[AMRadio] First Wednesday CCA AM Night Feb.1st!
FIRST WEDNESDAY AM NIGHT!!! Sponsored by the Collins Collectors Association. Wednesday February 1st on 3880 kcs at 7:00 PM local East Coast time marks the start of the latest chapter of First Wednesday AM Night, drawing hundreds of vintage stations from across the country. The event is anchored by a tall ship AM station in each time zone. The East Coast and Central sections will now run for 90 minutes in response to the tremendous participation in those time zones. The remaining time zones will be an hour. We encourage stations to check-in on AM using Collins and other AM transmitters, new and old. It's an opportunity to revel in this nostalgic mode, enjoy giving vintage equipment a run, and sharing some storytelling about classic vacuum tube homebrew and commercial designs. Typically more than a hundred stations take part in the evening's coast-to-coast AM event; by the time it concludes at 10:00 PM Local PST. LISTEN for the following anchors and stop by to say hello, won't you? You don't have to be running Collins or vintage gear to be welcomed into the group. 7:00 PM-8:30 PM Local East Coast Time Anchor: Bob W0YVA 7:30 PM-9:00 PM Local Central Time Anchor: Jim W0NKL 8:00 PM-9:00 PM Local Mountain Time Anchor: Jim WA0LSB 8:00 PM-9:00 PM Local West Coast Time Anchor: Bill N6PY comments please to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[AMRadio] Calling KN4ME
John, What is your new E-mail address? aThe one posted on QRX.com bounces. Dave
Re: [AMRadio] hecklers
Where do you want to put all the current and future digital (voice and data) type modes on 75/80 meters; in the CW subband or the phone subband?? Pete, wa2cwa On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 20:31:46 -0600 Mike Sanders K0AZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I agree. The 75 meter band needs to be opened up to voice lower in frequency. The current allocation for CW only makes no sense. Even running a CW subband from 3500 to 3600 would be a help but I suspect it could be smaller than that and still be no problem for CW ops. Just because I intend to use CW forever I am not in favor of protecting a larger than needed subband. I am in favor of subbands though. 73 K0AZ Mike Sanders 18169 Highway 174 MT Vernon, Missouri 65712-9171 [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Donald Chester Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 8:26 PM To: amradio@mailman.qth.net Subject: RE: [AMRadio] hecklers From: Mike Sanders K0AZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] The low end of 6 meters is used EXTENSIVELY on CW for weak signal intercontinental DX. I don't find this so much a problem. I believe there is a similar CW subband on 2 m. as well. That represents only 1/40 of the 6m band. It would be the equivalent of a 12.5 kHz kHz CW band on 80m. The real problem is with the outdated subband restrictions we have on HF. For example, 50% of the 3.5-4.0 mHz band is restricted to accomodate communications that could easily fit into less than 20% of the band, even during CW contests. Don k4kyv
Re: [AMRadio] hecklers
144.0 to 144.1 MHz is generally used for EME(CW), general CW, and weak-signal(DX) CW. Pete, wa2cwa On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 02:25:37 + Donald Chester [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Mike Sanders K0AZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] The low end of 6 meters is used EXTENSIVELY on CW for weak signal intercontinental DX. I don't find this so much a problem. I believe there is a similar CW subband on 2 m. as well. That represents only 1/40 of the 6m band. It would be the equivalent of a 12.5 kHz kHz CW band on 80m. The real problem is with the outdated subband restrictions we have on HF. For example, 50% of the 3.5-4.0 mHz band is restricted to accomodate communications that could easily fit into less than 20% of the band, even during CW contests. Don k4kyv
RE: [AMRadio] hecklers
Actually CW is used up to about 144.250 regularly on Aurora openings and other weak signal openings. The 144.000 to 144.100 has been pretty much set aside for EME and most ops honor that convention. The K1JT suite of digital modes FSK441A and so on are being run from 144.140 plus or minus with 140 as the calling frequency. There is not much of a problem on 2 meters that I know of regarding mode to mode feuds. At least in my part of the country. Of course on the more populated coasts it may be a problem but I have not heard anything to that effect. K0AZ Mike Sanders 18169 Highway 174 MT Vernon, Missouri 65712-9171 [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Peter Markavage Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 11:53 AM To: amradio@mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [AMRadio] hecklers 144.0 to 144.1 MHz is generally used for EME(CW), general CW, and weak-signal(DX) CW. Pete, wa2cwa On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 02:25:37 + Donald Chester [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Mike Sanders K0AZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] The low end of 6 meters is used EXTENSIVELY on CW for weak signal intercontinental DX. I don't find this so much a problem. I believe there is a similar CW subband on 2 m. as well. That represents only 1/40 of the 6m band. It would be the equivalent of a 12.5 kHz kHz CW band on 80m. The real problem is with the outdated subband restrictions we have on HF. For example, 50% of the 3.5-4.0 mHz band is restricted to accomodate communications that could easily fit into less than 20% of the band, even during CW contests. Don k4kyv __ AMRadio mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami, Paul Courson/wa3vjb -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 1/27/06 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 1/27/06
[AMRadio] ARRL Bashing
It seems to me with all the skewering of the ARRL, one item that appears to be very relevant is the communication to the members of a division and the reverse and thus to the board of the ARRL. I believe I've heard something like they don't listen to me or there is no avenue for comments. As a member you have the option, that is, make your views known or remain silent. As a non-member you also have made a choice. Forums such as this reflector and other avenues are just that...a grip and complain session; for the whiners. Real progress is made when people care, when people converse, when people have factual data and mostly when there are those who really wish to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Whether one agrees with the two RM proposals, I really don't care. But I do care about the relevance of communications to and from ARRL members. Those who choose not to be an ARRL member have by default lost that option. Much as been said here about the ARRL not caring. I for one don't believe that. Perhaps we, those in the Great Lakes division, are just blessed with great leadership. Somehow, though, I don't believe we are the only ones. I just have not heard from other divisions, nor do I want to. If those wish to flame me, fine. I've got a delete key. If you wish to be part of the solution, then contribute your views to your own division director. Note especially the following: ...you will have considerable opportunity to be heard and once heard, your input will be considered very seriously. There are those who will not believe this...words mean little, action does. We will see. Today is a new daymake the future count. History is just that, history. Below is the most recent communications to the 'members' of the ARRL Great Lakes division from: ARRL Great Lakes Division Director: James Weaver, K8JE * NOW FOR THE BANDPLAN All references to frequencies contained in ARRL's Regulation Primarily by Bandwidth petition have been limited to the where the several bandwidth segments will lie within our bands. None of these references said anything about the fine details of band planning -- e.g., where will Techs be allowed to operate, where can fully-automatic control be used, etc? There are still more aspects to band planning than this, but I think you have the idea. In other words, the tough work has not yet been discussed. More accurately, the tough work just began at the January ARRL Board of Directors meeting. The beginning was a discussion of the process to be used in developing the bandplan. The most critical conclusion the Board appropriately reached is that we will need a lot of input from members and nonmembers alike as we proceed with the band planning. It is too early to call for input on the bandplan, but I want to let you know you will have considerable opportunity to be heard and once heard, your input will be considered very seriously. The objective of all this is to develop a bandplan that is logical and has sufficient buy-in from the amateur community that it is respected and observed voluntarily by the Amateur Radio community. ** 73, Larry KC8JX __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [AMRadio] hecklers
Yes; Yes; currently in the CW subbands. Where should I (we) transmit digital voice or digital multimedia when it becomes more of a part of the amateur radio's arsenal of modes to use. I'm not talking about today or tomorrow but 5 to 10 years down the road which is what the ARRL proposal is targeting. Of course with the CTT proposal, it's jungle law, any mode any where, subject only to your class of license. Pete, wa2cwa On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:00:52 -0600 Mike Sanders K0AZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you work CW? Do you work HF digital Modes? What do you think? K0AZ Mike Sanders 18169 Highway 174 MT Vernon, Missouri 65712-9171 [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Peter Markavage Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 11:50 AM To: amradio@mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [AMRadio] hecklers Where do you want to put all the current and future digital (voice and data) type modes on 75/80 meters; in the CW subband or the phone subband?? Pete, wa2cwa On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 20:31:46 -0600 Mike Sanders K0AZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I agree. The 75 meter band needs to be opened up to voice lower in frequency. The current allocation for CW only makes no sense. Even running a CW subband from 3500 to 3600 would be a help but I suspect it could be smaller than that and still be no problem for CW ops. Just because I intend to use CW forever I am not in favor of protecting a larger than needed subband. I am in favor of subbands though. 73 K0AZ Mike Sanders 18169 Highway 174 MT Vernon, Missouri 65712-9171 [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Donald Chester Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 8:26 PM To: amradio@mailman.qth.net Subject: RE: [AMRadio] hecklers From: Mike Sanders K0AZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] The low end of 6 meters is used EXTENSIVELY on CW for weak signal intercontinental DX. I don't find this so much a problem. I believe there is a similar CW subband on 2 m. as well. That represents only 1/40 of the 6m band. It would be the equivalent of a 12.5 kHz kHz CW band on 80m. The real problem is with the outdated subband restrictions we have on HF. For example, 50% of the 3.5-4.0 mHz band is restricted to accomodate communications that could easily fit into less than 20% of the band, even during CW contests. Don k4kyv
Re: [AMRadio] ARRL Bashing
Larry Knapp wrote: It seems to me with all the skewering of the ARRL, one item that appears to be very relevant is the communication to the members of a division and the reverse and thus to the board of the ARRL. snip The problem is not communications with the Directors. The Directors have NO SAY. The ARRL is run by the Executive Committee (read Dave Sumner). The BoD exist as a pap for the masses who actually beieve they have some say. The problem is, they don't. At one time the ARRL might have been a representative organization. It is no longer. The ARRL is Of, By and FOR, the ARRL. -- _ _ _ _ _ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ John L. Sielke ( W ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( G ) ( N ) http://w2agn.net \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ CRUSTY OLD CURMUDGEON - AND PROUD OF IT!
Re: [AMRadio] ARRL Bashing
Like Larry, I believe our Division has also been blessed with great leadership over the last several years. Every month, without fail, all members of our division receive an e-mail (if they signed up for it) newsletter, to keep us all informed of happenings and current or future issues on the table relative to the amateur radio service. This is generally over and above the weekly ARRL Letter that all members can receive. When the initial ARRL draft proposal was still being formulated in 2003, our Director and Vice-Director made it point to attend local hamfests to discuss the draft proposal idea with as many as possible of the hamfest attendees. They also attended club meetings in their area to discuss the pending draft proposal, along with other issues of the time, to solicit input before the draft proposal came to print. Since he knew I enjoyed the AM mode, we also discussed that aspect of the proposal on two occasions when he stopped at my hamfest table. Some things we agreed on, and others we didn't see eye to eye, but at least we had the dialogue. After the initial draft proposal was made public, there was a time frame of 15 months to make comments back to the ARRL. The initial draft proposal was modified several times before it was finally submitted to the FCC. Anyone who believes the ARRL should have come personally knocking on your door asking for your personal input, before they submitted the proposal, is living in a fantasy land. The access for making personal input was available for 15 months via e-mail, from a link on the ARRL site, and via your Director prior to submission to the FCC. Contrast this to the CTT proposal members, RM-11305, whose members solicited little to no input from the entire amateur radio community and wrote and submitted a proposal that affects us all going forward. With their proposal, they effectively want to turn amateur radio back 80 years (any mode, any where), rather than moving amateur radio and the amateur radio service forward. In my opinion, a very shameful display of total lack of consideration for our amateur radio service. Pete, wa2cwa On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:49:28 -0800 (PST) Larry Knapp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It seems to me with all the skewering of the ARRL, one item that appears to be very relevant is the communication to the members of a division and the reverse and thus to the board of the ARRL. I believe I've heard something like they don't listen to me or there is no avenue for comments. As a member you have the option, that is, make your views known or remain silent. As a non-member you also have made a choice. Forums such as this reflector and other avenues are just that...a grip and complain session; for the whiners. Real progress is made when people care, when people converse, when people have factual data and mostly when there are those who really wish to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Whether one agrees with the two RM proposals, I really don't care. But I do care about the relevance of communications to and from ARRL members. Those who choose not to be an ARRL member have by default lost that option. Much as been said here about the ARRL not caring. I for one don't believe that. Perhaps we, those in the Great Lakes division, are just blessed with great leadership. Somehow, though, I don't believe we are the only ones. I just have not heard from other divisions, nor do I want to. If those wish to flame me, fine. I've got a delete key. If you wish to be part of the solution, then contribute your views to your own division director. Note especially the following: ...you will have considerable opportunity to be heard and once heard, your input will be considered very seriously. There are those who will not believe this...words mean little, action does. We will see. Today is a new daymake the future count. History is just that, history. Below is the most recent communications to the 'members' of the ARRL Great Lakes division from: RRL Great Lakes Division Director: James Weaver, K8JE * NOW FOR THE BANDPLAN All references to frequencies contained in ARRL's Regulation Primarily by Bandwidth petition have been limited to the where the several bandwidth segments will lie within our bands. None of these references said anything about the fine details of band planning -- e.g., where will Techs be allowed to operate, where can fully-automatic control be used, etc? There are still more aspects to band planning than this, but I think you have the idea. In other words, the tough work has not yet been discussed. More accurately, the tough work just began at the January ARRL Board of Directors meeting. The beginning was a discussion of the process to be used in developing the bandplan. The most critical conclusion the Board appropriately reached is that we will need a lot of input from members and
RE: [AMRadio] hecklers
Thanks Pete, I also can answer Yes and Yes. Plus I suspect that the digital modes would end up in the CW sub band if such an animal continues to exist. That would be OK as long as it is for the most part shared as on 20 meters. As CW winds down the needed protected spectrum will be less and less of course. As the new modes continue to come and improve there will obviously be more demand on spectrum for them as you suggest 5 or 10 years on. I have known for years that CW was gone as a license requirement but for those who do not use CW to make decisions for us who do is a bit much. AM is a tough choice to make in this same environment. We are going to get bashed with the intent of some to get rid of it totally. What a shame that we have to stop something so someone else can do something else. And next week their ham ticket may be gathering dust while they take up knitting or whatever. I just don't understand why it cannot be understood that a transition over time to manage the spectrum in a logical fashion to accommodate all interests (modes) is the right thing to do. Why does it have to be all or nothing right this minute? Does anyone have an answer to that? K0AZ Mike Sanders 18169 Highway 174 MT Vernon, Missouri 65712-9171 [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Peter Markavage Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 12:57 PM To: amradio@mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [AMRadio] hecklers Yes; Yes; currently in the CW subbands. Where should I (we) transmit digital voice or digital multimedia when it becomes more of a part of the amateur radio's arsenal of modes to use. I'm not talking about today or tomorrow but 5 to 10 years down the road which is what the ARRL proposal is targeting. Of course with the CTT proposal, it's jungle law, any mode any where, subject only to your class of license. Pete, wa2cwa On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:00:52 -0600 Mike Sanders K0AZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you work CW? Do you work HF digital Modes? What do you think? K0AZ Mike Sanders 18169 Highway 174 MT Vernon, Missouri 65712-9171 [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Peter Markavage Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 11:50 AM To: amradio@mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [AMRadio] hecklers Where do you want to put all the current and future digital (voice and data) type modes on 75/80 meters; in the CW subband or the phone subband?? Pete, wa2cwa On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 20:31:46 -0600 Mike Sanders K0AZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I agree. The 75 meter band needs to be opened up to voice lower in frequency. The current allocation for CW only makes no sense. Even running a CW subband from 3500 to 3600 would be a help but I suspect it could be smaller than that and still be no problem for CW ops. Just because I intend to use CW forever I am not in favor of protecting a larger than needed subband. I am in favor of subbands though. 73 K0AZ Mike Sanders 18169 Highway 174 MT Vernon, Missouri 65712-9171 [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Donald Chester Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 8:26 PM To: amradio@mailman.qth.net Subject: RE: [AMRadio] hecklers From: Mike Sanders K0AZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] The low end of 6 meters is used EXTENSIVELY on CW for weak signal intercontinental DX. I don't find this so much a problem. I believe there is a similar CW subband on 2 m. as well. That represents only 1/40 of the 6m band. It would be the equivalent of a 12.5 kHz kHz CW band on 80m. The real problem is with the outdated subband restrictions we have on HF. For example, 50% of the 3.5-4.0 mHz band is restricted to accomodate communications that could easily fit into less than 20% of the band, even during CW contests. Don k4kyv __ AMRadio mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami, Paul Courson/wa3vjb -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 1/27/06 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 1/27/06
Re: [AMRadio] hecklers
If they are proprietary in nature and connect to commercial outlets, in the trash bin. 73 Jim W5JO - Original Message - From: Peter Markavage [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: amradio@mailman.qth.net Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 11:50 AM Subject: Re: [AMRadio] hecklers Where do you want to put all the current and future digital (voice and data) type modes on 75/80 meters; in the CW subband or the phone subband?? Pete, wa2cwa On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 20:31:46 -0600 Mike Sanders K0AZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I agree. The 75 meter band needs to be opened up to voice lower in frequency. The current allocation for CW only makes no sense. Even running a CW subband from 3500 to 3600 would be a help but I suspect it could be smaller than that and still be no problem for CW ops. Just because I intend to use CW forever I am not in favor of protecting a larger than needed subband. I am in favor of subbands though. 73 K0AZ Mike Sanders 18169 Highway 174 MT Vernon, Missouri 65712-9171 [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Donald Chester Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 8:26 PM To: amradio@mailman.qth.net Subject: RE: [AMRadio] hecklers From: Mike Sanders K0AZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] The low end of 6 meters is used EXTENSIVELY on CW for weak signal intercontinental DX. I don't find this so much a problem. I believe there is a similar CW subband on 2 m. as well. That represents only 1/40 of the 6m band. It would be the equivalent of a 12.5 kHz kHz CW band on 80m. The real problem is with the outdated subband restrictions we have on HF. For example, 50% of the 3.5-4.0 mHz band is restricted to accomodate communications that could easily fit into less than 20% of the band, even during CW contests. Don k4kyv __ AMRadio mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami, Paul Courson/wa3vjb
[AMRadio] CQ CQ AM on 14.286 Right now, de WD5JKO
Hi Guys, I'm going to call CQ on 14.286 AM in a few minutesLets hear someone please! No lids, No kids! Jim WD5JKO
Re: [AMRadio] hecklers
Yes; Yes; currently in the CW subbands. Where should I (we) transmit digital voice or digital multimedia when it becomes more of a part of the amateur radio's arsenal of modes to use. I'm not talking about today or tomorrow but 5 to 10 years down the road which is what the ARRL proposal is targeting. Of course with the CTT proposal, it's jungle law, any mode any where, subject only to your class of license. Pete, wa2cwa Anywhere they wish. 73 Jim W5JO
Re: [AMRadio] CQ CQ AM on 14.286 Right now, de WD5JKO
Jim, I'm there listening now, and can remain until about 2:30 central time. K5XU
Re: [AMRadio] CQ CQ AM on 14.286 Right now, de WD5JKO
WD5JKO is 5x7 here in S Michigan. KC8JX --- Mike Duke, K5XU [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim, I'm there listening now, and can remain until about 2:30 central time. K5XU __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [AMRadio] CQ CQ AM on 14.286 Right now, de WD5JKO
Hi Group, No takers to my CQ's , but several carriers that were tuning up, and dead on 14286. Conditions are pretty bad on 20 meters today. Oh well, back on 3880, and back to the taxes, FAFSA forms, and scholorship applications for my HS senior who is college bound this fall... Regards, Jim WD5JKO --- Larry Knapp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: WD5JKO is 5x7 here in S Michigan. KC8JX --- Mike Duke, K5XU [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim, I'm there listening now, and can remain until about 2:30 central time. K5XU __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __ AMRadio mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami, Paul Courson/wa3vjb
Re: [AMRadio] CQ CQ AM on 14.286 Right now, de WD5JKO
Not a peep out of Jim here into Mississippi, but I did hear a DL on ssb.
[AMRadio] The DL on 14.286.85
Turns out she is portable in the Caribbean, but she's still the only signal I am hearing near 14.286 into Mississippi. Mike Duke, K5XU American Council of Blind Radio Amateurs
Re: [AMRadio] UG 634U
I don't know about that particular amp connector but I read recxently in the RSGB handbook I believe it was that they have a HV connector which looks like a chassis mount type N connector and refer to RG 8 carrying the high voltage.; Healthfully yours, DON W4BWS - Original Message - From: david knepper To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; amradio@mailman.qth.net Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 11:00 AM Subject: [AMRadio] UG 634U Does anyone have information on this chassis connector. I need the connector itself. It would seem that it would make a great high voltage connector. Cannot find it listed anywhere on the Internet. Thanks Dave, W3ST Publisher of the Collins Journal Secretary to the Collins Radio Association www.collinsra.com - the CRA Website Now with PayPal CRA Nets: 3805 Khz every Monday at 8 PM EST and 14255 every Saturday at 12 Noon EST __ AMRadio mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami, Paul Courson/wa3vjb
Re: [AMRadio] ARRL Bashing
With all this attention, no wonder you do all you can on these forums to support the ARRL. I, too have made contact with my director and vice director via email and have received positive responses to my queries. My director is a man of few words but very responsive to questions. I salute him for his effort. He also voted against submitting RM 11306 to the FCC. He, too, writes emails to us here in division. But this is only two of them. I have seen others on this reflector relate problems with their director. So if only two of 15 have positive praise, then some are behind the curve. I had contact with my director when I lived in another division a couple of years ago. That director was the direct opposite of what I have now. Some will say this is democratic action, but I don't believe many of the directors took the same outlook the one I have did. Sadly many members don't do computer, don't go to all the hamfests, so naturally those who have been left out, feel as if the ARRL BoD is being self important and supporting a very small minority of amateurs. Since the Amateur bands are supposed to be partially for experimentation, why have any limits on emission types at all in a portion of the bands so new creations would have space to try new experiments. Since the 50s the FCC has determined the type, width and power we could utilize. Should there be a portion of the bands where a ham with a new idea could try it by simply notifying the FCC what he (they) are doing? Would this not let the digital mode test simultaneous data and voice transmissions? Let it be a portion of the band where true experimentation can be completed with minimal regulation. I am not sure, I fully support RM 11305 for some of the reasons you have stated eloquently, but I see it as the best alternative; therefore I am in favor of it. If we are to be an experimental group, give a portion of the band where experiments can be performed without interference from the ARRL or FCC. Reduce the CW portion, since digital signals today are so narrow move them down the bands then create at portion for experimental purposes. Then expand the phone bands. This isn't going to happen so I support RM 11305 because it opens the bands to more activity to the greatest number of operators. 73 Jim W5JO - Original Message - From: Peter Markavage [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: amradio@mailman.qth.net Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 1:45 PM Subject: Re: [AMRadio] ARRL Bashing Like Larry, I believe our Division has also been blessed with great leadership over the last several years. Every month, without fail, all members of our division receive an e-mail (if they signed up for it) newsletter, to keep us all informed of happenings and current or future issues on the table relative to the amateur radio service. This is generally over and above the weekly ARRL Letter that all members can receive. When the initial ARRL draft proposal was still being formulated in 2003, our Director and Vice-Director made it point to attend local hamfests to discuss the draft proposal idea with as many as possible of the hamfest attendees. They also attended club meetings in their area to discuss the pending draft proposal, along with other issues of the time, to solicit input before the draft proposal came to print. Since he knew I enjoyed the AM mode, we also discussed that aspect of the proposal on two occasions when he stopped at my hamfest table. Some things we agreed on, and others we didn't see eye to eye, but at least we had the dialogue. After the initial draft proposal was made public, there was a time frame of 15 months to make comments back to the ARRL. The initial draft proposal was modified several times before it was finally submitted to the FCC. Anyone who believes the ARRL should have come personally knocking on your door asking for your personal input, before they submitted the proposal, is living in a fantasy land. The access for making personal input was available for 15 months via e-mail, from a link on the ARRL site, and via your Director prior to submission to the FCC. Contrast this to the CTT proposal members, RM-11305, whose members solicited little to no input from the entire amateur radio community and wrote and submitted a proposal that affects us all going forward. With their proposal, they effectively want to turn amateur radio back 80 years (any mode, any where), rather than moving amateur radio and the amateur radio service forward. In my opinion, a very shameful display of total lack of consideration for our amateur radio service. Pete, wa2cwa
Re: [AMRadio] UG 634U
I got my high voltage connectors from RF PARTS[EMAIL PROTECTED] part # 37001 (A,B,C,D) rated for 7000 VDC @ 2 amps. Chassis mount flang $6.90, cable mount shell $5.90. Good luck. 73, Ed Richards K6UUZ Simi Valley, Ca 93065 Home of the Air Force 1 pavilion On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 16:27:43 -0600 Rev. Don Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't know about that particular amp connector but I read recxently in the RSGB handbook I believe it was that they have a HV connector which looks like a chassis mount type N connector and refer to RG 8 carrying the high voltage.; Healthfully yours, DON W4BWS - Original Message - From: david knepper To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; amradio@mailman.qth.net Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 11:00 AM Subject: [AMRadio] UG 634U Does anyone have information on this chassis connector. I need the connector itself. It would seem that it would make a great high voltage connector. Cannot find it listed anywhere on the Internet. Thanks Dave, W3ST Publisher of the Collins Journal Secretary to the Collins Radio Association www.collinsra.com - the CRA Website Now with PayPal CRA Nets: 3805 Khz every Monday at 8 PM EST and 14255 every Saturday at 12 Noon EST __ AMRadio mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami, Paul Courson/wa3vjb __ AMRadio mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami, Paul Courson/wa3vjb
Re: [AMRadio] UG 634U
Unfortunately Ed these are the 'Millen' connectors are only good to about 2KV. I know the spec say more but this was discussed at length on the AMPS reflector. I have a bunch of the brown ones where the flanges apparently broke down under HV stress. I couldn't prove it but the insides of the material looked to have been molten. Mod-U-Lator, Mike(y) W3SLK - Original Message - From: Edward B Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: amradio@mailman.qth.net Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 5:47 PM Subject: Re: [AMRadio] UG 634U I got my high voltage connectors from RF PARTS[EMAIL PROTECTED] part # 37001 (A,B,C,D) rated for 7000 VDC @ 2 amps. Chassis mount flang $6.90, cable mount shell $5.90. Good luck. 73, Ed Richards K6UUZ Simi Valley, Ca 93065 Home of the Air Force 1 pavilion On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 16:27:43 -0600 Rev. Don Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't know about that particular amp connector but I read recxently in the RSGB handbook I believe it was that they have a HV connector which looks like a chassis mount type N connector and refer to RG 8 carrying the high voltage.; Healthfully yours, DON W4BWS - Original Message - From: david knepper To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; amradio@mailman.qth.net Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 11:00 AM Subject: [AMRadio] UG 634U Does anyone have information on this chassis connector. I need the connector itself. It would seem that it would make a great high voltage connector. Cannot find it listed anywhere on the Internet. Thanks Dave, W3ST Publisher of the Collins Journal Secretary to the Collins Radio Association www.collinsra.com - the CRA Website Now with PayPal CRA Nets: 3805 Khz every Monday at 8 PM EST and 14255 every Saturday at 12 Noon EST __ AMRadio mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami, Paul Courson/wa3vjb __ AMRadio mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami, Paul Courson/wa3vjb __ AMRadio mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami, Paul Courson/wa3vjb
[AMRadio] 3-1000 Chimney Clips Needed
I need a set of these clips. I don't want to fabricate them. Anyone have any of these little beasties they will part with? Thanks Ronnie
Re: [AMRadio] 3-1000 Chimney Clips Needed
Ronnie, wouldn't the 4-1000A clips work. I have a used 3-1000A with socket. I may make an amplifier out of it. Is that what you are comtemplating? Ideas would be welcome. I do know back in the 70's that this tube was smash hit with the hams. Thanks Dave, W3ST Publisher of the Collins Journal Secretary to the Collins Radio Association www.collinsra.com - the CRA Website Now with PayPal CRA Nets: 3805 Khz every Monday at 8 PM EST and 14255 every Saturday at 12 Noon EST - Original Message - From: ronnie.hull [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: amradio@mailman.qth.net Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 7:04 PM Subject: [AMRadio] 3-1000 Chimney Clips Needed I need a set of these clips. I don't want to fabricate them. Anyone have any of these little beasties they will part with? Thanks Ronnie __ AMRadio mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami, Paul Courson/wa3vjb
Re: [AMRadio] UG 634U
Thanks, Ed. I am going to dig my RF Parts catalog out right now. Dave, W3ST Publisher of the Collins Journal Secretary to the Collins Radio Association www.collinsra.com - the CRA Website Now with PayPal CRA Nets: 3805 Khz every Monday at 8 PM EST and 14255 every Saturday at 12 Noon EST - Original Message - From: Edward B Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: amradio@mailman.qth.net Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 5:47 PM Subject: Re: [AMRadio] UG 634U I got my high voltage connectors from RF PARTS[EMAIL PROTECTED] part # 37001 (A,B,C,D) rated for 7000 VDC @ 2 amps. Chassis mount flang $6.90, cable mount shell $5.90. Good luck. 73, Ed Richards K6UUZ Simi Valley, Ca 93065 Home of the Air Force 1 pavilion On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 16:27:43 -0600 Rev. Don Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't know about that particular amp connector but I read recxently in the RSGB handbook I believe it was that they have a HV connector which looks like a chassis mount type N connector and refer to RG 8 carrying the high voltage.; Healthfully yours, DON W4BWS - Original Message - From: david knepper To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; amradio@mailman.qth.net Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 11:00 AM Subject: [AMRadio] UG 634U Does anyone have information on this chassis connector. I need the connector itself. It would seem that it would make a great high voltage connector. Cannot find it listed anywhere on the Internet. Thanks Dave, W3ST Publisher of the Collins Journal Secretary to the Collins Radio Association www.collinsra.com - the CRA Website Now with PayPal CRA Nets: 3805 Khz every Monday at 8 PM EST and 14255 every Saturday at 12 Noon EST __ AMRadio mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami, Paul Courson/wa3vjb __ AMRadio mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami, Paul Courson/wa3vjb __ AMRadio mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami, Paul Courson/wa3vjb
Re: [AMRadio] UG 634U
I have a Millen ad in a 1963 CQ Magazine that says the Red and Black Millen connectors are for HV and the Brown (yellow) is a special filled bakelite for RF use ONLY! My friend says the Reds are the best since the Black are pigmented with carbon to give the black color. Sounds right. Mounted on a plastic disk they do count as pretty good. Metal screws are asking for trouble. Nylon handy for this. 73 Mike. - Original Message - From: Mike Sawyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Discussion of AM Radio amradio@mailman.qth.net Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 6:11 PM Subject: Re: [AMRadio] UG 634U Unfortunately Ed these are the 'Millen' connectors are only good to about 2KV. I know the spec say more but this was discussed at length on the AMPS reflector. I have a bunch of the brown ones where the flanges apparently broke down under HV stress. I couldn't prove it but the insides of the material looked to have been molten. Mod-U-Lator, Mike(y) W3SLK - Original Message - From: Edward B Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: amradio@mailman.qth.net Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 5:47 PM Subject: Re: [AMRadio] UG 634U I got my high voltage connectors from RF PARTS[EMAIL PROTECTED] part # 37001 (A,B,C,D) rated for 7000 VDC @ 2 amps. Chassis mount flang $6.90, cable mount shell $5.90. Good luck. 73, Ed Richards K6UUZ
Re: [AMRadio] UG 634U
Mike, this is the most definitive explanation that I have received. I am sure that other will agree with you and so I am posting your post to the entire group. I never thought that the mica connector was for RF. It was this type that broke down in every instance with about 2,000 volts or more when modulation voltage was applied. Thanks Dave, W3ST Publisher of the Collins Journal Secretary to the Collins Radio Association www.collinsra.com - the CRA Website Now with PayPal CRA Nets: 3805 Khz every Monday at 8 PM EST and 14255 every Saturday at 12 Noon EST - Original Message - From: Mike Dorworth, K4XM [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Discussion of AM Radio amradio@mailman.qth.net Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 8:56 PM Subject: Re: [AMRadio] UG 634U I have a Millen ad in a 1963 CQ Magazine that says the Red and Black Millen connectors are for HV and the Brown (yellow) is a special filled bakelite for RF use ONLY! My friend says the Reds are the best since the Black are pigmented with carbon to give the black color. Sounds right. Mounted on a plastic disk they do count as pretty good. Metal screws are asking for trouble. Nylon handy for this. 73 Mike. - Original Message - From: Mike Sawyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Discussion of AM Radio amradio@mailman.qth.net Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 6:11 PM Subject: Re: [AMRadio] UG 634U Unfortunately Ed these are the 'Millen' connectors are only good to about 2KV. I know the spec say more but this was discussed at length on the AMPS reflector. I have a bunch of the brown ones where the flanges apparently broke down under HV stress. I couldn't prove it but the insides of the material looked to have been molten. Mod-U-Lator, Mike(y) W3SLK - Original Message - From: Edward B Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: amradio@mailman.qth.net Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 5:47 PM Subject: Re: [AMRadio] UG 634U I got my high voltage connectors from RF PARTS[EMAIL PROTECTED] part # 37001 (A,B,C,D) rated for 7000 VDC @ 2 amps. Chassis mount flang $6.90, cable mount shell $5.90. Good luck. 73, Ed Richards K6UUZ __ AMRadio mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami, Paul Courson/wa3vjb
