| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 21.01.11 09:02l 911 Lines 28647 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AMSATBB639
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V6 39
Path: IZ3LSV<IK2XDE<DB0RES<DB0EEO<DB0GOS<ON0AR<UA6ADV<CX2SA
Sent: 110121/0701Z @:CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA #:46641 [Minas] FBB7.00e $:AMSATBB639
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. nano sail (jerry)
2. HO68 (PY5LF)
3. Re: 40m EME (AMSAT 0) (Edward R. Cole)
4. HO-68 (Gkcarr)
5. XE2/WD9EWK QSOs in LOTW, and a question
(Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK))
6. QSOs in LOTW, and a question (Ted)
7. Re: XE2/WD9EWK QSOs in LOTW, and a question (Rodney Waln)
8. Re: QSOs in LOTW, and a question (Gary "Joe" Mayfield)
9. restating LOTW question (Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK))
10. Nanosail-D Sail Deploy Successful! (John Boudreau)
11. Re: restating LOTW question (Gary "Joe" Mayfield)
12. Re: XE2/WD9EWK QSOs in LOTW, and a question (Rodney Waln)
13. CJ7EWK & VA7EWK QSOs in LOTW (Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK))
14. Nanosail-D Sail Deploy Successful! (Alan Sieg WB5RMG)
15. Re: SO67 today evening (Mateusz)
16. Re: restating LOTW question (Jeff Yanko)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 19:54:48 -0600
From: "jerry" <jkboxk@xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] nano sail
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <18991AD4086B4292B0AF5657631F7F40@xxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Let Me try this again .
I was getting computer and radio set up to listen for Nano Sail sat. I heard
packet signal before I had the station ready to recieve . It was close to 2
minutes ahead of fastrac .Fastrac was at 0 deg. elevation when I heard the
first packet signal. Could NanoSail be that far ahead of Fastrac ?
In packet strings below , can anyone tell Me which are the "telemetry "
values ?
Thanks , Jerry WB5LHD
Fastrac . S23:25 FAST2/KD5SZV*>KE5DTW>UA,?
23:25 FAST1>KE5DTW>UA,?
23:25 FAST1>KE5DTW>I00,?,F0 (1201 baud):
FAST1 Is Now Connected. GO HORNS!
23:25 FAST1>KE5DTW>I13,?,F0 (1201 baud):
.F772001619429944.99113151619589824191-0.7059+0.5686+0.6000 +1452528.94
+1623706.94 +6669636.31 -5843.71082 +4495.65898 +164.25
23:25 FAST1>KE5DTW>I16,?,F0 (1201 baud):
00 -1389 850 3.032c0 9 0.00 +0.000 +0.00 628 3868
2.995 027 0.00 +0.000 +0.00 553 27
23:25 FAST1>KE5DTW>I17,?,F0 (1201 baud):
92 2.991 018 0.00 +0.000 +0.00 2128 6368 3.001 029
0.00 +0.000 +0.00 3290 530 3.003 0 0
23:25 FAST1>KE5DTW>I10,?,F0 (1201 baud):
0.00 +0.000 +0.00 0 0 0.000 026 0.00
+0.000 +0.00 -674 -1434 3.001c0 5 0.0
23:25 FAST1>KE5DTW>I11,?,F0 (1201 baud):
0 +0.000 +0.00 -2768 -7028 3.002c0 2 0.00 +0.000
+0.00 -121 6617 2.995 0 0 0.00 +0.
23:25 FAST1>KE5DTW>I12,?,F0 (1201 baud):
000 +0.00 0 0 0.000 025 0.00 +0.000 +0.00 898
-361 3.001c04944.
GCP
fast1>
23:25 FAST1>KE5DTW>RR2,?
23:25 FAST1>KE5DTW>I23,?,F0 (1201 baud):
f77 1
P
23:25 FAST1>KE5DTW>I24,?,F0 (1201 baud):
gpsmmc 147415
GCP
fast1>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 23:55:35 -0200
From: "PY5LF" <py5lf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] HO68
To: <AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <000001cbb90e$4b994e10$e2cbea30$@xxx.xx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hello
HO68 beacon back to work , just heard 2:00 UTC over Brazil . Thanks Alan.
73
PY5LF
LUCIANO FABRICIO
CURITIBA-PR-BRAZIL
GG54JM
<http://www.qrz.com/db/py5lf> http://www.qrz.com/db/py5lf
<http://www.falautomation.com.br/> www.falautomation.com.br
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 17:16:14 -0900
From: "Edward R. Cole" <kl7uw@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: 40m EME (AMSAT 0)
To: "Jeff Yanko" <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>, "Bob Bruninga" <bruninga@xxxx.xxx>,
<amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <201101210216.p0L2GFOi072269@xxxxxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
It was 1/19 and 1/20/2008. I captured many screenshots of Spectran:
http://www.kl7uw.com/raseti.htm
bottom of the page the direct signal was 60-dB S+N/N and Moon echo
was 20-dB S+N/N. Received on a 40m inverted-V with a FT-847 2.2 KHz
bw in USB. Absolute signal level was affected by AGC.
They ran 360MW with 180 turnstyle antennas; HAARP webpage:
http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/
73, Ed - KL7UW
At 02:29 PM 1/20/2011, Jeff Yanko wrote:
>Hi Bob and all!
>
>I recall there was a HAARP experiment in, or near the 40 meter band. If I
>recall correctly, Randy, K7AGE, had recorded it for a youtube segment. I
>foget the power and gain at the site, but it was no doubt impressive.
>
>
>73,
>
>Jeff WB3JFS
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bob Bruninga" <bruninga@xxxx.xxx>
>To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
>Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 3:17 PM
>Subject: [amsat-bb] 40m EME (AMSAT 0)
>
>
> >> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: FW: Re: em40 needed
> >
> > I misread this as something to do with 40m EME and got so distracted doing
> > the calculations that I may as well post them.
> >
> > By my guess, if one could find an abandoned K mart parking lot with 160'
> > spacing between light poles (about 30' high), one could hang 16 dipoles.
> > If
> > it was over GOOD swamp land, that might equal about 14 dB antenna gain.
> >
> > The path loss at 40m is 36 dB better than at UHF so the link would be
> > about
> > 0 dB SNR on a CW signal maybe. But from this one has to subtract a huge
> > amount of noise on 40m. And it would only work at high elevations with
> > really QUIET sun cycle. (you could point it with some phase
> > adjustments)...
> >
> > But several dB of processing gain via DSP could bring it back up?
> >
> > These are only wild guesses. But it was fun. I'd love to see an
> > expert's
> > calculation just for the drill.
> >
> > Bob, WB4APR
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
73, Ed - KL7UW, WD2XSH/45
======================================
BP40IQ 500 KHz - 10-GHz www.kl7uw.com
EME: 144-1.4kw*, 432-100w*, 1296-testing*, 3400-winter?
DUBUS Magazine USA Rep dubususa@xxxxxxx.xxx
======================================
*temp not in service
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 20:19:56 -0600
From: Gkcarr <gkcarr@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] HO-68
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4b14fedb19e5b14da6cfeb23e1d60abb@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
HO-68 beacon heard good and strong during pass 5, 287 @ 0214 UTC itonight n
EM30.No other signals heard.
73
George
WA5KBH
EM30
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 18:37:49 -0800 (PST)
From: "Patrick STODDARD \(WD9EWK/VA7EWK\)" <amsat-bb@xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] XE2/WD9EWK QSOs in LOTW, and a question
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <39175.36958.qm@xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hi!
I just uploaded all of my XE2/WD9EWK satellite QSOs to LOTW.
Only 242 QSOs, and it took me about 20 minutes to massage my
spreadsheet log into an ADIF file suitable for LOTW. Upon
uploading my QSOs, I had 32 QSLs from 242 QSOs. Not bad at
all! I will keep at it tonight, trying to get some of my
Canadian QSOs (as VA7EWK and CJ7EWK) into LOTW this evening.
The PDF by N5JB was extremely helpful. I uploaded only the
7 fields necessary to make an LOTW QSO entry, even though I
have a lot more data for each QSO in my spreadsheet.
I have a question for those who have uploaded AO-16 QSOs to
LOTW. For the Mode field, do you use FM as the mode you
transmitted, SSB for the mode you received, or something else?
Just trying to make sure I get this one right, since I have
some AO-16 QSOs as CJ7EWK (and a bunch more as WD9EWK).
Thanks in advance, and 73!
Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK
http://www.wd9ewk.net/
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 19:09:10 -0800
From: "Ted" <k7trkradio@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] QSOs in LOTW, and a question
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxxx.xxx>, <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <A6A32047ED36448783564D1CD61BCA96@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Well, Patrick, I don't have an answer for your question, but the question
brings up another old issue. My brand new LoTW VUCC account shows 11 sat
contacts and 2 440mhz contacts (sat contacts). So, some are uploading sat
contacts as 440 contacts and some as 2m contacts. Same issue on eQSL. I had
this debate with someone here awhile back. It seems to me that the consensus
is that we log an FM sat contact as a 440 contact. But some want to log as a
2m contact since the tx was on 2m.
We better have some conformity on this or some of the LoTW data will not
match
I'm going to continue to use paper until I get my VUCC Satellite, but it
would save a lot of trouble in the future if we all get on the same page
73, K7TRK listening....
-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
Behalf Of Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK)
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 6:38 PM
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] XE2/WD9EWK QSOs in LOTW, and a question
Hi!
I just uploaded all of my XE2/WD9EWK satellite QSOs to LOTW.
Only 242 QSOs, and it took me about 20 minutes to massage my
spreadsheet log into an ADIF file suitable for LOTW. Upon
uploading my QSOs, I had 32 QSLs from 242 QSOs. Not bad at
all! I will keep at it tonight, trying to get some of my
Canadian QSOs (as VA7EWK and CJ7EWK) into LOTW this evening.
The PDF by N5JB was extremely helpful. I uploaded only the
7 fields necessary to make an LOTW QSO entry, even though I
have a lot more data for each QSO in my spreadsheet.
I have a question for those who have uploaded AO-16 QSOs to
LOTW. For the Mode field, do you use FM as the mode you
transmitted, SSB for the mode you received, or something else?
Just trying to make sure I get this one right, since I have
some AO-16 QSOs as CJ7EWK (and a bunch more as WD9EWK).
Thanks in advance, and 73!
Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK
http://www.wd9ewk.net/
_______________________________________________
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: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 19:40:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Rodney Waln <kc0zhf@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: XE2/WD9EWK QSOs in LOTW, and a question
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <15792.61185.qm@xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
well i was always told that it should be the received frequency?
is there any way that we all could adopt a agreement that it be that so
there is
no question and then every one benefits??
just a sugjestion,
anyway that is the way i will upload contacts, just my $2 worth
kc0zhf?
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 22:11:28 -0600
From: "Gary \"Joe\" Mayfield" <gary_mayfield@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: QSOs in LOTW, and a question
To: "'Ted'" <k7trkradio@xxxxxxx.xxx>, <amsat-bb@xxxxxx.xxx>,
<amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <COL114-DS85F99BB4E5B3DF091EB568AF80@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
A satellite contact isn't a 2 meter or a 70 cm contact it is a SAT contact.
If done correctly that is how it will show up. The ones that show up as
terrestrial 2m and 70cm or more likely missing the " PROP_MODE" entry.
The ARRL does a nice job of spelling out the parameters here:
http://www.arrl.org/files/file/LoTW%20Instructions/N5JB.pdf
The band that matters ( according to the ARRL ) is the band you transmit on,
not the band you receive on.
Here is the data you need to log the contact and have it count in LOTW
<CALL:6> [The Station You Worked]
<QSO_DATE:8> [YYYYMMDD]
<TIME_ON:6> [HHMMSS] in utc
<BAND:4> [The band you transmitted on]
<MODE:3> [SSB, CW, FM, etc.]
<PROP_MODE:3>SAT
<SAT_NAME:4> [The bird you used]
<EOR>
Please note it is VERY unforgiving as far as entries go. Things must be
spelled correctly! The [] above should not be included.
73,
Joe kk0sd
-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
Behalf Of Ted
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 9:09 PM
To: amsat-bb@xxxxxx.xxxx amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] QSOs in LOTW, and a question
Well, Patrick, I don't have an answer for your question, but the question
brings up another old issue. My brand new LoTW VUCC account shows 11 sat
contacts and 2 440mhz contacts (sat contacts). So, some are uploading sat
contacts as 440 contacts and some as 2m contacts. Same issue on eQSL. I had
this debate with someone here awhile back. It seems to me that the consensus
is that we log an FM sat contact as a 440 contact. But some want to log as a
2m contact since the tx was on 2m.
We better have some conformity on this or some of the LoTW data will not
match
I'm going to continue to use paper until I get my VUCC Satellite, but it
would save a lot of trouble in the future if we all get on the same page
73, K7TRK listening....
-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
Behalf Of Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK)
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 6:38 PM
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] XE2/WD9EWK QSOs in LOTW, and a question
Hi!
I just uploaded all of my XE2/WD9EWK satellite QSOs to LOTW.
Only 242 QSOs, and it took me about 20 minutes to massage my
spreadsheet log into an ADIF file suitable for LOTW. Upon
uploading my QSOs, I had 32 QSLs from 242 QSOs. Not bad at
all! I will keep at it tonight, trying to get some of my
Canadian QSOs (as VA7EWK and CJ7EWK) into LOTW this evening.
The PDF by N5JB was extremely helpful. I uploaded only the
7 fields necessary to make an LOTW QSO entry, even though I
have a lot more data for each QSO in my spreadsheet.
I have a question for those who have uploaded AO-16 QSOs to
LOTW. For the Mode field, do you use FM as the mode you
transmitted, SSB for the mode you received, or something else?
Just trying to make sure I get this one right, since I have
some AO-16 QSOs as CJ7EWK (and a bunch more as WD9EWK).
Thanks in advance, and 73!
Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK
http://www.wd9ewk.net/
_______________________________________________
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: 9
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 20:20:43 -0800 (PST)
From: "Patrick STODDARD \(WD9EWK/VA7EWK\)" <amsat-bb@xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] restating LOTW question
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <931674.50415.qm@xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hi!
Thanks to those who have responded to my post when I made my
first uploads to LOTW. I had asked about what "mode" I should
use when uploading AO-16 QSOs, since that is a cross-mode
satellite (that's how I worked it - FM up, SSB down). I have
heard about what to set the BAND field, and N5JB's document
makes it pretty clear that you use the band you transmit on
for that field. I am not uploading fields beyond the 7
necessary to make a valid LOTW QSO record, so other fields
like FREQ and FREQ_RX don't matter.
My guess is that, if I follow the way the BAND field is
handled for satellite QSOs in LOTW, I would use the mode I
transmitted with for the MODE field. In the case of AO-16,
that would be FM. N5JB's document mentions an additional
field BAND_RX that some may use. I have not seen any mention
of a "MODE_RX" field, but I will go with "MODE" as the mode
from my transmitter unless I get some authoritative information
to the contrary.
I will proceed to uploading CJ7EWK QSOs from November 2008,
and try to get all of my July 2010 VA7EWK QSOs - including
those at the Canada/USA border - done tonight. Then the huge
task of the WD9EWK QSOs.
By the way, is SO-67 still a no-go in LOTW?
73!
Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK
http://www.wd9ewk.net/
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 21:33:17 -0700 (MST)
From: "John Boudreau" <john@xxxxxxxx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Nanosail-D Sail Deploy Successful!
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID:
<f697b81d861d924c20e2d1d11e3ac531.squirrel@xxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Received telemetry tonite that indicates a successful deploy of the sail.
NanoSailD.org 8C0F0000D32101010104008B740200004BD6C47ACFC0F9C3C4
NanoSailD.org 8C0F0000D32101010104008B74020000C3D6C47ACFC0F9C3C4
Software Version 140
Burn Time 15
Start Phase 0
Current Phase 72.2 hours
Switch State 1
Panel Deploy Status 1 1 = DEPLOYED
Sail Deploy Status 1 1 = DEPLOYED
Reset Counter 4
Power Port 139 139 = S-Band OFF
Battery Voltage 7.25 V
Bus Temperature -17.8 C
Satellite Time 3583.3 hours 149.3045718 days
Satellite Ejection Time 3510.0 hours 146.2503009 days
Sail Deploy Time 3582.0 hours 149.2502894 days
73 and congrats to the folks at MSFC and Ames
John - VE8EV
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 22:38:08 -0600
From: "Gary \"Joe\" Mayfield" <gary_mayfield@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: restating LOTW question
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxxx.xxx>, <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <COL114-DS4A627E216643B130E41F98AF80@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Patrick,
If your approach is wrong that makes two of us :-) Last I checked no
SO-67 -- I have no idea why!
73,
Joe kk0sd
-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
Behalf Of Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK)
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 10:21 PM
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] restating LOTW question
Hi!
Thanks to those who have responded to my post when I made my
first uploads to LOTW. I had asked about what "mode" I should
use when uploading AO-16 QSOs, since that is a cross-mode
satellite (that's how I worked it - FM up, SSB down). I have
heard about what to set the BAND field, and N5JB's document
makes it pretty clear that you use the band you transmit on
for that field. I am not uploading fields beyond the 7
necessary to make a valid LOTW QSO record, so other fields
like FREQ and FREQ_RX don't matter.
My guess is that, if I follow the way the BAND field is
handled for satellite QSOs in LOTW, I would use the mode I
transmitted with for the MODE field. In the case of AO-16,
that would be FM. N5JB's document mentions an additional
field BAND_RX that some may use. I have not seen any mention
of a "MODE_RX" field, but I will go with "MODE" as the mode
from my transmitter unless I get some authoritative information
to the contrary.
I will proceed to uploading CJ7EWK QSOs from November 2008,
and try to get all of my July 2010 VA7EWK QSOs - including
those at the Canada/USA border - done tonight. Then the huge
task of the WD9EWK QSOs.
By the way, is SO-67 still a no-go in LOTW?
73!
Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK
http://www.wd9ewk.net/
_______________________________________________
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: 12
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 21:24:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Rodney Waln <kc0zhf@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: XE2/WD9EWK QSOs in LOTW, and a question
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <459941.14672.qm@xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
yep my bad that is the correct format for LOTW, it should be transmit
Kc0zhf
--- On Thu, 1/20/11, Rodney Waln <kc0zhf@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
From: Rodney Waln <kc0zhf@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: XE2/WD9EWK QSOs in LOTW, and a question
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Date: Thursday, January 20, 2011, 9:40 PM
well i was always told that it should be the received frequency?
is there any way that we all could adopt a agreement that it be that so
there is
no question and then every one benefits??
just a sugjestion,
anyway that is the way i will upload contacts, just my $2 worth
kc0zhf?
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 21:39:32 -0800 (PST)
From: "Patrick STODDARD \(WD9EWK/VA7EWK\)" <amsat-bb@xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] CJ7EWK & VA7EWK QSOs in LOTW
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <959901.48540.qm@xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hi!
Just finished with my Canadian satellite QSOs as CJ7EWK and
VA7EWK. All have been uploaded to LOTW, and the last few
files are still being processed. I also uploaded a handful
of QSO records for WD9EWK, the second half of the QSOs made at
the Canada/USA border that are also in some of the VA7EWK QSO
records.
I have seen QSLs for some of my AO-16 QSOs using the transmit
mode (FM) in the MODE field, so that seems to be a good way to
go. Of course, everyone needs to follow the same band and mode
conventions for this to work right. Overall, LOTW has taken
570 QSO entries for my Canadian and Mexican calls, and I have
received 74 QSLs from them. There are still about 150 more
QSOs the LOTW server needs to process, and I hope to see the
results from those additional QSOs in the morning.
Other than the SO-67 QSOs, I will start uploading my other
satellite QSOs as WD9EWK this weekend. I'm taking care to
set all the information in my LOTW station entries, including
the IOTA number for those QSOs made from Vancouver Island and
counties for the stateside QSOs. And, of course, the grids.
Better to have all of that set up in the beginning.
73!
Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK
http://www.wd9ewk.net/
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 23:43:55 -0600 (CST)
From: "Alan Sieg WB5RMG" <wb5rmg@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Nanosail-D Sail Deploy Successful!
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4034.192.168.121.55.1295588635.squirrel@xxx.xxx.xxx.xx>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
John - VE8EV said :
Received telemetry tonite that indicates a successful deploy of the sail.
NanoSailD.org 8C0F0000D32101010104008B740200004BD6C47ACFC0F9C3C4
NanoSailD.org 8C0F0000D32101010104008B74020000C3D6C47ACFC0F9C3C4
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Information from twitter.com/NanoSailD :
RT: @xxxxxxxxxx John @xxxxxxx has done it!
I have two valid data seta and both have the correct signatures.
and then
RT: @xxxxxxxxxx NanoSail-D has sent data that it deployed the sail.
Will wait until morning for ground based tracking to confirm.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Looks very promising John. What I understood from Dean earlier this evening is
that once the sail is deployed, there is a small S-Band Tx that will come on
for a few seconds out of every minute... Hopefully that will be detected soon
at one of the ground terminals for that final confirmation.
Maybe I should find out what that freq is... I only learned about this S-band
Tx tonite... Betcha there are some folks here that could hear that too ..!..
Thanks /;^)
--
# Alan Sieg, WB5RMG since 1976
# http://wb5rmg.wordpress.com
# http://www.linkedin.com/in/alansieg
# wb5rmg(at)amsat(dot)org AMSAT#20554
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 07:18:20 +0100
From: "Mateusz" <sq7dqx@xxxxxx.xxxx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: SO67 today evening
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <FE78F0868CD44957BFADF3636654D2D7@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8";
reply-type=original
-----Oryginalna wiadomo??-----
From: P.H.
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 11:06 PM
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: SO67 today evening
And why do some REGULAR stations insist on using FM as opposed to FM-N
and shouting like a banshee into the mic?! It is extremely irritating
and makes hearing those who operate properly very difficult.
73
Pete
MI3EPN
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Mateusz <sq7dqx@xxxxxx.xxxx.xx> wrote:
>
> I have a question - what is happening with signals on SO67:
>
> http://www.enduro.idl.pl/wav/SO67_20_01_2011.mp3
>
>
>
> Matt SQ7DQX
I found answer - parrot was activated.
I never meet parrot turn on at SO67, it may be usefull for no-full duplex
station but in this mess ...
Sorry for bothering group.
Matt SQ7DQX
------------------------------
Message: 16
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 22:57:29 -0800
From: "Jeff Yanko" <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: restating LOTW question
To: "Gary \"Joe\" Mayfield" <gary_mayfield@xxxxxxx.xxx>,
<amsat-bb@xxxxxx.xxx>, <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <043A92B5DDFC452881B503450AF23268@xxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Has anybody contacted ARRL HQ to let them know SO-67 is out of the loop?
I'm certain they can investigate and correct this. If not, then a suitable
explanation would be required.
73,
Jeff WB3JFS
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary "Joe" Mayfield" <gary_mayfield@xxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxxx.xxx>; <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 8:38 PM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: restating LOTW question
> Patrick,
>
> If your approach is wrong that makes two of us :-) Last I checked no
> SO-67 -- I have no idea why!
> 73,
> Joe kk0sd
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
> Behalf Of Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK)
> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 10:21 PM
> To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> Subject: [amsat-bb] restating LOTW question
>
> Hi!
>
> Thanks to those who have responded to my post when I made my
> first uploads to LOTW. I had asked about what "mode" I should
> use when uploading AO-16 QSOs, since that is a cross-mode
> satellite (that's how I worked it - FM up, SSB down). I have
> heard about what to set the BAND field, and N5JB's document
> makes it pretty clear that you use the band you transmit on
> for that field. I am not uploading fields beyond the 7
> necessary to make a valid LOTW QSO record, so other fields
> like FREQ and FREQ_RX don't matter.
>
> My guess is that, if I follow the way the BAND field is
> handled for satellite QSOs in LOTW, I would use the mode I
> transmitted with for the MODE field. In the case of AO-16,
> that would be FM. N5JB's document mentions an additional
> field BAND_RX that some may use. I have not seen any mention
> of a "MODE_RX" field, but I will go with "MODE" as the mode
> from my transmitter unless I get some authoritative information
> to the contrary.
>
> I will proceed to uploading CJ7EWK QSOs from November 2008,
> and try to get all of my July 2010 VA7EWK QSOs - including
> those at the Canada/USA border - done tonight. Then the huge
> task of the WD9EWK QSOs.
>
> By the way, is SO-67 still a no-go in LOTW?
>
> 73!
>
>
>
>
>
> Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK
> http://www.wd9ewk.net/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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 6, Issue 39
***************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
