Re: [DX-CHAT] Question
The same here, but the trojan was JS/Exploit.Agent.AFH George HA5WA - Original Message - From: Mark Robinson To: k4...@arrl.net ; wbeye...@cfl.rr.com ; DX List... Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 1:51 AM Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] Question I started looking at the Acom amplifier site and all of a sudden I got a message from my avg software that it had stopped the exploit swf.gen. Has anyone else seen that? Mark N1UK - Original Message - From: Jack To: wbeye...@cfl.rr.com ; DX List... Sent: Monday, 18 May, 2009 3:12 PM Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] Question http://www.hfpower.com/ At 02:20 PM 5/18/2009, William Beyer wrote: Hello Group: Any one get a photo of the NEW Acom VFD wattmeter? @ Dayton Hamvention. __ ESET Smart Security - Vírusdefiníciós adatbázis: 4085 (20090519) __ Az üzenetet az ESET Smart Security ellenotilde;rizte. http://www.eset.hu brKönyvszerda! Móra kiadó mesekönyvei 25-50% kedvezménnyel!brhttp://bookline.hu/news/news.action?id=397tabname=bookaffiliate=frekszkar8578 --- To unsubscribe or subscribe to this list. Please send a message to imail...@njdxa.org In the message body put either unsubscribe dx-chat or subscribe dx-chat This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org ---
Re: [DX-CHAT] Question
http://www.hfpower.com/ At 02:20 PM 5/18/2009, William Beyer wrote: Hello Group: Any one get a photo of the NEW Acom VFD wattmeter? @ Dayton Hamvention. Jack Hartley K4WSB / VP2MSB DXCC Honor Roll QCWA OOTC Celebrating 50 years in Ham Radio --- To unsubscribe or subscribe to this list. Please send a message to imail...@njdxa.org In the message body put either unsubscribe dx-chat or subscribe dx-chat This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org ---
Re: [DX-CHAT] Question
I started looking at the Acom amplifier site and all of a sudden I got a message from my avg software that it had stopped the exploit swf.gen. Has anyone else seen that? Mark N1UK - Original Message - From: Jack To: wbeye...@cfl.rr.com ; DX List... Sent: Monday, 18 May, 2009 3:12 PM Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] Question http://www.hfpower.com/ At 02:20 PM 5/18/2009, William Beyer wrote: Hello Group: Any one get a photo of the NEW Acom VFD wattmeter? @ Dayton Hamvention. Jack Hartley K4WSB / VP2MSB DXCC Honor Roll QCWA OOTC Celebrating 50 years in Ham Radio --- To unsubscribe or subscribe to this list. Please send a message to imail...@njdxa.org In the message body put either unsubscribe dx-chat or subscribe dx-chat This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org --- --- To unsubscribe or subscribe to this list. Please send a message to imail...@njdxa.org In the message body put either unsubscribe dx-chat or subscribe dx-chat This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org ---
[DX-CHAT] Question about EL2DX
Any help with locating any QSL route or info for EL2DX I worked on CW back on 9 July 2004? I have sent QSLs to K8SJP and receive no answers. Any help appreciated. Gary, N5PHT __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
RE: [DX-CHAT] Question
The problem is that then you would have no way to communicate with the pileup as a whole. Newcomers would not know your listening range and the pile would spread farther and farther, causing much problems with other users of the band. Chaos. 73, Duane, WV2B "Nothinggreatiseverachievedwithoutenthusiasm."-RalphWaldoEmerson.
Re: [DX-CHAT] Question
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem is that then you would have no way to communicate with the pileup as a whole. Newcomers would not know your listening range and the pile would spread farther and farther, causing much problems with other users of the band. Chaos. 73, Duane, WV2B Nothing great is ever achieved without enthusiasm.- Ralph Waldo Emerson. You are assuming that folks will not be able to figure out where he is listening. In my experience, it is not impossible at all to figure out where the dx is listening. Often using a couple buttons I can find both ends of the qso and do it pretty quickly. The original question though dealt with the possibility that the dx is going to jump frequencies and actually call the deserving... Gary ab5rm Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
Re: [DX-CHAT] Question
Assuming the Dx station moves around and answers callers on their own frequency, and does not work more than one caller on a particular frequency- The DX operator has no way to communicate to the pileup as a whole. They will be listening on their own frequency for the Dx to answer them, not listening for other qsos. As new stations find the pileup, or see it spotted, will likely begin spreading out farther and farther trying to be sure they are calling on a clear frequency. Even if the spread is mentioned in DX spots operators will likely try to push the edges hoping the Dx will go just a little higher to find them in the clear. Although finding the frequency of the previous qso and calling there, or where the Dx will next be listening, is a pretty basic skill to DXing, I think you will find 90% of the callers are not doing this. They sit in one spot, or pick spots at random, and call their lungs out. If they are loud enough eventually they get the contact, but not with the satisfaction of getting it because they were able to listen and choose the best place and time to call. I have been able to very easily work weak JA callers from CY9 despite many loud US and European callers by finding a relatively clear spot in the listening spread and dropping hints to the pileup. Just say "203" for example. The good DXers are listening, and within a few seconds call on that frequency. You can work 6- 10 stations before the crowd listen long enough to catch on. When the bedlam starts, find another fairly clear spot and again just mention the frequency. The best Dxers get the contact easily, while many others blindly call barely taking a breath. I have put many good JA operators in the log this way. But- that was not the question. Really, except perhaps in the biggest pileups, split would not be needed if operators were able to listen and use timing. Obviously, this is not possible. Stations simply cannot contain themselves enough to call when the DX asks QRZ or otherwise indicates he is ready for a call, and not transmit the rest of the time. But, too many stations must transmit all the time, even if the DX has identified another station and is trying to work it. They transmit when they are not the station identified, and often even while the Dx station is transmitting, hence split is needed. But, anyone who has been a Dxer for more than 5 minutes knows this. What is the solution to the qrm on the DX frequency? Well, if someone doesn't know the DX is woking split, or by accident is on the wrong VFO, or whatever, it would be no problem if ppeople had the smallest amount of self control. If the offending station is calling with proper timing, when the Dx says QRZ, or is otherwise ready for a call, calling on the DX transmit frequency is of no consequence other than a waste of time for the caller. The trouble is the lack of self control which requires many listeners to try to enlighten this individual. They are now transmitting when the DX is transmitting, rendering the DX inaudible to many. Is there a solution? Apparently not. These are likely not new or inexperienced DXers. Education hasn't worked, expecting people to change their personality or develop self control is a lost cause. The bedlam will continue. What about intentional qrmers? Nothing short of direction finding and enforcement by Governments will have any effect on that, and that simply will not happen. What choice does the Dx have but to continue on the best he can, and work those fortunate enough to hear him through the bedlam? I have even monitored stations intentionally interfering with high seas rescue operations where lives hung in the balance. If people with transmitting equipment are sick enough to do that, how can we expect any less regarding Dx operations? There are many possible motives involved in qrming a particular Dx operation, and expecting the ones doing such things to somehow develop self control and concern for one's fellow man is not realistic. Can we somehow come up with new ways to circumvent the problem of qrm on the DX transmit frequency? Maybe, but I don't think answering callers on their own frequency is the way. I think this has been done before, resulting in massive chaos. 73 for now, Duane, WV2B "Nothinggreatiseverachievedwithoutenthusiasm."-RalphWaldoEmerson.
Re: [DX-CHAT] Question
Many times through the years when a DX station has asked for "up" several times and is ignored they have immediately gone QRT.look forward to this in the future also. 73 Norm K1AA - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dx-chat@njdxa.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 10:01 AM Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] Question Assuming the Dx station moves around and answers callers on their own frequency, and does not work more than one caller on a particular frequency- The DX operator has no way to communicate to the pileup as a whole. They will be listening on their own frequency for the Dx to answer them, not listening for other qsos. As new stations find the pileup, or see it spotted, will likely begin spreading out farther and farther trying to be sure they are calling on a clear frequency. Even if the spread is mentioned in DX spots operators will likely try to push the edges hoping the Dx will go just a little higher to find them in the clear. Although finding the frequency of the previous qso and calling there, or where the Dx will next be listening, is a pretty basic skill to DXing, I think you will find 90% of the callers are not doing this. They sit in one spot, or pick spots at random, and call their lungs out. If they are loud enough eventually they get the contact, but not with the satisfaction of getting it because they were able to listen and choose the best place and time to call. I have been able to very easily work weak JA callers from CY9 despite many loud US and European callers by finding a relatively clear spot in the listening spread and dropping hints to the pileup. Just say "203" for example. The good DXers are listening, and within a few seconds call on that frequency. You can work 6- 10 stations before the crowd listen long enough to catch on. When the bedlam starts, find another fairly clear spot and again just mention the frequency. The best Dxers get the contact easily, while many others blindly call barely taking a breath. I have put many good JA operators in the log this way. But- that was not the question. Really, except perhaps in the biggest pileups, split would not be needed if operators were able to listen and use timing. Obviously, this is not possible. Stations simply cannot contain themselves enough to call when the DX asks QRZ or otherwise indicates he is ready for a call, and not transmit the rest of the time. But, too many stations must transmit all the time, even if the DX has identified another station and is trying to work it. They transmit when they are not the station identified, and often even while the Dx station is transmitting, hence split is needed. But, anyone who has been a Dxer for more than 5 minutes knows this. What is the solution to the qrm on the DX frequency? Well, if someone doesn't know the DX is woking split, or by accident is on the wrong VFO, or whatever, it would be no problem if ppeople had the smallest amount of self control. If the offending station is calling with proper timing, when the Dx says QRZ, or is otherwise ready for a call, calling on the DX transmit frequency is of no consequence other than a waste of time for the caller. The trouble is the lack of self control which requires many listeners to try to enlighten this individual. They are now transmitting when the DX is transmitting, rendering the DX inaudible to many. Is there a solution? Apparently not. These are likely not new or inexperienced DXers. Education hasn't worked, expecting people to change their personality or develop self control is a lost cause. The bedlam will continue. What about intentional qrmers? Nothing short of direction finding and enforcement by Governments will have any effect on that, and that simply will not happen. What choice does the Dx have but to continue on the best he can, and work those fortunate enough to hear him through the bedlam? I have even monitored stations intentionally interfering with high seas rescue operations where lives hung in the balance. If people with transmitting equipment are sick enough to do that, how can we expect any less regarding Dx operations? There are many possible motives involved in qrming a particular Dx operation, and expecting the ones doing such things to somehow develop self control and concern for one's fellow man is not realistic. Can we somehow come up with new ways to circumvent the problem of qrm on the DX transmit frequency? Maybe, but I don't think answering callers on their own frequency is the way. I think this has been done before, resulting in massive chaos. 73 for now, Duane, WV2B "Nothinggreatiseverachievedwithoutenthusiasm."-RalphWaldoEmerson.
Re: [DX-CHAT] Question
At 10:01 03/19/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the solution to the qrm on the DX frequency? Well, if someone doesn't know the DX is woking split, or by accident is on the wrong VFO, or whatever, it would be no problem if ppeople had the smallest amount of self control. If the offending station is calling with proper timing, when the Dx says QRZ, or is otherwise ready for a call, calling on the DX transmit frequency is of no consequence other than a waste of time for the caller. If I recall, 14195 became the DX frequency because it was a place where DX stations could TX but that Americans could not (US privileges started at 14200 for the longest time). Maybe it's time to revive that tradition and make 14145 the new default DX frequency on 20 SSB. It could have the added advantage of EU/JA pileups down 5 to 15 and stateside callers up 10-20 or something like that. The advice I'd give to anyone going to a top-10 entity and operating SSB would be to not use half the band and once in a while mention where you're listening. That means concentrating the pile between two hard limits (listening 5 to 20 up) -- and staying within those limits. That in turn means you need an operator on the DXpedition who can run a pileup that's very intense and concentrated. Most of the Peter1 guys were great, but a couple of their 40m CW guys would just keep going up up up up up. 30 kHz for a CW pileup is nuts, especially when you're not announcing where you're listening and just saying UP. - Peter W2IRT Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
Re: [DX-CHAT] Question
What
about intentional qrmers?
These guys have now found another way to make it difficult for DX'ers in a
"split" pile-up. They quickly find the station that's been answered by the
DX-station and send a carrier over the caller instead - this also
prevents the QSO to "be finished".
Whatever we do, these intentional QRM'ers will be ahead of us!
73/DX de Osten SM5DQC ( also SM5DXCC )
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From:
Norm Gertz
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; dx-chat@njdxa.org
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 4:39
PM
Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] Question
Many times through the years when a DX
station has asked for "up" several times and is ignored they have immediately
gone QRT.look forward to this in the future also.
73 Norm
K1AA
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dx-chat@njdxa.org
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 10:01
AM
Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] Question
What about intentional
qrmers? Nothing short of direction finding and enforcement by Governments
will have any effect on that, and that simply will not happen. What choice
does the Dx have but to continue on the best he can, and work those
fortunate enough to hear him through the bedlam? I have even monitored
stations intentionally interfering with high seas rescue operations where
lives hung in the balance. If people with transmitting equipment are sick
enough to do that, how can we expect any less regarding Dx operations? There
are many possible motives involved in qrming a particular Dx operation, and
expecting the ones doing such things to somehow develop self control and
concern for one's fellow man is not realistic. Can we somehow come up with
new ways to circumvent the problem of qrm on the DX transmit frequency?
Maybe, but I don't think answering callers on their own frequency is the
way. I think this has been done before, resulting in massive chaos.
73 for now,
Duane, WV2B
__SNIP by
SM5DQC__
RE: [DX-CHAT] Question
Peter, Hmmm. Not a bad idea, but I'm not so sure how well it would work. Remember, at the time that US Phone privileges started at 14.200, the 14.1 - 14.2 part of the band was filled with DX Phone. Now, while a lot of the region below 14.150 still has DX Phone, you're also finding more and more digital modes in the same area. More importantly, moving the unofficial calling frequencies won't solve the fundamental problem involved. Wherever the DX station listening up transmits, on any band, you will always have the combined problems of: 1. The DX'er who accidently forgets to put his rig in split and transmits on top of the DX 2. The lid who deliberately neglects to put his rig in split and transmits on top of the DX 3. The alleged DX'er who claims that they can't work split... sometimes true, sometimes not 4. The operator (sometimes DX'er, sometimes not) who hears the DX calling, but doesn't hear or doesn't understand listening up who calls on the DX's frequency 5. The frequency cops, most of whom mean well, who transmit on top of the DX to try and tell the aforementioned ops that they're QRM'ing the DX... and in the process, QRM the DX 6. The net or alleged net or sked or alleged sked that always operates on or around this frequency and time, thus giving them hypothetical ownership of the frequency range, who either demand that the DX move, the pile-up move, or who blunder on with their QSO anyway 7. The usually innocent QSO that suddenly gets QRM from the DX and/or pileup due to propagation shift, who rather than move (if they can) try to blunder on, either not knowing or not caring that they're now QRM'ing the DX pileup back I can go on, and I'm sure someone will add a few, but you get the point. Some of this can be solved by better operators... and better operators happen when those of us who know them try to teach them or show them better. Some of this is just, well, bad luck. And some of this is caused by that extremely small percentage of lids (and even smaller percentage of those who make regular lids look good) who for their own reasons of ego, perceived slights, general mean streaks, sadism, or mental illness (diagnosed or otherwise) enjoy making life miserable for the rest of us. 73 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Peter W2IRT Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 10:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; dx-chat@njdxa.org Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] Question At 10:01 03/19/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the solution to the qrm on the DX frequency? Well, if someone doesn't know the DX is woking split, or by accident is on the wrong VFO, or whatever, it would be no problem if ppeople had the smallest amount of self control. If the offending station is calling with proper timing, when the Dx says QRZ, or is otherwise ready for a call, calling on the DX transmit frequency is of no consequence other than a waste of time for the caller. If I recall, 14195 became the DX frequency because it was a place where DX stations could TX but that Americans could not (US privileges started at 14200 for the longest time). Maybe it's time to revive that tradition and make 14145 the new default DX frequency on 20 SSB. It could have the added advantage of EU/JA pileups down 5 to 15 and stateside callers up 10-20 or something like that. The advice I'd give to anyone going to a top-10 entity and operating SSB would be to not use half the band and once in a while mention where you're listening. That means concentrating the pile between two hard limits (listening 5 to 20 up) -- and staying within those limits. That in turn means you need an operator on the DXpedition who can run a pileup that's very intense and concentrated. Most of the Peter1 guys were great, but a couple of their 40m CW guys would just keep going up up up up up. 30 kHz for a CW pileup is nuts, especially when you're not announcing where you're listening and just saying UP. - Peter W2IRT Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
[DX-CHAT] Question
. If I recall, 14195 became the DX frequency because it was a place where DX stations could TX but that Americans could not (US privileges started at 14200 for the longest time). Maybe it's time to revive that tradition and make 14145 the new default DX frequency on 20 SSB. It could have the added advantage of EU/JA pileups down 5 to 15 and stateside callers up 10-20 or something like that. --- Why not go back to what we had back in the good old days , when the rare DX transmitted down around 14115-14125 and listened up. That should help with some of the splatter we ,at least in Europe, get from certain stations in the Med-area ! 73 Rag LA5HE Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
Re: [DX-CHAT] Question
This will never endthese intentional
jammers are the equivalent of the "schoolyard bullies"...
whether from frustration or twisted
philosophies they will sadly always be with us.
Norm K1AA
- Original Message -
From:
Osten B
Magnusson
To: Norm Gertz ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; dx-chat@njdxa.org
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 10:53
AM
Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] Question
What about intentional qrmers?
These guys have now found another way to make it difficult for DX'ers in
a "split" pile-up. They quickly find the station that's been answered by the
DX-station and send a carrier over the caller instead - this also
prevents the QSO to "be finished".
Whatever we do, these intentional QRM'ers will be ahead of us!
73/DX de Osten SM5DQC ( also SM5DXCC
) [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From:
Norm Gertz
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; dx-chat@njdxa.org
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 4:39
PM
Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] Question
Many times through the years when a DX
station has asked for "up" several times and is ignored they have
immediately gone QRT.look forward to this in the future
also.
73 Norm
K1AA
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dx-chat@njdxa.org
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 10:01
AM
Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] Question
What about intentional
qrmers? Nothing short of direction finding and enforcement by Governments
will have any effect on that, and that simply will not happen. What choice
does the Dx have but to continue on the best he can, and work those
fortunate enough to hear him through the bedlam? I have even monitored
stations intentionally interfering with high seas rescue operations where
lives hung in the balance. If people with transmitting equipment are sick
enough to do that, how can we expect any less regarding Dx operations?
There are many possible motives involved in qrming a particular Dx
operation, and expecting the ones doing such things to somehow develop
self control and concern for one's fellow man is not realistic. Can we
somehow come up with new ways to circumvent the problem of qrm on the DX
transmit frequency? Maybe, but I don't think answering callers on their
own frequency is the way. I think this has been done before, resulting in
massive chaos.
73 for now,
Duane, WV2B
__SNIP by
SM5DQC__
Re: [DX-CHAT] Question
And how about CW DX going back to 14001-14002? Bill W5EC Why not go back to what we had back in the good old days , when the rare DX transmitted down around 14115-14125 Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
Re: [DX-CHAT] Question
Ron, I must add one more as I know this for a fact. Now that we are near the bottom of this sunspot cycle, some of those Freeband Nuts in Europe and the US that have all that expensive ham gear can't use it much on 27 28 MHz. They are having Big Fun QRMing ham DXpeditions and braging about it on their web sites. I will take this opportunity to thank all the Gentlemen DXers that have responded to my question here on dx-chat and direct. It has been very informative. Dave - K4SSU (K4SSU/KP1) - Original Message - From: Ron Notarius WN3VAW [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dx-chat@njdxa.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 11:05 AM Subject: RE: [DX-CHAT] Question Peter, Hmmm. Not a bad idea, but I'm not so sure how well it would work. Remember, at the time that US Phone privileges started at 14.200, the 14.1 - 14.2 part of the band was filled with DX Phone. Now, while a lot of the region below 14.150 still has DX Phone, you're also finding more and more digital modes in the same area. More importantly, moving the unofficial calling frequencies won't solve the fundamental problem involved. Wherever the DX station listening up transmits, on any band, you will always have the combined problems of: 1. The DX'er who accidently forgets to put his rig in split and transmits on top of the DX 2. The lid who deliberately neglects to put his rig in split and transmits on top of the DX 3. The alleged DX'er who claims that they can't work split... sometimes true, sometimes not 4. The operator (sometimes DX'er, sometimes not) who hears the DX calling, but doesn't hear or doesn't understand listening up who calls on the DX's frequency 5. The frequency cops, most of whom mean well, who transmit on top of the DX to try and tell the aforementioned ops that they're QRM'ing the DX... and in the process, QRM the DX 6. The net or alleged net or sked or alleged sked that always operates on or around this frequency and time, thus giving them hypothetical ownership of the frequency range, who either demand that the DX move, the pile-up move, or who blunder on with their QSO anyway 7. The usually innocent QSO that suddenly gets QRM from the DX and/or pileup due to propagation shift, who rather than move (if they can) try to blunder on, either not knowing or not caring that they're now QRM'ing the DX pileup back I can go on, and I'm sure someone will add a few, but you get the point. Some of this can be solved by better operators... and better operators happen when those of us who know them try to teach them or show them better. Some of this is just, well, bad luck. And some of this is caused by that extremely small percentage of lids (and even smaller percentage of those who make regular lids look good) who for their own reasons of ego, perceived slights, general mean streaks, sadism, or mental illness (diagnosed or otherwise) enjoy making life miserable for the rest of us. 73 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Peter W2IRT Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 10:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; dx-chat@njdxa.org Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] Question At 10:01 03/19/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the solution to the qrm on the DX frequency? Well, if someone doesn't know the DX is woking split, or by accident is on the wrong VFO, or whatever, it would be no problem if ppeople had the smallest amount of self control. If the offending station is calling with proper timing, when the Dx says QRZ, or is otherwise ready for a call, calling on the DX transmit frequency is of no consequence other than a waste of time for the caller. If I recall, 14195 became the DX frequency because it was a place where DX stations could TX but that Americans could not (US privileges started at 14200 for the longest time). Maybe it's time to revive that tradition and make 14145 the new default DX frequency on 20 SSB. It could have the added advantage of EU/JA pileups down 5 to 15 and stateside callers up 10-20 or something like that. The advice I'd give to anyone going to a top-10 entity and operating SSB would be to not use half the band and once in a while mention where you're listening. That means concentrating the pile between two hard limits (listening 5 to 20 up) -- and staying within those limits. That in turn means you need an operator on the DXpedition who can run a pileup that's very intense and concentrated. Most of the Peter1 guys were great, but a couple of their 40m CW guys would just keep going up up up up up. 30 kHz for a CW pileup is nuts, especially when you're not announcing where you're listening and just saying UP. - Peter W2IRT Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only
RE: [DX-CHAT] Question
At 11:05 03/19/06, Ron Notarius WN3VAW wrote: 6. The net or alleged net or sked or alleged sked that always operates on or around this frequency and time, thus giving them hypothetical ownership of the frequency range, who either demand that the DX move, the pile-up move, or who blunder on with their QSO anyway 7. The usually innocent QSO that suddenly gets QRM from the DX and/or pileup due to propagation shift, who rather than move (if they can) try to blunder on, either not knowing or not caring that they're now QRM'ing the DX pileup back Well, going outside the US phone bands would certainly take care of these, from the North American end of things at least. As for frequency cops, no, you'll never get rid of those cretins. For those who forget or have problems comprehending the term split and who tx out of band (I don't hear it too terribly on 40 SSB, just a couple here and there), well, just get Riley to stand by with a tape recorder and a pad of violation notices. Hey! What an idea! Have the FCC sponsor DXpeditions to Navassa and Desecheo, listen for the US lids to transmit out of band, fine' 'em all and have the national debt retired in two weekends flat! - Peter W2IRT Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
Re: [DX-CHAT] Question
We're giving the freebanders and intentional QRMers entirely too much attention and too much publicity. Going back 40+ years I can't remember a DXpedition that didn't get some QRM, though it's a lot more these days... but that just makes working the DX that much more of a challenge. Ignore those malicious QRMers. They only do it to irritate us, and when we get annoyed, they win. Every time I hear one of the Deserving lose his cool and even acknowledge the existence of these jerks, I cringe... because some idiot QRMer just got what he wanted. We need to keep our focus on the DX, play the game our way, not their way, and work the DX right over them. Pretend they are not even there. That way, we win and they lose. Something to think about. 73, Jerry K3BZ - Original Message - From: David Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ron Notarius WN3VAW [EMAIL PROTECTED]; dx-chat@njdxa.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 12:41 PM Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] Question Ron, I must add one more as I know this for a fact. Now that we are near the bottom of this sunspot cycle, some of those Freeband Nuts in Europe and the US that have all that expensive ham gear can't use it much on 27 28 MHz. They are having Big Fun QRMing ham DXpeditions and braging about it on their web sites. I will take this opportunity to thank all the Gentlemen DXers that have responded to my question here on dx-chat and direct. It has been very informative. Dave - K4SSU (K4SSU/KP1) - Original Message - From: Ron Notarius WN3VAW [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dx-chat@njdxa.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 11:05 AM Subject: RE: [DX-CHAT] Question Peter, Hmmm. Not a bad idea, but I'm not so sure how well it would work. Remember, at the time that US Phone privileges started at 14.200, the 14.1 - 14.2 part of the band was filled with DX Phone. Now, while a lot of the region below 14.150 still has DX Phone, you're also finding more and more digital modes in the same area. More importantly, moving the unofficial calling frequencies won't solve the fundamental problem involved. Wherever the DX station listening up transmits, on any band, you will always have the combined problems of: 1. The DX'er who accidently forgets to put his rig in split and transmits on top of the DX 2. The lid who deliberately neglects to put his rig in split and transmits on top of the DX 3. The alleged DX'er who claims that they can't work split... sometimes true, sometimes not 4. The operator (sometimes DX'er, sometimes not) who hears the DX calling, but doesn't hear or doesn't understand listening up who calls on the DX's frequency 5. The frequency cops, most of whom mean well, who transmit on top of the DX to try and tell the aforementioned ops that they're QRM'ing the DX... and in the process, QRM the DX 6. The net or alleged net or sked or alleged sked that always operates on or around this frequency and time, thus giving them hypothetical ownership of the frequency range, who either demand that the DX move, the pile-up move, or who blunder on with their QSO anyway 7. The usually innocent QSO that suddenly gets QRM from the DX and/or pileup due to propagation shift, who rather than move (if they can) try to blunder on, either not knowing or not caring that they're now QRM'ing the DX pileup back I can go on, and I'm sure someone will add a few, but you get the point. Some of this can be solved by better operators... and better operators happen when those of us who know them try to teach them or show them better. Some of this is just, well, bad luck. And some of this is caused by that extremely small percentage of lids (and even smaller percentage of those who make regular lids look good) who for their own reasons of ego, perceived slights, general mean streaks, sadism, or mental illness (diagnosed or otherwise) enjoy making life miserable for the rest of us. 73 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Peter W2IRT Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 10:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; dx-chat@njdxa.org Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] Question At 10:01 03/19/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the solution to the qrm on the DX frequency? Well, if someone doesn't know the DX is woking split, or by accident is on the wrong VFO, or whatever, it would be no problem if ppeople had the smallest amount of self control. If the offending station is calling with proper timing, when the Dx says QRZ, or is otherwise ready for a call, calling on the DX transmit frequency is of no consequence other than a waste of time for the caller. If I recall, 14195 became the DX frequency because it was a place where DX stations could TX but that Americans could not (US privileges started at 14200 for the longest time). Maybe it's time to revive that tradition and make 14145 the new default DX frequency on 20 SSB. It could have the added advantage of EU/JA pileups down 5 to 15 and stateside callers up
Re: [DX-CHAT] Question
Very true Jerry.some years back when the cesspool of amateur radio 14313 existed a college professor psyciatrist who specialized in this type of behaviour gave one sentence of advice for this situation Ignore, Ignore and Ignore 73 Norm K1AA - Original Message - From: Jerry Keller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dx-chat@njdxa.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 3:23 PM Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] Question We're giving the freebanders and intentional QRMers entirely too much attention and too much publicity. Going back 40+ years I can't remember a DXpedition that didn't get some QRM, though it's a lot more these days... but that just makes working the DX that much more of a challenge. Ignore those malicious QRMers. They only do it to irritate us, and when we get annoyed, they win. Every time I hear one of the Deserving lose his cool and even acknowledge the existence of these jerks, I cringe... because some idiot QRMer just got what he wanted. We need to keep our focus on the DX, play the game our way, not their way, and work the DX right over them. Pretend they are not even there. That way, we win and they lose. Something to think about. 73, Jerry K3BZ - Original Message - From: David Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ron Notarius WN3VAW [EMAIL PROTECTED]; dx-chat@njdxa.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 12:41 PM Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] Question Ron, I must add one more as I know this for a fact. Now that we are near the bottom of this sunspot cycle, some of those Freeband Nuts in Europe and the US that have all that expensive ham gear can't use it much on 27 28 MHz. They are having Big Fun QRMing ham DXpeditions and braging about it on their web sites. I will take this opportunity to thank all the Gentlemen DXers that have responded to my question here on dx-chat and direct. It has been very informative. Dave - K4SSU (K4SSU/KP1) - Original Message - From: Ron Notarius WN3VAW [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dx-chat@njdxa.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 11:05 AM Subject: RE: [DX-CHAT] Question Peter, Hmmm. Not a bad idea, but I'm not so sure how well it would work. Remember, at the time that US Phone privileges started at 14.200, the 14.1 - 14.2 part of the band was filled with DX Phone. Now, while a lot of the region below 14.150 still has DX Phone, you're also finding more and more digital modes in the same area. More importantly, moving the unofficial calling frequencies won't solve the fundamental problem involved. Wherever the DX station listening up transmits, on any band, you will always have the combined problems of: 1. The DX'er who accidently forgets to put his rig in split and transmits on top of the DX 2. The lid who deliberately neglects to put his rig in split and transmits on top of the DX 3. The alleged DX'er who claims that they can't work split... sometimes true, sometimes not 4. The operator (sometimes DX'er, sometimes not) who hears the DX calling, but doesn't hear or doesn't understand listening up who calls on the DX's frequency 5. The frequency cops, most of whom mean well, who transmit on top of the DX to try and tell the aforementioned ops that they're QRM'ing the DX... and in the process, QRM the DX 6. The net or alleged net or sked or alleged sked that always operates on or around this frequency and time, thus giving them hypothetical ownership of the frequency range, who either demand that the DX move, the pile-up move, or who blunder on with their QSO anyway 7. The usually innocent QSO that suddenly gets QRM from the DX and/or pileup due to propagation shift, who rather than move (if they can) try to blunder on, either not knowing or not caring that they're now QRM'ing the DX pileup back I can go on, and I'm sure someone will add a few, but you get the point. Some of this can be solved by better operators... and better operators happen when those of us who know them try to teach them or show them better. Some of this is just, well, bad luck. And some of this is caused by that extremely small percentage of lids (and even smaller percentage of those who make regular lids look good) who for their own reasons of ego, perceived slights, general mean streaks, sadism, or mental illness (diagnosed or otherwise) enjoy making life miserable for the rest of us. 73 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Peter W2IRT Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 10:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; dx-chat@njdxa.org Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] Question At 10:01 03/19/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the solution to the qrm on the DX frequency? Well, if someone doesn't know the DX is woking split, or by accident is on the wrong VFO, or whatever, it would be no problem if ppeople had the smallest amount of self control. If the offending station is calling with proper timing, when the Dx says QRZ, or is otherwise ready for a call, calling on the DX transmit frequency
[DX-CHAT] question?
I should know the answer to this but am not sure where to look, so I'll ask... This question is in ref to portable identifiers attached to call signs and pertains to LOTW for additional call signs...such as, for my call when I go to the Dom Rep to operate in the summer as hi9/k8wk ---or--- as the license was issued to me k8wk/hi9. Which is the correct method? hi9/k8wk or k8wk/hi9. I see and hear both and have used both but truthfully don't really know what is correct. Anybody knowledgeable and can help educate me? 73/dx steve, k8wk * Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
Re: [DX-CHAT] question?
Steve, I'm not sure what you mean by correct method. Once upon a time YourCall/PortablePrefix was the way everyone did it, be it a different domestic call area (ie K8WK/3 or F9ABC/8) or DX (ie K8WK/VP9). (Although in some DX entities, a /p to indicate portable was, and is, also appened). This began to change in the late 1970's and early '80's, as it started to be noticed (especially in, but not exclusively in, contests) that some people were missing the DX prefix when tacked onto the end... in other words, if someone wanted to work you on Guam (ie K8WK/KH2), and weren't paying attention, they'd tune out your call before you got to the prefix. By putting the prefix first (KH2/K8WK), you clearly indicate the DX entity you're working from, thereby avoiding that problem. So, while doing it either way is acceptable, putting the prefix first is better. And I should note... if the government in question issues you a call with the prefix first, then that's what you have to use (ie if K8WK/VP2M is on the ticket, that's your call, even if VP2M/K8WK makes more sense). I believe the US/Canada automatic reciprocity treaty requires the prefix appended after, not before, the call. Also, if I'm not mistaken, I think some of the other reciprocity agreements may either require or recommend the order in which the prefix comes -- it's been a while since I reviewed the details on CEPT and some of the others, so someone more in the know can answer that one. From a computer loggging standpoint, it's certainly easier to program the system (be it general logging or contesting) if the prefix is put first, but a decent programmer willing to take the extra time can set up a routine to parse the callsign inputted to extract the prefix. Some programmers are or were not willing to do that, but that's another story. And I have had a few cases where I've put the portable DX in my logs as prefix/callsign, and had a less than pleasant note on the QSL card indicating that technically, I've logged the call incorrectly, as they sent it the other way! At least no one's rejected a QSL card on that basis... yet. 73, ron wn3vaw 46th Annual Pennsylvania QSO Party October 11 12! www.nittany-arc.org/paqso.html Look for N3SH - Allegheny County, WA3SH - Fayette County, and NP2SH -- US Virgin Islands! For more information see www.washarc.org - Original Message - From: litwins [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 1:12 PM Subject: [DX-CHAT] question? I should know the answer to this but am not sure where to look, so I'll ask... This question is in ref to portable identifiers attached to call signs and pertains to LOTW for additional call signs...such as, for my call when I go to the Dom Rep to operate in the summer as hi9/k8wk ---or--- as the license was issued to me k8wk/hi9. Which is the correct method? hi9/k8wk or k8wk/hi9. I see and hear both and have used both but truthfully don't really know what is correct. Anybody knowledgeable and can help educate me? 73/dx steve, k8wk * Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
Re: [DX-CHAT] question?
It should also be noted that the US/Canada reciprocal agreement pre-dates the now generally-accepted standard of prefix / homecall. But having said that... I have to agree with Fred that I really doubt that anyone is going to bust his chops for signing VO2/K2FRD instead of K2FRD/VO2 -- at best, if someone had really made an issue out of it, he might have gotten a note from Riley saying something on the lines of naughty, naughty, don't do it again and that would be the end of it. 73, ron wn3vaw 46th Annual Pennsylvania QSO Party October 11 12! www.nittany-arc.org/paqso.html Look for N3SH - Allegheny County, WA3SH - Fayette County, and NP2SH -- US Virgin Islands! For more information see www.washarc.org - Original Message - From: Fred Stevens K2FRD [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 6:57 PM Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] question? At 11:21 -0700 05/10/03, John and Mari Minke wrote: Art RX9TX wrote: HI9/K8WK, definitely. I think it is one of IARU recommendations. Europeans and JA's always use only that method. Actually, I think it would be what the license says. U.S. stations operating in Canada use their call appended by the proper Camadian prefix and vice versa per agreement between both countries. In other words if I operated from the Yukon it would be N6JM/VY1, not VY1/N6JM. This whole problem was created by the computer age of logging where the program could not recognize calls appended as such. Hopefully this new system can recognize the calls appended either way. In the latter case, if I were to operate from Siberia it definitely would be RX9/N6JM. I went through this three years ago preparing for a mini-DXpedition to Labrador, whether to sign as K2FRD/VO2 or VO2/K2FRD. True, with the US as a signatory with various IARU and ITU treaties, the portable locator should go before the home callsign (e.g. VO2/K2FRD), but a reciprocal agreement between the US and Canada nominally has it after (e.g. K2FRD/VO2) in apparent contravention to the various IARU and ITU treaties. Since Canada's RICs aren't particularly clear on the issue and the FCC Rules leave room for interpretation, I chose VO2/K2FRD since it is the industry standard of ham radio and for the above electronic logging reason. In truth, probably neither government is going to invest a lot of time obsessing with which way a portable station signs as long as the information is present and correct. -- 73 de Fred Stevens K2FRD Chenango Co. (NY) Assistant Emergency Coordinator 2004 Labrador VO2/K2FRD mini-DXpedition: http://home.stny.rr.com/k2frd/Labrador2004.htm Foothills District, Otschodela Council BSA Committees Otschodela Council (BSA) Amateur Radio Group KZ2BSA: http://home.stny.rr.com/k2frd/ocarg.htm K2FRD Personal Adventure page: http://home.stny.rr.com/k2frd/K2FRD.htm Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
Re: [DX-CHAT] question?
Ron Notarius WN3VAW wrote: Steve, I'm not sure what you mean by correct method. Once upon a time YourCall/PortablePrefix was the way everyone did it, be it a different domestic call area (ie K8WK/3 or F9ABC/8) or DX (ie K8WK/VP9). (Although in some DX entities, a /p to indicate portable was, and is, also appened). This began to change in the late 1970's and early '80's, as it started to be noticed (especially in, but not exclusively in, contests) that some people were missing the DX prefix when tacked onto the end... in other words, if someone wanted to work you on Guam (ie K8WK/KH2), and weren't paying attention, they'd tune out your call before you got to the prefix. By putting the prefix first (KH2/K8WK), you clearly indicate the DX entity you're working from, thereby avoiding that problem. So, while doing it either way is acceptable, putting the prefix first is better. Yes, however international recomendations, or is it regulations, (IARU) stipulates the prefix to come first. In my book that would be the way to go. 73 Jim SM2EKM Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
Re: [DX-CHAT] question?
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 06:57:56PM -0400, Fred Stevens K2FRD wrote: At 11:21 -0700 05/10/03, John and Mari Minke wrote: Art RX9TX wrote: HI9/K8WK, definitely. I think it is one of IARU recommendations. Europeans and JA's always use only that method. Actually, I think it would be what the license says. U.S. stations operating in Canada use their call appended by the proper Camadian prefix and vice versa per agreement between both countries. In other words if I operated from the Yukon it would be N6JM/VY1, not VY1/N6JM. This whole problem was created by the computer age of logging where the program could not recognize calls appended as such. Hopefully this new system can recognize the calls appended either way. In the latter case, if I were to operate from Siberia it definitely would be RX9/N6JM. I went through this three years ago preparing for a mini-DXpedition to Labrador, whether to sign as K2FRD/VO2 or VO2/K2FRD. True, with the US as a signatory with various IARU and ITU treaties, the portable locator should go before the home callsign (e.g. VO2/K2FRD), but a reciprocal agreement between the US and Canada nominally has it after (e.g. K2FRD/VO2) in apparent contravention to the various IARU and ITU treaties. Since Canada's RICs aren't particularly clear on the issue and the FCC Rules leave room for interpretation, I chose VO2/K2FRD since it is the industry standard of ham radio and for the above electronic logging reason. In truth, probably neither government is going to invest a lot of time obsessing with which way a portable station signs as long as the information is present and correct. The RAC web site http://www.rac.ca/rcip.htm says essentially the same thing. At the time the US/Canada agreement was made, having it after the callsign was the accepted practice. Bob, N7XY Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
Re: [DX-CHAT] question about buro
He probably meant qsl via Buro 100 percent... Goood luckk W3BJ On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 12:29:36 -0800 (PST) Gary Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi, I worked CP1UU on cw and he said to qsl via the buro 100. He repeated this a few times. Does that mean to send a $1 with the card to the Buro ? Can you do that? Does anyone have a qsl route on cp1uu. He was on 15 meter cw this afternoon (Sun - 22 Dec) with a good sig into Texas. 73 de N5PHT, Gary __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
Re: [DX-CHAT] Question?
Sherman, First let me say that I am not a software expert! I just received the September 3 issue of "PC Magazine". On the cover it has a big lead in title of: "MAKE YOUR OLD SOFTWARE WORK ON WINDOWS XP". The article begins on page 75. It is too lengthy to repeat here, but it does specifically address running DOS programs. It has detail instructions. I think you should be able to find the magazine, but if not let me know and I will try to scan it in and send. Good Luck. By the way I bought an old PC with windows 98 already installed and more power than I need for all of my Ham programs. I paid $60!! 73 Bill N4NX - Original Message - From: Sherman Harrison To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 10:47 AM Subject: [DX-CHAT] Question? I have all of my logs a friends logs that I am a Qsl Mg'r fer.My main purpose in ham radio is DXing which I dearly luv, having 7 programs on my computer: logging, bearings, etc.None of my Dos-based programs will now open, as well as my TelNet program which isn't dos.Everything was great on my old computers wid Win 95 es Win 98.But on my new computer, Win XP , every time I click on the Desktop Icon, or access the.exe file to bring up the program(s), I get the following: NTVDM.exe error, closing down the program, sorry fer the inconvenience, etc.I've called the maker of my computer es their advice was no good(uninstall es reinstall).I called MSN es all they wanted to give me some needed advice was my credit card # so they could give me sum paid fer advice.BTW, is Gates that greedy?Pse help if U knw how to help me.There is a MSN web site that addresses this problem(s), but it is way over my head.http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;q314106amp73 es gd DXing,SAH,K4KUhttp://www.qsl.net/k4ku
