20040213.qrp v03_n195.qrl.20040213 Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 19:03:13 EST From: qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: QRP-L digest 3195 QRP-L Digest 3195 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) [167837] Re: QRP MIA ? by Michael Neverdosky 2) [167838] Re: NE602 Availability by "Brian Murrey" 3) [167839] OT: Need manual for Cushman CE-70 by "Jim Sheldon" 4) [167840] Re: QRP MIA ? by "Nick Kennedy" 5) [167841] Suggestion - For a week lets avoid the negative and things off-topic by "sjolin" 6) [167842] RE: [qrp-l] ARRL Membership? by "Nick Kennedy" 7) [167843] ELMER 160 PIC-EL & DDS (Past and Future) by "Joe Mann" 8) [167844] 28 foot fiberglas poles by Michael Goins 9) [167845] Re: Suggestion - For a week lets avoid the negative and things off-topic by John Sielke 10) [167846] Re: Homebrewer Magazine/Up date by "Dave Martin" 11) [167847] RE: BPL by "Thom R. Lacosta" 12) [167848] RE: Loaded 1/2 wave end feed ant? by "Nick Kennedy" 13) [167849] Re: Fox - Fox Hunt Team Results... by "Tom Palmer" 14) [167850] Re: 28 foot fiberglas poles by Richard Lim 15) [167851] Re: QRP MIA ? by "John J. McDonough" 16) [167852] Re: Suggestion - For a week lets avoid the negative and things off-topic by Rick McKee 17) [167853] Re: Fox - Fox Hunt Team Results... by "George, W5YR" 18) [167854] Re: BPL by Rick McKee 19) [167855] RE: Fox - Fox Hunt Team Results... by "rattray" 20) [167856] Re: 28 foot fiberglas poles by "Tim, N9PUZ" 21) [167857] Re: NE602 Availability by John Somerville 22) [167858] Re: BPL by "George, W5YR" 23) [167859] RE: Telescopic Poles -- Another Source by "NA4FM \(Buck\)" 24) [167860] AL7FS receives BPL response from Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski by Jim Larsen 25) [167861] QRO vs QRP by "NA4FM \(Buck\)" 26) [167862] RE: BPL by ham@w3eax.umd.edu 27) [167863] Re: NE602 Availability by "Leon Heller" 28) [167864] Re: NE602 Availability by "Leon Heller" 29) [167865] / QRP Question by "bill" 30) [167866] RE: Fox - Fox Hunt Team Results... by "Tom Palmer" 31) [167867] KITS: DSW-II-30 and -80 / new support docs by "Dave Benson" 32) [167868] RE: BPL by "Thom R. Lacosta" 33) [167869] RE: BPL by "NA4FM \(Buck\)" 34) [167870] BPL Loss !!! by tk 35) [167871] Re: No more QRP column in QST? by "Lau, Zack, W1VT" 36) [167872] RE: QRP MIA ? by 37) [167873] RE: BPL by John Sielke 38) [167874] RE: BPL - call me Pollyanna by "Noyce, Bill" 39) [167875] Re: morse code for @ (at) sign ?? by Ray Sills 40) [167876] Fw: [KLQRP] FYBO 2004 by "John Paul Keon" 41) [167877] WebEE Electrical Engineering by "Ron McConnell" 42) [167878] Re: BPL - call me Pollyanna by "Goody K3NG" 43) [167879] RF Exposure Compliance... by "Dale Anderson \(KB0VCC\)" 44) [167880] WTB DDS daughtercard by 45) [167881] Rainbow tuner for 2004? by "Brockwell, Stephen E. CECOM SEC FSSE GPI" 46) [167882] AmQRP Tin Ear Receiver by "Doug Hendricks" 47) [167883] Re: Rainbow tuner for 2004? by John Sielke 48) [167884] HAMCALC by George Murphy 49) [167885] Tin Ear Receiver Addendum by "Doug Hendricks" 50) [167886] OT: Calipers and Micrometers by 51) [167887] WTB WM-75 by Jack e wigal 52) [167888] Re: RF Exposure Compliance... by Nelson Winter 53) [167889] Re: OT: Calipers and Micrometers by "Doug Hendricks" 54) [167890] Re: / QRP Question by Bruce Muscolino 55) [167891] Re: OT: Calipers and Micrometers by Bob KB2FEL 56) [167892] Re: OT: Calipers and Micrometers by Ed Tanton 57) [167893] Re: AL7FS receives BPL response from Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski by Bruce Muscolino 58) [167894] Re: Calipers and Micrometers by "Bill Jones" 59) [167895] Calipers and Micrometers [Small Parts Inc.] by Chuck Carpenter 60) [167896] Re: RF Exposure Compliance... by "George, W5YR" 61) [167897] Fiberglass Poles for Antennas by Steve Lawrence 62) [167898] Re: OT: Calipers and Micrometers by Michael Neverdosky 63) [167899] Re: Telescopic Poles -- Another Source by "Jim Kjar" 64) [167900] Re: No more QRP column in QST? by Bruce Muscolino 65) [167901] Re: AL7FS receives BPL response from Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski by Bob Nielsen 66) [167902] Re: No more QRP column in QST? by John Sielke 67) [167903] Re: OT: Calipers and Micrometers by 68) [167904] Re: AL7FS receives BPL response from Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski by "Lawrence Makoski" 69) [167905] Re: BPL Loss !!! by "Patrick Schwarz - KB8RTZ" 70) [167906] Re: No more QRP column in QST? by Bruce Muscolino 71) [167907] Re: DX Fox Hunt Needed ?? by Curt Milton 72) [167908] WTD: Supergainer converter PCB by "Howard Kraus" 73) [167909] Re: No more QRP column in QST? by Rob Matherly 74) [167910] Url for Tin Ear Receiver by "Doug Hendricks" 75) [167911] Homebrewer #2 by William K Penhallegon ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:31:47 -0500 From: Michael Neverdosky To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [167837] Re: QRP MIA ? Message-ID: <402C0CE3.B0603A76@earthlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I *dreamed* about building one. :-)) michael N6CHV "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" wrote: > I remember that the Handbooks of the 60s had this really neat, really big and really > complex multi-band transmitter. > > Wanna' bet that less than 0.000001% of the ham population back then built one? > > 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 > > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:50:24 -0500 From: "Brian Murrey" To: , "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [167838] Re: NE602 Availability Message-ID: <0c3801c3f1c2$fca929c0$1d64030a@bjmw2k> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Diz has the SA612AN at 5 for $10.00 on his website. http://www.kitsandparts.com Diz is good folks... 72 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brad Hedges" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 4:48 PM Subject: Re: NE602 Availability > Nobody - now they're NE612's > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Somerville" > To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" > Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 1:40 PM > Subject: NE602 Availability > > > > Who sells NE602s? > > > > Regards John VE7CFG > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 19:01:44 -0600 From: "Jim Sheldon" To: "Four States QRP Group" <4sqrp@mailman.qth.net>, "Flying Pigs Mailing List" , Subject: [167839] OT: Need manual for Cushman CE-70 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Just managed to cabbage onto a super freebie. A friend of mine just gave me a Cushman CE-70, Frequency Selective Levelmeter. This is in effect a pretty good am/ssb/cw receiver that covers ELF through 25 or so MHz. Pretty much a general coverage receiver with switched AM/USB/LSB and lots of other bells & whistles. It looks as if it's been through the war, but it actually works though it's way out of calibration for frequency and the USB/LSB/CW filters are way out of whack, so I think the BFO needs alignment. I need to locate a book I can either borrow and copy, or have someone copy it for me and I pay them for it. Anyone that can help, please email me off list. Jim Sheldon, W0EB Wichita, KS w0eb@cox.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 19:17:34 -0600 From: "Nick Kennedy" To: , "'Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion'" Subject: [167840] Re: QRP MIA ? Message-ID: <004201c3f1cf$29f25ee0$0400000a@wa5bdu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit George said: " Today, apart from our QRP building projects and the wonderful kits we have, the average ham is no longer interested in or capable of building a complex rig if even he find all the parts likely needed for one. It has become no longer economically feasible to build a multiband, multimode transceiver when you can buy an IC-718 for under $500 and get 100 watts on all modes, etc. " Well George you've got 17 years on me (1945 Vs 1962), but 42 years ago I didn't see many (any, actually) people building complex rigs either. A few built their own TX, but that's about it. Of course, this is about the time frame that the phrase "plug-in appliance operator" was coined. How time flies! As far as interest goes, I *do* see a lot of interest in building today. (Maybe it's just the company I keep.) True the "average" ham isn't interested now and wasn't interested then, but there's still a healthy subculture of builders. And as far as availability of parts and the ease of doing it, building seems to me to be much cheaper (relatively) and easier now than ever. Just another perspective. 72--Nick, WA5BDU ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 19:17:23 -0600 From: "sjolin" To: "Qrp-l Reflector" Subject: [167841] Suggestion - For a week lets avoid the negative and things off-topic Message-ID: <07a601c3f1cf$2387ea20$78d1fea9@DaveSjolin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'd like to offer a suggestion. How about for the next week or so we all forgo posting anything negative or off-topic and focus on qrp. No complaints about contesting, no complaints about QST, ARRL, no code or lack of support for morse requirements, or just "things were better in the old days" (they werent, Ive been ham 45 years). If you really feel strongly about the issue, why dont you write someone who can do something about it like your ARRL Director, ARRL Headquarters, the FCC. Life is too short to read all this negativity all day long. This is supposed to be an enjoyable hobby. 73 de Dave, N0IT ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 19:31:58 -0600 From: "Nick Kennedy" To: , "'Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion'" Subject: [167842] RE: [qrp-l] ARRL Membership? Message-ID: <004301c3f1d1$2c096d20$0400000a@wa5bdu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU [mailto:owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU] On Behalf Of w2wurjj@verizon.net "ARRL solicts technical and general interest articles but rejects true accounts of Emergency Communications. Case in point: "Mayday", a copywrited article that saved lives and highlighted international cooperation." Hey, they turned my article down too. You don't see me pouting! "They repeat articles of "interest", yet overlook the works of Maxwell, Kraus, et. al. Bottom Line" Have Maxwell or Kraus submitted any new articles lately? By the way, are you talking about James Clerk, or Walt? A little clarity please. Maybe your article will be accepted next time. 72 and keep practicing that writing, --Nick, WA5BDU ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 19:37:28 -0600 From: "Joe Mann" To: "qrp-l" Subject: [167843] ELMER 160 PIC-EL & DDS (Past and Future) Message-ID: <005601c3f1d1$f0cafe80$1603bb42@joeii> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Let me start by saying that I have not reviewed code or researched the possibilities put forth below. I am not trying to have anyone 'DO' my work. What I am trying to do is set a focus on some directions this group may want to look at as we move forward. Some comments about the PIC-EL and DDS daughtercard: Past: It really -IS- fun to work on a pcb with a soldermask, plated-thru holes, etc. Kudos to the HW & SW designers, managers, kit assemblers, et al. WELL DONE! The small number of suggestions and observed problems posted on the list concerning kit assembly and checkout are indicative of the quality of your work. I might add that I chose to put a 3-pin male header for the crystal connection in lieu of soldering the crystal to the board. This allows the quick swap of a 10 mHz, 20 mHz , or other special crystal for the current 4 mHz one. For 18 pin MCUs like the PIC16F88 which have an internal RC oscillator, one may have to disconnect/remove the external crystal so to use the internal one. I did have some problem getting the DDS board going using the PC-based checkout software. The voltages seemed OK and the AD9850 input pins all changed state as expected but no joy! However, direct connection to the PIC-EL worked first time as advertised. I need to go back and put a scope to the interface to see what really is going on. I suspect the cabling or my PC's motherboard I/O ports may not be up to snuff. Future: I am sure some of us will want to increase the display 'bandwidth', i.e. go to 2 or 4 line or longer display lines. I suspect the existing header or a suitable cable will allow us to utilize larger displays. If we try to share code it will be in our best interests to code in a modular fashion so that going back and forth on display sizes is nothing more than cut and paste, the change of an include file, etc. I would like to somehow improve upon the performance of the encoder! Among other things, my PIC-EL/DDS is to be a replacement for a DIGI-VFO (QST 1995-6) which uses a Grayhill optical encoder which is very smooth and accurate. Unfortunately its price seems to have increased over time rather than decreased. Is there any hope of modifying the HW/SW so that the current PIC-EL encoder (Anyone know its brand & model?) will not continue to be inconsistent. What other choices are available (for less than $64.00)? A suggestion for the manipulation of the step size of the DDS. In PICELgen PB1 is used after boot-up to step 10 kHz rather than the regular 1 Hz. I suggest that PB1 be used to set a stepsize of 1 Hz, 10 Hz, 100 Hz, 1 kHz, 10 kHz, 100 kHz or 1 mHz by repeated pressing of the button, looping back to 1 Hz after 1 mHz. The stepsize could then be stored in the eeprom just like the startup frequency. The stepsize would be used in the PB1-2 increment/decrement process. The problem is how to show the current stepsize value. The 8 character display currently has no additional space. Some possible get-arounds might be to identify the stepsize position by underline or periodically blink/blank/reverse image; go to a bigger display; hold down PB1 for 2 seconds to get stepsize display, refresh frequency display when released. The AD9851 is pin for pin compatible with the AD9850, except it has the additional capability of multiplying the input clock up to 6 times with a max of 180 mHz. The multiplication factor for the 9851 is in several bits which are unused in the 9850 control byte. I suspect the daughtercard may support the 9951 with minor HW/SW changes. A place to put an external oscillator/clock input jack on the daughtercard replacing the current 100 mHz external clock oscillator unit might be an easy and cheap addition. (I think a 50 Ohm resistor to ground may also be required if trying to feed from an external oscillator.) This could be used for clocking from an ovenized highly stable oscillator. Enough rambling. Enjoy your new toy(s), it'll interesting to see all the varied applications which will come from such a large group of experimenters. Good luck, Joe, K9HDE PS After a warm-up period of about 15 minutes my PIC-EL/DDS remains within 1 Hz of WWVB on 60 kHz for hours at a time, prior to attempting to adjust the OSCCAL parameter. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:06:47 -0600 From: Michael Goins To: Subject: [167844] 28 foot fiberglas poles Message-ID: <371iBmcgv5920S16.1076638007@uwdvg016.cms.usa.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This company has 28 foot poles like the SDs, but much thicker at the tip.= = http://www.tim.mcdonough.net/ mike k5wmg ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:08:15 -0500 From: John Sielke To: qrp-l@lehigh.edu Subject: [167845] Re: Suggestion - For a week lets avoid the negative and things off-topic Message-ID: <402C318F.1020601@pobox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > >I'd like to offer a suggestion. How about for the next week or so we all >forgo posting anything negative or off-topic and focus on qrp. > >No complaints about contesting, no complaints about QST, ARRL, no code or >lack of support for morse requirements, or just "things were better in the >old days" (they werent, Ive been ham 45 years). > >If you really feel strongly about the issue, why dont you write someone who >can do something about it like your ARRL Director, ARRL Headquarters, the >FCC. Life is too short to read all this negativity all day long. This is >supposed to be an enjoyable hobby. > Ah yes, the old "Bury your head in the sand" theory. Hey, why not? John W2AGN ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:31:41 -0800 From: "Dave Martin" To: "qrp-l" Subject: [167846] Re: Homebrewer Magazine/Up date Message-ID: <000601c3f1d9$8427bd60$1ccd4b43@davemartin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Doug told me about your posting to the QRP-L reflector. I can see why my ad running twice the same would cause a bit of a stir and raise some questions! I'm not subscribed to that list at this time (no time to read it!). I thought I'd reply to you personally to ask if you would be so kind as to send a follow up email to the list with the real insider information. If you could do that for me, I would really appreciate it (we could be talking discount here.... ;) Here are the facts: The adverts are indeed pre-paid. The inside front cover belongs to RHR for the forseeable future (I'm not going to sublet it, so don't ask!). Although RHR is still officially closed at this time, I thought it prudent to grab the advert spot while I could, as a placeholder, since I knew that it would be a valuable advertizing asset that I would make good use of when I eventually got back into the business. As you can guess, a full-page color ad is not inexpensive, but I figured that it was still worth it even if I couldn't use it fully for the first few issues. I just got too busy and simply missed the publication deadline for Homebrewer #2. My real work for Broadcom prevails, I'm afraid. I believe I may have also missed the publication deadline for Homebrewer #3. Whoops! I have an email in to the AmQRP organization to find out if this is the case. I do plan to re-open RHR shortly. I am modifying the RH-20 and RH-40 kits and will be offering these again soon. Additionally, I will be offering the SMK-1 kit and have several other ideas in the pipeline. To summarize, there is a pulse still at RHR and we're still breathing (actually, we have continued to sell BLA-2000 attenuators to the DSL/phone industry throughout our shutdown period). Keep your eyes and ears open for more news soon. 72, Dave Fifield, AD6A Dave K2ZU ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:22:56 -0500 (EST) From: "Thom R. Lacosta" To: dswenson@wearne.net Cc: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [167847] RE: BPL Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 dswenson@wearne.net wrote: > Well... the commission approved the NPRM for BPL today... 4 1/2 to 1/2 > (Commissioner Copps partially dissented on a regulatory issue unrelated to > interference.) > > Listening to the cheerleading from the commission and staff was interesting. > > The staff claims the rules will identify and mitigate any interference. > > The whistle is blowing on the freight train... get out of the way!!! And, looking at this list, it appears that a large majority of folks don't really care....other wise they might ask what we can do to stop BPL, who we should contact, what other spectrum users are affected, on and on. I guess when BPL wipes out HF, the folks on this list that didn;t show much interest can all talk to each other about the pre-bpl days, or use the internet for simulated SSB contacts. Who knows, maybe the existing ham radio manufacturers can produce BPL transceivers that we can hook up to out AC sockets to QSO each other. Thom http://www.baltimorehon.com/ Home of the Baltimore Lexicon http://www.tlchost.net/ Web Hosting as low as 3.49/month ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:22:47 -0600 From: "Nick Kennedy" To: , "'Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion'" Subject: [167848] RE: Loaded 1/2 wave end feed ant? Message-ID: <004601c3f1d8$45c145b0$0400000a@wa5bdu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'd wondered about this myself, being a new convert to the allure of the end fed half wave. Can we shorten it, bring it back to resonance with inductive loading, and enjoy the same benefits? In figure 22 of my 1999 ARRL Antenna Handbook, I see a plot of feedpoint impedance for a vertical monopole as frequency (or length) varies over a wide range. When it's a half wave in length, we're talking pretty much apples and apples, except that the restriction to vertical orientation may have some effect. OK. At the half wave point, the feedpoint Z is about 2500 to 3000 ohms and purely resistive as expected. As you initially move away from 1/2 wave (getting shorter), resistance holds pretty constant while capacitive (negative) reactance shoots up pretty fast. Just what we want. But this only holds until about a 5% change or so. Then reactance has peaked and begins to decline as the antenna gets shorter. But more significantly, resistance also begins to rapidly decrease as we head toward quarter wave resonance. We don't want that, or we lose the benefit of high voltage, low current feedpoint which makes fancy radials and/or ground systems mostly unnecessary. Phooey! Steve proposed loading somewhere in the middle instead of the end. Are there thumb rules for the effect of doing that? Or do you need some NEC or W7EL type program to figure it out? I'm not up to speed on that issue. 72--Nick, WA5BDU -----Original Message----- From: owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU [mailto:owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU] On Behalf Of Steven Weber A 1/2 wave end feed wire for 20 M is pretty managable, as it's only 32 or so feet long. But on 40, it's now 64 feet long. So, I was wondering, how about a loading coil, say in the middle of the 32 foot, 20 meter wire to make it work on 40? 72, Steve, KD1JV "Melt Solder" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:36:41 -0500 From: "Tom Palmer" To: Subject: [167849] Re: Fox - Fox Hunt Team Results... Message-ID: <000301c3f1da$51e17340$9b330843@swfla.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit What's this about the "Raiders" getting a Clean Sweep?! This is unheard of! Tom, N1TP Naples, Florida ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:41:47 -0600 From: Richard Lim To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [167850] Re: 28 foot fiberglas poles Message-ID: <2B4D9184-5DCE-11D8-B1CE-000A95B92C0E@yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v612) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I agree with Mike. This is a really sturdy mast. The tip section is thicker than my DK9SQ, however as a tradeoff, the mast is 5ft shorter. Rich ____________________________ 72/73 DE KQ9L K1 #1669, K2 #3232 KX1 #21, FIST 10193, FP 548, QRP ARCI 11129 On Feb 12, 2004, at 8:06 PM, Michael Goins wrote: > This company has 28 foot poles like the SDs, but much thicker at the > tip. > http://www.tim.mcdonough.net/ > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:57:01 -0500 From: "John J. McDonough" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Cc: Subject: [167851] Re: QRP MIA ? Message-ID: <003601c3f1dd$0e3ef7e0$090044c0@BrianBoru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Exactly, Michael. Many, many a night I spent poring over my dog-eared handbook drooling at rigs that other people could build. But not only were they way too complicated for me, but there were very real, practical limitations. Lots of people bemoan the loss of some of the old suppliers, but today's suppliers are 1000% better. We used to have to pay horrible prices for parts, and even more horrible prices for shipping, and then wait for MONTHS for the parts to arrive, only to find out that some critical piece was backordered. Collecting parts for even a simple project was a multiple-year exercise. In the unlikely event that I could collect all the parts, there was another problem. Them chassis were steel, baby. None of this wussy plastic or aluminum. Yeah, they had aluminum, but who could afford it? You needed to be a regular machinist to work them. Chances are the chassis was half rusted before you got the holes in it for the tubes. There was another problem, too. Even the simplest project always had to have an accompanying power supply that was at least as complicated as the rig. None of this standard 12 volt stuff -- every bloody power supply was unique. And could you get help? Without the Internet, I didn't know of a single ham who actually built stuff. Dealing with the dangerous voltages, working the difficult machining problems, locating parts from suppliers across the country, that had to be done all on your own. No sirrreee, anyone who thinks somehow building was easier in the good old days just plain wasn't there, or slept though it. 72/73 de WB8RCR http://www.qsl.net/wb8rcr didileydadidah QRP-L #1446 Code Warriors #35 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Neverdosky" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 6:31 PM Subject: Re: QRP MIA ? > I *dreamed* about building one. :-)) > > michael N6CHV > > "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" wrote: > > > I remember that the Handbooks of the 60s had this really neat, really big and really > > complex multi-band transmitter. > > > > Wanna' bet that less than 0.000001% of the ham population back then built one? > > > > 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 > > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:01:41 -0500 From: Rick McKee To: qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU Subject: [167852] Re: Suggestion - For a week lets avoid the negative and things off-topic Message-ID: <20040212.220153.10054.3.kc8aon@juno.com> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 19:17:23 -0600 "sjolin" writes: >I'd like to offer a suggestion. How about for the next week or so we all >forgo posting anything negative or off-topic and focus on qrp. Yeah ! Nothing but QRP, no computers, no qro junk, nothing that isn't related to QRP ! >No complaints about contesting, no complaints about QST, ARRL, no code or >lack of support for morse requirements, or just "things were better in the >old days" (they werent, Ive been ham 45 years). And nothing about the fact that CW is related to QRP, no discussions about contests & scores ! Nothing but QRP ! > Life is too short to read all this negativity all day long. This is supposed to be an enjoyable >hobby. Yeah, lets all hide in our holes, maybe reality will go away ! 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 Without CW, it's only CB ! KNOW code - not - NO code ! ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:09:51 -0600 From: "George, W5YR" To: "Tom Palmer" , "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [167853] Re: Fox - Fox Hunt Team Results... Message-ID: <027c01c3f1de$ecb7d450$0401a8c0@PS> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gotta do something about this! And, Tom, you keep blaming the Pesky Texans for our location! 73, George W5YR w5yr@att.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Palmer" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 8:36 PM Subject: Re: Fox - Fox Hunt Team Results... > What's this about the "Raiders" getting a Clean > Sweep?! > This is unheard of! > > Tom, N1TP > Naples, Florida > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:11:58 -0500 From: Rick McKee To: qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU Subject: [167854] Re: BPL Message-ID: <20040212.221818.10054.4.kc8aon@juno.com> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:22:56 -0500 (EST) "Thom R. Lacosta" writes: >I guess when BPL wipes out HF, the folks on this list that didn;t show >much interest can all talk to each other about the pre-bpl days, or >use the internet for simulated SSB contacts. It's common practice for some folks to look the other way in hopes that their problems will go away ! But they'll have plenty of excuses why is wasn't their fault when it doesn't ! >Who knows, maybe the existing ham radio manufacturers can produce BPL >transceivers that we can hook up to out AC sockets to QSO each other. I knew we could defeat them darn antenna restrictions someway ! But it sure would put a big dent in the operations of your average backpacking qrp'er ! Sure would take a long extension cord ! 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 Without CW, it's only CB ! KNOW code - not - NO code ! ________________________________________________________________ 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: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:54:27 -0600 From: "rattray" To: , "'Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion'" Subject: [167855] RE: Fox - Fox Hunt Team Results... Message-ID: <000801c3f1e5$16ca3020$7900a8c0@Bonnie> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ...and I'm not going to tell you how we did it!...heh,heh,heh...have some Madeira ma dear!! ;-)...72 Bruce ve5rc/ve5qrp -clue- we're not called the Raiders of the Lost RF for nothin' eh!?!... -----Original Message----- From: owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU [mailto:owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU] On Behalf Of George, W5YR Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 9:10 PM To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: Re: Fox - Fox Hunt Team Results... Gotta do something about this! And, Tom, you keep blaming the Pesky Texans for our location! 73, George W5YR w5yr@att.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Palmer" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 8:36 PM Subject: Re: Fox - Fox Hunt Team Results... > What's this about the "Raiders" getting a Clean > Sweep?! > This is unheard of! > > Tom, N1TP > Naples, Florida > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:19:43 -0600 From: "Tim, N9PUZ" To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [167856] Re: 28 foot fiberglas poles Message-ID: <2004212221943.519460@arthur> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:41:47 -0600, Richard Lim wrote: > I agree with Mike. This is a really sturdy mast. The tip section > is thicker than my DK9SQ, however as a tradeoff, the mast is 5ft > shorter. > > On Feb 12, 2004, at 8:06 PM, Michael Goins wrote: >> This company has 28 foot poles like the SDs, but much thicker at >> the tip. http://www.tim.mcdonough.net/ At this time I am out of the 28-foot poles. Unfortunately I don't anticipate having them in stock again until sometime in April. Tim, N9PUZ http://www.tim.mcdonough.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:26:22 -0800 From: John Somerville To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [167857] Re: NE602 Availability Message-ID: <402C51EE.3000108@shaw.ca> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thanks to all for the info. Regards John VE7CFG > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:51:37 -0600 From: "George, W5YR" To: , "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [167858] Re: BPL Message-ID: <02b101c3f1ed$200f6990$0401a8c0@PS> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I suspect that every licensed ham in the US could have threatened to vote the straight Democratic ticket in protest of BPL adoption if the Republican-dominated FCC adopted it, and it would not made the slightest difference in the outcome. If the concerns of FEMA and NTIA could not affect the outcome thus far, I fear that the amateur community had a very small voice indeed in the proceedings. The fact that the FCC would go ahead with this in the face of refusals by Austria and Japan speaks volumes. Now comes the wait to see what actual rules are written, especially concerning interference with other licensed services, and then to what extent they are enforced. The extent to which Part 15 rules will be relaxed to accommodate BPL is another area to watch. There is always the possibility that Congress may take a dim view of this BPL adoption if enough constituents are denied AM broadcast radio and/or CB operation is virtually shut down, among other issues. The lower broadcast TV channels may have some competition as well. Another promising thought and potential reality is that power companies may come to the rude awakening that installing BPL is going to be an expensive proposition It will require real humans to go to every pole pig at every customer's location to install equipment, plus cleaning up the distribution line to be rid of broadband powerline noise in that area. A single customer could require rework of distribution circuits in a large area in order to provide service. Finally, either not addressed or disregarded is the other side of this coin: what happens when a licensed service, such as an amateur running a 1500 watt transmitter fires up and wipes out an entire neighborhood's data service. Remember, they will be Part 15 and must accept any interference - as the regulations read so far . . . Interesting times ahead, and I really don't think that this is the catastrophe that is first appears to be. Either it will work in concert with licensed services or it will not. And if not, the fallout will be far more than the FCC and the administration will be willing to suffer. "We shall see . . ." 73, George W5YR w5yr@att.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 01:24:23 -0500 From: "NA4FM \(Buck\)" To: , "'Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion'" Subject: [167859] RE: Telescopic Poles -- Another Source Message-ID: <000f01c3f1fa$0a934ed0$6401a8c0@deer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks for the source. There are a couple of poles I am interested in myself. I purchased a 16' South Bend Crappie Pole for ~$18.00-$20.00 the other day from Walmart. I see them in several stores. I talked to one of the sales staff and she said I was the second person this week that bought a crappie pole for antennas. Lol Thanks again, Hopefully Walmart will be useful info for someone. Buck > -----Original Message----- > From: Chuck Carpenter [mailto:w5usj@9plus.net] > Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 5:00 PM > To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion > Subject: Telescopic Poles -- Another Source > > > Got the latest catalog from IntoTheWind kite folks. > > On page 72 they are showing a variety of telescopic poles in > two strengths, flexible and heavy duty. The materials are > brown and black fiberglass and collapse to about 4 ft. > > They show 4 lengths of flexible at 10, 13, 16 and 19 ft > priced at $15, $18, $20 and $26 respectively. > > The heavy duty poles are in lengths of 10, 13, 16, 19 and 22 > ft priced at $20, $25, $29, $39 and $49 respectively. > > You probably can find them on their website too -- http://www.IntoTheWind.com I've experienced good service from them with web purchases of fiberglass kite spars that I used for V/UHF quad spreaders. Chuck Carpenter, W5USJ, Point, Rains Co., TX - EM22cv, NETXQRP #1 QRP-ARCI #5422, QRP-L #1306, QRPp-I #115, ARS #1280, SOC #57 Zombie #759, COG #11, 6 Club #201, FP #601 oo http://www.netxqrp.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:58:59 -0900 From: Jim Larsen To: "qrp-l@lehigh.edu" Subject: [167860] AL7FS receives BPL response from Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski Message-ID: <402C75B3.90200@alaska.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is the response I received from Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski. ============================================== United States Senate Washington, DC 20510-0203 (202)224-6665 (202)224-5301 FAX January 21, 2004 Mr. James Larsen 3445 Spinnaker Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99516 Dear James: Thank you for visiting the Congressional Delegation's booth at the State Fair in Palmer this past August and communicating your concerns about Broadband Over Power Line (BPL) issues. Radio has played a vital part of Alaska's history, and because of Alaska's unique topography, radio remains an asset to Alaskans, Alaska's emergency response, and our military. Ensuring amateur radio operators' ability to transmit and receive broadcasts over ham bandwidths, including high-frequency and short-wave, without additional frequency interference caused by potential transmissions over power lines is an issue the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) must take into account. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration is expected to come out with its first report on BPL emissions this winter to address local interference problems and recommend emission limits and compliance measurement procedures. Additionally, legislation was introduced in the Senate to ensure continued broadband access for amateur radio operators. S.537, the Amateur Radio Spectrum Protection Act, would protect radio operators as radio technology develops. S.537 would prohibit the FCC from decreasing or reallocating bandwidth with regard to amateur radio and amateur satellite services unless equivalent replacements are provided. Should additional legislation related to BPL and transmission noise be considered, I will keep your thoughts in mind. I have included a CD ROM about the current issues of amateur radio which I hope will be of interest to you. Again, thank you for contacting me. Sincerely, Lisa Murkowski United States Senator ===================================================================== 73, Jim -- Jim Larsen, AL7FS Anchorage, Alaska http://www.qsl.net/al7fs Join Anchorage ARC: http://www.KL7AA.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:20:19 -0500 From: "NA4FM \(Buck\)" To: "'Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion'" Subject: [167861] QRO vs QRP Message-ID: <001201c3f201$daedc310$6401a8c0@deer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have two rigs and one antenna here. A Swan 350 and a Heathkit HW-7. My Swan is setup normally, but occasionally, I connect the Heathkit for some QRP, but the preselector tunes broadcast stations so it is difficult at best to use. I have been reading the mail on the QRP community. Everything from the fox hunts to homebrew kits, to antennas, etc. has been both enlightening and interesting. I have certainly renewed my interest in QRP and pedestrian portable/mobile operation. I have been reading a lot about fox hunts. It seems that the fox hunts you are describing is much different from the ones I saw about 15 years ago. (lol, things never change-right!) I believe to simplify what I have learned, the rules are that a fox transmits on a certain frequency but listens to a small spectrum of frequencies for other QRP stations (hounds) but moves around as to where he/she (the fox) is listening. If that is the case, how does one use a single VFO rig for such an event? I don't know how I would make it with my old gear. I am working on putting together a portable kit with my HW-7 (for starters, I hope to replace it with something better later.) The kit will include the rig, power source, portable antenna and portable key & logbook in some kind of portable case either backpack or briefcase. For some reason, I can't see myself talking from my Swan while walking thru the woods. I am getting lots of good ideas from you folk. Any other suggestions are welcome. Thanks Buck ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:14:02 -0500 (EST) From: ham@w3eax.umd.edu To: "Thom R. Lacosta" Cc: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [167862] RE: BPL Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I've already written three letters - to the FCC, to my senators, and to my congressman. Scott Rosenfeld ARS N7JI 541-684-9970 Eugene, OR Land o' much rain If you find me on the air, I'm probably in my car ham@w3eax.umd.edu http://w3eax.umd.edu/~ham On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Thom R. Lacosta wrote: > On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 dswenson@wearne.net wrote: > > > Well... the commission approved the NPRM for BPL today... 4 1/2 to 1/2 > > (Commissioner Copps partially dissented on a regulatory issue unrelated to > > interference.) > > > > Listening to the cheerleading from the commission and staff was interesting. > > > > The staff claims the rules will identify and mitigate any interference. > > > > The whistle is blowing on the freight train... get out of the way!!! > > And, looking at this list, it appears that a large majority of folks don't > really care....other wise they might ask what we can do to stop BPL, who > we should contact, what other spectrum users are affected, on and on. > > I guess when BPL wipes out HF, the folks on this list that didn;t show > much interest can all talk to each other about the pre-bpl days, or use > the internet for simulated SSB contacts. > > Who knows, maybe the existing ham radio manufacturers can produce BPL > transceivers that we can hook up to out AC sockets to QSO each other. > > > Thom > > http://www.baltimorehon.com/ Home of the Baltimore Lexicon > http://www.tlchost.net/ Web Hosting as low as 3.49/month > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:14:38 -0000 From: "Leon Heller" To: , "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [167863] Re: NE602 Availability Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Somerville" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 6:40 PM Subject: NE602 Availability > Who sells NE602s? Farnell should have the SA612. 73, Leon -- Leon Heller, G1HSM Email: aqzf13@dsl.pipex.com My low-cost Philips LPC210x ARM development system: http://www.geocities.com/leon_heller/lpc2104.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:16:49 -0000 From: "Leon Heller" To: , "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [167864] Re: NE602 Availability Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brad Hedges" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 9:48 PM Subject: Re: NE602 Availability > Nobody - now they're NE612's They've been SAxxx since Philips took Signetics over. Leon -- Leon Heller, G1HSM Email: aqzf13@dsl.pipex.com My low-cost Philips LPC210x ARM development system: http://www.geocities.com/leon_heller/lpc2104.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 06:21:46 -0500 From: "bill" To: qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU Subject: [167865] / QRP Question Message-ID: <200402131121.i1DBLk5q046807@mail5.mx.voyager.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Been a while since I operated. Remember some debate a while ago about signing /qrp at the end of your cw call. Had the list on postpone for a long time and never saw the conclusion of this debate. What was the bottom line on this? Thanks. ------------------------- 73 Bill Touth W8VQ Columbus, Ohio w8vq@arrl.net CW - HF Digital Modes - Packet FISTS # 2134 ARCI QRP # 9025 QRP-L # 841 CQrp (Columbus QRP Club) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 06:49:31 -0500 From: "Tom Palmer" To: Subject: [167866] RE: Fox - Fox Hunt Team Results... Message-ID: <000301c3f227$71575120$9b330843@swfla.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The "Raiders" also managed a "Clean Sweep" in Hunt 32 (KV2X). Something is going on here. I demand a full investigation! Tom, N1TP Naples, Florida ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 06:30:15 -0800 From: "Dave Benson" To: Subject: [167867] KITS: DSW-II-30 and -80 / new support docs Message-ID: <000701c3f23d$e695a700$0b644b43@pavilion.aoldsl.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gang- I'm pleased to announce that the 30 Meter and 80 Meter versions of the DSW-II series are now available. I've updated the website to reflect availability of these versions, and limited quantities of both have already been shipped. I've also added a new documentation section- this page provides links to all versions of the DSW-II series instructions in .pdf format. http://smallwonderlabs.com/DSW_Docs.htm Also featured therein- a summary of changes introduced into early versions of DSW-II-20. If you're wondering whether you have the latest, this summary describes 'wrinkles' in early production and their corrective actions. Lead times on this series have been shrinking- we're currently kitting orders received in early January, so that situation is improving. Thanks to all for your patience and understanding. Thanks for the commercial bandwidth- 73, Dave *************************************** Dave Benson, K1SWL dave@smallwonderlabs.com http://smallwonderlabs.com Tel. 860-537-8031 ************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 06:56:29 -0500 (EST) From: "Thom R. Lacosta" To: ham@w3eax.umd.edu Cc: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [167868] RE: BPL Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 ham@w3eax.umd.edu wrote: > I've already written three letters - to the FCC, to my senators, and to my > congressman. If you'd care to share, I'd be happy to put the content up on the QRP Web Ring Home Page(www.zerobeat.net/qrp/). I thinks the letters may be more productive that email. Thom http://www.baltimorehon.com/ Home of the Baltimore Lexicon http://www.tlchost.net/ Web Hosting as low as 3.49/month ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 07:44:33 -0500 From: "NA4FM \(Buck\)" To: "'Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion'" Subject: [167869] RE: BPL Message-ID: <000401c3f22f$26062ef0$6401a8c0@deer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Your url didn't come up for me. You might want to check it out. Where do you operate mobile? Do you ever run counties for the Mobile Emergency and County Hunter's Net? Buck > -----Original Message----- > From: ham@w3eax.umd.edu [mailto:ham@w3eax.umd.edu] > Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 2:14 AM > To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion > Subject: RE: BPL > > > I've already written three letters - to the FCC, to my > senators, and to my congressman. > > Scott Rosenfeld ARS N7JI > 541-684-9970 Eugene, OR Land o' much rain > If you find me on the air, I'm probably in my car > ham@w3eax.umd.edu http://w3eax.umd.edu/~ham > > On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Thom R. Lacosta wrote: > > > On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 dswenson@wearne.net wrote: > > > > > Well... the commission approved the NPRM for BPL today... > 4 1/2 to > > > 1/2 (Commissioner Copps partially dissented on a regulatory issue > > > unrelated to > > > interference.) > > > > > > Listening to the cheerleading from the commission and staff was > > > interesting. > > > > > > The staff claims the rules will identify and mitigate any > > > interference. > > > > > > The whistle is blowing on the freight train... get out of > the way!!! > > > > And, looking at this list, it appears that a large majority > of folks > > don't really care....other wise they might ask what we can > do to stop > > BPL, who we should contact, what other spectrum users are > affected, on > > and on. > > > > I guess when BPL wipes out HF, the folks on this list that > didn;t show > > much interest can all talk to each other about the pre-bpl days, or > > use the internet for simulated SSB contacts. > > > > Who knows, maybe the existing ham radio manufacturers can > produce BPL > > transceivers that we can hook up to out AC sockets to QSO > each other. > > > > > > Thom > > > > http://www.baltimorehon.com/ Home of the > Baltimore Lexicon > > http://www.tlchost.net/ Web Hosting as low as > 3.49/month > > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 07:48:15 -0500 From: tk To: QRP-L reflector Subject: [167870] BPL Loss !!! Message-ID: <402CC78F.6040208@ispwest.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Today's Atlanta Constitution (FRIDAY the 13th !!) has an article on Powell's BPL that says the HF radio community has lost !!! Ted in Atlanta KD4EE ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:10:39 -0500 From: "Lau, Zack, W1VT" To: Subject: [167871] Re: No more QRP column in QST? Message-ID: <721D3436A7C2B344A301FD4A413C71A901CB550B@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 Hi Bruce, As our contribution to QRP last year,=20 we spent $40 on coffee, donuts and OJ, and opened up the doors of ARRL HQ for the August 2003 QRP New England club meeting. Zack W1VT + Mary N1VH ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:13:19 -0500 (EST) From: To: "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" Cc: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [167872] RE: QRP MIA ? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Plenty of people built stuff and plenty still do. Sure, I did not construct the most complex projects in the handbook because the parts were very expensive and they required a lot of tools that I did not have access to. However, I studied them as did many hams. Then we used some of the ideas in other projects or for improving older commercial gear. Why build a whole receiver using a 7360 product detector when you've already got a nice receiver that can be improved by adding one? WHy build a big fancy bandswitching 450W transmitter when you only want more power on your favorite band (40m). and so on...Yes, I built stuff and most of the hams I knew built stuff. Once again, I suggest offering members the option of either QEX or QST as their included periodical. As far as league business, it's all on the web site. This isn't forcing "unpopular" stuff into QST, it's offering those of us who find QST less interesting than last years phonebook an alternative. 73, -bob ah7i On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Hare,Ed, W1RFI wrote: > > It has become no longer economically feasible to build a multiband, multimode > > transceiver when you can buy an IC-718 for under $500 and get 100 watts on all > > modes, etc. > > I remember that the Handbooks of the 60s had this really neat, really big and really > complex multi-band transmitter. > > Wanna' bet that less than 0.000001% of the ham population back then built one? > > 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 > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:57:45 -0500 From: John Sielke To: qrp-l@lehigh.edu Subject: [167873] RE: BPL Message-ID: <402CD7D9.6050904@pobox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks, all this talk of BPL is very negative. This is our week for sweetness and light. The sun is shining, the birds are....well, the birds are kinda cold, but they are HAPPY cold! Worked a couple stations on 20M with my Tiny Tornado.. Finished my 'Tenna Dipper, and t WORKS! There, now doesn't that feel better? John (Mr. Optimist) W2AGN ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:59:13 -0500 From: "Noyce, Bill" To: Subject: [167874] RE: BPL - call me Pollyanna Message-ID: <6D6463F31027B14FB3B1FB094F2C7447047DA096@tayexc17.americas.cpqcorp.net> Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > And, looking at this list, it appears that a large majority of folks don't > really care.... I filed comments a few months ago... I haven't listened to the proceedings, and AFAIK the NPRM isn't yet available. But looking at the ARRL's own summary, it seems like the actions are: - some kind of change in the way radiation from carrier-current systems will be measured. (ARRL had asked for a change; it's not clear whether the proposal moves toward or away from ARRL's position.) - a requirement that BPL operators be able to selectively turn off parts of the system or notch out certain bands. - a requirement that BPL systems transmit identification of some kind. - reaffirmation that Part 15 devices must avoid interfering with licensed services, or else shut down entirely (regardless of whether their emissions are within the measurement limits). Frankly, I don't see any evidence that the sky is falling. Can someone explain what I'm missing? -- Bill ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:24:09 -0500 From: Ray Sills To: QRP list Subject: [167875] Re: morse code for @ (at) sign ?? Message-ID: <49A53988-5E30-11D8-865D-000393D49C6C@1stconnect.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v612) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I agree! I think of it more as WR than AC. But, if I were to wager, I'd bet that people are just using the word "at". It even uses fewer morse elements. 73 de Ray K2ULR FN20tl On Feb 11, 2004, at 11:11 PM, Lloyd Lachow wrote: > --- John Harper AE5X wrote: >> di-dah dah >> >> John Harper AE5X >> Outdoor QRP & 80-Meter DXing: http://www.ae5x.com >> >> > > > Actually, the thing you seek is AC, sent as a > prosign. Some, such as me, find it easier to think of > as WR. But I doubt I'd ever use it. Then I'd have to > spend a lot of dits and dahs explaining what I meant. > > LL > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. > http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:44:11 -0500 From: "John Paul Keon" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [167876] Fw: [KLQRP] FYBO 2004 Message-ID: <019701c3f23f$d888a0c0$6601a8c0@nc.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [KLQRP] FYBO 2004 Hi Gang, I finally got settled down from the wedding plans for my son this week. It will be nice when the ceremony is finished and we can go back to some sort of sanity here at the house. I tallied up the score and this is the best I can figure for what we did last Saturday for the FYBO. We worked 37 QSO's and 25 SPC's. Figuring the multipliers and all we got a total of 97,800 points and that was with the lowest temp of 38 degrees. There were four ops there at the site and we played heck on the bands. Little did we know all the time we spent on the 20 meter band, when it was open, we had an open in the transmission line and the antenna would tune, detune, etc.... We were actually running a dummy load on 20 for a while. We finally figured it out and got on the 20 meter band with a good antenna and that worked. We started late trying to set up the antennas by about 10 minutes and had to quit early. We had a miscommunication with one person and we were not sure we were staying for the night and packed it in early. It was cold sitting at the park bench when the sun went in. The park closed at 6pm and we had to get out of there before the gate was locked up. It was so cold we really did not care anyway! We did have plenty of guests to visit us at the site (12) and we had the four operators so we had a large turnout for the short event. Ops for the WQ4RP group were: AA4XX/Paul, AB4PP/JohnPaul, N3DRK/John and WA4NID/Dave. We used a logging program for a short time but when the sun came out we learned we could not see the screen so we decided to use the old standby, paper logging. We then had the problem of people telling us we had dupes..... But, we did not care! We learned a lot from the antenna problem and will be better prepared for the next event as a result. In that respect, we were very fortunate to have competed in the contest. John Paul, Raleigh, NC [AB4PP]//NNN UTV "Sir Scribemeister" of the Knightlites http://www.knightlites.org "We all take different paths in life, but no matter where we go, we take a little of each other everywhere." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:53:06 -0500 From: "Ron McConnell" To: "W2IOL" Subject: [167877] WebEE Electrical Engineering Message-ID: <001201c3f241$192420e0$21c62841@earthlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Some folks may be aware of this site which was referenced on the slide rule list. It looks very interesting. WebEE Electrical Engineering=20 http://www.web-ee.com/index.htm Schematics, Tutorials, Design Tools, Online Calculators, Offline Simulators/Emulators, Links to other stuff... Online calculators include: HP25, Active Filter Design, Scientific Calculator Unit Conversion, Calculus, Resistor Color Code Calculator, ... Offline Simulators/Emulators: HP41C, slide rule, abacus, RPN Engineering calculator,=20 RPN Palm calculator, ... Have fun. Cheers, 73, Ron McConnell w2iol@arrl.net =20 N 40=BA 46' 57.9" W 74=BA 41' 21.9" FN20ps77GV75 per w2iol or FN20ps77GU46 per K2RIW=20 =20 http://home.earthlink.net/~rcmcc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:07:59 -0500 From: "Goody K3NG" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [167878] Re: BPL - call me Pollyanna Message-ID: <002801c3f243$2bd44c90$33c893cd@corp.fast.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I look at it this way, the FCC (or one Commissioner) called the interference "unproven" and no reason to stop BPL. He said this despite several computer models showing the interference potential and field measurements. Conversely, the FCC then promotes unproven adaptive technologies as a solution to interference mitigation. Common sense thinking about this shows that it's unlikely it will prevent the problems we foresee. What makes this even worse is that they met with a BPL vendor around the end of January discussing adaptive technologies. Coincidence ? I think not :-) The FCC ignored 5000 comments against BPL and didn't wait until the NTIA released their test results. This speaks volumes. The FCC will do whatever it wants and will follow the money, regardless of public outcry. We saw it happen with media ownership. The sky's not falling but it's getting rather dark and windy and there's a storm on the horizon. Goody ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noyce, Bill" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 08:59 Subject: RE: BPL - call me Pollyanna > > And, looking at this list, it appears that a large majority of folks > don't > > really care.... > > I filed comments a few months ago... > > I haven't listened to the proceedings, and AFAIK the NPRM isn't yet > available. But looking at the ARRL's own summary, it seems like the > actions are: > - some kind of change in the way radiation from carrier-current > systems > will be measured. (ARRL had asked for a change; it's not clear > whether the proposal moves toward or away from ARRL's position.) > - a requirement that BPL operators be able to selectively turn off > parts of the system or notch out certain bands. > - a requirement that BPL systems transmit identification of some kind. > - reaffirmation that Part 15 devices must avoid interfering with > licensed services, or else shut down entirely (regardless of > whether their emissions are within the measurement limits). > > Frankly, I don't see any evidence that the sky is falling. > Can someone explain what I'm missing? > -- Bill > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:26:45 -0500 From: "Dale Anderson \(KB0VCC\)" To: Subject: [167879] RF Exposure Compliance... Message-ID: <000501c3f245$ca4153d0$6501a8c0@HPNotebook> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hey Gang, I've a quick question.... When determining the controlled and uncontrolled distances from an antenna, are we just concerned with the antenna itself, or the "antenna system." Specifically, if I have a vertical fed at the base, with radials spreading out in 360 degrees, buried 6" down, are the radials considered part of the antenna? That is, if the safe distance is determined to be 3 feet, does that include 3 feet from the radials as well? We're talking AC here, even if it is at RF, right? Therefore, the radials must radiate. I've checked out the ARRL's site as well as the FCC's info on the subject, but neither seems to mention exposure from radials. Anyone know the facts or better yet, direct me to a reference that addresses this specifically? Tnx es 72/73, Dale ========================================================= Dale Anderson, KB0VCC In the Mt Washington Valley QRP-L #91 / QRP-NE #600 Conway, New Hampshire ARS #234 / FISTS #3172 Grid Sq: FN43kx CQC #251 / QRP-ARCI #11446 http://www.qsl.net/kb0vcc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:42:47 -0500 (EST) From: To: Subject: [167880] WTB DDS daughtercard Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Do you have a DDS daughtercard and AD9850 that you decided not to build? I will buy it for what you paid. 73, Jim n2go ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:46:43 -0600 From: "Brockwell, Stephen E. CECOM SEC FSSE GPI" To: "'qrp-l@lehigh.edu'" Subject: [167881] Rainbow tuner for 2004? Message-ID: <04Feb13.094001cst.115235@bc143956.fssec.army.mil> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Has the Rainbow tuner been offered for 2004 by the AMQRP or NJQRP clubs? Just wondering cause I kept missing it in the past. I've got a BLT tuner but then you can't have too many ..... right? Steve KC5TTY ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:42:18 -0800 From: "Doug Hendricks" To: Subject: [167882] AmQRP Tin Ear Receiver Message-ID: <016901c3f250$57e2e960$4a0b0d0a@dph.dpol.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Guys, we are ready to accept orders for the newest AmQRP Club kit, the Tin Ear Receiver. The Tin Ear is a simple direct conversion receiver designed by Wayne McFee, NB6M with full band coverage of the 40 meter band, and more. The kit sells for $30 plus shipping and handling depending on your location, and comes with all parts, a first quality pc board that is silkscreened, soldermasked and plated through. There are no IC's. The kit is complete with custom case made from .063 aluminum that is 3" x 3" x 1.625" and is drilled. We provide all of the connectors, controls and knobs. All that you will need is a soldering iron, solder, and a small amount of 5 minute epoxy for the coil. There is one coil to wind, and one toroid. The controls are: Main Tuning, RF Gain, On-Off switch and the connectors are BNC for the antenna, 1/8" Stereo plug for walkman style headphones. The receiver will tune CW, AM and SSB signals. The power supply is an internal 9V battery. This is an easy kit to build, and a fun one to operate. It is aimed at the beginner, yet we feel that the average QRP builder will enjoy the kit too. The manual is on CD rom and contains step by step instructions. So, how do you order this kit? First, since this is a limited run kit, we ask that you send an email to Paul Maciel at ak1p@amqrp.org to get a confirmation number to order. Then, go to the www.amqrp.org web page and click on the kits button, scroll down to the NorCal kits section, and click on Tin Ear Receiver. There you will find all of the ordering information for ordering by paypal or snail mail. Thanks in advance for your support. 72, Doug ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:45:02 -0500 From: John Sielke To: qrp-l@lehigh.edu Subject: [167883] Re: Rainbow tuner for 2004? Message-ID: <402CFF0E.3010907@pobox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Check here: http://www.njqrp.org/Rainbow/rb_status.html As you can see, it probably won't be more than 6 months or so. John W2AGN ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:43:01 -0500 From: George Murphy To: qrp-L@lehigh.edu Subject: [167884] HAMCALC Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20040213113710.009f5920@mail.encode.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Recently issued HamCalc70 can be downloaded free from . For details e-mail me direct - . Murph, VE3ERP - the HamCalc Guy --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:21:26 -0800 From: "Doug Hendricks" To: Subject: [167885] Tin Ear Receiver Addendum Message-ID: <018501c3f255$cfb392a0$4a0b0d0a@dph.dpol.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I forgot to add that the shipping date for the Tin Ear Receiver kit will be targeted for March 15th. Also, if you want to see a photo of the prototype go to www.amqrp.org and go to the kits section. 72, Doug ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:29:13 -0600 From: To: Subject: [167886] OT: Calipers and Micrometers Message-ID: <20040213172913.RNVT25581.out001.verizon.net@outgoing.verizon.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am sorry for the OT subject here, but I have been all over the internet (even eBay) and can't seem to find a good source for micrometers and calipers. What I am looking for is an instrument which will measure, simply put, metal cylinders and the *inside* of metal tubes. We're not talking drainage pipes here, just 0.1 inch through 2.0 inches maximum. Dial gauges are fine; digital is even better. A URL, company name, store name, anyting would be welcome. Sincere thanks, Bill, k6whp ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:35:52 -0500 From: Jack e wigal To: qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU Subject: [167887] WTB WM-75 Message-ID: <20040213.123552.-796099.3.kr8z1@juno.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Would like to buy White Mountain 75 QRP SSB kit from Small Wonder Labs. Prefer unbuilt, but will consider any. Pse reply off line. Jack, KR8Z ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:43:47 -0800 (PST) From: Nelson Winter To: "Dale Anderson (KB0VCC)" , Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [167888] Re: RF Exposure Compliance... Message-ID: <8033623.1076694227480.JavaMail.thenels@gomailjtp05> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Dale, There is an excellent (and interesting) discussion about EMF in chapter 1 or the ARRL antenna Book (mine is the 19th edition). In chapter 3 there is a discussion on the effects of ground in the near field. The one sentence that caught my eye was "The basic function of radials is to provide a low-loss return path for the ground currents." which would indicate that the ground does not radiate RF. Further reading in the section about the effects of ground in the far field indicate that only the vertical portion of the antenna is radiating and that the conductivity of the ground effects the radiation angle from the vertical element. I don't think the book gives a specific answer to your question, but they do make a reference to an ARRL book called "Exposure and You". They do, however, give some pretty good guidelines. Also, I'm not sure it you checked out this particular page on the ARRL's site on RF exposure, but here it is: http://www.arrl.org/news/rfsafety/ I hope this helps, Nelson Winter WB6DWD -----Original Message----- From: "Dale Anderson (KB0VCC)" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Date: Fri Feb 13 07:26:45 PST 2004 Subject: RF Exposure Compliance... > >Hey Gang, > >I've a quick question.... > >When determining the controlled and uncontrolled distances from an >antenna, are we just concerned with the antenna itself, or the "antenna >system." Specifically, if I have a vertical fed at the base, with radials >spreading out in 360 degrees, buried 6" down, are the radials considered >part of the antenna? That is, if the safe distance is determined to be >3 feet, does that include 3 feet from the radials as well? We're talking >AC here, even if it is at RF, right? Therefore, the radials must radiate. > >I've checked out the ARRL's site as well as the FCC's info on the >subject, but neither seems to mention exposure from radials. Anyone >know the facts or better yet, direct me to a reference that addresses >this specifically? > >Tnx es 72/73, >Dale >========================================================= > Dale Anderson, KB0VCC In the Mt Washington Valley > QRP-L #91 / QRP-NE #600 Conway, New Hampshire > ARS #234 / FISTS #3172 Grid Sq: FN43kx > CQC #251 / QRP-ARCI #11446 http://www.qsl.net/kb0vcc > > ___________________________________________________ Check-out GO.com GO get your free GO E-Mail account with expanded storage of 6 MB! http://mail.go.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:51:31 -0800 From: "Doug Hendricks" To: Subject: [167889] Re: OT: Calipers and Micrometers Message-ID: <018f01c3f25a$037b5a60$4a0b0d0a@dph.dpol.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bill, try Harbor Freight or Enco. Good luck, Doug ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:10:32 -0500 From: Bruce Muscolino To: len@infinet.com Cc: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [167890] Re: / QRP Question Message-ID: <402D1318.201C2FB3@erols.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bill, It is mostly used to flatter your ego. You should be able to make any contact you want just by signing your call, like normal hams do. If you are hanging around the QRP calling frequencies it will usually be assumed you're QRP. If you are other places on the bands, save your power for later, like a surprise. 73 > Remember some debate a while ago about signing /qrp at the end of your > cw call. ? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:18:31 -0800 (PST) From: Bob KB2FEL To: k6whp@verizon.net, Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [167891] Re: OT: Calipers and Micrometers Message-ID: <20040213181831.9365.qmail@web60502.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi Bill, I was in Home Depot the other day and noticed small calipers and mics in there tool department. They were small for machine use and may be what you need! Another source may be Sears on line. Hope this helps 72 Bob KB2FEL I am sorry for the OT subject here, but I have been > all > over the internet (even eBay) and can't seem to find > a > good source for micrometers and calipers. What I am > looking for is an instrument which will measure, > simply > put, metal cylinders and the *inside* of metal > tubes. > > We're not talking drainage pipes here, just 0.1 inch > > through 2.0 inches maximum. Dial gauges are fine; > digital > is even better. > > A URL, company name, store name, anyting would be > welcome. > > Sincere thanks, > > Bill, k6whp > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:23:40 -0500 From: Ed Tanton To: k6whp@verizon.net, QRP-L Subject: [167892] Re: OT: Calipers and Micrometers Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.2.20040213132030.01d06c00@pop.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Hi Bill... take a look at MicroMark: and Small Parts, Inc. . Both sell such tools. ///snip ...source for micrometers and calipers. ///snip >Bill, k6whp 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: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:23:02 -0500 From: Bruce Muscolino To: JimLarsen2002@alaska.net Cc: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [167893] Re: AL7FS receives BPL response from Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski Message-ID: <402D1606.7EC5FED1@erols.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Geez, You guys got a gem there. She knows what radio is and what it can do for her constituents. Does she have a sister available for election in Maryland? 73 > This is the response I received from Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski. > > ============================================== > United States Senate > Washington, DC 20510-0203 > (202)224-6665 > (202)224-5301 FAX > > January 21, 2004 > > Mr. James Larsen > 3445 Spinnaker Drive > Anchorage, Alaska 99516 > > Dear James: > > Thank you for visiting the Congressional Delegation's booth at the > State Fair in Palmer this past August and communicating your concerns about > Broadband Over Power Line (BPL) issues. > > Radio has played a vital part of Alaska's history, and because of > Alaska's unique topography, radio remains an asset to Alaskans, Alaska's > emergency response, and our military. Ensuring amateur radio operators' > ability to transmit and receive broadcasts over ham bandwidths, including > high-frequency and short-wave, without additional frequency interference > caused by potential transmissions over power lines is an issue the Federal > Communication Commission (FCC) must take into account. The National > Telecommunications and Information Administration is expected to come out with > its first report on BPL emissions this winter to address local interference > problems and recommend emission limits and compliance measurement procedures. > > Additionally, legislation was introduced in the Senate to ensure > continued broadband access for amateur radio operators. S.537, the Amateur > Radio Spectrum Protection Act, would protect radio operators as radio > technology develops. S.537 would prohibit the FCC from decreasing or > reallocating bandwidth with regard to amateur radio and amateur satellite > services unless equivalent replacements are provided. Should additional > legislation related to BPL and transmission noise be considered, I will keep > your thoughts in mind. > > I have included a CD ROM about the current issues of amateur radio > which I hope will be of interest to you. Again, thank you for contacting me. > > Sincerely, > > Lisa Murkowski > United States Senator > > ===================================================================== > > 73, Jim > -- > Jim Larsen, AL7FS > Anchorage, Alaska > http://www.qsl.net/al7fs > Join Anchorage ARC: http://www.KL7AA.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:31:19 -0800 From: "Bill Jones" To: , "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [167894] Re: Calipers and Micrometers Message-ID: <000901c3f25f$93777400$d6c13542@RadioRoom> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I purchased some nice brass calipers from Sears in their tool section a couple years ago. They were made in Germany and carry the brand name "HEMPE." I think I paid $14 or so. They work well for me. ======================== Bill Jones KD7S <>< http://www.psnw.com/~kd7s Sanger, California ======================== ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 9:29 AM Subject: OT: Calipers and Micrometers > I am sorry for the OT subject here, but I have been all > over the internet (even eBay) and can't seem to find a > good source for micrometers and calipers. What I am > looking for is an instrument which will measure, simply > put, metal cylinders and the *inside* of metal tubes. > > We're not talking drainage pipes here, just 0.1 inch > through 2.0 inches maximum. Dial gauges are fine; digital > is even better. > > A URL, company name, store name, anyting would be welcome. > > Sincere thanks, > > Bill, k6whp > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:35:49 -0600 From: Chuck Carpenter To: k6whp@verizon.net, qrp-l@lehigh.edu Subject: [167895] Calipers and Micrometers [Small Parts Inc.] Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.20040213123549.0083fbf0@mail.9plus.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Bill, Here's a really good source of quality QRP tools... [g] Small Parts Inc. http://www.smallparts.com Digital and Dial Calipers and standard Micrometers -- not cheap. Harbor Freight has some stuff but usually sub standard quality in my opinion. >I am sorry for the OT subject here, but I have been all >over the internet (even eBay) and can't seem to find a >good source for micrometers and calipers. What I am >looking for is an instrument which will measure, simply >put, metal cylinders and the *inside* of metal tubes. > >We're not talking drainage pipes here, just 0.1 inch >through 2.0 inches maximum. Dial gauges are fine; digital >is even better. > >A URL, company name, store name, anyting would be welcome. > >Sincere thanks, > >Bill, k6whp > > > Chuck Carpenter, W5USJ, Point, Rains Co., TX - EM22cv, NETXQRP #1 QRP-ARCI #5422, QRP-L #1306, QRPp-I #115, ARS #1280, SOC #57 Zombie #759, COG #11, 6 Club #201, FP #601 oo http://www.netxqrp.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:41:11 -0600 From: "George, W5YR" To: , "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [167896] Re: RF Exposure Compliance... Message-ID: <00fe01c3f260$f4686390$0401a8c0@PS> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dale, the radiation obtained from radials is highly dependent upon how many are used and how they are located. Buried 6" deep, the likelihood of measurable radiation borders upon zero due to losses in the ground material. Laid on top of the ground or "buried" an inch under the turf, some radiation is possible. But, if the radials are symmetrically deployed and enough are used, the radiation from each radial is cancelled by radiation from others and the net radiation approaches zero again. An elevated vertical with "tuned" elevated radials can go either way. If the radials are symmetrically deployed and are truly balanced - equal currents in each, etc. - then again their individual radiation fields are largely cancelled and radiation is minor. It must be measured in each case or modeled to get an idea of how well the radial field is being cancelled. The worst case is for one or two radials to be tossed out on the ground. A little modeling quickly shows that significant radiation can occur even when the two radials are diametrically opposite one another and presumable have equal currents. So, those are a few observations about radials. The literature does not tend to treat the usual amateur application of verticals with less than optimum radial fields, so it usually boils down to either burying the radials deep enough to ensure that they do not radiate (and possibly lessening their effectiveness if buried too deep) and using enough radials symmetrically deployed such that the likelihood of their radiation much is minimized. My own Butternut HF-9V installation uses 18 radials equally spaced around the base. It performs very well and input impedance measurements suggest only small ground loss. Hope this helps a little . . . 73, George W5YR w5yr@att.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dale Anderson (KB0VCC)" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 9:26 AM Subject: RF Exposure Compliance... > > Hey Gang, > > I've a quick question.... > > When determining the controlled and uncontrolled distances from an > antenna, are we just concerned with the antenna itself, or the "antenna > system." Specifically, if I have a vertical fed at the base, with radials > spreading out in 360 degrees, buried 6" down, are the radials considered > part of the antenna? That is, if the safe distance is determined to be > 3 feet, does that include 3 feet from the radials as well? We're talking > AC here, even if it is at RF, right? Therefore, the radials must radiate. > > I've checked out the ARRL's site as well as the FCC's info on the > subject, but neither seems to mention exposure from radials. Anyone > know the facts or better yet, direct me to a reference that addresses > this specifically? > > Tnx es 72/73, > Dale > ========================================================= > Dale Anderson, KB0VCC In the Mt Washington Valley > QRP-L #91 / QRP-NE #600 Conway, New Hampshire > ARS #234 / FISTS #3172 Grid Sq: FN43kx > CQC #251 / QRP-ARCI #11446 http://www.qsl.net/kb0vcc > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:40:36 -0500 From: Steve Lawrence To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [167897] Fiberglass Poles for Antennas Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Group... Has anyone ever assembled a "comprehensive" list of the various poles of this nature (telescoping,etc.), along with their specifications? I'm interested in comparing the following: - make/model - source - price - collapsed length - extended length - base external diameter - tip diameter - weight - and maybe something esoteric like "deflection from horizontal with a 1oz weight at the tip".... Does such a listing exist? Where? If not, would it be useful? TIA, Steve aa8af ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:47:16 -0500 From: Michael Neverdosky To: k6whp@verizon.net, Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [167898] Re: OT: Calipers and Micrometers Message-ID: <402D1BB4.DD9AAD16@earthlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I like MSC Industrial Supply Co. http://www.mscdirect.com/ They will send you a BIG catalog or a CD or both. michael N6CHV k6whp@verizon.net wrote: > > I am sorry for the OT subject here, but I have been all > over the internet (even eBay) and can't seem to find a > good source for micrometers and calipers. What I am > looking for is an instrument which will measure, simply > put, metal cylinders and the *inside* of metal tubes. > > We're not talking drainage pipes here, just 0.1 inch > through 2.0 inches maximum. Dial gauges are fine; digital > is even better. > > A URL, company name, store name, anyting would be welcome. > > Sincere thanks, > > Bill, k6whp ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:51:23 -0700 From: "Jim Kjar" To: , "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [167899] Re: Telescopic Poles -- Another Source Message-ID: <000701c3f262$60f6ce10$0201fea9@computer2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Another source for telescopic poles: snapupportablemast.com I have used one of the 26' poles for several years. This company also made a 3 el yagi for 30meters for me.. Jim W0CML ----- Original Message ----- From: "NA4FM (Buck)" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 11:24 PM Subject: RE: Telescopic Poles -- Another Source > Thanks for the source. There are a couple of poles I am interested in > myself. I purchased a 16' South Bend Crappie Pole for ~$18.00-$20.00 > the other day from Walmart. I see them in several stores. I talked to > one of the sales staff and she said I was the second person this week > that bought a crappie pole for antennas. Lol > > Thanks again, > > Hopefully Walmart will be useful info for someone. > > Buck > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Chuck Carpenter [mailto:w5usj@9plus.net] > > Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 5:00 PM > > To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion > > Subject: Telescopic Poles -- Another Source > > > > > > Got the latest catalog from IntoTheWind kite folks. > > > > On page 72 they are showing a variety of telescopic poles in > > two strengths, flexible and heavy duty. The materials are > > brown and black fiberglass and collapse to about 4 ft. > > > > They show 4 lengths of flexible at 10, 13, 16 and 19 ft > > priced at $15, $18, $20 and $26 respectively. > > > > The heavy duty poles are in lengths of 10, 13, 16, 19 and 22 > > ft priced at $20, $25, $29, $39 and $49 respectively. > > > > You probably can find them on their website too -- > http://www.IntoTheWind.com > > I've experienced good service from them with web purchases of fiberglass > kite spars that I used for V/UHF quad spreaders. > > > Chuck Carpenter, W5USJ, Point, Rains Co., TX - EM22cv, NETXQRP #1 > QRP-ARCI #5422, QRP-L #1306, QRPp-I #115, ARS #1280, SOC #57 Zombie > #759, COG #11, 6 Club #201, FP #601 oo http://www.netxqrp.org > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:49:45 -0500 From: Bruce Muscolino To: jsielke@pobox.com Cc: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [167900] Re: No more QRP column in QST? Message-ID: <402D1C49.FE21185E@erols.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit John, It os my understanding (was my experience 18 years ago) that Japanese novices had the full spectrum of rigs available to them. Why would Yaesu or Icom introduce new rigs aimed at that market alone. Also QRP is not only an American interest. 73 > > Not at all. We are a small secondary market for those rigs. Their > primary market is the Japanese "Novice" who is limited to 10 watts on HF > (no code, incidentally, which is probably why those rigs don't have > decent QSK, etc.) > > John W2AGN ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:17:37 -0800 From: Bob Nielsen To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [167901] Re: AL7FS receives BPL response from Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski Message-ID: <20040213191737.GB701@n7xy.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Ah, if we only had 99 more like that! On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 01:23:02PM -0500, Bruce Muscolino wrote: > Geez, > > You guys got a gem there. She knows what radio is and what it can do > for her constituents. Does she have a sister available for election in > Maryland? > > 73 > > This is the response I received from Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski. > > > > ============================================== > > United States Senate > > Washington, DC 20510-0203 > > (202)224-6665 > > (202)224-5301 FAX > > > > January 21, 2004 > > > > Mr. James Larsen > > 3445 Spinnaker Drive > > Anchorage, Alaska 99516 > > > > Dear James: > > > > Thank you for visiting the Congressional Delegation's booth at the > > State Fair in Palmer this past August and communicating your concerns about > > Broadband Over Power Line (BPL) issues. > > > > Radio has played a vital part of Alaska's history, and because of > > Alaska's unique topography, radio remains an asset to Alaskans, Alaska's > > emergency response, and our military. Ensuring amateur radio operators' > > ability to transmit and receive broadcasts over ham bandwidths, including > > high-frequency and short-wave, without additional frequency interference > > caused by potential transmissions over power lines is an issue the Federal > > Communication Commission (FCC) must take into account. The National > > Telecommunications and Information Administration is expected to come out with > > its first report on BPL emissions this winter to address local interference > > problems and recommend emission limits and compliance measurement procedures. > > > > Additionally, legislation was introduced in the Senate to ensure > > continued broadband access for amateur radio operators. S.537, the Amateur > > Radio Spectrum Protection Act, would protect radio operators as radio > > technology develops. S.537 would prohibit the FCC from decreasing or > > reallocating bandwidth with regard to amateur radio and amateur satellite > > services unless equivalent replacements are provided. Should additional > > legislation related to BPL and transmission noise be considered, I will keep > > your thoughts in mind. > > > > I have included a CD ROM about the current issues of amateur radio > > which I hope will be of interest to you. Again, thank you for contacting me. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Lisa Murkowski > > United States Senator > > > > ===================================================================== > > > > 73, Jim > > -- > > Jim Larsen, AL7FS > > Anchorage, Alaska > > http://www.qsl.net/al7fs > > Join Anchorage ARC: http://www.KL7AA.org > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:20:14 -0500 From: John Sielke To: Bruce Muscolino Cc: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [167902] Re: No more QRP column in QST? Message-ID: <200402131420.14997.jsielke@pobox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On Friday 13 February 2004 13:49, Bruce Muscolino wrote: > John, > > It os my understanding (was my experience 18 years ago) that Japanese > novices had the full spectrum of rigs available to them. Why would > Yaesu or Icom introduce new rigs aimed at that market alone. Also QRP > is not only an American interest. If you mean by "full spectrum," 10 watt versions of most rigs, you are correct. Someone said they even made a 10 watt IC-781! But really, the IC-703 is a 10 watt IC-706. The only "pure" qrp rig is the FT-817. I agree, about QRP not being solely an American interest. Most countries that have a "Novice" or "Beginner" (I think in the UK it's called "Foundation?") also have a 10 watt or so power limit. Hopefully, if our new "Novice" becomes reality, that will also be the case. Then you will really see a bunch of new QRP rigs hit the market. Unfortunately, they will probably be without CW. John W2AGN ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:41:47 -0600 From: To: Subject: [167903] Re: OT: Calipers and Micrometers Message-ID: <20040213194147.TKKV25581.out001.verizon.net@outgoing.verizon.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My thanks to the many suggestions. In this case it it helped considerably; I was about to drom a lot of money on a set of calipers that were more than I needed and much more than I could afford.. ..now, I can spend my money on more sensible things, like radios, etc. 72, Bill, k6whp ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 15:08:58 -0500 From: "Lawrence Makoski" To: , "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [167904] Re: AL7FS receives BPL response from Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski Message-ID: <004701c3f26d$37c1a320$86d24b0c@larrysahyqy001> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hmmm.....Murkowski ..... Makowski... I wonder if she could be a long lost relative of mine! 73 de Larry Makowski W2LJ - Vivat Morse! W2LJ@arrl.net http://www.qsl.net/w2lj ARRL Lifemember QRP ARCI #4488 NJQRP #47 FISTS #1469 QRP-L #778 FP #612 QRPp-I #759 ARS #1528 --- K1 #1647 --- AmQRP, CQC #746 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 15:05:48 -0500 From: "Patrick Schwarz - KB8RTZ" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [167905] Re: BPL Loss !!! Message-ID: <00c501c3f26c$c7253500$48708318@ce1.client2.attbi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit can you post a link? patrick...kb8rtz... ----- Original Message ----- From: "tk" To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 7:48 AM Subject: BPL Loss !!! > Today's Atlanta Constitution (FRIDAY the 13th !!) has an article on > Powell's BPL > that says the HF radio community has lost !!! > > Ted in Atlanta KD4EE ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:02:26 -0500 From: Bruce Muscolino To: w1vt@arrl.org Cc: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [167906] Re: No more QRP column in QST? Message-ID: <402D1F42.9112A405@erols.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Zack. I was glad to help you with a decidedly positive expenditure. I hope you will hang on to my donuts until I can come up! 73 > > As our contribution to QRP last year, > we spent $40 on coffee, donuts and OJ, and opened > up the doors of ARRL HQ for the August 2003 QRP > New England club meeting. > > Zack W1VT + Mary N1VH ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:02:15 -0800 (PST) From: Curt Milton To: Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion Subject: [167907] Re: DX Fox Hunt Needed ?? Message-ID: <20040213210215.20576.qmail@web60803.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In brief -- (1) There should be no broadcast QRM to the high fox as BC is not authorized below 7100. But yes we do compete with SSB QRM which is authorized in many countries, because they don't have ham spectrum above 7100. (2) I was merely suggesting we consider something to allow our DX friends a chance to be a FOX in some kind of operating event. I prefer not to organize myself but defer to concensus of community leaders who already manage a fine program! While I make lots of QRP QSO's with Europe on 40m with a modest antenna, I admit I am closer to them than many on the list. I suspect some Foxes calling from Europe would have a big pile-up if we knew to look for them! curt wb8yyy --- Karl Larsen wrote: > On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Curt Milton wrote: > > > We should consider an international event where > some > > folk in Europe - maybe as many as want to call CQ > has > > foxes, and those of us in NA work them as hounds. > > More Eu ops will thin the pile-ups, and as the > east > > coast is thinned out they should be able to work > folk > > further west. Only problem is our friends to the > east > > of NA would have to stay up late! > > Worse than that is that the high Fox is in among > broadcast > stations in Europe. Wolf in Berlin tried to hear me > K5DI last night but > it was "awash" with QRM. So we would have to move > down in frequency > which has other problems. > > > > > > > I think this is worth exploring to expand our > horizons > > beyond NA! We need to do this soon before nights > get > > too short! > > > > curt wb8yyy > > > > --- Wolf-Ruediger Juergens > > wrote: > > > Tom Palmer wrote: > > > > > > > Got Truffle at 0152 from N0JRN (Jerry in Mo.) > > > > 1st pelt from K5DI (Karl in N.M.) at 0248 on > > > > 7.042. > > > > 2nd pelt from KV2X (Tom in N.Y.) at 0253 on > > > > 7.037.50. > > > > > > Tom, KV2X, is weak here, rst 539 +QSB, but could > be > > > clear copied with my > > > K2 and a 22m sloper. > > > > > > 72 Wolf, DL2WRJ > > > > > > __________________________________ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing > online. > > http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html > > > > -- > > - Karl Larsen k5di Las Cruces,NM Az > ScQRPions - > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:33:50 -0500 From: "Howard Kraus" To: Subject: [167908] WTD: Supergainer converter PCB Message-ID: <003c01c3f279$122b5460$9f131443@kntnny.adelphia.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Would anybody have a converter PCB (and parts) for George Dobb's 2000 version of the Supergainer? The receiver has three PCB's: the converter, regenerative module, and the audio amp. For someone only interested in receiving 6.0-6.5MHz, the converter would be superflous to their needs (and critical to mine!). I'd like to build up an 80M converter module for mine, it presently has a 20M module from the original parts kit. Thank you to anyone who might be able to help me out on this. 72 Howard Kraus, K2UD ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 15:33:56 -0600 From: Rob Matherly To: qrp-l@lehigh.edu Subject: [167909] Re: No more QRP column in QST? Message-ID: <402D42C4.9050900@jetnetinc.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit John Sielke wrote: >On Friday 13 February 2004 13:49, Bruce Muscolino wrote: > > >>John, >> >>It os my understanding (was my experience 18 years ago) that Japanese >>novices had the full spectrum of rigs available to them. Why would >>Yaesu or Icom introduce new rigs aimed at that market alone. Also QRP >>is not only an American interest. >> >> > >If you mean by "full spectrum," 10 watt versions of most rigs, you are >correct. Someone said they even made a 10 watt IC-781! But really, the IC-703 is a 10 watt IC-706. The only "pure" qrp rig is the FT-817. I agree, about QRP not being solely an American interest. Most countries that have a "Novice" or "Beginner" (I think in the UK it's called "Foundation?") also have a 10 watt or so power limit. Hopefully, if our new "Novice" becomes reality, that will also be the case. Then you will really see a bunch of new QRP rigs hit the market. Unfortunately, they will probably be without CW. > > Why wouldn't they have CW? With the relative complexity of the SSB circutry, they'd be bound to include a simple on/off carrier keying circuit. The filtering might suck, and the QSK might not be worth a crap, but they'd surely include it. Besides, they'd have a rig to try to tap into that mighty "QRP Dollar." -- 72/73/oo - Rob, W0JRM - jimrob@jetnetinc.net - ARRL MEMBER FPQrp -330; QRPp-I #19; WATPK #1; SOC #442; ARS #1143 Are you a gun nut? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gun_nut_hams http://www.robmatherly.com <--- Not ham related! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:37:40 -0800 From: "Doug Hendricks" To: Cc: Subject: [167910] Url for Tin Ear Receiver Message-ID: <01f101c3f279$9b0b9ce0$4a0b0d0a@dph.dpol.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here is the receiver for the details on the new AmQRP Tin Ear Receiver. Just click on this and it takes you right to it. http://www.amqrp.org/kits/tin_ear 72, Doug ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:35:49 -0500 From: William K Penhallegon To: qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU Subject: [167911] Homebrewer #2 Message-ID: <20040213.164815.-674869.2.w4stx@juno.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The USPS finally came through. Today my Homebrewer #2 arrived in Clearwater, Florida. Thanks American QRP Club 73. Bill W4STX ------------------------------ End of QRP-L Digest 3195 ************************ --------------------------------