[ICOM] PRO III
D C *Mac* Macdonald
k2gkk at hotmail.com
Mon Mar 5 16:54:49 EST 2007
Not to worry from this quarter, Ken.
It all arose from the "decertification" of almost
all ham gear from participation in various activities
that SUPPPORT military services. Nobody is
"recruiting" or anything of that nature. My own
comment was that the new NTIA specifications
are counterproductive to attracting or retaining
ham radio operators as volunteers.
73 - Mac, K2GKK/5
USAF, Retired
ArcLight Aircrew, 1965
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Ken Kinyon" <w7ts at comcast.net>
Reply-To: ICOM Reflector <icom at mailman.qth.net>
To: "ICOM Reflector" <icom at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: RE: [ICOM] PRO III
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 14:48:32 -0700
Ok,
I don't know if I got any responses to my last, because I signed off the
list
for a while.
However I apologize for what I did not intend to be an insult to anyone who
is
or has been in the military. I sent the message out of frustration with all
the
MARS/CAP stuff on the various lists lately. It is my opinion that it is not
Amateur radio. And anyone else on the list who spent as much time as I did
in
Viet Nam, I am sure will agree, my comments were not entirely unfounded.
however they were inappropriate. I will sneak back in a while when the heat
is
off.
73,
Ken W7TS
>-----Original Message-----
>From: icom-bounces at mailman.qth.net
>[mailto:icom-bounces at mailman.qth.net]On Behalf Of Ken Kinyon
>Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 13:38
>To: ICOM Reflector
>Subject: RE: [ICOM] PRO III
>
>
>Hi,
>Don't you guys have a MARS/CAP mailing list? I spent enough time in the
>military to know that anything they are involved in is going to be
>mostly AFU. I
>don't need to read all this. I am involved in Amateur radio.
>;<)
>73,
>Ken W7TS
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: icom-bounces at mailman.qth.net
>>[mailto:icom-bounces at mailman.qth.net]On Behalf Of David Nagel
>>Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 13:25
>>To: ICOM Reflector
>>Subject: RE: [ICOM] PRO III
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Adam Farson <farson at shaw.ca> wrote: Hi Dave,
>>
>>I live "north of the border", so none of this affects me. But it seems
that
>>the new NTIA specs are much more stringent than ITU-R Recommendation
>>SM328-10 (Spectra and Bandwidth of Emissions). I shall have to look into
>>this when time permits. For example: It is interesting that the IC-M802,
>>which is fully compliant with FCC Part 90 and ITU-R, is now no longer
>>NTIA-compliant.
>>
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>--------------------------------------
>>My supposition as to the requirements is that NTIA has to put 2KG in a
>>1KG bag due to Congress selling off government spectrum.
>>As to NTIA being more stringent than the ITU, they can.
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>-----------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>I have some additional comments:
>>
>>1. Surely, hams who are also MARS or CAP R/O's will not necessarily
dispose
>>of their amateur HF transceivers, as they can still use these on the
amateur
>>bands.
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>-------------------------------------
>>No one has said that. I have 5 HF radios that I used for CAP. Only one
>>is currently usable and that is at 5 watts output.
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>---------------------------------------
>>
>>2. I tend to agree with Mac's observation that many MARS/CAP and USCGA
>>members will "vote with their feet" on this change.
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>------------------------------------
>>They will be missed but remember they are volunteers not inducted
>>members and can come and go as they please.
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>-------------------------------------
>>
>>3. Perhaps the motive is something other than spectrum refarming. To my
>>knowledge, there has not been any spectrum auction activity in the bands
>>below 30 MHz. Due to the potential impact on international allocations,
>>reassignment of HF spectrum is not all that simple.
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>--------------------------------------
>>Whether or not the NTIA is still bound to enforce these requirements
>>as set by Congress
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>-----------------------------------------
>>
>>To get back on topic: A recent check on major dealers' used-equipment
pages
>>did not turn up a single used 756Pro3.
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>----------------------------------------
>>I'd still like one but can't afford one, even a used one. HI HI.
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>------------------------------------------
>>
>>Cheers for now, 73,
>>Adam VA7OJ/AB4OJ
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: icom-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:icom-bounces at mailman.qth.net]
On
>>Behalf Of David Nagel
>>Sent: 05 March 2007 06:27
>>To: ICOM Reflector
>>Subject: RE: [ICOM] PRO III
>>
>>Adam;
>>
>>If you go to < https://ntc.cap.af.mil/comm/equipment/equipment.cfm > you
can
>>view all the compliant radios useable in CAP and the reason for the
>>noncompliance of the formerly compliant ones.
>>.
>>Basically the change that killed ham radio in CAP was the "TX unwanted
>>emissions".
>>The new specification is: 43+10log(Px) or 5 watts = 49.98dB, 50 w =
59.98dB,
>>100 w = 63dB, 125 w = 63.9dB
>>
>>Icom specifies 40dB at 100 watts. However if you limit the TX to 5 watts
the
>>radio is in compliance. The limitation is most likely of no consequence
but
>>still a limitation and places the radios in the noncompliant box.
>>
>>If you are in CAP you will have to wait until next year (2008) when e are
>>scheduled to receive Motorola Micom II HF stations in quantity. Until
then
>>good luck.
>>
>>Dave Nagel
>>INWG/Group North DC
>>RF 41
>>
>>
>>Adam Farson wrote: Hi Dave,
>>
>>What was the nature of the spec change?
>>
>>Cheers for now, 73,
>>Adam VA7OJ/AB4OJ
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: icom-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:icom-bounces at mailman.qth.net]
On
>>Behalf Of David Nagel
>>Sent: 04 March 2007 19:35
>>To: ICOM Reflector
>>Subject: Re: [ICOM] PRO III
>>
>>Bob;
>>
>>A lot of the rigs most likely were used in CAP/MARS service. A recent
change
>>in specifications by NTIA removed almost all ham rigs from use by those
>>groups. About the only rig still valid is the Yeasu FT-817/ND. Then only
>>because they are 5 watt rigs.
>>
>>Dave WD9BDZ
>>
>>
>>AD5VJ Bob wrote: Why am I seeing so many ProIII's up
>>for sale and/or trade. Is Icom coming out with a new rig I am not aware
of?
>>
>> 73 fer nw es gud DX,
>>QSL VIA: BUR, LotW, e-QSL
>>Bob AD5VJ
>>Old calls: WY5L/KH3-KE5CTY-N5IET
>>http://www.ad5vj.com/
>>
>>Member: CTDXCC, NTCC, STXDXCC
>>FISTS: # 12637, SKCC# 2369
>>10X# 37210, FP#-1141
>>SMIRK#-5177, RARS #-149
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Scanned for viruses by Blue Coat
>>http://www.WinProxy.com/
>>----
>>Your Moderator: Dick Flanagan K7VC, icom-owner at mailman.qth.net
>>Icom Users Net: Sundays, 1700Z, 14.316 MHz
>>Icom FAQ: http://www.qsl.net/icom/
>>
>>----
>>Your Moderator: Dick Flanagan K7VC, icom-owner at mailman.qth.net
>>Icom Users Net: Sundays, 1700Z, 14.316 MHz
>>Icom FAQ: http://www.qsl.net/icom/
>>
>>
>>
>>Scanned for viruses by Blue Coat
>>http://www.WinProxy.com/
>>----
>>Your Moderator: Dick Flanagan K7VC, icom-owner at mailman.qth.net
>>Icom Users Net: Sundays, 1700Z, 14.316 MHz
>>Icom FAQ: http://www.qsl.net/icom/
>>
>>----
>>Your Moderator: Dick Flanagan K7VC, icom-owner at mailman.qth.net
>>Icom Users Net: Sundays, 1700Z, 14.316 MHz
>>Icom FAQ: http://www.qsl.net/icom/
>
>----
>Your Moderator: Dick Flanagan K7VC, icom-owner at mailman.qth.net
>Icom Users Net: Sundays, 1700Z, 14.316 MHz
>Icom FAQ: http://www.qsl.net/icom/
----
Your Moderator: Dick Flanagan K7VC, icom-owner at mailman.qth.net
Icom Users Net: Sundays, 1700Z, 14.316 MHz
Icom FAQ: http://www.qsl.net/icom/
More information about the Icom
mailing list