Date: Fri, 18 Mar 94 04:30:06 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 #302
To: Info-Hams
Info-Hams Digest Fri, 18 Mar 94 Volume 94 : Issue 302
Today's Topics:
25_years_of_portable_phone
Best cars for mobile HF/VHF??
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: 17 Mar 94 19:33:16 GMT
From: news-mail-gateway@ucsd.edu
Subject: 25_years_of_portable_phone
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu
==============================================================
HISTORICAL NOTE: 25th ANNIVERSARY OF THE CORDLESS PHONE
==============================================================
Background:
The purpose of this message is to contribute to the collective
justifiable pride that radio amateurs maintain for their contri-
butions to the advancements of the radio arts.
Radio amateurs should be aware that the cordless telephone, used
in millions of households today, was pioneered by an amateur.
Inventor:
George Sweigert, now 74, licensed as N9LC since 1975 and formerly
W8ZIS, was granted a patent in June, 1969 for a wireless portable
telephone device. The specific patent claim was for "full duplex
radio communications".
The original instrument was dubbed "extensi-phone", and consisted
of a 'base station', acousticly coupled to the telephone network,
and a small hand-held 'extension'. The caller could receive
incoming telephone calls, as the telephone company's ringer voltage
activated the telephone instruments ringer, an inductively coupled
circuit (prior to the FCC's Carterphone Decision it was illegal to
directly connect to the telephone line) activated the base station's
transmitter, signalling the portable extension device. The telephone
call then took place.
After an FCC type acceptance review, the commissioner at that time
commented, "this is the most significant advancement in communications
since the invention of the television...".
Today, N9LC is active on CW traffic nets and exoctic CW DX-ing. He
resides in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and is a member of the Fort Wayne
Amateur Radio Club.
An application is pending before tyhe Inventors Hall of Fame, Akron,
Ohio, to induct this instrument into the Hall of Fame.
The author:
David Sweigert, KE9YP, is the third born son of Mr. Sweigert.
==============================================================
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 94 10:59:57 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk!pavo.csi.cam.ac.uk!pipex!uknet!uos-ee!ee.surrey.ac.uk!M.Willis@network.ucsd.edu
Subject: Best cars for mobile HF/VHF??
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu
In article <CMIACE.D9C@hpqmoea.sqf.hp.com>, dstock@hpqmoca.sqf.hp.com (David Stockton) writes:
|>
|> I'm happy with my choice, a Diesel powered Range-Rover derivative
|> called a "Discovery"
|>
|> Give serious thought to Diesels, no ignition, no computers
|>
|>
|> David GM4ZNX
Yes, but at a mere 18,000 pounds not many can afford such a car. Practically, I
found the Cavallier reasonable RF quiet. Fiat Uno, too noisy. Diesels are
definately better, they have a bigger battery too.
Mike
------------------------------
Date: 17 Mar 1994 11:54:39 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!convex!news.utdallas.edu!corpgate!bnrgate!bnr.co.uk!uknet!EU.net!sun4nl!news.nic.surfnet.nl!tuegate.tue.nl!blade.stack.urc.tue.nl!robs@network.UCSD
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu
References <2m7pt4$dc9@news.iastate.edu>, <763851432snz@g8sjp.demon.co.uk>, <2m7v0h$gld@news.iastate.edu>
Subject : Re: 1x1 Callsigns?
In article <2m7v0h$gld@news.iastate.edu>,
William J Turner <wjturner@iastate.edu> wrote:
>In article <763851432snz@g8sjp.demon.co.uk> ip@g8sjp.demon.co.uk writes:
>>Actually, I *have* checked the international agreements. Sadly, I can find no
>>distinction between 'amateur service' and any other callsigns. It is, of
>>course, possible that I'm looking in the worng place.
>
Try the ITU Radio Regulations
>I know I read somewhere (sorry, don't know exactly where :-( ) that amateur
>calls are to follow the pattern I gave earlier (prefix--number--suffix). As I
>understand, this is for ham calls only, although the country designations used
>in the prefixes are used for all radio stations--amateur, commercial,
>government, military, etc.
>
>>As I've said, I have been unable to find anything that differentiates amateur
>>callsigns allocations (at an international level) from other classes.
>>
>>If you accept the premise that *all* callsigns are issued according to
>>international agreement, then either they will have to contain (somewhere) a
>>numeric character, or they will not. Fine. A strange coincidence: callsigns
>>assigned to aircraft (and shipping, for that matter ...) rarely - although
>>the FAA seem to be the very exeception that proves the rule - contain numeric
>>characters.
>
As far as I remember from may days at the Nautical College Rotterdam (Radio
officer training) there really is an imposed standard.
Somewhere I must still have my "Handbook for use in the maritime mobile and
maritime mobile satellite service" being a subset of the Radio Regulations
from the ITU. There might be more info. From my memory:
Shipping: Fixed stations (coast stations): XXX(#(#)) meaning three
alpha's as main callsign, to be used on the general calling frequency's
whereas a numerical suffix (to the call) is allowed to identify different
frequencies in different bands.
Mobile stations (ships): XXXX or XX###(#). De XX###(#) version is often
used for yachts, and non-seagoing vessels. The XXXX is used (by tradition)
by large seaships (cargo vessels, passenger liners etc.)
NB: There is no such thing as prefix here. Just callsign and suffix.
>As I said before, I only heard about this system for amateur calls. There may
>possibly be some system for other calls, also, but I have not read of it
>anywhere that I know of...
>
>>British aircraft registrations and callsigns look like 'GBOAC'. I expect more
>>than a few D.C. area residents have seen that ....
>>
According to same source as above Aircraft use XXXXX as callsign. No
prefix, no suffix. Sometimes there also variations like X(X)#####(#)
probably just like shipping because of limited number of possible XXXXX
calls.
>>Oh - and where's the necessity to have a *number* to separate a prefix from
>>a suffix??? When you operate in another country, don't you (generally) take
>>the prefix (ITU assigned) and separate it from the suffix (your entire call)
>>by a '/' ?
Wasn't that the otherway around these days? <foreign prefix>/<your call>?
>
>I'm sorry to sound as if there must be a number between them; I meant there
>must be *something*. A prefix and suffix must have something to be the prefix
>and suffix of, and in this system it is always a number. This makes it easy
>to tell the prefix and suffix, even in the prefix has a number in it. The
>separator (or the mandatory number as I called it earlier--however misleading
>it was) is always the *last* number. (Thus our recurring A6#XX has # as the
>separaotr.)
According again to above source, I recall the imposed call-sign scheme for
amateur radio is : XX#XX(X). Because many callsigns go back way before these
regulations, old callsign are allowed, provided the prefix is according to
the current prefix allocation.
Country's are free to attach a meaning to the '#' (geographic location or
licence type or clubstation or repeater or whatever) and basically
two-letter suffixes should not be assigned anymore. They should die out of
old age, leaving only three-letter suffixes (but then - we're all going
that way).
I still have some ITU docs lying around somewhere or stashed in a box on
the attic from my sea-going period (stopped in `82). If someone doubt my
response (or rather a lot of someones) I might try to dig 'em up.
73,
Rob Soulier, PA3AXI
------------------------------
Date: 17 Mar 1994 12:36:19 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!lerc.nasa.gov!news.larc.nasa.gov!eos1.larc.nasa.gov!eckman@network.ucsd.edu
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu
References <763851432snz@g8sjp.demon.co.uk>, <2m7v0h$gld@news.iastate.edu>, <2m9gdv$6un@tuegate.tue.nl>
Subject : Re: 1x1 Callsigns?
With regard to the apparent international regulations requiring a
specific format to an amateur callsign, could someone actually
dig up article 32 of the ITU regulations (which deal with amateur
radio communications) and let us know what it really says?
Drawing analogies with AM radio station callsigns, coast guard,
and airplane designators strikes me as entirely beside the point.
The fact that the Marshall Islands are not using a number following
their V7 prefix is not proof that a number isn't necessary. They
may just be ignoring or ignorant of ITU regs.
Could someone please quote the relevant ITU regs for us? Maybe
someone at ARRL HQ with easy access to the text.
Richard Eckman KO4MR
NASA Langley
eckman@eos1.larc.nasa.gov
------------------------------
End of Info-Hams Digest V94 #302
******************************
******************************