be around 27 db. It should be noted that hams
>: consider the 20 db quieting level "full quieting" and thus perfectly
>: acceptable audio quality.
>
>8 bits is entirely adequate (see above). I'm not familiar with the
>Motorola system, but I suggest that it is probably *not* using a
>lossless compression scheme. That means that you'll experience some
>additional noise/distortion, beyond quantization noise.
Yes, the compression method is lossy. That, and the limitation of
8 bit sampling, is why I don't consider it capable of yielding a
broadcast SNR.
>I've done some playing with MX-COM's CVSD codec. While I haven't
>analyzed the SNR, "by ear" it produces reasonable reproduction at 32
>kbit/s and audio I can stand to listen to (barely) at 16 kbit/s. At 64
>kbit/s, its audio is entirely acceptable for amateur purposes. IMHO.
The ear is rather easily fooled since most of us have poor sonic memory.
Rapid A/B testing between the source audio and the reconstitued digital
audio will quickly show the difference, however. An even better test is
to feed a pair of headphones such that the original audio is in one
channel, and the reconstituted signal is in the other. Shifts in the
sound stage are an immediate clue as to defects in the reconstituted
signal. We can use poor sonic memory to our advantage in communications
links, but 8 bits isn't good enough to fool the ear under most conditions.
8 bits can fool the eye, 255 grey levels are sufficient for luminance video,
but anything less than 12 bits is noticable to the ear, and 16 bits are
required if that ear is trained and discerning.
As I mentioned, most amateurs consider a 20 db quieting, power ratio,
sufficiently good for a communications channel. That's doable in 8 bits,
but it won't meet the criteria of this discussion.
Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | |
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 94 22:00:33 -0500
From: scubed!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!sdd.hp.com!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet@network.ucsd.edu
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu
References <1994Jan28.171743.483@arrl.org>, <gregCKI0zw.Kuo@netcom.com>, <1994Feb3.190229.8136@arrl.org>
Subject : Re: RAMSEY FX TRANSCEIVER
Jon Bloom (KE3Z) <jbloom@arrl.org> writes:
>harmonic spectral purity requirements.) They promised to send us one of
>the new units as soon as it became available. (Normally, we only
>*purchase* Product Review items, but we decided that it would be hard
>for them to fine-tune a kit :-)
> We waited a couple of months, then called Ramsey. To make a long
>story short, we called *every* couple of months, but we never received
>the promised radio. Finally, we just bought one (through a third
>party). This is the unit we reviewed. In March of 1993, we contacted
And one wonders why we don't advertise in QST, it's the attitude of
history re-writers such as J.B. I was there, and the facts just ain't so.
I'd rather talk on the phone! But I had to respond to such talk. You see, the
ARRL couldn't get their kit to work! So we sent them an assembled unit.
Yes it did not meet the FCC specs for spurious - missing by about a db or
two ( I'm at home and don't have notes handy). The ARRL missed the whole
point of the kit which was to promote kit building, etc,etc. Now. I'm
sure you are thinking, "but it didn't meet FCC!" True, but for a fascinating
contrast, look at the GLOWING review of the MFJ regen receiver! Guess it
doesn't spray RF.I do believe that MFJ has been quite a big QST advertiser, too.
No, you'll not see a Ramsey ad in QST. It was years ago that I was approached
by a QST ad director to advertise. He expounded how QST was looking out for the
amateur, requiring test units before accepting ads. I responded that they had
plenty of ad pages from DSI, a since defunct freq ctr mfg who sold trash and
was openly taking $$ for products they had no intention of shipping! Of this is
the virtue you speak? Well, DSI closed shop, took QST readers for hundreds of
thousands of dollars and even stuck that nice old ad director too!
Yes, I'm hot and seeing this kangoroo (sp?) court makes me long for my work-
bench rather than this CRT. I don't have the luxury of getting paid to
read and respond to everything here - but I do welcome phone calls to myself
at the office (716) 924-4560. Just ask for me.
------------------------------
End of Info-Hams Digest V94 #156
******************************
******************************