| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 01.12.09 01:25l 1004 Lines 33745 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AMSATBB4636
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V4 636
Path: IZ3LSV<IK2XDE<ON4HU<ON0BEL<CX2SA
Sent: 091130/2315Z @:CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA #:21660 [Minas] FBB7.00e $:AMSATBB4636
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000 (Stan, W1LE)
2. SO-67 Recordings 29Nov2009 USA (John Papay)
3. Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000 (Edward Cole)
4. Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000 (John Geiger)
5. Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000 (Alan Cresswell)
6. Re: AMSAT at the Tampa Bay Hamfest, Dec 5-6
(n4csitwo@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx
7. Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000 (wrb)
8. Maximum distance for the LEO satellites (OZ1MY)
9. Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000 (John Geiger)
10. Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000 (w4upd)
11. Re: Frustration (Gordon JC Pearce)
12. Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000 (Tom)
13. Icom 910 (Douglas Anoman)
14. "Frustration" Solved! (Michael Tondee)
15. Re: Icom 910 (John Geiger)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:05:56 -0500
From: "Stan, W1LE" <stanw1le@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
To: k0tw@xxx.xxx
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4B1425A4.4060400@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
You know you have toooo much antenna when your neighbor's
lights dim when you change AZ or EL.
Stan, W1LE
Tom wrote:
> Thanks for all of the great information. Since both the TS2000 and IC910H
>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:10:57 -0500
From: John Papay <john@xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] SO-67 Recordings 29Nov2009 USA
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <865592.70285.qm@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
I have uploaded the three morning passes of SO-67 as follows:
http://www.papays.com/SO-67_29Nov2009_132150z.mp3
http://www.papays.com/SO-67_29Nov2009_145433z.mp3
http://www.papays.com/SO-67_29Nov2009_162953z.mp3
If you want to make successful qso's on SO-67, you
must change the way you normally operate. The three
second tail is different than any other satellite so
you must adjust for it. If you don't, you will not
have much fun.
The first way to make a good contact is to wait 3 seconds
after the last station transmits before you transmit. You
will then be able to transmit for as long as the qrm will
allow. I believe there is a 30 second timer which will
come into play if a valid signal with PL is continuous
for that period of time.
If someone calls you and you can reply in less than three
seconds, by all means jump right in and transmit as soon
as the other station drops. There is enough time to
acknowledge with your grid square and a "qsl." There is
normally not enough time to add your callsign. If you have to
say more than 3 seconds worth, wait until the tail timer
expires (3 seconds) before you start transmitting.
If you are full duplex, you can easily transmit on the
3 second tail, hear yourself drop, unkey and then begin
transmitting again. That has worked for some.
There is a third way to get around the tail timer and that
is to start transmitting before the station you are working
unkeys. If there is a squelch crash, you missed and the tail
timer will get you. If you get your transmitter on before
the other station drops, you'll be able to exchange your info
without dropping. It's tricky and full duplex helps.
There are many other factors which can contribute to a drop
including being clobbered by another station. If the
clobbering station is not running PL, the three second timer
starts and the bird will drop. Again, full duplex helps to
hear what is going on when you are transmitting. Running
too much deviation can also mute the receiver and start the
timer. Turn your mic gain down and your processor off. Use
narrow FM on your transmit signal if your radio has it.
Incorporating a 3 second waiting period is very difficult because
we have been programmed to respond immediately after the station
we are working stops transmitting. Failure to begin transmitting
immediately usually results in someone else making a call. However,
when working SO-67, transmitting immediately will start the 3 second
timer. It takes discipline to wait.
The last option is to just listen and let the others experience the
fun. (smile)
73,
John K8YSE
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:34:32 -0900
From: Edward Cole <kl7uw@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <200911302034.nAUKYY7w020202@xxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Tom,
That is the old standard for satellite operation
when we had MEO and HEO sats to work.
Since I have my old antennas that is what I am putting up:
145: 7-element M2 yagi, mgf-1302 preamp, TR relay
at tower, 50w FT-847 (about 20w max at
antenna). The KLM-22C will replace this antenna once I have re-assembled.
435: M2-436CP42, 50w PA at tower, mgf-1302
preamp, with TR relay to support either mode-B or J
1268: 45-element loop-yagi, 15w Tx converter
(DEMI 1268/144) (drives with 2w on 144)
2400: 33-inch dish, helix feed, MK232 LNA, two
Drake converters (123 & 435 IF's)
Since these are all narrow beamwidth antennas
auto-tracking is desirable. I am using the B5400
az-el rotator with Unitrac-2000, SATPC32
I have all the antennasand the 1268 unit mounted
. Dish is next then we swing it all up into
place and install the outdoor box with 12v PS and electronics:
http://www.kl7uw.com/sat.htm
73, Ed - KL7UW
At 10:38 AM 11/30/2009, Tom wrote:
>Thanks for all of the great information. Since both the TS2000 and IC910H
>have been around a while I believe that most of their 'problems' have been
>at least discovered. So, in that respect, I'm leaning away from the "still
>to be debugged" IC-9100. Also new rigs always are priced high in the
>beginning of their life, as we all know. I know that some of the ham dealers
>are offering "Closeout" prices on the 910H but I didn't see much difference
>from previous pricing.
>
>Not to prolong this thread but Jerry's append (below) brings up another
>question. How much antenna is "too much" for satellite operation. Someone
>earlier mentioned that an 11 element yagi might have a beam width too narrow
>to closely follow an LEO bird. I had planned on using yagis with 13 elements
>on 2M and 18 els on 70cm. Is that a bad plan?
>
>Thanks again.
>Tom, K?TW
>
> > 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
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
73, Ed - KL7UW, WD2XSH/45
======================================
BP40IQ 500 KHz - 10-GHz www.kl7uw.com
500-KHz/CW, 144-MHz EME, 1296-MHz EME
DUBUS Magazine USA Rep dubususa@xxxxxxx.xxx
======================================
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:52:24 -0800 (PST)
From: John Geiger <aa5jg@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx Perry Yantis <py41@xxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <570270.33968.qm@xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
I have owned a couple of TS2000s in the past and have been hearing this
"deaf on VHF/UHF" comment before and don't know where it comes from. I have
used a TS2000 with no problems on the sats, for tropo, and meteor scatter,
and it hears just fine on 2m and 70cm with the internal preamp. The QST
review of the radios support this. It measures the MDS on 2m at
-141dbm for the TS2000 and -142dbm for the 910H. Not sure that you could
hear that 1 DB difference. There is a bit more difference on FM in favor of
the 910H.
Like another person stated, you can catch the end of the AO27 and SO50 pass
with the TS2000 when the downlink moves away from the birdie. I also heard
that an external mast mounted preamp will put the sats signal above the
birdie.
ALso, given the prices for each one, the 910 probably becomes as expensive
if not more expensive once you add a CW filter, TXCO, and DSP board, so it
is similarly equipped as the TS2000, and the AF DSP in the Icom radios (706,
718, etc) isn't very impressive.
Plus with the TS2000 you get 6m, which makes it a great VHF/UHF weak signal
and contesting rig, and as a back up or primary HF rig. The crossband
repeat feature is neat also, where you can work HF or 6m using an HT.
73s John AA5JG
--- On Mon, 11/30/09, Perry Yantis <py41@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> From: Perry Yantis <py41@xxx.xxx>
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
> To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> Date: Monday, November 30, 2009, 11:29 AM
>
> 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
>
> ?
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 5
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:59:17 -0000
From: "Alan Cresswell" <alancresswell@xxxx.xx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <72CCAEFFB6BD45CE81327E3DF4D37C90@xxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi tom,
I also have reasonably late production models of both the TS-2000x and the
IC-910. I have two independent Az/El tracking arrays so I am able to
compare the two rigs side by side on any given pass. I can not detect any
difference in sensitivity between the two on either band. The TS-2000 has
an advantage under marginal conditions because of the DSP. I presume the
IC-910 would do as well if the DSP was added. Apart from the points listed
below the 2000 has a +/- 10kHz RIT range against the +/- 1kHz on the 910.
Useful where stations don?t have Doppler correction - I run out of range on
the 910.
Also from my point of view the 2000 has a full range of DTMF tones and tone
memories which I use on a daily basis. For me however the CAT control is by
far the deciding factor. The only front panel control I use is the Power
On. Everything else happens when I select a satellite on my display. The
910 is much more limited in this respect.
The 438MHz birdie is a nuisance but as we do not have AO-27 in this part of
the world and I can work AO-07 mode A on the 2000 it is swings and
roundabouts. Both great satellite rigs so in the end I guess it comes down
to a decision based on your particular type of operation.
73
Alan
ZL2BX
-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
Behalf Of Mark L. Hammond
Sent: Monday, 30 November 2009 16:30
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx k0tw@xxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
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
_______________________________________________
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: 6
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:27:42 -0500
From: <n4csitwo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AMSAT at the Tampa Bay Hamfest, Dec 5-6
To: "Andrew Glasbrenner" <glasbrenner@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Amsat-BB"
<amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>, <amsat-florida@xxxxx.xxx>, <fieldops@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <5AC00F65C5A04D6893D4CA56E759DD28@xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
I think you probably got me message the other day Drew, but I plan to be
there to help too. I'll probably get there early to scope out the tailgate
area, then head over to the booth.
Dave, AA4KN
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Glasbrenner" <glasbrenner@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Amsat-BB" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>; <amsat-florida@xxxxx.xxx>;
<fieldops@xxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 11:39 AM
Subject: [amsat-bb] AMSAT at the Tampa Bay Hamfest, Dec 5-6
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 7
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:11:13 -0500
From: wrb <wrb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
To: k0tw@xxx.xxx
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4B1426E1.50602@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Your antenna plan is not bad, you just to make sure that their pointing
(direction) are reasonably accurate. The larger the array, the higher
the gain, the more narrow the beam width. The 11 element array pointing
comment was just to be sure that that individual was reasonably close to
the direction of the bird. Off pointed and he could be experiencing the
problem he is seeing of not hearing the bird(s). If was meant only as
another suggestion to look at.
When I get my rotator fixed, I plan on putting the KLM two meter 22
element and 70 cm 40 element arrays back up. They worked extremely well
on AO-7 and the HEOs that once circled the heavens.
Reid, W4UPD
Tom wrote:
> Thanks for all of the great information. Since both the TS2000 and IC910H
> have been around a while I believe that most of their 'problems' have been
> at least discovered. So, in that respect, I'm leaning away from the "still
> to be debugged" IC-9100. Also new rigs always are priced high in the
> beginning of their life, as we all know. I know that some of the ham dealers
> are offering "Closeout" prices on the 910H but I didn't see much difference
> from previous pricing.
>
> Not to prolong this thread but Jerry's append (below) brings up another
> question. How much antenna is "too much" for satellite operation. Someone
> earlier mentioned that an 11 element yagi might have a beam width too narrow
> to closely follow an LEO bird. I had planned on using yagis with 13 elements
> on 2M and 18 els on 70cm. Is that a bad plan?
>
> Thanks again.
> Tom, K?TW
>
>
>> 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.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:39:27 +0100
From: "OZ1MY" <oz1my@xxxxxx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Maximum distance for the LEO satellites
To: "AMSAT-BB" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <000501ca7205$976286a0$6501a8c0@xxxxxx.xx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi all,
Interesting to see the talk about distance records.
Just for fun I tried to find the "best case" distance
for the different satellites.
Conditions for the calculations:
Used NOVA for Windows to find the maximum height.
Used Jan Kings Spreed Sheet to find Slant Range with an elevation of 0
degrees.
Multiplied by 2 to get maximum distance between two stations.
Sat. Max. Height Slant Range Max. Distance between stations
AO-51 817 km 3300 km 6600 km
SO-50 690 km 3046 km 6092 km
AO-27 800 km 3293 km 6586 km
AO-?7 1459 km 4552 km 9104 km
FO-29 1322 km 4314 km 8628 km
VO-52 643 km 2935 km 5870 km
SO-67 506 km 2591 km 5182 km
XW-1 1200 km 4092 km 8184 km
Hope it is right :-)
73 OZ1MY
Ib
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:47:11 -0800 (PST)
From: John Geiger <aa5jg@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
To: k0tw@xxx.xxxx wrb <wrb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <64937.57999.qm@xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
I have used a Cushcraft 13B2 (13 elements) on 2m and a Cushcraft 719B (19
elements) on 70cm on the satellites with no problem. Didn't experience
either as being too narrow beamwidth for sat use.
73s John AA5JG
--- On Mon, 11/30/09, wrb <wrb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> From: wrb <wrb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
> To: k0tw@xxx.xxx
> Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> Date: Monday, November 30, 2009, 2:11 PM
> Your antenna plan is not bad, you
> just to make sure that their pointing
> (direction) are reasonably accurate. The larger the array,
> the higher
> the gain, the more narrow the beam width. The 11 element
> array pointing
> comment was just to be sure that that individual was
> reasonably close to
> the direction of the bird. Off pointed and he could be
> experiencing the
> problem he is seeing of not hearing the bird(s). If was
> meant only as
> another suggestion to look at.
>
> When I get my rotator fixed, I plan on putting the KLM two
> meter 22
> element and 70 cm 40 element arrays back up. They worked
> extremely well
> on AO-7 and the HEOs that once circled the heavens.
>
> Reid, W4UPD
>
>
> Tom wrote:
> > Thanks for all of the great information. Since both
> the TS2000 and IC910H
> > have been around a while I believe that most of their
> 'problems' have been
> > at least discovered. So, in that respect, I'm leaning
> away from the "still
> > to be debugged" IC-9100. Also new rigs always are
> priced high in the
> > beginning of their life, as we all know. I know that
> some of the ham dealers
> > are offering "Closeout" prices on the 910H but I
> didn't see much difference
> > from previous pricing.
> >
> > Not to prolong this thread but Jerry's append (below)
> brings up another
> > question. How much antenna is "too much" for satellite
> operation. Someone
> > earlier mentioned that an 11 element yagi might have a
> beam width too narrow
> > to closely follow an LEO bird. I had planned on using
> yagis with 13 elements
> > on 2M and 18 els on 70cm. Is that a bad plan?
> >
> > Thanks again.
> > Tom, K?TW
> >
> >???
> >> 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.
> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >>? ???
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 10
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:57:42 -0500
From: w4upd <updwrb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
To: John Geiger <aa5jg@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: wrb <wrb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>, amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4B143FD6.3070507@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
I am amazed at how many people take things stated out of context on this
reflector. I never said that any of the arrays would not work due to
being too narrow for satellite work. An individual asked about the
problem they were having hearing the satellites and it was stated that
if none of the other suggestions worked to consider that the arrays they
are using are pointed correctly in the correct direction of the
satellite. Pointing being off, the nulls could easily block the
satellite's reception. The larger the array the more this might be
evident. The larger the array, stacked arrays and even dish antennas,
pointing becomes a bit more critical.
Reid, W4UPD
John Geiger wrote:
> I have used a Cushcraft 13B2 (13 elements) on 2m and a Cushcraft 719B (19
elements) on 70cm on the satellites with no problem. Didn't experience
either as being too narrow beamwidth for sat use.
>
> 73s John AA5JG
>
> --- On Mon, 11/30/09, wrb <wrb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>
>
>> From: wrb <wrb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
>> To: k0tw@xxx.xxx
>> Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
>> Date: Monday, November 30, 2009, 2:11 PM
>> Your antenna plan is not bad, you
>> just to make sure that their pointing
>> (direction) are reasonably accurate. The larger the array,
>> the higher
>> the gain, the more narrow the beam width. The 11 element
>> array pointing
>> comment was just to be sure that that individual was
>> reasonably close to
>> the direction of the bird. Off pointed and he could be
>> experiencing the
>> problem he is seeing of not hearing the bird(s). If was
>> meant only as
>> another suggestion to look at.
>>
>> When I get my rotator fixed, I plan on putting the KLM two
>> meter 22
>> element and 70 cm 40 element arrays back up. They worked
>> extremely well
>> on AO-7 and the HEOs that once circled the heavens.
>>
>> Reid, W4UPD
>>
>>
>> Tom wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for all of the great information. Since both
>>>
>> the TS2000 and IC910H
>>
>>> have been around a while I believe that most of their
>>>
>> 'problems' have been
>>
>>> at least discovered. So, in that respect, I'm leaning
>>>
>> away from the "still
>>
>>> to be debugged" IC-9100. Also new rigs always are
>>>
>> priced high in the
>>
>>> beginning of their life, as we all know. I know that
>>>
>> some of the ham dealers
>>
>>> are offering "Closeout" prices on the 910H but I
>>>
>> didn't see much difference
>>
>>> from previous pricing.
>>>
>>> Not to prolong this thread but Jerry's append (below)
>>>
>> brings up another
>>
>>> question. How much antenna is "too much" for satellite
>>>
>> operation. Someone
>>
>>> earlier mentioned that an 11 element yagi might have a
>>>
>> beam width too narrow
>>
>>> to closely follow an LEO bird. I had planned on using
>>>
>> yagis with 13 elements
>>
>>> on 2M and 18 els on 70cm. Is that a bad plan?
>>>
>>> Thanks again.
>>> Tom, K?TW
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:59:27 +0000
From: Gordon JC Pearce <gordonjcp@xxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Frustration
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4B14403F.5010309@xxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Michael Tondee wrote:
> I've been trying to get my receive setup going the last few days but I'm
> having horrible results. I have my 11 element 70cm "cheap yagi" back up
> on the mast and my homebrew SaebrTrack and OR-360 AZ/EL TV rotator
> system interfaced to SatPC32
Simplify. An 11-element yagi is very very pointy. Everything would
need to be absolutely bob on to even be looking *near* the satellite.
Make yourself a K5OE handi-tenna - nice little three-element Yagi, great
for portable operation. Work out where the satellite will "rise" and
"set" and when, and tune manually for Doppler. Wait for a good high
pass, and start about 10kHz high. Most FM radios tune in a minimum of
5kHz steps, so you've got only a couple of "notches" to try. The little
three-element Yagi has a very broad beam, so you don't have to be *too*
accurate.
Gordon MM0YEQ
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:35:07 -0700
From: "Tom" <k0tw@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <7B287ED8B2B344CE9EBC3FD59F4BD250@xxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Being a recent newbie to the LEOs it had never even occurred to me that too
narrow a beam width could present a problem with staying pointed at those
satellites. Thanks, Reid, for bringing that thought up in my mind. I wasn't
taking it out of context. I was just wondering if it was an unforeseen
problem (by me) that I needed to address. It's things like this that allow
us to learn.
It appears that a narrow beam width is not normally a problem and I thank
John and others who pointed that out.
73,
Tom, K?TW
> I have used a Cushcraft 13B2 (13 elements) on 2m and a Cushcraft 719B (19
elements) on 70cm on the
> satellites with no problem. Didn't experience either as being too narrow
beamwidth for sat use.
>
> 73s John AA5JG
>
> I am amazed at how many people take things stated out of context on this
> reflector. I never said that any of the arrays would not work due to
> problem they were having hearing the satellites and it was stated that
> if none of the other suggestions worked to consider that the arrays they
> are using are pointed correctly in the correct direction of the
> satellite. Pointing being off, the nulls could easily block the
> satellite's reception. The larger the array the more this might be
> evident. The larger the array, stacked arrays and even dish antennas,
> pointing becomes a bit more critical.
>
> Reid, W4UPD
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:03:19 +0000
From: Douglas Anoman <danoman@xxxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Icom 910
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <COL108-W5F1480EC4043016F59A30DA970@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Some one from Icom told me that the Icom 910 is no longer being made, Is
this true?
Thank You
Douglas Anoman
KC9MLN
KC9MLN@xxxxx.xxx
Amsat #37043
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:06:12 -0500
From: Michael Tondee <mat_62@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] "Frustration" Solved!
To: AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4B144FE4.6080805@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Well, just got through listening to a pass of AO-51. As several have
suggested, it was a pointing issue with the antenna.
I can't believe my memory has gotten to the point where I couldn't
remember where North was the last time I had the antennas up.
Thing is, I actually took a compass reading the other day and
compensated for declination but I must have misread something
somewhere. I was only about 20 degrees off! Declination here is only 4
degrees so it couldn't have been that. That's what I get for working on
stuff at dusk I guess. I'm slightly embarrassed!
BTW, I didn't mean to make anyone think that an 11 element yagi was
too narrow for LEO's. It's fine if you point the dang thing right!
Also, the reason why I went this route with the more complex antenna and
AZ/EL system is that I already had the stuff on hand from my last foray
into satellites. Only the preamp was new and I knew that everything had
worked before. I can certainly appreciate the suggestions on
simplification and I was about to do just that if I didn't have any
success today.
Now I just have to work out some of my cable issues and get something
going for transmit. My 2 meter "cheap yagi" has seen better days. Once I
get that, I'll raise the mast and get the antennas up to their normal
height.
I'm just using HT's right now but I hope to have a new TS-2000X
sometime after the first of the year. I've been quite interested in the
TS-2000 vs. IC910H thread. I know that Icom has discontinued the 910
because of the 9100 but I was under the impression that Kenwood would
release a new rig at Dayton this year and wonder if that will mean the
demise of the TS-2000.
Thanks everyone for the suggestions and also allowing me to "vent" a
bit last night.I was getting pretty frustrated.
73,
Michael, W4HIJ
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:12:13 -0800 (PST)
From: John Geiger <aa5jg@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx KC9MLN@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <756905.20455.qm@xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
It has been discontinued by Icom, to be replaced by the Icom 9100.
73s John AA5JG
--- On Mon, 11/30/09, Douglas Anoman <danoman@xxxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> From: Douglas Anoman <danoman@xxxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx>
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Icom 910
> To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> Date: Monday, November 30, 2009, 5:03 PM
>
> Some one from Icom told me that the Icom 910 is no longer
> being made, Is this true?
>
> Thank You
> Douglas Anoman
> KC9MLN
> KC9MLN@xxxxx.xxx
> Amsat #37043
>
>
>
>
> ???
> ????????
> ?????? ???
> ?
> _______________________________________________
> 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 636
****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
