| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 01.12.09 18:35l 856 Lines 33341 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AMSATBB4637
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V4 637
Path: IZ3LSV<IK2XDE<PY1AYH<PY1AYH<CX2SA
Sent: 091201/1630Z @:CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA #:21858 [Minas] FBB7.00e $:AMSATBB4637
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Auto-Tune (John Heath)
2. Re: "Frustration" Solved! (Greg Dober)
3. Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000 (Bruce Robertson)
4. Re: Boost To higher Orbits? (Tony Langdon)
5. Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000 (Michael Tondee)
6. Re: "Frustration" Solved! (Rocky Jones)
7. IC-970 vs. newer rigs (Peter Jordahl)
8. Link requirements for LEOS (Steven O'Neal)
9. Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000 (Henk, PA3GUO)
10. FT-736R Help Needed (Hal Lund ZS6WB)
11. Re: "Frustration" Solved! (Bob McGwier)
12. video: stand-alone tracking and tuning with Arduino
(Bruce Robertson)
13. Re: IC-970 vs. newer rigs (John Geiger)
14. Re: Interference in Spain (Lino IK1SOW)
15. Re: video: stand-alone tracking and tuning with Arduino
(Alexandru Csete)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:32:44 +0000 (GMT)
From: John Heath <g7hia@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Auto-Tune
To: Joe Leikhim <rhyolite@xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: Amsat <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <741375.38986.qm@xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Hi Joe,
I didn't know about auto tuners used by musicians.
About 5 years ago I had a similar idea for tuning the Doppler without
computer control.
Thought it would be a neat feature inside a transciever so sent the idea? to
Yaesu Japan but got no reply.
73 John G7HIA
________________________________
From: Joe Leikhim <rhyolite@xxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: kc6uqh@xxx.xxx
Cc: AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx
Sent: Monday, 30 November, 2009 14:08:45
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Auto-Tune
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: 2
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:38:44 -0500
From: "Greg Dober" <almetco@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: "Frustration" Solved!
To: <AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <000301ca7216$41f7db50$c5e791f0$@xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Michael,
Looking forward to working you and glad the problem is solved. In pre-gray
hair days, I use to make fun of the TV instructions when the troubleshooting
section noted: Make sure TV is plugged into outlet. Not anymore!! Just
yesterday I spent a half hour wondering why my printer didn't print. When
you remove the wrong ethernet cable earlier in the day and assumed it was
the correct one for another device...well, you know the rest of the story.
73
Greg
N3MVF
-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
Behalf Of Michael Tondee
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 6:06 PM
To: AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] "Frustration" Solved!
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
_______________________________________________
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: 3
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:11:59 -0400
From: Bruce Robertson <ve9qrp@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
To: k0tw@xxx.xxx
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID:
<49657a760911301611j30a6deb7t9e37b7bf4299ad19@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Tom <k0tw@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
I'm going to elaborate on this discussion, for the benefit of
beginners who are considering building new stations with tracking
antennas. The narrower the beam, of course, the greater the gain when
pointing at the bird, both transmit and receive, and -- this is the
critical issue -- the lower the gain when you are pointed away from
the bird. Now with LEO satellites, some of which cross the sky in say
15 minutes, you need to have everything spot-on if your beamwidth is
very narrow: the station clock has to be accurate within a second, the
keps have to be up-to-date, etc. otherwise, your computer is telling
the rotors to point in the sky where the satellite is going to be in
five seconds, or will be in five. Especially with high passes, you can
be off by enough to not be able to hear the bird at all. So on
receive, long antennas, besides the additional expense and challenge
of mounting them, also add the challenge of getting your station
perfectly aligned, or you'll hear zippo.
On transmit, long antennas present another challenge: they
'concentrate' your signal so that it might well be excessively
powerful for the satellite in question. If my homebrew 7 - element
70cm yagi often needs to be down around 5w xmit on VO-52 to be in the
right range of effective power, how will I deal with things when I
have a 40-element beam? By all rights, I should put an attenuator
between the rig and the antenna so that I can get down under a watt!
It is my opinion, in fact, that a significant proportion of the
over-powered signals on our birds are from people in just this
situation: people using HEO antenna systems that simply can't provide
a small enough signal!
In fact, LEO satellites do not require these sorts of antenna systems
for reliable use. A beginner will be perfectly happy with, say, four
elements on 2m and 6-7 on 70cm (assuming the use of low-noise preamps,
which you are *crazy*to do without on long antennas, too). The beauty
of this system is that if a high wind knocks it slightly out of whack
in azimuth, it will not be the end of your satellite work: you'll just
have weaker signals, not silence. The other beauty of this system is
that it doesn't require an elevation rotor *at all*. Because the
elevation pattern of the antennas will more-or-less fill the sky if
you point the array up about 10-20 degrees (make it 10 if you have a
clear horizon). Now, suddenly, you've avoided all the hassle of
another rotor, you've made your array lighter and easier to work with,
and you have way less of a demand on your pointing system. Heck, if
you want to go ol' school, you can do the pointing yourself with a
twist of the dial.
These yagis do not need to be brilliantly built: mine were made with
welding rod and pine wood. They had very strange lobes off the side,
and all the rest, but they netted me lots of Q's and were very
reliable.
To be even more radical, I urge beginners to start with
omni-directional antennas and low-noise preamps. A wire dipole or a
vertical, both with almost no coax between them and the preamp, should
hear 'stuff' really well. Not Q-5, but a start. Then use this as a
baseline from which to compare the theoretical and real-world
improvement you get with your yagi array. If you aren't getting
improvement, then work out what's up.
This is not an argument against long arrays. I'm building some that I
bought from someone on this list around this time last year. I want to
do some exotic stuff like work Russia over the pole on AO-07 or hear
every last beep out of the newest cubesat. But I'm aware that in my
windy region these are going to be a bear to keep in place. So I'm
putting as much work into an omni array, too. I plan to transmit from
the latter when things get too QRO.
I guess in summary I'd say that in my opinion a big antenna array
isn't like a high-power computer, which works the same as a
lower-powered one, but has the umph when you need it; it is like
buying a high-powered plane as a new pilot: significantly more
challenging, and possibly leading to frustration.
73, Bruce
VE9QRP
>
>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 4
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 11:20:45 +1100
From: Tony Langdon <vk3jed@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Boost To higher Orbits?
To: Bob McGwier <rwmcgwier@xxxxx.xxx>, Idle-Tyme <nss@xxx.xxx>
Cc: AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4b14616d.0e0bca0a.2292.43d4@xx.xxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 11:17 PM 11/30/2009, Bob McGwier wrote:
>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".
You can change the direction of the acceleration vector somewhat by
angling the solar sail. Remember that momentum is a vector quantity,
and if the photon is deflected at an angle (rather than directly back
to the Sun), you can apply the acceleration in a different
direction. You can't tack in the way a yacht tacks, because there is
no keel, but you can direct the acceleration vector to increase or
decrease relative speed at different points of the orbit. That way,
it may be possible to raise both sides of the orbit, by providing the
maximum force not at right angles to the Sun's position, but somewhat
before or after that point (by using an angled sail).
>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.
This is true. It has been attempted, but no success...
yet. However, many great advances in technology have been developed
by amateurs in the past.
>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.
I don't have the knowledge to do the calculations of drag, etc, so no comment.
73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:43:54 -0500
From: Michael Tondee <mat_62@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4B1466CA.3010206@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
All excellent points Bruce and I might add to any beginners out there,
the reason I went the way I did with my antennas back when I had my
full blown satellite rig is that I "wanted" the challenge of building a
homebrew AZ/EL setup. I did enough research to know that it certainly
wasn't necessary for LEO's, omni's are fine. I'm considering homebrewing
some eggbeaters, groundplanes and turnstiles just to experiment with. I
guess I got it from my late father ( the original W4HIJ), I like to play
with antennas. :-)
Michael
Bruce Robertson wrote
>> I'm going to elaborate on this discussion, for the benefit of
>> beginners who are considering building new stations with tracking
>> antennas. The narrower the beam, of course, the greater the gain when
>> pointing at the bird, both transmit and receive, and -- this is the
>> critical issue -- the lower the gain when you are pointed away from
>> the bird. Now with LEO satellites, some of which cross the sky in say
>> 15 minutes, you need to have everything spot-on if your beamwidth is
>> very narrow: the station clock has to be accurate within a second, the
>> keps have to be up-to-date, etc. otherwise, your computer is telling
>> the rotors to point in the sky where the satellite is going to be in
>> five seconds, or will be in five. Especially with high passes, you can
>> be off by enough to not be able to hear the bird at all. So on
>> receive, long antennas, besides the additional expense and challenge
>> of mounting them, also add the challenge of getting your station
>> perfectly aligned, or you'll hear zippo.
>>
>> On transmit, long antennas present another challenge: they
>> 'concentrate' your signal so that it might well be excessively
>> powerful for the satellite in question. If my homebrew 7 - element
>> 70cm yagi often needs to be down around 5w xmit on VO-52 to be in the
>> right range of effective power, how will I deal with things when I
>> have a 40-element beam? By all rights, I should put an attenuator
>> between the rig and the antenna so that I can get down under a watt!
>> It is my opinion, in fact, that a significant proportion of the
>> over-powered signals on our birds are from people in just this
>> situation: people using HEO antenna systems that simply can't provide
>> a small enough signal!
>>
>> In fact, LEO satellites do not require these sorts of antenna systems
>> for reliable use. A beginner will be perfectly happy with, say, four
>> elements on 2m and 6-7 on 70cm (assuming the use of low-noise preamps,
>> which you are *crazy*to do without on long antennas, too). The beauty
>> of this system is that if a high wind knocks it slightly out of whack
>> in azimuth, it will not be the end of your satellite work: you'll just
>> have weaker signals, not silence. The other beauty of this system is
>> that it doesn't require an elevation rotor *at all*. Because the
>> elevation pattern of the antennas will more-or-less fill the sky if
>> you point the array up about 10-20 degrees (make it 10 if you have a
>> clear horizon). Now, suddenly, you've avoided all the hassle of
>> another rotor, you've made your array lighter and easier to work with,
>> and you have way less of a demand on your pointing system. Heck, if
>> you want to go ol' school, you can do the pointing yourself with a
>> twist of the dial.
>>
>> These yagis do not need to be brilliantly built: mine were made with
>> welding rod and pine wood. They had very strange lobes off the side,
>> and all the rest, but they netted me lots of Q's and were very
>> reliable.
>>
>> To be even more radical, I urge beginners to start with
>> omni-directional antennas and low-noise preamps. A wire dipole or a
>> vertical, both with almost no coax between them and the preamp, should
>> hear 'stuff' really well. Not Q-5, but a start. Then use this as a
>> baseline from which to compare the theoretical and real-world
>> improvement you get with your yagi array. If you aren't getting
>> improvement, then work out what's up.
>>
>> This is not an argument against long arrays. I'm building some that I
>> bought from someone on this list around this time last year. I want to
>> do some exotic stuff like work Russia over the pole on AO-07 or hear
>> every last beep out of the newest cubesat. But I'm aware that in my
>> windy region these are going to be a bear to keep in place. So I'm
>> putting as much work into an omni array, too. I plan to transmit from
>> the latter when things get too QRO.
>>
>> I guess in summary I'd say that in my opinion a big antenna array
>> isn't like a high-power computer, which works the same as a
>> lower-powered one, but has the umph when you need it; it is like
>> buying a high-powered plane as a new pilot: significantly more
>> challenging, and possibly leading to frustration.
>>
>> 73, Bruce
>> VE9QRP
>>
>>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:12:39 -0600
From: Rocky Jones <orbitjet@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: "Frustration" Solved!
To: <almetco@xxxxxxx.xxx>, Amsat BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <COL106-W107893268FBDD796390374D6960@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Just
> yesterday I spent a half hour wondering why my printer didn't print. When
> you remove the wrong ethernet cable earlier in the day and assumed it was
> the correct one for another device...well, you know the rest of the story.
>
> 73
> Greg
> N3MVF
>
Ah the old "It was unplugged problem"....a pleasant combination of Murphy
and random chance...
Robert WB5MZO
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141665/direct/01/
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:33:56 -0600
From: "Peter Jordahl" <k5gm@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] IC-970 vs. newer rigs
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <1259627636.15022.1347771127@xxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Have been following the "910H vs. TS-2000" thread. Wonder how the older
IC-970A (good in its day) compares with these newer rigs,
acknowledging the lower power (25W) and lack of any DSP in the receiver.
My 970A is currently in semi-storage waiting for me to have the
old-style trimmer capacitors replaced; the synthesizer no longer locks
on 70 cm. Hope to get that done soon.
Any suggestions as to the best repair site for an older ICOM rig
welcome; I already know about MTS and absent any really glowing
alternative suggestions will probably send it there.
Pete K5GM
AMSAT LM-1618
Pete Jordahl, K5GM
k5gm@xxxxx.xxx
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 01:11:58 +0000
From: "Steven O'Neal" <se_oneal@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Link requirements for LEOS
To: Radio AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <BLU138-W17C5842E0231C62F3E9D3EF960@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
All,
Maybe a dumb, maybe a redundant question that has been asked and answered
multiple times, but here goes.
What sort of link requirements are required to work the current crop of LEOS
in terms of antenna options and commercially available omni antennas?
I was quite active in the early 90's on the Ko23 and Uo22 birds, ended up
with a steerable array (Cushcraft ones), and that worked fine, but wanted to
take another run at working the current crop with something a little less
demanding in terms of getting up in the air and steering.
I've been reading a bit about the M2 Eggbeaters, which seem to pretty good,
but wondering what sort of operating result I would get driving them with a
bare 10 watts out of a FT 726 for a 2 meter up-link and perhaps a preamp on
the 70cm side.
I'd appreciate any observations, comments, results, hints, tips, or whatever
you would care to share.
Thanks
Steve N6CRR/VK8SO (from back in the day)
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 08:26:47 +0100 (CET)
From: "Henk, PA3GUO" <hamoen@xxx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <49348.212.61.80.162.1259652407.squirrel@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Hi !
There is more:
- TS2000 has a built in antenna tuner
Henk, PA3GUO (a proud TS2000X owner since 2001)
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:00:32 -0000
From: "Hal Lund ZS6WB" <zs6wb@xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] FT-736R Help Needed
To: "AMSAT BB" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <BMEJKBJMPCIIBNHPAHIPIEFMDKAA.zs6wb@xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
A South African operator is desperately in need of a component to repair his
FT-736R.
The part is an IC No. HD63A01YO (Hitachi) The FT-736R manual reference is
Yaesu Part Number G1090792, control unit F2891000A diagram item Q1008.
Does anyone in the satellite community know of a source for this component,
possibly from an old 736R that has been cannibalized for spares? The FT-736R
is a great old radio and should be kept in use as long as possible.
I wouldn't part with mine for anything! It's worked a lot of VHF DX both
through the satellites abd off the moon.
Hal ZS6WB
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:47:10 -0500
From: Bob McGwier <rwmcgwier@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: "Frustration" Solved!
To: "'AMSAT-BB'" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <4B152C6E.5080901@xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
I wish I had a buck for every time I have done this. I could drink
coffee for a year at Starbuck's. Why does the technical mind (more male
than female but both nevertheless) tend to run to the worst possibility
rather than look for the simplest. I am about the worst offender I know.
Bob
>
> Just
> yesterday I spent a half hour wondering why my printer didn't print. When
> you remove the wrong ethernet cable earlier in the day and assumed it was
> the correct one for another device...well, you know the rest of the story.
>
> 73
> Greg
> N3MVF
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 11:02:41 -0400
From: Bruce Robertson <ve9qrp@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] video: stand-alone tracking and tuning with
Arduino
To: AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID:
<49657a760912010702q32117bc8k41f4e8247be2542@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Gang:
The following one-minute video shows my breadboarded Arduino
(ATMega328) tracking two satellites and tuning an FT-817 in response.
It also shows the chip periodically announcing the location of the
bird in CW, and, as a bonus, you'll see AO-51 being received with a
simple dipole directly connected to a low-noise preamp.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgNcCGXeRyw
This is an application of the Arduino FT-817, Plan 13, CW and Tle
EEPROM storage libraries available at:
http://code.google.com/p/qrptracker/
One long-term goal is to port this to the Arduino mini-pro, here
http://www.arduino.cc/en/Main/ArduinoBoardProMini, add a clip-on
real-time-clock and battery, and make a 10 satellite tracking dongle
for the FT-817 and TH-D7A that is not much bigger than a USB key, and
suitable for portable use. (In that version, the location will be
stored in EEPROM, not derived from the GPS unit.) Long, long term, I
hope that demoing this technology will inspire ham radio manufacturers
to make stand-alone doppler tuning a built-in feature in rigs like the
ones above.
Right now, however, the code only tunes the downlink, and I have to
spelunk through the code for Instanttune to see how to deal with the
FT-817 on transmit :-)
(For the many people new to this list and this wonderful corner of ham
radio, I should mention that his project is an experimenter's
platform, not a fully-functioning trackbox. For the latter, you want
the LVBTracker, available from AMSAT-NA's shop.)
73, Bruce
--
http://ve9qrp.blogspot.com
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 07:35:09 -0800 (PST)
From: John Geiger <aa5jg@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: IC-970 vs. newer rigs
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx Peter Jordahl <k5gm@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <546684.19673.qm@xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Hi Pete,
I will be interested in seeing what kind of answers you get to this, as it
is also a question that I have wondered. I remember when the 970 was out-it
was definitely a top of the line VHF/UHF radio but I would never have been
able to afford one at that time. THere was also an H model that did 45
watts on both bands.
Not only did Icom offer a 1.2ghz module for it, they also offered a 2.4ghz
module. It was for the satellite portion of 13cm, though, and not the weak
signal portion which is 100mhz lower. That brings me to another point, in
that I wish Icom would realize that satellite rigs also make good weak
signal and VHF contesting rigs. It would be nice if they would have offered
a 6m module (or made 6m standard) on the 910. Yaesu seemed to figure this
out much earlier with the FT726 and FT736. A 910 with 6m would be
awesome-being able to do dualband operation with dual receive on 6m and 2m
would be ideal for contesting and big Es openings where you want to work 6m
but also want to keep an ear out for that elusive 2m Es opening.
Another place that I have heard good things about for Icom is Comtek in
Oregon. I think the website is www.w7jv.com.
I have also heard good things about www.ham-repair.com and
www.landaircom.com. Neither of those specializes in Icom but fixes most
brands of gear.
73s John AA5JG
--- On Mon, 11/30/09, Peter Jordahl <k5gm@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> From: Peter Jordahl <k5gm@xxxxx.xxx>
> Subject: [amsat-bb] IC-970 vs. newer rigs
> To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> Date: Monday, November 30, 2009, 6:33 PM
> Have been following the "910H vs.
> TS-2000" thread.? Wonder how the older
> IC-970A (good in its day) compares with these newer rigs,
> acknowledging the lower power (25W) and lack of any DSP in
> the receiver.
> My 970A is currently in semi-storage waiting for me to
> have the
> old-style trimmer capacitors replaced; the synthesizer no
> longer locks
> on 70 cm.? Hope to get that done soon.?
>
> Any suggestions as to the best repair site for an older
> ICOM rig
> welcome; I already know about MTS and absent? any
> really glowing
> alternative suggestions will probably send it there.
>
> Pete K5GM
> AMSAT LM-1618
> Pete Jordahl, K5GM
> k5gm@xxxxx.xxx
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 14
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:12:59 +0100
From: "Lino IK1SOW" <ik1sow@xxxxx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Interference in Spain
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <DB773E06C4F34F84B8DDA14700BCE12A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
To perhaps resolve the problem of the Spain interference, the audio
subtones could be used for the uplink?
Lino, IK1SOW
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:20:29 +0100
From: Alexandru Csete <alexc@xxxx.xx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: video: stand-alone tracking and tuning with
Arduino
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <20091201172029.75315dwwfo84ud71@xxxxxxx.xxxx.xx.xx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes";
format="flowed"
Quoting Bruce Robertson <ve9qrp@xxxxx.xxx>:
> Gang:
>
> The following one-minute video shows my breadboarded Arduino
> (ATMega328) tracking two satellites and tuning an FT-817 in response.
> It also shows the chip periodically announcing the location of the
> bird in CW, and, as a bonus, you'll see AO-51 being received with a
> simple dipole directly connected to a low-noise preamp.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgNcCGXeRyw
>
> This is an application of the Arduino FT-817, Plan 13, CW and Tle
> EEPROM storage libraries available at:
> http://code.google.com/p/qrptracker/
>
Hi Bruce,
Very nice work, I enjoy following your progress with this project.
> ...
> Right now, however, the code only tunes the downlink, and I have to
> spelunk through the code for Instanttune to see how to deal with the
> FT-817 on transmit :-)
You should be aware that the FT-817 frequency can not be controlled
via CAT during transmission. There are different workarounds
implemented in different desktop applications, but AFAIK none of them
enable active tuning while PTT is on.
On the other hand, you can change the frequency using the dial. The
dial is an optical encoder so it might be possible to hack it that
way. In my frustration I have actually considered this.
73
Alex OZ9AEC
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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 637
****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
