| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 30.11.09 17:05l 913 Lines 31885 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AMSATBB4633
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V4 633
Path: IZ3LSV<IK2XDE<ON4HU<SR1BSZ<F4BWT<XE1FH<WU3V<CX2SA
Sent: 091130/1459Z @:CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA #:21582 [Minas] FBB7.00e $:AMSATBB4633
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Auto-Tune (Tony Langdon)
2. New member and a question (Jon Knodel)
3. morning pass AO-51 (Mateusz)
4. New member and a question (n8bbq@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
5. Re: Boost To higher Orbits? (Bob McGwier)
6. Re: Frustration (Bob McGwier)
7. Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000 (Tom)
8. Re: Icom 910H vs. Kenwood TS2000 (Greg Dober)
9. Re: Icom 910H vs. Kenwood TS2000 (Andrew Rich)
10. Re: Yubileiniy-2 (Andrew Glasbrenner)
11. Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000 (w4upd)
12. Re: Icom 910H vs. Kenwood TS2000 (Bruce Robertson)
13. Re: Auto-Tune (Joe Leikhim)
14. Re: Icom 910H vs. Kenwood TS2000 (Mike McConnell)
15. Re: Auto-Tune (Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF)
16. XW-1 launch date? (Masahiro Arai)
17. Re: Icom 910H vs. Kenwood TS2000 (w4upd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:35:40 +1100
From: Tony Langdon <vk3jed@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Auto-Tune
To: "Greg D." <ko6th_greg@xxxxxxx.xxx>, <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <4b1383e7.0e0bca0a.22b1.2728@xx.xxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 07:08 PM 11/30/2009, Greg D. wrote:
>I believe that automatic tuning of the downlink receiver will only
>work with FM, as an output of the FM discriminator can be used to
>give an error (difference) signal for tuning. I don't believe this
>is possible with an arbitrary SSB signal. The only way SSB/CW can
>work is to have a known signal to analyze, such as digital or a
>single CW communication channel. The software used to decode AO-40
>middle beacon, for example, was capable of providing a tuning
>output, and I've seen CW and PSK sound card software do some limited
>tracking as well. But a random (i.e. voice) SSB signal? Don't
>think that's possible.
I have heard of it being done in a laboratory/research setting
(though not 100% sure how good my sources were), but not in production.
73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:32:34 -0800
From: Jon Knodel <jknodel@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] New member and a question
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <COL103-W39DDFBABE11BE9276702D9A8970@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hello,
I'm new to this group and have just started working some of the 'easy'
satellites. I've already made some great contacts and received help from
the more experienced satellite operators.
Unfortunately, I don't think I got the call or grid correct of the very
first satellite contact I made and would like to try to find out who it was
for sure.
The contact was on AO-51 at about 0035 UTC Nov 28, 2009. I thought the
other station's call was KG6CMU in Grid CM86. I really don't think I got
the call or grid correct. Can anyone confirm this contact with N7XW in
CN76? I'd certainly appreciate it.
Since this first contact, I now record my QSO's so that I get the
information correct (I'm operating with a handheld and portable yagi).
Thanks for the help.
73,
N7XW
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:32:54 +0100
From: "Mateusz" <sq7dqx@xxxxxx.xxxx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] morning pass AO-51
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <45129AEE420341C582408C7B54AA00F4@xx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-2";
reply-type=original
Hallo
Today morning I recorded signals from AO51 downlink with my call and a
station in background:
www.enduro.idl.pl/audio_sat/AO51_30_11_09_0754UTC.mp3
Elevation was 3 deg and lower.
Station heard in background probably doesn't know that transmits within
satellite part of 2m band, maybe it is not amateur?
Matt SQ7DQX
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 6:31:59 -0500
From: <n8bbq@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] New member and a question
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <20091130113159.QO1P2.141835.root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Jon,
Welcome!
A quick check of QRZ.com shows a listing for KG6CMU in grid CM87. Perhaps
you got the call right?
http://www.qrz.com/
'73 de Ed - N8BBQ
Subject: [amsat-bb] New member and a question
From: Jon Knodel <jknodel@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:32:34 -0800
Hello,
I'm new to this group and have just started working some of the 'easy'
satellites. I've already made some great contacts and received help from the
more experienced satellite operators.
Unfortunately, I don't think I got the call or grid correct of the very first
satellite contact I made and would like to try to find out who it was for
sure.
The contact was on AO-51 at about 0035 UTC Nov 28, 2009. I thought the other
station's call was KG6CMU in Grid CM86. I really don't think I got the call
or
grid correct. Can anyone confirm this contact with N7XW in CN76? I'd
certainly appreciate it.
Since this first contact, I now record my QSO's so that I get the information
correct (I'm operating with a handheld and portable yagi). Thanks for the
help.
73,
N7XW
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:17:17 -0500
From: Bob McGwier <rwmcgwier@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Boost To higher Orbits?
To: Idle-Tyme <nss@xxx.xxx>
Cc: AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4B13B7CD.2060104@xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
There is always pressure due to solar wind (particles with mass) and
pressure due to photons (no mass but transferring momentum
nevertheless). But there is no way to tack (have the nose of the vessel
point at an angle substantially perpendicular to the wind velocity
vector and receive thrust NET thrust along the vector pointed towards
the nose of the craft). There is no water to have a keel or center
board to allow for this maneuver. I mean, you could have a keel board
but there is no water for the vessel to operate in.
This makes the maneuver(s) to be accomplished by the solar wind and/or
light pressure, one from the particles streaming from the sun that are
not photons and one from the photon pressure. Since photons are
massless, one of the neatest proofs of the quantum mechanical nature of
the universe was to see the successful translation by (who else)
Einstein with the formula
p=hk where p is momentum, k is Planck's constant, and k is an integer.
So when a photon is captured or reflects/scatters, it transfers
momentum. This equation is used to determine how much momentum is being
transferred.
Without tacking (sailing velocity change perpendicular to the wind) this
means that only net OUTWARD force (wind or photon pressure) from the sun
may be applied. To achieve a higher orbit, one must speed up the
spacecraft at a point with a net acceleration TANGENT to the orbital
velocity at that point and the raising of the orbit will occur "on the
other side of the orbit".
So for a net speed up and raising of the orbit, one would need to have
the "sail" aided by the total sun pressure on one side of the orbit,
and rotate the craft so much less sail area is exposed on the other side
of the orbit. This will cause small kicks upward in the orbit.
I hope you see that you need a very complex control system to rotate the
spacecraft to modify its sail angle with respect to the sun. That piece
of engineering HAS NOT BEEN ACCOMPLISHED SUCCESSFULLY BY PROFESSIONALS.
NASA has tested solar sail technology in a vacuum chamber.
Finally, the last nail in your "Way Out Thinking Coffin" is delivered by
the efficiency of your propulsion system.
If you want to see this be successful, in oh, your life time, you need
a huge sail. The initial orbit needs to be high enough that atmospheric
drag on this huge sail does not degrade the orbit faster than you can
raise it.
on and on, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. The problems of doing this are
simply beyond us and again, no professional group has succeeded.
It is nice to have these Way Out Crazy Ideas to shoot down because it
forces you to think your way through problems with them.
What did I miss?
Bob
N4HY
Idle-Tyme wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is now WAY out in crazy thinking. But we all know how a wind speed
> anemometer works right? The flat side has more resistance to the
> "Wind" than the rounded front side, so it has greater pressure exerted
> on it right? This would even work with not so much half spheres as in a
> traditional anemometer but with like pyramids shapes i would also think.
>
> Now does solar "Wind' have pressures similar to air "Wind"? obviously
> it does or they wouldn't be thinking if trying to use it right?
>
> I know it's exceedingly small amounts of pressure. but if we were to
> launch into an orbit that is as close to the equator as possible and the
> bird deploys as large as possible equivalent of an anemometer cup and
> it's positioned so that it's base is perpendicular to the solar wind
> when it is directly at right angles to the earth and sun.
>
> This tiny push, and then 180 deg later less push then 180 deg later
> more push etc.
>
> think this bird could ever so slowly in a spiral raise it's orbit?
>
> Crazy? what's anyone think?
> Joe WB9SBD
--
(Co)Author: DttSP, Quiktrak, PowerSDR, GnuRadio
Member: ARRL, AMSAT, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats,
NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC.
"You don't need to see the whole staircase, just
take the first step.", MLK.
Twitter:rwmcgwier
Active: Facebook,Myspace,LinkedIn
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:20:33 -0500
From: Bob McGwier <rwmcgwier@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Frustration
To: Michael Tondee <mat_62@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: Amsat BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <4B13B891.7030403@xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Do you have a 70 cm source of any type that you can use downrange to
prove that the system is working? That is, all together as a complete
system. If you can drive the source away until it is demonstrably
weakening, then you can test the beam pattern, etc. If the preamp
front end is hooked to a dummy load (non functioning antenna system in
front of it), then the noise from the dummy load will increase. You
need an external source.
Bob
Michael Tondee wrote:
> Andrew,
> I definitely can heart an increase in noise when I power up the preamp
> and also see an S-meter response. Unfortunately I have absolutely no
> terrestrial repeaters within my range on 70cm. I've never been able to
> get into one even back in the days when I had my TS-2000X. Never been
> able to hear them either. Checked the preamp cables to make sure they
> weren't backwards also.
> In reference to some questions from others I've had, I am compensating
> for doppler on receive and I've checked all my cables except for the 40
> foot piece of LMR 400 for open or short with an ohmmeter.
> Just for giggles I decided to see if I could copy NOAA weather on 162
> Mhz band and I can. Don't know if that means anything. I will check my
> antenna pointing. Getting an accurate fix on true north has sort of been
> my achilles heel before but I've managed.There is not that much
> declination here. When I did happen to pick up the brief SO-50
> transmission last night the rotator was making a fairly large change in
> Azimuth though. I may just whip up a quick little groundplane to give me
> a baseline as someone suggested also.
> Thanks for all the responses I've gotten so far.
> Michael
--
(Co)Author: DttSP, Quiktrak, PowerSDR, GnuRadio
Member: ARRL, AMSAT, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats,
NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC.
"You don't need to see the whole staircase, just
take the first step.", MLK.
Twitter:rwmcgwier
Active: Facebook,Myspace,LinkedIn
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:02:24 -0700
From: "Tom" <k0tw@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <A3C3147B82D84BB49AE0E4EB26ADF21A@xxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I plan to purchase a new home transceiver in the next few months and I've
narrowed my choices between a 910H and a TS2000. Thinking only of satellite
operation (ignoring the HF capability of the TS2000), is there a general
preference in the Amsat community of one over the other? Reasons?
Thanks for your opinions.
Tom, K?TW
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:20:43 -0500
From: "Greg Dober" <almetco@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs. Kenwood TS2000
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <008301ca71bf$ebc88640$c35992c0$@xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Not trashing the 2000, but when it first came out I sold a TS-450 and an
Icom 910 thinking that "one box" would be great. So, I purchased the 2000.
Well, within one year, I sold the 2000 and bought a TS-870 for HF work and
another IC-910. I could have lived with it as an HF radio and a UHF/VHF
repeater radio. The "birdies" drove me crazy on certain sat frequencies.
Not sure if that was ever fixed? It had more bells and whistles such as
adding the sats name to the menu etc, but I thought the 910's receive
capabilities were second to none for weak signal work. I still love my
second IC-910! Still have the TS-870 too.
Of course, all is one man's opinion. This could become the "great debate"
thread. hi hi
good luck,
Greg
N3MVF
-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
Behalf Of Tom
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 8:02 AM
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
I plan to purchase a new home transceiver in the next few months and I've
narrowed my choices between a 910H and a TS2000. Thinking only of satellite
operation (ignoring the HF capability of the TS2000), is there a general
preference in the Amsat community of one over the other? Reasons?
Thanks for your opinions.
Tom, K?TW
_______________________________________________
Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:43:38 +1000
From: "Andrew Rich" <vk4tec@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs. Kenwood TS2000
To: "Greg Dober" <almetco@xxxxxxx.xxx>, <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <3DC56DA9DD874D0C87A41E48F741B325@xxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
I love the 910H
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Dober" <almetco@xxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 11:20 PM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs. Kenwood TS2000
Not trashing the 2000, but when it first came out I sold a TS-450 and an
Icom 910 thinking that "one box" would be great. So, I purchased the 2000.
Well, within one year, I sold the 2000 and bought a TS-870 for HF work and
another IC-910. I could have lived with it as an HF radio and a UHF/VHF
repeater radio. The "birdies" drove me crazy on certain sat frequencies.
Not sure if that was ever fixed? It had more bells and whistles such as
adding the sats name to the menu etc, but I thought the 910's receive
capabilities were second to none for weak signal work. I still love my
second IC-910! Still have the TS-870 too.
Of course, all is one man's opinion. This could become the "great debate"
thread. hi hi
good luck,
Greg
N3MVF
-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
Behalf Of Tom
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 8:02 AM
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
I plan to purchase a new home transceiver in the next few months and I've
narrowed my choices between a 910H and a TS2000. Thinking only of satellite
operation (ignoring the HF capability of the TS2000), is there a general
preference in the Amsat community of one over the other? Reasons?
Thanks for your opinions.
Tom, K?TW
_______________________________________________
Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
_______________________________________________
Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.426 / Virus Database: 270.14.87/2535 - Release Date: 11/29/09
19:31:00
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:00:19 -0500
From: Andrew Glasbrenner <glasbrenner@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Yubileiniy-2
To: "Trevor ." <m5aka@xxxxx.xx.xx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4B13CFF3.9040909@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Trevor . wrote:
> Can't remember if this link has been posted before
>
> http://www.iss-reshetnev.com/?cid=news&nid=136
>
> It's concerning Yubileiniy-2 which is slated for a December 28 launch into
a 1400 km orbit. It mentions Aerospace Vehicle Laboratory ROSTO providing
the radio system, didn't they also do RS-15 ?
>
> The first Yubileiniy used 435 MHz.
>
> 73 Trevor M5AKA
>
>
It's always a possibility Trevor, but I'm trying not to get my hopes up.
There are other similar satellites that I've seen reference to being in
development, but other than using 145/435 for command and control, I've
seen no reference to an open two-way package.
For what it may be worth, last year as part of the AMSAT-NA Engineering
Task Force, I approached Eurockot about availability of a secondary
launch to a high LEO. Rokot launches out of Plesetsk routinely go to
that type of orbit for Kosmos and Gonets launches, and indeed
Yubileiniy-1 was on one of these. The answer was far from encouraging.
73, Drew KO4MA
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:02:10 -0500
From: w4upd <updwrb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
To: k0tw@xxx.xxx
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4B13D062.6040906@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Although I have owned Kenwood equipment (and still have the TS711/811
pair) I purchased an Icom IC-910 and have been very happy with it. I
have a few friends with the TS2000 and although it is a nice rig, I
found the IC-910 to be more sensitive to weak signals related to
satellites and have at times received the signals without using my
preamp. The TS2000 also have some birdies in the satellite frequencies
that can be annoying and this problem has not nor do they plan on fixing.
If you do not have a rig yet and wish a unit that covers HF/VHF/UHF than
this may be the unit. Frankly, I don't like having all my eggs in one
basket in the event the rig fails, you lose it all. You can get other
rigs cheaper that cover HF/VHF/UHF that are not satellite rigs at
affordable prices and still get the Icom IC-910 which is what I did.
Also, if you want to add 1.2Ghz it is less than a 5 minute project on
the IC-910. The TS2000 is a bit more time consuming and difficult.
Just my two cents.
Reid, W4UPD
Tom wrote:
> I plan to purchase a new home transceiver in the next few months and I've
> narrowed my choices between a 910H and a TS2000. Thinking only of satellite
> operation (ignoring the HF capability of the TS2000), is there a general
> preference in the Amsat community of one over the other? Reasons?
>
> Thanks for your opinions.
> Tom, K?TW
>
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:03:02 -0400
From: Bruce Robertson <ve9qrp@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs. Kenwood TS2000
To: Greg Dober <almetco@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID:
<49657a760911300603l116f10ect84a13a68b05b6632@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Greg Dober <almetco@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> Not trashing the 2000, but when it first came out I sold a TS-450 and an
> Icom 910 thinking that "one box" would be great. So, I purchased the 2000.
> Well, within one year, I sold the 2000 and bought a TS-870 for HF work and
> another IC-910. ?I could have lived with it as an HF radio and a UHF/VHF
> repeater radio. ?The "birdies" drove me crazy on certain sat frequencies.
> Not sure if that was ever fixed? It had more bells and whistles such as
> adding the sats name to the menu etc, but I thought the 910's receive
> capabilities were second to none for weak signal work. ?I still love my
> second IC-910! ?Still have the TS-870 too.
>
> Of course, all is one man's opinion. ?This could become the "great debate"
> thread. ?hi hi
I own a TS-2000. I have tried just about every solution for the
birdies, and have found none that works well. Thus you have to be
willing to lose SO-50 and AO-27 with this radio. Further draw-backs
for this rig and satellite work is that the lowest adjustable power is
5w. I plan to install longish antennas in the near future, and with
them my transmit power will be, in many cases, excessive no matter how
low I set the TS-2000.
I haven't used an IC-910, but I understand it has an excellent
reputation. I note that 5w is the minimum power for it also, but other
ICOM radios have an internal pot that allows you to adjust this low
point. Does the IC-910 as well? If price is a consideration, note that
the ICOM rig will require the purchase of additional filters, whereas
the TS-2000 has fully-adjustable filters in place. I very much like
this feature.
I am very happy with my TS-2000 as an all-in-one rig, but if I could
own two rigs, judging by the comments here and elsewhere I would
probably get a IC-910 (or a software defined radio with
transverters!).
73, Bruce
VE9QRP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
> Behalf Of Tom
> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 8:02 AM
> To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
>
> I plan to purchase a new home transceiver in the next few months and I've
> narrowed my choices between a 910H and a TS2000. Thinking only of satellite
> operation (ignoring the HF capability of the TS2000), is there a general
> preference in the Amsat community of one over the other? Reasons?
>
> Thanks for your opinions.
> Tom, K?TW
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>
--
http://ve9qrp.blogspot.com
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:08:45 GMT
From: "Joe Leikhim" <rhyolite@xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Auto-Tune
To: <kc6uqh@xxx.xxx>
Cc: AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <200911300908704.SM03676@xxxx.xx.xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
The Auto-Tune software used by musicians, apparently can determine the
spectral center of human voice and lock it to a particular musical "key". If
the same software were to be modified to identify when the pitch moved
beyond a preset point (IF passband), then the receiver frequency could be
automatically slewed by CIV or CAT serial commands. Imagine a standalone DSP
like the Timewave having this feature.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Art McBride" <kc6uqh@xxx.xxx>
Sent 11/30/2009 12:41:37 AM
To: Rhyolite@xxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Auto-TuneJoe,
You have the IF pass band to consider.
AFC on FM works well, commercially SSB receivers were designed to lock on to
a -16dB pilot carrier but, Amateur radios do not have that option for either
mode. Your Auto-Tune Idea could work on CW as long as it could also
increment the receiver LO to keep the signal inside the IF pass-band.
Art,
KC6UQH
-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
Behalf Of RFI-EMI-GUY
Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 8:53 PM
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Auto-Tune
I have been having a debate with my son about the overuse of Auto-Tune
in music. Personally, I find it irritating. Then it occurred to me that
I had proposed on this BB a long time ago that it would be nifty to have
a DSP (Like Timewave DSP-599) that would correct for doppler. Has
anyone tried Auto-Tune to correct doppler on a linear transponder?
--
Joe Leikhim K4SAT
"The RFI-EMI-GUY"C
"Use only Genuine Interocitor Parts" Tom Servo ;-P
_______________________________________________
Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 4647 (20091129) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 4647 (20091129) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.http://www.eset.com
??????????
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:34:00 -0700
From: "Mike McConnell" <w0pd@xxx.xx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs. Kenwood TS2000
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <001001ca71ca$287ca3f0$7975ebd0$@xx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I own them both and love them both. I discovered the birdies in the TS2000
and that was real disappointment. For sat use, I would go with the 910 if
you can.
Mike McConnell
W0PD
Horizon City, TX
Mike McConnell, Ph.D.
W0PD
w0pd@xxx.xx.xxx
AMSAT #36792
ARRL#0001168388
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:42:58 +0000
From: Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF <nigel@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Auto-Tune
To: "Greg D." <ko6th_greg@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4B13D9F2.5000904@xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
True, but why are we generally obsessed with carrier leak (or a lack of it)
on SSB signals?
A bit of leak, say 20-30dB below peak, would allow for synchronous detectors
and frequency tracking of drifting signals
by the radio, no computer involved.
Greg D. wrote:
> I believe that automatic tuning of the downlink receiver will only work
with FM, as an output of the FM discriminator can be used to give an error
(difference) signal for tuning. I don't believe this is possible with an
arbitrary SSB signal. The only way SSB/CW can work is to have a known
signal to analyze, such as digital or a single CW communication channel.
The software used to decode AO-40 middle beacon, for example, was capable of
providing a tuning output, and I've seen CW and PSK sound card software do
some limited tracking as well. But a random (i.e. voice) SSB signal? Don't
think that's possible.
>
------------------------------
Message: 16
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:34:29 +0900
From: Masahiro Arai <m-arai@x.xxxxx.xx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] XW-1 launch date?
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <200911301434.AA00068@xxxxx.x.xxxxx.xx.xx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp
ANS-333 shows XW-1 expected launch date is middle December.
I heard XW-1 will launch with HJ-1C by CZ-C2 launcher. If this is true,
NASA Space Calender http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/calendar/calendar.html
shows its launch date is March 2010.
When will XW-1 launch??
Masa JN1GKZ Tokyo Japan
------------------------------
Message: 17
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:56:21 -0500
From: w4upd <updwrb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs. Kenwood TS2000
To: Bruce Robertson <ve9qrp@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4B13DD15.2040403@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
With watt/swr meter in-line I have found my IC-910 to actually go down
to as low as 1 - 2 watts. It have used it in a QRP mode at this level
many times. I know that the brochure states 5 watts for 2/70cm and 1
watt for 1.2ghz, but found it to actually go lower, but still go to full
power as advertised.
Reid, W4UPD
Bruce Robertson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Greg Dober <almetco@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>
>> Not trashing the 2000, but when it first came out I sold a TS-450 and an
>> Icom 910 thinking that "one box" would be great. So, I purchased the 2000.
>> Well, within one year, I sold the 2000 and bought a TS-870 for HF work and
>> another IC-910. I could have lived with it as an HF radio and a UHF/VHF
>> repeater radio. The "birdies" drove me crazy on certain sat frequencies.
>> Not sure if that was ever fixed? It had more bells and whistles such as
>> adding the sats name to the menu etc, but I thought the 910's receive
>> capabilities were second to none for weak signal work. I still love my
>> second IC-910! Still have the TS-870 too.
>>
>> Of course, all is one man's opinion. This could become the "great debate"
>> thread. hi hi
>>
>
> I own a TS-2000. I have tried just about every solution for the
> birdies, and have found none that works well. Thus you have to be
> willing to lose SO-50 and AO-27 with this radio. Further draw-backs
> for this rig and satellite work is that the lowest adjustable power is
> 5w. I plan to install longish antennas in the near future, and with
> them my transmit power will be, in many cases, excessive no matter how
> low I set the TS-2000.
>
> I haven't used an IC-910, but I understand it has an excellent
> reputation. I note that 5w is the minimum power for it also, but other
> ICOM radios have an internal pot that allows you to adjust this low
> point. Does the IC-910 as well? If price is a consideration, note that
> the ICOM rig will require the purchase of additional filters, whereas
> the TS-2000 has fully-adjustable filters in place. I very much like
> this feature.
>
> I am very happy with my TS-2000 as an all-in-one rig, but if I could
> own two rigs, judging by the comments here and elsewhere I would
> probably get a IC-910 (or a software defined radio with
> transverters!).
>
> 73, Bruce
> VE9QRP
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
>> Behalf Of Tom
>> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 8:02 AM
>> To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
>> Subject: [amsat-bb] Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
>>
>> I plan to purchase a new home transceiver in the next few months and I've
>> narrowed my choices between a 910H and a TS2000. Thinking only of satellite
>> operation (ignoring the HF capability of the TS2000), is there a general
>> preference in the Amsat community of one over the other? Reasons?
>>
>> Thanks for your opinions.
>> Tom, K?TW
>>
>>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Sent via amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
End of AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol 4, Issue 633
****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
