| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 21.02.11 22:44l 934 Lines 34085 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AMSATBB6111
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V6 111
Path: IZ3LSV<IK2XDE<DB0RES<ON0AR<HS1LMV<CX2SA
Sent: 110221/2033Z @:CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA #:54173 [Minas] FBB7.00e $:AMSATBB6111
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Elk (Dee)
2. Re: Considerate satellite operations behavior. (Jeff Moore)
3. Re: Considerate satellite operations behavior. (Dee)
4. Re: FTM-350AR Question (Bob Bruninga )
5. Re: Elk as a Base Antenna (WB2LLP)
6. Re: LOTW - improperly coded satellite contacts? (Bill Dzurilla)
7. Re: Considerate satellite operations behavior. (Luc Leblanc)
8. Re: Considerate satellite operations behavior. (k8kfj@xxx.xxxx
9. Re: Considerate satellite operations behavior. (Rocky Jones)
10. AO-7 in mode B (hmartinez@xxx.xxx.xxx
11. Fwd: 420 MHz in Jeopardy! (wa4hfn@xxxxxxx.xxxx
12. Re: Considerate satellite operations behavior. (k6yk)
13. Re: LOTW - improperly coded satellite contacts?
(Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK))
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:09:05 -0500
From: Dee <morsesat@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Elk
To: "'n8gbu'" <n8gbu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>, AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <14183D1271584B008B7CA1FBE7FF79A8@xxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mike,
I am of the opinion that anyone who wants to have fun in ham radio should
always put the most money into an antenna system. There are many used
radios on the market and you could always save there.
The ELK antenna, dual bander, is one AMSAT sells at the Dayton Hamvention to
help raise monies for Satellite projects. I have seen these demo'd for many
satellite contacts handheld and they work very well- About $130. You would
have a 200watt capable antenna-1.5lbs.
Cushcraft (MFJ) has a A27010S That is dual band, a bit bigger Price $170 &
it is 1.8 lbs separate 5 elements on 140 and 440. A bit larger in size and
really designed for constant outdoor full service.
Remember, you have to rotate directional antennas and any small TV type
rotor will work. If you want to use it for Sats, elevation control is a
good idea.
Personally, I think you would be happier with the MFJ up in the air.
Vertical antennas work for local contacts too.
Opinions are like noses, most of us have them...
73,
Dee, NB2F
-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
Behalf Of n8gbu
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2011 8:52 PM
To: AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Elk
I was wondering if anyone knows or has used an Elk as a base station antenna
? I have been kicking around the idea of using it they way as a first
antenna for a base station. Something to try out and get the hang of things.
Mike N8GBU
_______________________________________________
Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 08:33:20 -0800
From: "Jeff Moore" <tnetcenter@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Considerate satellite operations behavior.
To: "AMSAT" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <FE8994E740A74159922D28CB3CF39E32@xxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Seems to me that the "Control Operators" need to step in and shut down the
sat if the situation gets bad enough on a given pass. No control appears to
be the main problem these days. Operate the sats like a NET - request your
contact through Net Control. That will give the "regulars" something
constructive to do and control the chaos.
Where are the OO's ????
73,
Jeff Moore -- KE7ACY
CN94
----- Original Message ----- From: <wa4hfn@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Considerate satellite operations behavior.
This is and will be an ongoing problem until the powers to be at amsat do
something about the mess on the FM birds . Tom you are preaching to the
choir here because most of the offenders have no idea that this BBS is here.
If the FCC stopped long enough to monitor this madness, they would likely
have Amsat shut it down. BUT it is our job to police the ham bands.I guess
that might mean we need to write down the bird,call sign ,date ,mode, and
time and try to contact the offender and explain to the operator the trouble
they are causing and offer them some advice on how to operate on the birds.
Amsat wants users and needs members but this madness has to be corrected. I
would not do a satallite demo any where and let people hear the mess that is
ever present now and even worse on the weekends. Amsat needs to address this
issue and offer a solution before the responsible operators givenup and
quite dealing with the birds.
Thats my 2 cents worth AGAIN
WA4HFN Damon EM55
----- Original Message -----From: "Tom Schuessler"
<tjschuessler@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Considerate satellite operations behavior.
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:39:09 -0500
From: Dee <morsesat@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Considerate satellite operations behavior.
To: "'Mark L. Hammond'" <marklhammond@xxxxx.xxx>, wa4hfn@xxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: 'AMSAT' <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>, 'Tom Schuessler'
<tjschuessler@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <FC94EC54B2B340459E420EEFAAA74239@xxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Agree... There is only a handful of AMSAT people, however, many more
operators actually using the Sats can be more helpful.
Dee, NB2F
Think before pushing the PTT button.
-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
Behalf Of Mark L. Hammond
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 10:46 AM
To: wa4hfn@xxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: AMSAT; Tom Schuessler
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Considerate satellite operations behavior.
Okay, this one perplexes me--what in the world can the "powers to be at
amsat" do to fix this? About the only thing I can imagine is AMSAT helping
with education on appropriate behavior, etiquette (following good operating
practice and rules!).
That being said--eclipses are getting shorter and nearly gone. With that we
will be announcing a change in the operating modes for AO-51, so things will
at least change in the next few days.
It's up the operators to determine if things get better or worse...not "the
powers that be at AMSAT."
WE ARE AMSAT :)
Mark N8MH
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 9:41 AM, <wa4hfn@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> This is and will be an ongoing problem until the powers to be at
> amsat do something about the mess on the FM birds . Tom you are
> preaching to the choir here because most of the offenders have no idea
that this BBS is here.
> If the FCC stopped long enough to monitor this madness, they would
> likely have Amsat shut it down. BUT it is our job to police the ham
> bands.I guess that might mean we need to write down the bird,call sign
> ,date ,mode, and time and try to contact the offender and explain to
> the operator the trouble they are causing and offer them some advice on
how to operate on the birds.
> Amsat wants users and needs members but this madness has to be
> corrected. I would not do a satallite demo any where and let people
> hear the mess that is ever present now and even worse on the weekends.
> Amsat needs to address this issue and offer a solution before the
> responsible operators givenup and quite dealing with the birds.
> Thats my 2 cents worth AGAIN
> WA4HFN Damon EM55
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Schuessler" <tjschuessler@xxxxxxx.xxx>
> To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2011 11:29:20 PM
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Considerate satellite operations behavior.
>
> Hi all,
>
> I do not have the dollars yet to upgrade to an all mode radio to be
> able to do SSB/CW operations so FM is my lot for now. I love early
> mornings on
> AO-51 and later in the evening SO-50 and SO-67 when available because
> the roar of the crowd is significantly less. That being said, I like
> to give
> AO-51 or AO-27 a try once in a while in the afternoons to make a few
> Qs but find myself more often than not put off by the sheer mess found
there.
> Only
> been doing this for 8 months with 260 QSOs on an irregular schedule so
> maybe I am out of line here, but I will throw out some observations
> anyway.
>
> The for me 2210Z 20-Feb, 2011 pass was a typical example of what makes
> this part of the hobby hard to promote. I know that many of you are
> conscientious operators and do not try stomp on others but there are
> some out there who just don't seem to understand that there is a
> proper way to do this that will maximize the number of QSOs that
> actually get completed on a given pass.
>
> I don't know how many times I heard someone call another station but
> when that second station answers, somebody else comes right on top and
> obliterates the poor guy with a totally unrelated call. I have had a
> station call me back only to have his exchange blown out of the water
> by somebody else who is apparently not listening to the fact that
> several seconds of an exchange has already occurred.
>
> I am sure I was the cause of some interference this afternoon
> attempting to jump in after an exchange to get my call out there. I
> try however, if it appears that I with my 5W handheld and Arrow, are
> not making it through the current pileup, will wait 3 or 4 minutes
> until the pass has progressed some and try it again. Yes I know it is
> FM and I should not expect better but honestly I know it can be.
> Several times I heard a weak voice that sounded like a youth trying to
> get in but nobody paused enough to give the poor kid a shot. I made
> three Qs that pass but the kid got none and probably walked away thinking
he had just wasted his time.
>
> I will be at a hamfest in a few weeks and plan to do a few
> demonstrations of FM satellite work with my Arrow there and know that
> many folks will just wag their heads and decide to never try at all
> because of the noise and disorganization.
>
> Another issue I hear is stations calling but not apparently hearing
> anything but they continue to call anyway and cause interference. A
> recent SO-50 pass in the evening had 6 or seven stations calling but
> only one or two QSOs actually took place as nobody seemed to be
> listening to the right frequencies. I would request that the person
> who keeps up with the Satellite status pages on the AMSAT web site
> please post the reality the SO-50 downlink is really about 5Khz lower
> than the published 436.795. If that were really the case, than I
> should always be starting a pass on my handeld at 436.805 but if I go
> there, I hear nothing much and always end the pass way down at 436.780
> instead of .785. Since we always recommend that new operators look to
> AMSAT.org for their basic information, it needs to be kept current.
> If the information is wrong then people have to go through the trial
> and error method to find out the truth.
>
> Hopefully these remarks will not offend but will serve to spur us all
> to improve the way we do things so others can too have a shot at
> making contacts.
>
> Tom Schuessler
> 2713 Lake Gardens Drive
> Irving, Texas 75060
> 972-986-7456
> 214-403-1464 (Cell)
> n5hyp@xxxx.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
> _______________________________________________
> 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]
_______________________________________________
Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:44:44 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bob Bruninga " <bruninga@xxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: FTM-350AR Question
To: "Jeff Moore" <tnetcenter@xxxxx.xxx>, amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <20110221114444.AHO69722@xxxxx.xxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> You might look for a dedicated Yahoo group
> for this radio (or start one if not).
Yes, there is one for this radio as well as for each of the now 7 different
kenwood and Yaesu APRS radios on Yahoo
Bob, WB4APR
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:51:59 -0500
From: WB2LLP <wb2llp@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Elk as a Base Antenna
To: Clint Bradford <clintbradford@xxx.xxx>, AMSAT BB
<amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <363222B65F2B4FE395BF740FBA43C928@xxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1;
reply-type=original
Unfortunately, Marine Spar varnish does not last well in the sun, even here
in the mid-Hudson Valley of NY. I owned a boat with Mahogany railings and
they had to be refinished at least once during the season. I spoke to the
Manufacturer of one of the best varnishes and he admitted that even their
varnish would not last the season if you wanted a nice shine and protection.
For items that need protection, I now use white house paint. Not very
pretty, but it lasts.
73 de WB2LLP Gene
---- Original Message -----
From: "Clint Bradford" <clintbradford@xxx.xxx>
To: "AMSAT BB" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 12:06 AM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Elk as a Base Antenna
>>> ... used an Elk as a base station antenna ...
>
> I would use Blue LocTite on all element threads ... then probably use
> marine spar varnish on it all before mounting in a semi- or permanent
> outdoor situation.
>
> And, of course, have some manner to rotate it.
>
> 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: 6
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 09:19:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Bill Dzurilla <billdz.geo@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: LOTW - improperly coded satellite contacts?
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <950284.18917.qm@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Thanks, Patrick,, I have already sent an email to LOTW. If the other
station failed to include Propagation Mode or Satellite Name, there should
be no match at all. There is no basis for me to be credited with a 144mhz
or 432 mhz grid.
I spent a lot of time going through my log before uploading it, as LOTW
demands perfection. The slightest error (e.g., writing vo-52 instead of
VO-52, AO51 instead of AO-51) and the entry is rejected.
73, Bill NZ5N
>
> Most likely, the other station didn't include one or both
> of the fields
> used to mark a QSO as a satellite QSO (Propagation Mode,
> Satellite
> Name).? I've seen this on a handful of QSOs I've
> uploaded in the past
> few weeks.
>
> > Anyone know how this is handled?
>
> Assuming your log has all the necessary fields for a
> satellite QSO (all
> of the QSLs I've gotten from you are showing as satellite
> QSOs, so I
> don't think your logs are missing anything), there is only
> one way to fix
> this - the other station has to upload the QSO record(s)
> again, this time
> making sure those additional ADIF fields are in their
> log.? As long as the
> other QSO details like date, time, your call, etc. are the
> same, the new
> upload replaces what was originally uploaded.
>
> If the other station's log has the satellite-related
> fields, then an e-mail to
> lotw-help @ arrl.org is necessary.? There could be
> errors in how ARRL's
> database queries run to match up QSO records and make
> QSLs.? ARRL
> will not fix problems with other stations' log uploads, and
> everything has
> to be in there correctly in order to use the resulting QSLs
> toward awards.
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 05:35:14 -0500
From: Luc Leblanc <lucleblanc6@xxxxxxxxx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Considerate satellite operations behavior.
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4D623FE2.31316.3503B18@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxx.xx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Another issue I hear is stations calling but not apparently hearing anything
> but they continue to call anyway and cause interference. A recent SO-50
> pass in the evening had 6 or seven stations calling but only one or two QSOs
> actually took place as nobody seemed to be listening to the right
> frequencies.
The main problem is here: "you should hear your own downlink" but they try
to call in the void hoping someone will answer??
"-"
Luc Leblanc VE2DWE
Skype VE2DWE
www.qsl.net/ve2dwe
DSTAR urcall VE2DWE
WAC BASIC CW PHONE SATELLITE
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:34:54 -0500 (EST)
From: k8kfj@xxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Considerate satellite operations behavior.
To: tjschuessler@xxxxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <8CD9FFC671B2EA7-1D50-4924C@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxx.xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Schuessler <tjschuessler@xxxxxxx.xxx>
To: amsat-bb <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Mon, Feb 21, 2011 1:18 am
Subject: [amsat-bb] Considerate satellite operations behavior.
> Another issue I hear is stations calling but not apparently
> hearing anything but they continue to call anyway and cause
> interference
One of the very reasons why I left working the FM sats some years ago Tom.
More times than not, it was just a circus. Hard to handle for an old
dude like myself. :-)
73, Gary -K8KFJ-
West Virginia
Sat VUCC #125
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:11:13 -0600
From: Rocky Jones <orbitjet@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Considerate satellite operations behavior.
To: <wa4hfn@xxxxxxx.xxx>, <tjschuessler@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: Amsat BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <COL106-W188A56BB256F0DD2F34D64D6D90@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> Thats my 2 cents worth AGAIN
> WA4HFN Damon EM55
I've worked the fm birds and listen to them, even in Africa (well just
listened so far) and I am really not sure what people are expecting is going
to happen on a single channel device that has a comparatively low access
threshold (meaning lots of people can work it) and apparently "enjoy"
working it.
Put another way...I dont see how things change or even what they would
change to given the technology.
A while back someone likened the FM birds to a DX situation and thats
probably not all that bad. In a way the people who are "good" at getting
contacts on those birds (even with high power) are "good"...they have the
right equipment, they know what "works" and can make it "work" and its
"their cup of tea". It is not mine but as long as folks are building and
flying FM single channel birds I suspect this is what it is going to be
like...and my theory is "have fun".
My argument with AMSAT and others is that the organization should be leading
by pushing more linear devices AND birds with larger footprints. Where I
think things got off track badly was with the notion of AO-40...the theory
that we had to build a satellite that people could work "worldwide" with not
much antenna and other equipment. Oscar 10 and 13 (along with Arsene) in
my view is about the baseline satellite that AMSAT should be building and
trying to lead the satellite movement. As long as "baseline" satellite
access is a handitalkie with a long whip...we are not going to see much
different in my view nor should we expect it
Robert G. Oler WB5MZO life member Amsat/Arrl/NARS 5Nsomething soon
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:27:27 -0500 (EST)
From: hmartinez@xxx.xxx.xx
Subject: [amsat-bb] AO-7 in mode B
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <1617.10.14.32.18.1298309247.squirrel@xxxxxx.xxx.xxx.xx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hello All
?
I am a novice
satellite operator. I have been completing my setup for satellites and
recently I made
my first contact on AO- 51 with John K8YSE.
?
I wonder if is
possible for me use the AO-7 in mode B. I tried to hear it in different
passes, but I
didn’t hear anything, neither the beacon.
?
I have seen when
the footprint of the satellite is over my locator, the eclipse is almost
over my locator
too. ?I think maybe the satellite is OFF or
maybe I don’t have the appropriate 10 m antenna for this purpose. I
really
don’t know.
?
?Anybody help me please
?
73 Hector, CO6CBF
?
EL92SD
?
***************************************
Genius is one per cent
inspiration,
and ninety-nine per cent
perspiration.
-- Thomas A.
Edison
***************************************
---
Free the Cuban Five!
http://www.injusticia.cubaweb.cu/
http://www.antiterroristas.cu/
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 17:40:09 +0000 (UTC)
From: wa4hfn@xxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Fwd: 420 MHz in Jeopardy!
To: AMSAT <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID:
<1189586403.1317647.1298310009884.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xxxx.xx
xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Rick Pinelli" <ka2bsm@xxxxx.xxx>
To: "Damon" <wa4hfn@xxxxxxx.xxx>, "David" <kd4noq@xxxx.xxx>, "Lee"
<LRACE@xx.xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>, "Rick" <wa4nvm@xxxxxxx.xxx>,
randyw4412@xxx.xxxx "chris dowland" <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Danny Banks"
<dbanksd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Richard Martin" <kj4dxf@xxx.xxx>,
n4gmt@xxxxxxx.xxxx wv5j@xxxxxxxx.xxxx w5ema@xxxx.xxx
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 10:27:33 AM
Subject: 420 MHz in Jeopardy!
I received this info from one of the D-STAR groups about the 420 MHz band
and thought I would pass it along.
Rick - KA2BSM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------
Subject: 420 band auction imminent if HR 607 passes
I think we need to be aware of this issue, since our repeater system lives
there.
This is being done "in order to offset the loss of revenue that would occur
as the result of the allocation of the D-Block to Public Safety instead of
commercial auction".?
So they are giving away some spectrum that they said they would auction, and
we get to pay the price for it.
This bill was introduced by the Horable Peter King, R-NY District #3.
Read more about Congresman King's spin on this plan here.?
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/ny03_king/bipartlegsdblock.html
Note that there is NO MENTION of the 420-450 and 450-470 bands in his press
release, and they are in a footnote in the bill (oh, by the way, we can make
up the revenue shortfall by auctioning off these frequencies...) So these
bands will be sacrificed to pay for the reallocation of the spectrum that
was previously cleared by TV Broadcasters for acution in the name of
"Homeland Security".?
The 450 band contains Broadcasting Remote Pickup and Studio to Transmitter
links along with other coordinated use. 420 to 450 is our 70cm amateur
band.?
----------------------------------------------------------
*Spectrum Management Bill Threatens Amateur Frequencies*
*On February 10, Representative Peter King (R-NY-3), Chairman of the House
Homeland Security Committee, introduced HR 607, the **Broadband for First
Responders Act of 2011**. The bill been referred to the House Energy and
Commerce Committee, which handles telecommunications legislation. *
*HR 607 addresses certain spectrum management issues, including the creation
and maintenance of a nationwide Public Safety broadband network. As part of
that network, the bill provides for the allocation of the so-called
"D-Block" of spectrum in the 700 MHz range for Public Safety use.*
*The D-Block consists of two, 5 megahertz-wide segments of **spectrum
(758-763 and 788-793 MHz) that became available when the FCC ended analog
television broadcasts in June 2009 and reallocated the 698-806 MHz band for
Public Safety and commercial broadband. It was anticipated that the D-Block
would be auctioned for commercial use. *
*There are several bills in Congress providing for the allocation of the
D-Block for Public Safety use, and HR 607 is one of those. But HR 607
uniquely provides for the reallocation of other spectrum for auction to
commercial users, in order to offset the loss of revenue that would occur as
the result of the allocation of the D-Block to Public Safety instead of
commercial auction. *
*HR 607 lists the paired bands of 420-440 MHz and 450-470 MHz among the
bands to be reallocated for commercial auction within 10 years of its
passage. *
Read more
here<
http://www.arrl.org/news/spectrum-management-bill-threatens-amateur-frequencie
s >
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 09:47:50 -0800
From: k6yk <k6yk@xxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Considerate satellite operations behavior.
To: wa4hfn@xxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx tjschuessler@xxxxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <20110221.100532.953.644859@xxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
There's nothing AMSAT can do about lids. Lids are lids and they
are everywhere on the hambands, not just satellite. I would suspect
that the ones you're complaining about don't read this list, or talk to
any
other hams. We do all this writing, but the people who need to read it
don't.
The madness on the birds is minor compared to what it is on HF at times.
(Not all the time)...
Doing a demo on a SSB/CW bird would be much nicer. It's much more
civilized most of the time.
73,
John K6YK
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 14:41:10 +0000 (UTC) wa4hfn@xxxxxxx.xxx writes:
> This is and will be an ongoing problem until the powers to be at
> amsat do something about the mess on the FM birds . Tom you are
> preaching to the choir here because most of the offenders have no
> idea that this BBS is here. If the FCC stopped long enough to
> monitor this madness, they would likely have Amsat shut it down. BUT
> it is our job to police the ham bands.I guess that might mean we
> need to write down the bird,call sign ,date ,mode, and time and try
> to contact the offender and explain to the operator the trouble they
> are causing and offer them some advice on how to operate on the
> birds. Amsat wants users and needs members but this madness has to
> be corrected. I would not do a satallite demo any where and let
> people hear the mess that is ever present now and even worse on the
> weekends. Amsat needs to address this issue and offer a solution
> before the responsible operators givenup and quite dealing with the
> birds.
> Thats my 2 cents worth AGAIN
> WA4HFN Damon EM55
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Schuessler" <tjschuessler@xxxxxxx.xxx>
> To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2011 11:29:20 PM
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Considerate satellite operations behavior.
>
> Hi all,
>
> I do not have the dollars yet to upgrade to an all mode radio to be
> able to
> do SSB/CW operations so FM is my lot for now. I love early mornings
> on
> AO-51 and later in the evening SO-50 and SO-67 when available
> because the
> roar of the crowd is significantly less. That being said, I like to
> give
> AO-51 or AO-27 a try once in a while in the afternoons to make a few
> Qs but
> find myself more often than not put off by the sheer mess found
> there. Only
> been doing this for 8 months with 260 QSOs on an irregular schedule
> so maybe
> I am out of line here, but I will throw out some observations
> anyway.
>
> The for me 2210Z 20-Feb, 2011 pass was a typical example of what
> makes this
> part of the hobby hard to promote. I know that many of you are
> conscientious operators and do not try stomp on others but there are
> some
> out there who just don't seem to understand that there is a proper
> way to do
> this that will maximize the number of QSOs that actually get
> completed on a
> given pass.
>
> I don't know how many times I heard someone call another station but
> when
> that second station answers, somebody else comes right on top and
> obliterates the poor guy with a totally unrelated call. I have had
> a
> station call me back only to have his exchange blown out of the
> water by
> somebody else who is apparently not listening to the fact that
> several
> seconds of an exchange has already occurred.
>
> I am sure I was the cause of some interference this afternoon
> attempting to
> jump in after an exchange to get my call out there. I try however,
> if it
> appears that I with my 5W handheld and Arrow, are not making it
> through the
> current pileup, will wait 3 or 4 minutes until the pass has
> progressed some
> and try it again. Yes I know it is FM and I should not expect
> better but
> honestly I know it can be. Several times I heard a weak voice that
> sounded
> like a youth trying to get in but nobody paused enough to give the
> poor kid
> a shot. I made three Qs that pass but the kid got none and probably
> walked
> away thinking he had just wasted his time.
>
> I will be at a hamfest in a few weeks and plan to do a few
> demonstrations
> of FM satellite work with my Arrow there and know that many folks
> will just
> wag their heads and decide to never try at all because of the noise
> and
> disorganization.
>
> Another issue I hear is stations calling but not apparently hearing
> anything
> but they continue to call anyway and cause interference. A recent
> SO-50
> pass in the evening had 6 or seven stations calling but only one or
> two QSOs
> actually took place as nobody seemed to be listening to the right
> frequencies. I would request that the person who keeps up with the
> Satellite status pages on the AMSAT web site please post the reality
> the
> SO-50 downlink is really about 5Khz lower than the published
> 436.795. If
> that were really the case, than I should always be starting a pass
> on my
> handeld at 436.805 but if I go there, I hear nothing much and always
> end the
> pass way down at 436.780 instead of .785. Since we always recommend
> that
> new operators look to AMSAT.org for their basic information, it
> needs to be
> kept current. If the information is wrong then people have to go
> through
> the trial and error method to find out the truth.
>
> Hopefully these remarks will not offend but will serve to spur us
> all to
> improve the way we do things so others can too have a shot at
> making
> contacts.
>
> Tom Schuessler
> 2713 Lake Gardens Drive
> Irving, Texas 75060
> 972-986-7456
> 214-403-1464 (Cell)
> n5hyp@xxxx.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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
____________________________________________________________
$65/Hr Job - 25 Openings
Part-Time job ($20-$65/hr). Requirements: Home Internet Access
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4d62a99cef9ab4c9af8st01vuc
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:34:13 -0700
From: "Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK)" <amsat-bb@xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: LOTW - improperly coded satellite contacts?
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID:
<AANLkTikZBF2KK9f1H78Z5CJXw06f0s9QoyRqE6qyCUGo@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Bill,
> Thanks, Patrick,, I have already sent an email to LOTW. ?If the other
> station failed to include Propagation Mode or Satellite Name, there
> should be no match at all. ?There is no basis for me to be credited
> with a 144mhz or 432 mhz grid.
I think the queries they use for VUCC "accounts" and the ruleset(s)
you can define are buggy. I've run into strange things, reported them
to the LOTW help e-mail address, then I'm told by the LOTW help that
the problem is fixed without further comment. Don't be surprised if we
run into other issues that the LOTW help desk needs to look at, as
more of us start using LOTW for grid-based awards.
> I spent a lot of time going through my log before uploading it, as
> LOTW demands perfection. ?The slightest error (e.g., writing vo-52
> instead of VO-52, AO51 instead of AO-51) and the entry is rejected.
You are correct on needing things perfectly entered in the logs for
LOTW. The satellite names are listed in the LOTW FAQ page, so
it is easy to make sure you're using what LOTW expects there.
N5JB's "how-to" PDF for satellite operators using LOTW was a
perfect instruction sheet for me to get started with the uploading
a few weeks back.
After taking the time to upload my log from the Excel spreadsheet
I use into the series of ADI files for each location I've worked from,
it is a lot easier just to upload new activity. I put my QSOs from the
demos at the Yuma AZ hamfest over the weekend into LOTW on
Saturday night, and already have 4 QSLs from those QSOs. I
have seen some stations join in recently with LOTW, so the QSL
count is always on the move.
73!
Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK
http://www.wd9ewk.net/
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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 111
****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
