| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 27.01.11 09:03l 834 Lines 27000 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AMSATBB656
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V6 56
Path: IZ3LSV<IK2XDE<DB0RES<DB0OVN<DB0GOS<ON0AR<HS1LMV<CX2SA
Sent: 110127/0647Z @:CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA #:48003 [Minas] FBB7.00e $:AMSATBB656
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. 2 ht vs. 1-duplex ht (zach hillerson)
2. Re: HO-68 Status (Clint Bradford)
3. Re: 2 ht vs. 1-duplex ht (Ted)
4. Re: 2 ht vs. 1-duplex ht (Andrew Glasbrenner)
5. Re: 2 ht vs. 1-duplex ht (Tyler Nicholas)
6. Re: UKuke-1 Announcement (G0MRF@xxx.xxxx
7. Fwd: Re: Re: UKuke-1 Announcement (Mark L. Hammond)
8. Re: Antenna Observations/Question (John Becker)
9. FW: 2 ht vs. 1-duplex ht (Kevin Deane)
10. FW: Re: HO-68 Status (Kevin Deane)
11. Re: FW: Re: HO-68 Status (Andrew Glasbrenner)
12. Stardust-NExT Probe Spots Comet Tempel 1 (B J)
13. Net Statistics (Clint Bradford)
14. W6RO QSL & VUCC (Jeff Yanko)
15. Re: W6RO QSL & VUCC (Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK))
16. Re: W6RO QSL & VUCC (John Papay)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 12:19:40 -0800 (PST)
From: zach hillerson <qstick333@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] 2 ht vs. 1-duplex ht
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <547347.44955.qm@xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Good afternoon all -
As I am officially hooked after my first week of operating the satellites, I
am trying to gain a bit better operating setup.? I love the arrow and tripod
that I am using and find the Yaesu FT60 to be perfectly suitable.? I am
thinking that operating duplex would be a big help so that I will know if I
am making it into the hectic afternoon passes of AO51.? I'm not thrilled
with having extra stuff to lug in and out, front yard and back etc... but I
want to do what's best for making contacts.?
Is there a group consensus of whether 1 HT that is true duplex or running
two HT's is a better formula?? I's love to hear your thoughts,
Zach
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 12:30:39 -0800
From: Clint Bradford <clintbrad4d@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: HO-68 Status
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <D26998E4-D4C8-469C-AAD9-0630611CEFD6@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>> ... Is there a webpage that shows the current on/off times for HO68? The
one that you link to from the satellite status page on the AMSAT website
hasn't been updated since December.
Just to be absolutely clear and accurate, the AMSAT page refers us to the
official page of the project. It is the HO-68 project team's non-updating
that is to be "faulted," and by no means AMSAT's.
I mean, if the actual project's site isn't being maintained ... we cannot
fault those who point to it.
Sorry, John ... I just answered another message elsewhere that "demeaned"
AMSAT for no legitimate reason ... Clint gets a little defensive at times
... (grin)
Clint, K6LCS
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 13:00:56 -0800
From: "Ted" <k7trkradio@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: 2 ht vs. 1-duplex ht
To: "'zach hillerson'" <qstick333@xxxxx.xxx>, <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <C95D210792EB42CCB0676827C5EAB1B1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Zach, there are a lot of VUCC's out there that use exactly what you have...
Most here will argue that you HAVE to be duplex....a lot get by without it
The way AO51 has been lately, I don't think it would matter if you were
sitting on top of it trying to get in !!
Good luck in the contest
73, Ted K7TRK
-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
Behalf Of zach hillerson
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 12:20 PM
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] 2 ht vs. 1-duplex ht
Good afternoon all -
As I am officially hooked after my first week of operating the satellites, I
am trying to gain a bit better operating setup.? I love the arrow and tripod
that I am using and find the Yaesu FT60 to be perfectly suitable.? I am
thinking that operating duplex would be a big help so that I will know if I
am making it into the hectic afternoon passes of AO51.? I'm not thrilled
with having extra stuff to lug in and out, front yard and back etc... but I
want to do what's best for making contacts.?
Is there a group consensus of whether 1 HT that is true duplex or running
two HT's is a better formula?? I's love to hear your thoughts,
Zach
_______________________________________________
Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 16:26:51 -0500
From: Andrew Glasbrenner <glasbrenner@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: 2 ht vs. 1-duplex ht
To: Ted <k7trkradio@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: 'zach hillerson' <qstick333@xxxxx.xxx>, amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4D40919B.8040105@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 1/26/2011 4:00 PM, Ted wrote:
> Zach, there are a lot of VUCC's out there that use exactly what you have...
>
> Most here will argue that you HAVE to be duplex....a lot get by without it
>
No, just that it is a more productive and considerate way of operating.
A lot of the congestion you hear on AO-51 is due to stations either not
knowing, or not caring, that they are in competition for the uplink.
Full duplex takes care of half of that. Things are also MUCH different
when AO-51 is over the west coast with it's considerably lower density
of hams.
To answer your question Zach, it's all about your personal budget and
needs. Adding a 2nd HT is probably the cheapest route, but adds more
complication than a single full duplex HT. Maybe you could try borrowing
an HT to try it with two? If you want to go with a single full duplex
HT, there are lots of older ones out there in good condition used. I saw
an FT-530 the other day with a ton of accessories going for less than a
new single band. That is one of the finest full duplex radios ever made
for satellites.
Another trick is to take the Arrow off the tripod and hold it by hand
where you can rapidly twist it to peak the signal due to polarity
differences. With full duplex you can even do this while transmitting to
clear up a ratty uplink. Check out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTqjQ9xIQQE for an example of how much
polarity plays in signal strength on AO-51 with an Arrow (or Elk, or any
linear antenna).
73, and good luck on the air,
Drew KO4MA
AMSAT-NA VP Operations
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 17:16:48 -0600
From: Tyler Nicholas <tyler.nicholas@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: 2 ht vs. 1-duplex ht
To: "amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <7A85099C-2FBA-4F03-882E-4996BD8092BF@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I will second Drew on the FT-530. I picked one up for under $200 that was
in awesome condition and it is the best HT I have ever owned (and I have
been through a bunch). If you are even luckier, you might find one with the
MH-29 speaker mic that has a LCD display on it. You can adjust the downlink
frequency with this mic and even see the frequency on it. I also found some
massive batteries from W&W manufacturing that make this radio run forever.
For some other full duplex options, you might consider a Kenwood TH-D72. I
haven't tried one, but I have seen good reviews on it as a full duplex
handheld. It's a little pricey ($500) and unless you want the APRS in it, I
would seriously consider an FT-530 or the predecessor to the D72 which is
the Kenwood TH-D7A which can be picked up on eBay or elsewhere for a decent
price.
I would not recommend the Alinco DJ-G7 for full duplex. They are priced good
and will do full duplex, but the receiver has a densense problem when you
transmit on 2m. It's a good radio otherwise, but the full duplex
performance is very poor unless signals are extremely strong (as in local
repeater strong).
I first started using two FT-60s in the beginning and I understand Zach's
problem with lugging everything in and out of the house. Two HTs work just
fine, but if you are really serious about satellites, I would highly
recommend a full duplex HT.
Good luck,
Tyler Nicholas K5TDN
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 26, 2011, at 3:26 PM, Andrew Glasbrenner <glasbrenner@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
wrote:
> On 1/26/2011 4:00 PM, Ted wrote:
>> Zach, there are a lot of VUCC's out there that use exactly what you have...
>>
>> Most here will argue that you HAVE to be duplex....a lot get by without it
>>
> No, just that it is a more productive and considerate way of operating.
> A lot of the congestion you hear on AO-51 is due to stations either not
> knowing, or not caring, that they are in competition for the uplink.
> Full duplex takes care of half of that. Things are also MUCH different
> when AO-51 is over the west coast with it's considerably lower density
> of hams.
>
> To answer your question Zach, it's all about your personal budget and
> needs. Adding a 2nd HT is probably the cheapest route, but adds more
> complication than a single full duplex HT. Maybe you could try borrowing
> an HT to try it with two? If you want to go with a single full duplex
> HT, there are lots of older ones out there in good condition used. I saw
> an FT-530 the other day with a ton of accessories going for less than a
> new single band. That is one of the finest full duplex radios ever made
> for satellites.
>
> Another trick is to take the Arrow off the tripod and hold it by hand
> where you can rapidly twist it to peak the signal due to polarity
> differences. With full duplex you can even do this while transmitting to
> clear up a ratty uplink. Check out
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTqjQ9xIQQE for an example of how much
> polarity plays in signal strength on AO-51 with an Arrow (or Elk, or any
> linear antenna).
>
> 73, and good luck on the air,
> Drew KO4MA
> AMSAT-NA VP Operations
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:22:46 EST
From: G0MRF@xxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: UKuke-1 Announcement
To: g.shirville@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <167695.7f5ae39d.3a7206c6@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
That is good news.
Also, I see bids are being solicited from anyone / any team who would like
to form the official U-Kube ground station for the 1 year duration of the
mission.
There are a list of 20 requirements for the ground station at:
_http://www.ukspaceagency.bis.gov.uk/20701.aspx_
(http://www.ukspaceagency.bis.gov.uk/20701.aspx)
Two are fairly easy. 1) Must have full amateur radio license. 2) Antenna
must have RH and LH polarisation.
73
David
In a message dated 26/01/2011 17:33:32 GMT Standard Time,
g.shirville@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx writes:
Sorry this time WITH the relevant link!
_http://www.ukspaceagency.bis.gov.uk/21973.aspx_
(http://www.ukspaceagency.bis.gov.uk/21973.aspx)
----- Original Message -----
From: _Graham Shirville_ (mailto:g.shirville@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:22:56 -0500
From: "Mark L. Hammond" <marklhammond@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Fwd: Re: Re: UKuke-1 Announcement
To: amsat-bb <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <0QNw1g00H56cfur05QNxYK@xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>#21--must be from UK! :)
>
>http://www.ukspaceagency.bis.gov.uk/assets/pdf/UKUBEAOGS.pdf
>
>"UK-based entities are invited to submit a proposal for Ground Segment
support on this pilot mission."
>
>73,
>
>Mark N8MH
>
>At 06:22 PM 1/26/2011 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>>That is good news.
>>
>>Also, I see bids are being solicited from anyone / any team who would like
>>to form the official U-Kube ground station for the 1 year duration of the
>>mission.
>>
>>There are a list of 20 requirements for the ground station at:
>>
>>_http://www.ukspaceagency.bis.gov.uk/20701.aspx_
>>(http://www.ukspaceagency.bis.gov.uk/20701.aspx)
>>
>>Two are fairly easy. 1) Must have full amateur radio license. 2) Antenna
>>must have RH and LH polarisation.
>>
>>73
>>
>>David
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>In a message dated 26/01/2011 17:33:32 GMT Standard Time,
>>g.shirville@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx writes:
>>
>>Sorry this time WITH the relevant link!
>>
>>_http://www.ukspaceagency.bis.gov.uk/21973.aspx_
>>(http://www.ukspaceagency.bis.gov.uk/21973.aspx)
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: _Graham Shirville_ (mailto:g.shirville@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
>
>
>Mark L. Hammond [N8MH]
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:43:58 -0600
From: John Becker <w0jab@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Antenna Observations/Question
To: AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20110126183632.02ed70f0@xxxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
a coat hanger will "some what" work also.
But I really guess that age old saying of -
" you get what you pay for "
Best sums it up.
In a "Dirty Harry" voice -
"do you want it to just work or work great?"
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 17:03:01 -0800
From: Kevin Deane <summit496@xxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] FW: 2 ht vs. 1-duplex ht
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <COL107-W54D3F57F3183C27AB62FE683FE0@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: summit496@xxxx.xxx
To: qstick333@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] 2 ht vs. 1-duplex ht
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 17:01:37 -0800
Hello I too am recently addicted,
I dont know exactly what you are using, I do not have a duplex rig, and am
reluctant to get one considering all the controversy, and real full duplex
and so on. I do know that ANY dual band antenna and ANY dual band and duplex
whatever you are compromising. Try and cram everything in one rig and one
antenna one coax.... It is just not as good as 2 seperate stations period.
Unless you are gonna spend all kinds of money on one of those dream radios,
you know?
I wrote an article on my attemps and failures starting out with the sats,
>>> nvllrc.org <<< FM Satellites section. A friend of mine made a little web
site recently and let me put sat stuff on there. It is brand new so dont
expect much, but I put all the usefull info I had at the end of the story, I
will be adding a bunch of stuff this week that I found. What we use is in
there, I think we spoiled ourselves with fairly good equip to start out. It
is definately not great but works really well.
So anyway, just thought I would give you my 2 cents. I find it really nice
to have a totally different radio, ant, coax, for the receive, I can hear
all the birds clear as day! But we need another SSB rig to work the big boy
sats, I am dying to do that!
I will be on this weekend, I didnt get your call so I dont know how far you
are but I would love to try a pre aranged contact???
New Guy
Kevin
KF7MYK DM09
> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 12:19:40 -0800
> From: qstick333@xxxxx.xxx
> To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> Subject: [amsat-bb] 2 ht vs. 1-duplex ht
>
> Good afternoon all -
>
> As I am officially hooked after my first week of operating the satellites,
I am trying to gain a bit better operating setup. I love the arrow and
tripod that I am using and find the Yaesu FT60 to be perfectly suitable. I
am thinking that operating duplex would be a big help so that I will know if
I am making it into the hectic afternoon passes of AO51. I'm not thrilled
with having extra stuff to lug in and out, front yard and back etc... but I
want to do what's best for making contacts.
>
> Is there a group consensus of whether 1 HT that is true duplex or running
two HT's is a better formula? I's love to hear your thoughts,
>
> Zach
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 17:09:36 -0800
From: Kevin Deane <summit496@xxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] FW: Re: HO-68 Status
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <COL107-W5E04A17ED628C6F75A53F83FE0@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: summit496@xxxx.xxx
To: clintbrad4d@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Re: HO-68 Status
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 17:08:41 -0800
http://www.southgatearc.org/news/january2010/ho68_schedule_2301.htm
I just found this one...
I will be on this weekend maybe we could try a prearanged attempt on some of
the birds?
Kevin
KF7MYK
> From: clintbrad4d@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 12:30:39 -0800
> To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: HO-68 Status
>
> >> ... Is there a webpage that shows the current on/off times for HO68?
The one that you link to from the satellite status page on the AMSAT website
hasn't been updated since December.
>
> Just to be absolutely clear and accurate, the AMSAT page refers us to the
official page of the project. It is the HO-68 project team's non-updating
that is to be "faulted," and by no means AMSAT's.
>
> I mean, if the actual project's site isn't being maintained ... we cannot
fault those who point to it.
>
> Sorry, John ... I just answered another message elsewhere that "demeaned"
AMSAT for no legitimate reason ... Clint gets a little defensive at times
... (grin)
>
> Clint, K6LCS
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 11
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 20:27:00 -0500
From: Andrew Glasbrenner <glasbrenner@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: FW: Re: HO-68 Status
To: Kevin Deane <summit496@xxxx.xxx>
Cc: "<amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <6AEF1EE2-6C16-4959-A87F-2C139F1F0DB8@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
That's the 2010 schedule. HO68 had some issues last week, so I'd watch for
an email from the command team for news on when it returns to service.
73, Drew KO4MA
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 26, 2011, at 8:09 PM, Kevin Deane <summit496@xxxx.xxx> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> From: summit496@xxxx.xxx
> To: clintbrad4d@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Re: HO-68 Status
> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 17:08:41 -0800
>
>
>
>
> http://www.southgatearc.org/news/january2010/ho68_schedule_2301.htm
>
> I just found this one...
>
> I will be on this weekend maybe we could try a prearanged attempt on some
of the birds?
>
> Kevin
> KF7MYK
>
>> From: clintbrad4d@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 12:30:39 -0800
>> To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
>> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: HO-68 Status
>>
>>>> ... Is there a webpage that shows the current on/off times for HO68?
The one that you link to from the satellite status page on the AMSAT website
hasn't been updated since December.
>>
>> Just to be absolutely clear and accurate, the AMSAT page refers us to the
official page of the project. It is the HO-68 project team's non-updating
that is to be "faulted," and by no means AMSAT's.
>>
>> I mean, if the actual project's site isn't being maintained ... we cannot
fault those who point to it.
>>
>> Sorry, John ... I just answered another message elsewhere that "demeaned"
AMSAT for no legitimate reason ... Clint gets a little defensive at times
... (grin)
>>
>> Clint, K6LCS
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: 12
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 17:38:27 -0800 (PST)
From: B J <top_gun_canada@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Stardust-NExT Probe Spots Comet Tempel 1
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <134863.17706.qm@xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-029&cid=release_2011-029&ms
ource=11029&tr=y&auid=7683115
73s
Bernhard VA6BMJ @ DO33FL
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:55:33 -0800
From: Clint Bradford <clintbradford@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Net Statistics
To: AMSAT BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <32D909AF-8E16-4FFD-87EA-961D3E1977A1@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Although I've been involved on the 'Net for over 20 years, in no way do I
claim to understand it all.
Here's a site that shows the status of several Internet resources ...
engrossing statistics ... and YES, I do have a source of caffeine (coffee
pot) in the home office.
http://www.internetpulse.net/
Clint
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 20:55:08 -0800
From: "Jeff Yanko" <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] W6RO QSL & VUCC
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <7EAD74381CFA46748DC588BCF33C66FA@xxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Hi all,
After making my submission to VUCC Satellite, yes it was still "a go" to get
this award after the surprise fees were implemented. I was told by the
local card checker that the W6RO, Queen Mary, QSL was not valid due to the
fact that the grid, DM03, was not to be found anywhere on the card. After
looking over the card myself again, he was correct. It had all of the QSO
data and the information about the Queen mary but the DM03 grid was no where
to be found.
Not sure if anybody else had this problem with their checker, etc. but my
card checker caught it very well. I never thought to look for the grid
since most cards have them on it. So if you have a W6RO waiting to be
submitted and it doesn't have the grid printed on it from the person filling
out the QSL, don't bother sending it in, it will be considered invalid.
Upon learning about this from my card checker, I dropped the organization
who operates and maintains the W6RO station and told them the situation.
Hopefully, they will include the grid square on their cards in the future.
DM03 is not exactly an easy one to work since most of it is in water.
73,
Jeff WB3JFS
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 22:17:59 -0700
From: "Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK)" <amsat-bb@xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: W6RO QSL & VUCC
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID:
<AANLkTikdYXFWPCj3HdBY=msfSc-LkcoO3GCfT0hKDsW5@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hi Jeff!
> After making my submission to VUCC Satellite, yes it was still "a go" to get
> this award after the surprise fees were implemented. ?I was told by the
> local card checker that the W6RO, Queen Mary, QSL was not valid due to the
> fact that the grid, DM03, was not to be found anywhere on the card. ?After
> looking over the card myself again, he was correct. ?It had all of the QSO
> data and the information about the Queen mary but the DM03 grid was no where
> to be found.
Your card checker is incorrect, and probably confusing VUCC
with DXCC and WAS in terms of the requirements of the QSL
cards. Read section 7B of the VUCC rules, where you are
allowed to write the grid locator in pencil on the address side
of cards that do not have the grid locator on them. This is
counter to the DXCC way of reviewing QSL cards, where you
are not supposed to alter the card in any way. The rules
appear to give some latitude with that, since it is possible a
card may not have the grid locator on it.
You could go as far as trying to locate the station on a map, or
a site like:
http://f6fvy.free.fr/qthLocator/fullScreen.php
to determine what grid locator(s) the station is in. If you did
that, you might want to keep a printout of that, in case the
card checker or ARRL wanted to question the grid(s) for that
card.
Do you need another DM03 QSO in your satellite log? There
are some who get on from there, or ask me in a few weeks....
73!
Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK
http://www.wd9ewk.net/
------------------------------
Message: 16
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 01:43:08 -0500
From: John Papay <john@xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: W6RO QSL & VUCC
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <162689.9632.qm@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Jeff,
Here's the VUCC rule on the grid square:
7(b) For the convenience of the Awards Manager in checking cards,
applicants may indicate in pencil (pencil ONLY) the
grid locator on the address side of the cards that DO NOT clearly
indicate the grid locator. The applicant affirms that
he/she has accurately determined the proper location from the address
information given on the card by signing the
affirmation statement on the application.
For more proof, you can simply use qrz.com. In the case of W6RO, it
does not show the actual
location of the ship but you can do so by using the google map for
grids and find the ship on the
satellite view. This will spot the lat/long and translate into a
grid square. You only have to certify
that you have determined the correct grid square; you don't have to
prove it to the card checker.
It's always good to go right to the rules when there is any
question. Don't assume that the card
checker always knows them. You will find that you will get other
cards over time that don't have
the grid square on them. Simply determine what the grid square is
and follow the rule above.
It's always a good idea to print out the VUCC rules and take a copy
with you when you get your
cards checked.
73,
John K8YSE
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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 56
***************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
