| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 30.11.09 21:24l 1043 Lines 34427 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AMSATBB4634
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V4 634
Path: IZ3LSV<IK2XDE<DB0RES<ON0AR<F4BWT<F1BBI<CX2SA
Sent: 091130/1918Z @:CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA #:21626 [Minas] FBB7.00e $:AMSATBB4634
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: New member and a question (w6zkh@xxxxxxx.xxxx
2. Re: morning pass AO-51 (OZ1MY)
3. Re: New member and a question (Rick - WA4NVM)
4. Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000 (Mark L. Hammond)
5. AMSAT at the Tampa Bay Hamfest, Dec 5-6 (Andrew Glasbrenner)
6. Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000 (w4upd)
7. Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000 (Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL)
8. Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000 (Alan P. Biddle)
9. Re: Satellite QSO distance record attempt (Kevin Groth)
10. Re: XW-1 launch date? (Trevor .)
11. Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000 (Perry Yantis)
12. Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000 (Mark L. Hammond)
13. Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000 (Mark L. Hammond)
14. satellite rig comparison (Dads)
15. Re: morning pass AO-51 (i8cvs)
16. Re: Satellite QSO distance record attempt (Bob- W7LRD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:01:27 +0000 (UTC)
From: w6zkh@xxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: New member and a question
To: Jon Knodel <jknodel@xxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID:
<206502555.8584421259596887236.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xxxx.xxxxx
xx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
"Dollar to a Donut" it was Sawson, KG6NUB who is in CM87. I never heard the
other call before, but with alot of new members coming on board, cant
remember them all either. Good Luck, and WELCOME to Satellites....you're
addicted now !!
John W6ZKH
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Knodel" <jknodel@xxx.xxx>
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 11:32:34 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: [amsat-bb] New member and a question
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
_______________________________________________
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: 2
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:05:52 +0100
From: "OZ1MY" <oz1my@xxxxxx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: morning pass AO-51
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <000b01ca71d6$fd9ac880$6501a8c0@xxxxxx.xx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi Mateusz,
It sounds like Spanish to me. I heard it during the pass
also.
In Spain some people use the 2 meter band for privat
talk. They are not necessarily radio amateurs.
It is an old story :-(
I tried to contact the Spanish authorities - but
they do not do anything.
It is often worse on the AO-27 uplink at 145.850 MHz.
Sometimes they block SO-50 - but you can not hear it -
however they make it drop out.
73 OZ1MY
Ib
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mateusz" <sq7dqx@xxxxxx.xxxx.xx>
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 9:32 AM
Subject: [amsat-bb] morning pass AO-51
> 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: 3
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:13:32 -0600
From: "Rick - WA4NVM" <wa4nvm@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: New member and a question
To: <w6zkh@xxxxxxx.xxx>, "Jon Knodel" <jknodel@xxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <3A35FD6A29984322ACD828A7DD94E7C8@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Hi Jon,
I was just searching my database and would have to agree with John, W6ZKH.
If I had
not been working A0-7 at the same time, I would have had a recording for
you.
Welcome to the birds and hope to work you soon. Your grid is very rare, as
are all of
the CN7x girds.
73 all,
Rick WA4NVM
> "Dollar to a Donut" it was Sawson, KG6NUB who is in CM87. I never heard
> the other call before, but with alot of new members coming on board, cant
> remember them all either. Good Luck, and WELCOME to Satellites....you're
> addicted now !!
>
> John W6ZKH
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jon Knodel" <jknodel@xxx.xxx>
> To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 11:32:34 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
> Subject: [amsat-bb] New member and a question
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:30:15 -0500
From: "Mark L. Hammond" <marklhammond@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx k0tw@xxx.xxx
Message-ID:
<5d8cecfe0911300830o734a0e2fm2d234ec7b4cf8736@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hi Tom,
I own a TS-2000X and thanks to the AMSAT Symposium :) an IC-910. I
do more digital than voice, so my perspective is biased in that
direction.
Here are some of my thoughts:
The CAT control of the TS-2000X is amazing. All menu options are
available remotely via CAT. No so with the 910.
The TS-2000X allows adjustments of modem/TNC levels in/out of the rig,
910 does not.
The TS-2000X has built-in TXCO and DSP, 910 does not (yes, they are
expen$ive options).
The TS-2000X lets you work mode A, 910 does not.
The TS-2000X gives me the full rated power output on both 2M and 70cm,
the 910 does not (same antennas, feedlines, etc.)---does anybody have
the solution to this? Even with flat SWR the 910 cuts back output to
about 70-75W on 2M and 40-50W on 70cm!! Bummer
The 910 receiver is much better on 2M than my TS-2000X, which is
actually pretty deaf on 2M(even after doing the "resistor mod" to
improve receive).
The 910 does not have the AO-27/SO-50 birdy, while the TS-2000X
does--this is my single biggest disappointment with this radio!!!!
Tuning the TS-2000X "off frequency" by 5-7kHz above and below the real
frequency helps a bit, but it's still a pain.
In spite of the short comings of the TS-2000X, I don't think I'd trade
it even up for an IC-910H with a the 1.2 gig module installed...
73,
Mark N8MH
> 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: 5
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:39:19 -0500
From: Andrew Glasbrenner <glasbrenner@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] AMSAT at the Tampa Bay Hamfest, Dec 5-6
To: Amsat-BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>, amsat-florida@xxxxx.xxxx
fieldops@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4B13F537.7020405@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Hi All,
This is just a reminder and request for assistance for the AMSAT booth
and forum at the Tampa Bay Hamfest this coming weekend, Dec. 5th and
6th, at the Manatee Civic Center in Palmetto, FL. We have a scheduled
AMSAT forum at 10:30AM on Saturday, and we will have a booth with AMSAT
books, software, and goodies. We are also planning on doing a variety of
demonstrations, including AO-27 and SO-67 on FM, VO-52 on SSB, and maybe
even listen to some of the more interesting cubesats like CO-66. During
the forum we'll talk about the status of current AMSAT projects around
the world, and where we are headed.
If you are a current AMSAT member, or plan on joining or renewing at the
hamfest, we could use some help behind the table throughout the day.
Please drop me an email at ko4ma@xxxxx.xxx if you can help out. You
don't have to be a satellite expert, just interested in helping is all.
73, Drew KO4MA
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:47:16 -0500
From: w4upd <updwrb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
To: "Mark L. Hammond" <marklhammond@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4B13F714.3080803@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Sorry to hear about your power output problems on your IC-910. I do not
have that problem. It requires an SWR of over 1.5:1 before I start
seeing it degrade in output power. I have almost 100 watts (stays around
98 watts output) for the entire 2 meter band until the swr goes above
1.5:1. 70 cm is the same. I have at least 75 watts out on 70 cm even
running it into a 2 meter ground plane or MFJ discone. However, the 2
meter ground plane is very narrow for use on 70 cm and only allows
reasonable swr on the satellite frequencies. I find that a simple 70 cm
30 degree sloper ground plane gives me better band width and of course
works better on the satellites than the 2 meter. The two meter is only
being used due to my sloper being rebuilt right now.
I agree on the comments you made about the TS2000, but have definitely
found the the TS2000 lacking in it "hearing" sensitivity. For a complete
"DC to light" rig, the Kenwood is great, but like some of the other
features about the IC-910 and already have many HF (dc to light ) rigs
such as an Omni VI Ten Tec, Yaesu FT-817 and FT-857 and another
hf/vhf/uhf rig was not necessary. I find that my preference is the
IC-910 due to the comments I have made. I know of many who really like
the TS-2000. As I stated before I have the Kenwood TS711/811 which have
been super units, but no longer supported by the new software now
available.
Reid, W4UPD
Reid, W4UPD
Mark L. Hammond wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> I own a TS-2000X and thanks to the AMSAT Symposium :) an IC-910. I
> do more digital than voice, so my perspective is biased in that
> direction.
>
> Here are some of my thoughts:
>
> The CAT control of the TS-2000X is amazing. All menu options are
> available remotely via CAT. No so with the 910.
>
> The TS-2000X allows adjustments of modem/TNC levels in/out of the rig,
> 910 does not.
>
> The TS-2000X has built-in TXCO and DSP, 910 does not (yes, they are
> expen$ive options).
>
> The TS-2000X lets you work mode A, 910 does not.
>
> The TS-2000X gives me the full rated power output on both 2M and 70cm,
> the 910 does not (same antennas, feedlines, etc.)---does anybody have
> the solution to this? Even with flat SWR the 910 cuts back output to
> about 70-75W on 2M and 40-50W on 70cm!! Bummer
>
> The 910 receiver is much better on 2M than my TS-2000X, which is
> actually pretty deaf on 2M(even after doing the "resistor mod" to
> improve receive).
>
> The 910 does not have the AO-27/SO-50 birdy, while the TS-2000X
> does--this is my single biggest disappointment with this radio!!!!
> Tuning the TS-2000X "off frequency" by 5-7kHz above and below the real
> frequency helps a bit, but it's still a pain.
>
> In spite of the short comings of the TS-2000X, I don't think I'd trade
> it even up for an IC-910H with a the 1.2 gig module installed...
>
> 73,
>
> Mark N8MH
>
>
>> 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: 7
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:01:04 -0700
From: "Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL" <vlfiscus@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Cc: "Mark L. Hammond" <marklhammond@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20091130094626.00c34508@xxx.xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 11:30 AM 11/30/2009 -0500, "Mark L. Hammond" <marklhammond@xxxxx.xxx>
wrote:
>Hi Tom,
>
>I own a TS-2000X and thanks to the AMSAT Symposium :) an IC-910. I
>do more digital than voice, so my perspective is biased in that
>direction.
>
>Here are some of my thoughts:
>
>The CAT control of the TS-2000X is amazing. All menu options are
>available remotely via CAT. No so with the 910.
>
>The TS-2000X allows adjustments of modem/TNC levels in/out of the rig,
>910 does not.
>
>The TS-2000X has built-in TXCO and DSP, 910 does not (yes, they are
>expen$ive options).
>
>The TS-2000X lets you work mode A, 910 does not.
>
>The TS-2000X gives me the full rated power output on both 2M and 70cm,
>the 910 does not (same antennas, feedlines, etc.)---does anybody have
>the solution to this? Even with flat SWR the 910 cuts back output to
>about 70-75W on 2M and 40-50W on 70cm!! Bummer
>
>The 910 receiver is much better on 2M than my TS-2000X, which is
>actually pretty deaf on 2M(even after doing the "resistor mod" to
>improve receive).
>
>The 910 does not have the AO-27/SO-50 birdy, while the TS-2000X
>does--this is my single biggest disappointment with this radio!!!!
>Tuning the TS-2000X "off frequency" by 5-7kHz above and below the real
>frequency helps a bit, but it's still a pain.
>
>In spite of the short comings of the TS-2000X, I don't think I'd trade
>it even up for an IC-910H with a the 1.2 gig module installed...
>
>73,
>
>Mark N8MH
Mark,
Didn't you have a kenwood TS-790 too? I use the TS-790, and a TS-440s HF
rig and wondered how the receivers in the TS-2000 compare to the receivers
in the TS-790 on 2m and 70cm. I wonder if people like its HF performance,
I would be using it on HF in place of my 22 year old TS-440.
KB7ADL
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:01:38 -0600
From: "Alan P. Biddle" <APBIDDLE@xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
To: "'w4upd'" <updwrb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Mark L. Hammond'"
<marklhammond@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <34C38B9549474BE4B1477D5B9E3D6205@xxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I am not a TS-2000 user, but since it is a satellite rig, I tend to pay some
attention when I see it discussed. There are several mods to improve RX
sensitivity. Kenwood did make some fixes in later production runs of the
rig which are reported to make a significant difference. You can go to the
www.mods.dk web site for several user mods in this area.
Being a Yaesu user, pending the acquisition of a Flex-5k, I don't have any
first hand experience with any of them.
Alan
WA4SCA
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:01:48 -0600
From: "Kevin Groth" <hislens@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Satellite QSO distance record attempt
To: "'Daniel Nick Kucij'" <dnkucij@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <000a01ca71de$cf844130$6e8cc390$@xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
So far, my record is 3019 miles on AO51. I caught KL4E, Craig, up in
Alaska. My furthest contact south is 2484 miles to YV5DSL, Jose, in
Caracas, Venezuela. I work days so I can't usually get on in the mornings
during the week but later in the evenings around 10pm-1am CST, I usually
have SO50 all to myself or maybe one other station- which is absolutely no
good at all, but I always try to CQ South America in hopes of going further
south.
This morning, I had a scheduled contact with NH7WN, Robert, in Honolulu-
which would have been a 3753.190 mile contact. He was on an HT and an Arrow
standing in 40 mph winds and rain at 4:40am his time!! Sawson, KG6NUB, set
everything up and did a great job of coordinating the attempted QSO. Thanks
Sawson! Apparently we just missed the QSO. Robert heard me but I did not
hear him. I believe I waited just a moment too long to transmit and lost
the window. Seconds counted there! I also appreciate the courtesy of
VE6AB, Jerry, and K6CDW, David, for clearing during the attempt. All in
all, it was a great attempt and we plan on trying again as soon as possible.
Kevin
N9EME
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Nick Kucij [mailto:dnkucij@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 9:18 AM
To: hislens@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Satellite QSO distance records
Hi Kevin,
I was surprised your post did not attract more discussion than it did,
as it seems we all love the DX. I've also searched online before and
could not find anything except for the AO-7 references. I've never
found the actual footprint dimensions for AO-51/AO-27 either. This
summer while on the coast of Maine, I tried some trans-atlantic DX on
AO-51 and AO-27 for the first time. I was using a handheld and
homebrew yagi (2up, 5down) pictured on my QRZ page. To my amazement, I
worked the Canary Is. and Spain on my first try from the top of
Cadillac Mt. in Acadia National Park..
Since returning home to Vermont, I've kept at it, sometimes using a
small amp and/or preamp. I've been quite successful with confirmed
contacts from the Azores, Canary Is, Spain, England, Ireland,
Scotland, and Iceland. All of these have been on LEO FM birds ay DX in
the +/- 3000 mile range. Some of them were made completely barefoot on
the HTs, some were two way HT with no amp either side! I've heard
Wales, but he didn't hear me.
My best DX QSO on AO-27 is England at 3203 Miles (5155 Km). My best DX
contact on AO-51 is the Canary Is at 3339 miles (5374 km) It's always
a thrill to do it even when I work the same station over again.
My best North American continental DX is Inuvik, NWT at 2674 miles on
AO-51.
I see you have a great antenna set-up. How far south have you been
able to work with it?
73
Nick
KB1RVT
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:03:15 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Trevor ." <m5aka@xxxxx.xx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: XW-1 launch date?
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <250535.55397.qm@xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
--- On Mon, 30/11/09, Masahiro Arai <m-arai@x.xxxxx.xx.xx> wrote:
> 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.
The IARU Amateur Satellite Frequency Coordination page for XW-1 says
December 20.
http://www.amsat.org.uk/iaru/formal_detail.asp?serial=108
but dates of launches always seem to change.
I think we won't be certain of the launch date until it's actually in orbit.
73 Trevor M5AKA
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:29:55 -0500
From: Perry Yantis <py41@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <D681FE35-37C8-4928-833D-210565AB2A38@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
I am always amazed when I hear someone say the TS 2000 does not have a
good receiver, mine is great!!!
The TS 2000x I have hears all satellites very well.
Remember there is an internal preamp on the TS2000.
On hf it just seems to amplify the noise level so I leave it off.
But I leave it turned on all the time on vhf, uhf and it automatically
comes on when you turn on 1.2.
The last time I used an external preamp was on the KLM Echo 2 back in
the 70's.
Since then I have used a Kenwood TS700, TS790, and now the TS2000x.
The TS2000x receives (with the internal preamp on for vhf, uhf) about
the same as my old TS790 did (it did not have an internal preamp).
With M2 antennas, computer tracking and tuning, low loss cable, and
cable lengths between 50-70 ft I have never had a problem receiving
any amateur radio sats.
Perry WB8OTH
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:12:42 -0500
From: "Mark L. Hammond" <marklhammond@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
To: APBIDDLE@xxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID:
<5d8cecfe0911301012vcf4eea9ic1abcc2b6a8da4d9@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Thanks, Alan. I've done the "tack solder a resistor to change the
bias" mod to both the 2M and 70cm receivers. It helped, but it's
still not very good on 2M.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Alan P. Biddle <APBIDDLE@xxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> I am not a TS-2000 user, but since it is a satellite rig, I tend to pay some
> attention when I see it discussed. ?There are several mods to improve RX
> sensitivity. ?Kenwood did make some fixes in later production runs of the
> rig which are reported to make a significant difference. ?You can go to the
> www.mods.dk web site for several user mods in this area.
>
> Being a Yaesu user, pending the acquisition of a Flex-5k, I don't have any
> first hand experience with any of them.
>
> Alan
> WA4SCA
>
>
>
>
>
--
Mark L. Hammond [N8MH]
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:14:28 -0500
From: "Mark L. Hammond" <marklhammond@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
To: "Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL" <vlfiscus@xxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID:
<5d8cecfe0911301014t73b2a1bdt781b135a71bdefb5@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hi Vince,
Yes, I still have a TS-790A (actually two, a "good" one and a "parts
puppy"). I would rate the 70cm receivers as about the same, but the
2M receiver on the TS-790A is better than my particular TS-2000x.
It's more HF radio than I need, since I do so very little of it...
73,
Mark N8MH
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL <vlfiscus@xxx.xxx>
wrote:
> At 11:30 AM 11/30/2009 -0500, "Mark L. Hammond" <marklhammond@xxxxx.xxx>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> I own a TS-2000X and thanks to the AMSAT Symposium :) an IC-910. ? I
>> do more digital than voice, so my perspective is biased in that
>> direction.
>>
>> Here are some of my thoughts:
>>
>> The CAT control of the TS-2000X is amazing. ?All menu options are
>> available remotely via CAT. ?No so with the 910.
>>
>> The TS-2000X allows adjustments of modem/TNC levels in/out of the rig,
>> 910 does not.
>>
>> The TS-2000X has built-in TXCO and DSP, 910 does not (yes, they are
>> expen$ive options).
>>
>> The TS-2000X lets you work mode A, 910 does not.
>>
>> The TS-2000X gives me the full rated power output on both 2M and 70cm,
>> the 910 does not (same antennas, feedlines, etc.)---does anybody have
>> the solution to this? ?Even with flat SWR the 910 cuts back output to
>> about 70-75W on 2M and 40-50W on 70cm!! ?Bummer
>>
>> The 910 receiver is much better on 2M than my TS-2000X, which is
>> actually pretty deaf on 2M(even after doing the "resistor mod" to
>> improve receive).
>>
>> The 910 does not have the AO-27/SO-50 birdy, while the TS-2000X
>> does--this is my single biggest disappointment with this radio!!!!
>> Tuning the TS-2000X "off frequency" by 5-7kHz above and below the real
>> frequency helps a bit, but it's still a pain.
>>
>> In spite of the short comings of the TS-2000X, I don't think I'd trade
>> it even up for an IC-910H with a the 1.2 gig module installed...
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Mark N8MH
>
>
> Mark,
>
> Didn't you have a kenwood TS-790 too? ?I use the TS-790, and a TS-440s HF
> rig and wondered how the receivers in the TS-2000 compare to the receivers
> in the TS-790 on 2m and 70cm. ?I wonder if people like its HF performance, I
> would be using it on HF in place of my 22 year old TS-440.
>
> KB7ADL
>
>
--
Mark L. Hammond [N8MH]
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:02:00 -0600
From: "Dads" <w0sat@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] satellite rig comparison
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <SNT125-DS11CC267AF80BF7B263B246E4970@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Hi; I have owned the Ft-736 R and the Ft-847, which I am using now.
No matter which rig you decide to buy the most important thing
is the antenna system.
I use KLM,s with switchers and pre amps.
I switch my pre amps off and on from the shack.
My 847 has a pre amp built in too.
Nothing is better than MAST MOUNTED PRE AMPS THOUGH.
If my 847 goes bad I will replace it with another used 847.
I also work a lot of HF too.
I run barefoot on HF all the time.
I also get through all the pile ups because I have a good
antenna
with gain.
Through the years I have made over 15,000 satellite
contacts alone.
73,s Jerry w0sat
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:04:30 +0100
From: "i8cvs" <domenico.i8cvs@xxx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: morning pass AO-51
To: "OZ1MY" <oz1my@xxxxxx.xx>, "AMSAT-BB" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <002701ca71ef$f25bb7e0$0201a8c0@xxx.xx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi ib, OZ1MY
The accent of the interfering station on AO-51 is from Sardinia Island
and the person speaking is a radioamateur discussing about a 50 ohm
impedance with another Ham.
www.enduro.idl.pl/audio_sat/AO51_30_11_09_0754UTC.mp3
You cannot solve the problem existing as well in Spain shooting down
all taxi drivers that are using 2 meters for their communications.
The only cure is to make the LEO satellite receivers less sensitive and use
more EIRP at the ground station.........no HT's my friend !
The above problem was not existing on HEO satellites like OSCAR-10
OSCAR-13 and AO40 because the EIRP necessary to access the transponder
was almost 20 dB greater than the power radiated by a taxi driver or by the
Sardinian station.
The second cure don't sell a tranceiver covering the amateur band to
everybody without an amateur licence is against the commercial purposes
i.e. it is unviable.
I know that you will complain with my statement and the Spanish autorities
but if you don't like the Spanish or Sardinia interference over AO-27, AO-52
and SO-50 you must pull for only one HEO and not for many supersensitive
LEO's
73" de
i8CVS Domenico
----- Original Message -----
From: "OZ1MY" <oz1my@xxxxxx.xx>
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 5:05 PM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: morning pass AO-51
> Hi Mateusz,
> It sounds like Spanish to me. I heard it during the pass
> also.
> In Spain some people use the 2 meter band for privat
> talk. They are not necessarily radio amateurs.
> It is an old story :-(
>
> I tried to contact the Spanish authorities - but
> they do not do anything.
>
> It is often worse on the AO-27 uplink at 145.850 MHz.
> Sometimes they block SO-50 - but you can not hear it -
> however they make it drop out.
>
> 73 OZ1MY
> Ib
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mateusz" <sq7dqx@xxxxxx.xxxx.xx>
> To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 9:32 AM
> Subject: [amsat-bb] morning pass AO-51
>
>
> > 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 16
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:15:28 +0000 (UTC)
From: Bob- W7LRD <w7lrd@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Satellite QSO distance record attempt
To: Kevin Groth <hislens@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx Daniel Nick Kucij <dnkucij@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID:
<351374791.7582631259608528102.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xx.xxxx.xxxxxx
x.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
This thread brings up a ongoing effort between myself and Eric-PA1TNO.? At
best we share a 30 second window on AO-7.? This equates to a distance of
7837.7Km.? Just trying to streeeeeeeeetch the footprint.
73 Bob W7LRD
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Groth" <hislens@xxxxx.xxx>
To: "Daniel Nick Kucij" <dnkucij@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 9:01:48 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Satellite QSO distance record attempt
So far, my record is 3019 miles on AO51. ?I caught KL4E, Craig, up in
Alaska. ?My furthest contact south is 2484 miles to YV5DSL, Jose, in
Caracas, Venezuela. ?I work days so I can't usually get on in the mornings
during the week but later in the evenings around 10pm-1am CST, I usually
have SO50 all to myself or maybe one other station- which is absolutely no
good at all, but I always try to CQ South America in hopes of going further
south.
This morning, I had a scheduled contact with NH7WN, Robert, in Honolulu-
which would have been a 3753.190 mile contact. ?He was on an HT and an Arrow
standing in 40 mph winds and rain at 4:40am his time!! ?Sawson, KG6NUB, set
everything up and did a great job of coordinating the attempted QSO. ?Thanks
Sawson! ?Apparently we just missed the QSO. ?Robert heard me but I did not
hear him. ?I believe I waited just a moment too long to transmit and lost
the window. ?Seconds counted there! ?I also appreciate the courtesy of
VE6AB, Jerry, and K6CDW, David, for clearing during the attempt. ?All in
all, it was a great attempt and we plan on trying again as soon as possible.
Kevin
N9EME
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Nick Kucij [mailto:dnkucij@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 9:18 AM
To: hislens@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Satellite QSO distance records
Hi Kevin,
I was surprised your post did not attract more discussion than it did, ?
as it seems we all love the DX. I've also searched online before and ?
could not find anything except for the AO-7 references. I've never ?
found the actual footprint dimensions for AO-51/AO-27 either. This ?
summer while on the coast of Maine, I tried some trans-atlantic DX on ?
AO-51 and AO-27 for the first time. I was using a handheld and ?
homebrew yagi (2up, 5down) pictured on my QRZ page. To my amazement, I ?
worked the Canary Is. and Spain on my first try from the top of ?
Cadillac Mt. in Acadia National Park..
Since returning home to Vermont, I've kept at it, sometimes using a ?
small amp and/or preamp. I've been quite successful with confirmed ?
contacts from the Azores, Canary Is, Spain, England, Ireland, ?
Scotland, and Iceland. All of these have been on LEO FM birds ay DX in ?
the +/- 3000 mile range. Some of them were made completely barefoot on ?
the HTs, some were two way HT with no amp either side! I've heard ?
Wales, but he didn't hear me.
My best DX QSO on AO-27 is England at 3203 Miles (5155 Km). My best DX ?
contact on AO-51 is the Canary Is at 3339 miles (5374 km) It's always ?
a thrill to do it even when I work the same station over again.
My best North American continental DX is Inuvik, NWT at 2674 miles on ?
AO-51.
I see you have a great antenna set-up. How far south have you been ?
able to work with it?
73
Nick
KB1RVT
_______________________________________________
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 member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
End of AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol 4, Issue 634
****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
