April 2005 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:12157] Re: Fire At Home
by Richard Mondro 24 Apr '05

24 Apr '05

Rod, I'm also very sorry to hear about your loss from the fire. On the bright side, your losses were all material things and they can be replaced. We once had a small fire when our son, then age seven, decided he was going to clean under his bed and needed a candle to be able to see. Your right, that smoke smell lingers forever. Having spent some time with a volunteer fire department, I learned that strongly scented candles really help get rid of the smell. We used them whenever the fireplace backs up with smoke. We'll keep you in our thoughts and prayers. 73, Dick Dick Mondro, W8FQT w8fqt(a)arrl.org Vice Director, ARRL Great Lakes Division http://greatlakes.arrl.org -----Original Message----- From: w6rod(a)ix.netcom.com [mailto:w6rod@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 12:12 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12149] Fire At Home Well Saturday morning I opened the garage door from the family room into the garage to go out and discovered there was a fire in the garage. By the time I got my son out of the house the garage was just about gutted and the fire moved into the family room and dining room. My wife was out doing some errands. All were safe except the family cat. She didn't make it out the closet where she was hiding. About half the house is totaled. The good news is the side of the house that contains the radio gear was spared. Oh what joy there will be the next few months dealing with the insurance company!! 73, Rod W6ROD -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 4/21/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 4/21/2005

1 0

[arrl-odv:12155] Re: Fire At Home
by Joyce Birmingham 24 Apr '05

24 Apr '05

Rod, So sorry to hear about the fire. SO, GLAD that you and your family are okay. It's a good thing you were home at the time. If there's anything I can do....I know I am far away, but I do offer my friendship and of course prayers for everything to move as quickly and smoothly as possible. Dealing with insurance companies is never fun. 73, Joyce KA2ANF ----- Original Message ----- From: <w6rod(a)ix.netcom.com> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 1:56 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:12152] Re: Fire At Home > Jim -- At this point, I find it hard to believe the house will ever be free of the smoke smell. Everything was covered with smoke residue. 73, Rod > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim K8JE <K8JE(a)arrl.org> > Sent: Apr 23, 2005 10:48 PM > To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> > Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:12149] Fire At Home > > Rod, how horrible and fortunate at the same instant. I hope there > wasn't much coincidental damage. > > Jim Weaver, K8JE > Director, Great Lakes Division ARRL; http://www.arrl.org/ > 5065 Bethany Rd., Mason, OH 45040 > Tel.: 513-459-0142; E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org > ARRL: The reason Amateur Radio Is! > MEMBERS: The reason ARRL Is! > > > -----Original Message----- > From: w6rod(a)ix.netcom.com [mailto:w6rod@ix.netcom.com] > Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 12:12 AM > To: arrl-odv > Subject: [arrl-odv:12149] Fire At Home > > Well Saturday morning I opened the garage door from the family room into > the garage to go out and discovered there was a fire in the garage. By > the time I got my son out of the house the garage was just about gutted > and the fire moved into the family room and dining room. My wife was > out doing some errands. > > All were safe except the family cat. She didn't make it out the closet > where she was hiding. > > About half the house is totaled. The good news is the side of the house > that contains the radio gear was spared. > > Oh what joy there will be the next few months dealing with the insurance > company!! > > 73, Rod W6ROD > > >

1 0

[arrl-odv:12154] Re: Fire At Home
by warren morton 24 Apr '05

24 Apr '05

Rod: I am so very sorry to hear about the fire however I am relieved that no one was hurt. Needless to say we will all be thinking of you and your family in the weeks to come. Take care, Rev WS7W On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 21:12:08 -0700 (GMT-07:00) w6rod(a)ix.netcom.com wrote: > Well Saturday morning I opened the garage door from the family room into the >garage to go out and discovered there was a fire in the garage. By the time >I got my son out of the house the garage was just about gutted and the fire >moved into the family room and dining room. My wife was out doing some >errands. > > All were safe except the family cat. She didn't make it out the closet >where she was hiding. > > About half the house is totaled. The good news is the side of the house >that contains the radio gear was spared. > > Oh what joy there will be the next few months dealing with the insurance >company!! > > 73, Rod W6ROD >

1 0

[arrl-odv:12153] Re: Fire At Home
by Henry R. Leggette 24 Apr '05

24 Apr '05

Hi Rod, I am sorry to hear about the fire in your home. It appears that time was very important at that time. Glad everyone was safe. One good thing your radio equipment is safe. Count what you can salvage a Blessing as it could have been much worse. Henry - WD4Q -------Original Message------- From: w6rod(a)ix.netcom.com Date: 04/23/05 23:14:48 To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12149] Fire At Home Well Saturday morning I opened the garage door from the family room into the garage to go out and discovered there was a fire in the garage. By the time I got my son out of the house the garage was just about gutted and the fire moved into the family room and dining room. My wife was out doing some errands. All were safe except the family cat. She didn't make it out the closet where she was hiding. About half the house is totaled. The good news is the side of the house that contains the radio gear was spared. Oh what joy there will be the next few months dealing with the insurance company!! 73, Rod W6ROD

1 0

[arrl-odv:12152] Re: Fire At Home
by w6rod＠ix.netcom.com 24 Apr '05

24 Apr '05

Jim -- At this point, I find it hard to believe the house will ever be free of the smoke smell. Everything was covered with smoke residue. 73, Rod -----Original Message----- From: Jim K8JE <K8JE(a)arrl.org> Sent: Apr 23, 2005 10:48 PM To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:12149] Fire At Home Rod, how horrible and fortunate at the same instant. I hope there wasn't much coincidental damage. Jim Weaver, K8JE Director, Great Lakes Division ARRL; http://www.arrl.org/ 5065 Bethany Rd., Mason, OH 45040 Tel.: 513-459-0142; E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org ARRL: The reason Amateur Radio Is! MEMBERS: The reason ARRL Is! -----Original Message----- From: w6rod(a)ix.netcom.com [mailto:w6rod@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 12:12 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12149] Fire At Home Well Saturday morning I opened the garage door from the family room into the garage to go out and discovered there was a fire in the garage. By the time I got my son out of the house the garage was just about gutted and the fire moved into the family room and dining room. My wife was out doing some errands. All were safe except the family cat. She didn't make it out the closet where she was hiding. About half the house is totaled. The good news is the side of the house that contains the radio gear was spared. Oh what joy there will be the next few months dealing with the insurance company!! 73, Rod W6ROD

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:12149] Fire At Home
by Jim K8JE 24 Apr '05

24 Apr '05

Rod, how horrible and fortunate at the same instant. I hope there wasn't much coincidental damage. Jim Weaver, K8JE Director, Great Lakes Division ARRL; http://www.arrl.org/ 5065 Bethany Rd., Mason, OH 45040 Tel.: 513-459-0142; E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org ARRL: The reason Amateur Radio Is! MEMBERS: The reason ARRL Is! -----Original Message----- From: w6rod(a)ix.netcom.com [mailto:w6rod@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 12:12 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12149] Fire At Home Well Saturday morning I opened the garage door from the family room into the garage to go out and discovered there was a fire in the garage. By the time I got my son out of the house the garage was just about gutted and the fire moved into the family room and dining room. My wife was out doing some errands. All were safe except the family cat. She didn't make it out the closet where she was hiding. About half the house is totaled. The good news is the side of the house that contains the radio gear was spared. Oh what joy there will be the next few months dealing with the insurance company!! 73, Rod W6ROD

1 0

[arrl-odv:12149] Fire At Home
by w6rod＠ix.netcom.com 24 Apr '05

24 Apr '05

Well Saturday morning I opened the garage door from the family room into the garage to go out and discovered there was a fire in the garage. By the time I got my son out of the house the garage was just about gutted and the fire moved into the family room and dining room. My wife was out doing some errands. All were safe except the family cat. She didn't make it out the closet where she was hiding. About half the house is totaled. The good news is the side of the house that contains the radio gear was spared. Oh what joy there will be the next few months dealing with the insurance company!! 73, Rod W6ROD

1 0

[arrl-odv:12148] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal
by Joel Harrison 22 Apr '05

22 Apr '05

The key factor to remember in our process and proposal is the fact that we're looking 5 to 10 years down the road. I believe we all agree it is better to not have the FCC deciding whether a particular mode is "legal" or not. That being the case, the best route to pursue is to have that decided by maximum bandwidth. The EC, as well as the entire board, has been dealing with all of the issues surrounding the draft petition for some time now. At our EC meeting in Denver, I don't recall any one person on the EC advocating a particular position on what we did, but rather we collectively looked at the matter and reached the consensus that this was the most productive route to pursue keeping in mind that we are looking 5 to 10 years down the road. Under the original draft petition and current EC recommendation, CW and other narrow modes have protection from wide modes in the 200 Hz maximum bandwidth segment, as well as the 500 Hz maximum bandwidth segment. That will still be driven by FCC rules. I understand the questions that arise regarding the 3 KHz maximum bandwidth segments and also the concern about band planning. However, I don't view band planning in the future as the monster some have indicated it has been in the past. While it has been stated we've tried it before and have never gotten anywhere with it, the same can be said about regulation by bandwidth. It has been a topic that has come up and has been batted around for the 18 years I've been on this board but to coin a phrase from the past "We've come a long way baby" in that arena. A lot of the bad taste we have over band planning comes from a failure at VHF. The VHF spectrum is much more complicated for band planning than HF, primarily because at VHF what is a good band plan in Miami is not necessarily a good band plan in Chicago, LA, Wichita Falls or Bald Knob. You not only have to deal with individual mode user groups but geographical preferences as well. HF on the other hand doesn't have the geographical complication to the extent VHF does because of the propagation characteristics at HF. As a case in point, in 1988 the MSC met in Torrance, CA for our regular meeting and the main agenda item was to develop a draft band plan for the "new" 902 MHz band. A number of "user groups" were invited to attend and participate and we collectively developed a good band plan. The problem was when it was published for comment in QST it was entitled "The Torrance 902 MHz Band plan" and everyone else that was not located on the west coast cried foul, thinking a "west coast plan" was being pushed on the rest of the country that different, local geographical arrangements. That scenario does not exist on HF. I haven't seen disagreement of that nature on HF and if our draft petition as it is now became FCC rules you would still have protection for CW and other narrow band modes due to the maximum bandwidth segments. I believe band planning will work at HF, even in the 3 KHz maximum bandwidth segments, if we seriously and aggressively pursue it. I think it works pretty well now. If you want to work SSTV you don't go sniffing around 14.175. If you want to work PSK-31 you don't call CQ on 14.030, and so on. Will there be a few bad apples that want to buck the system? Yep, but a few bad apples do that now and FCC rules aren't stopping them. In addition to band planning, we need to start working on FCC enforcement in a post Riley environment as well because when whatever we decide comes to be Riley will more than likely be retired. I don't view that negatively either because it was the League that brought back enforcement from its non-existent state a few years ago (a fact that Riley makes very clear!) and if we start now we can insure a smooth transition. The question of why "3 KHz" was selected has come up once again and that was covered in CTO Rinaldo's white paper distributed to the board in July 2004 and also covered in the Power Point presentation on Thursday evening at the January 2005 board meeting. It was based on existing modes and what is envisioned at the moment for the near future. Is it enough? Based on what we know now the answer is yes. Whether or not it will be sufficient 10 to 15 years from now one can only speculate, but one thing is for certain. It will be much, much easier to go to the FCC 10 years from now and petition to increase a segments maximum bandwidth than to wrestle with validating some new mode. So from that perspective forging ahead with what we have now paves the way to streamline the process in the future if we need to "increase" the maximum bandwidth of a segment. A number of challenging and exciting things to pursue! I'm very pleased to see the progress we've made, and very pleased to see the comments from everyone as we try to work this out in developing the best petition for filing. 73 Joel W5ZN

1 0

[arrl-odv:12147] June 2005 It Seems to Us and the EC Proposal
by John Bellows 22 Apr '05

22 Apr '05

As promised I have been p( )ssive on the ODV for more than a day on the Bandwidth proposal. Having read Daves June edition of It Seems To Us I am beginning to wonder if the EC Proposal goes far enough. Let me make it clear that the following comments are made with the full understanding that in the June editorial Dave is explaining the rationale and promoting the EC Proposal. Frankly, I think he has done an excellent job of meeting those goals. If we believe as Dave states The FCC rules cannot efficiently prevent conflicts in HF spectrum usage between amateurs pursuing different interests. He further states (U)sing the FCC rules to subdivide the amateur HF bands is the wrong way to do it. It is too difficult and takes too long to change them. If we also believe the FCC rulemaking approach is too inefficient, slow and unresponsive to the needs of the Amateur community. Finally if we believe the responsibility for re solving conflicts must be shouldered by the amateur community itself, then our proposal ought to seek elimination of both mode and bandwidth restrictions throughout the HF bands and we should rely solely on Amateur developed Band Plans. Fro starters we could adopt the current regulatory scheme as our Band Plan. Dave notes todays mechanisms for updating band plans are not adequate to the task and we need to develop and implement better mechanisms that will gain broad acceptance by amateurs and will be seen as adequately protecting their sometimes-conflicting interests. Then our efforts and energies ought to be devoted to generating a mechanism adequate to meet current needs to update band plans not arguing about where to have FCC draw the lines between narrow, wide and ultra-wide uses. Our experience has been that FCC would relish the opportunity not to have to deal with Amateur frequency allocation issues. If Band Plans are the solution, lets do it! Lets do it now and lets do it right. If Band Plans are the solution, the allocation, modes and usage wars would be within the Amateur community, not before FCC. We could devote all our advocacy dollars to spectrum protection and fight our internecine allocation and usage wars outside the FCC. Certainly there are risks with this approach. For starters, who is to say ARRL should establish the Band Plan? Who is to say the Band Plan discussions wont generate more antipathy toward ARRL and cause us to lose more members? If we truly believe that the best way to manage our spectrum is through Band Planning, why do it by half measures? 73, Jay, KØQB

1 0

[arrl-odv:12146] Re: June QST editorial
by Richard Mondro 22 Apr '05

22 Apr '05

Excellent work Dave, as usual. Thanks. 73, Dick Dick Mondro, W8FQT HYPERLINK "mailto:w8fqt@arrl.org"w8fqt(a)arrl.org Vice Director, ARRL Great Lakes Division HYPERLINK "http://greatlakes.arrl.org"http://greatlakes.arrl.org _____ From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 1:26 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12144] June QST editorial Here is a preview of the June QST editorial, in case it will help you field comments on the bandwidth issue. Feel free to borrow from it, but please don't distribute it in advance of the appearance of the issue in mid-May. 73, Dave K1ZZ <<qs0506.pdf>> -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 4/21/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 4/21/2005

1 0