| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 08.02.14 21:05l 436 Lines 17650 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AMSATBB948
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V9 48
Path: IZ3LSV<IW0QNL<F6IQF<ON4HU<F3KT<CX2SA
Sent: 140208/2003Z @:CX2SA.SAL.URY.SA #:3274 [Salto] FBB7.00e $:AMSATBB948
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.SAL.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. FUNcube Data Warehouse Server disruption (David A B Johnson)
2. Re: ICE/ISEE-3 to return to an Earth no longer capable of
speaking to it (Floyd Rodgers)
3. Re: SatPC32 CAT with IC-9100 (David Beumer)
4. IiNUSAT nanosatellite (M5AKA)
5. Re: IiNUSAT nanosatellite (M5AKA)
6. Re: Listening on USB when operating CW (tosca005@xxx.xxxx
7. Re: Listening on USB when operating CW (Rich/wa4bue)
8. Re: SatPC32 CAT with IC-9100 (Dave Webb KB1PVH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 15:12:53 +0000
From: David A B Johnson <dave@xxxxx.xx.xx>
To: Amsat - BBs <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>, EU_AMSAT@xxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx
Subject: [amsat-bb] FUNcube Data Warehouse Server disruption
Message-ID: <52F64975.90706@xxxxx.xx.xx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Hi,
You may experience some outages to the server this weekened as I make some
changes to it's database and operation. These are to improve the
accuracy of the date
and time receords in the database and hence the reporting / graphing.
If the outages are short-lived, the Dashboard will retry and perform the
upload.
If possible, please capture bin files for later replay.
73 and thanks,
Dave, G4DPZ
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 09:30:58 -0600
From: Floyd Rodgers <kc5qbc@xxxxxx.xxx>
To: ka2pbt <ka2pbt@xxxx.xxx>, amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: ICE/ISEE-3 to return to an Earth no longer
capable of speaking to it
Message-ID: <52F64DB2.7050705@xxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
I have made a comment on the EME reflector about whether or not someone
was capable of the contact. So far I have a couple of replies that
capability exists. Now to do the math and see if it is a reasonable attempt.
On 2/7/2014 12:18 PM, ka2pbt wrote:
> >From Emily Lakdawalla of The Planetary Society:
>
> "So ISEE-3 will pass by us, ready to talk with us, but in the 30 years
> since it departed Earth we've lost the ability to speak its language. I
> wonder if ham radio operators will be able to pick up its carrier signal --
> it's meaningless, I guess, but it feels like an honorable thing to do, a
> kind of salute to the venerable ship as it passes by."
>
> http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2014/02070836-isee-3.html
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 09:14:51 -0700
From: "David Beumer" <dave@xxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "'Gabriel - EA6VQ'" <ea6vq@xxxxxx.xxx>, <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: SatPC32 CAT with IC-9100
Message-ID: <02a901cf24e8$e5eab2d0$b1c01870$@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Suggest you email Erich and ask him
Erich.Eichmann@xxxxxxxx.xx
-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
Behalf Of Gabriel - EA6VQ
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2014 11:22 AM
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] SatPC32 CAT with IC-9100
I am testing SatPC32 V.12.8c together with my new IC-9100 for Doppler
correction.
The only problem I notice is that when I activate the CAT (C+) it doesn't
set the rig in satellite mode and I have to do it manually in the
transceiver.
Not a very big trouble, but I wonder if I am doing something wrong as I
can't believe something so simple is not done by the program.
I will appreciate your comments.
73. Gabriel - EA6VQ
_________________________________________________________
Web-Site: HTTP://www.dxmaps.com
VQLog 3.1 (build 78): HTTP://www.vqlog.com
_________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
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: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 16:57:44 +0000 (GMT)
From: M5AKA <m5aka@xxxxx.xx.xx>
To: AMSAT BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] IiNUSAT nanosatellite
Message-ID:
<1391878664.64359.YahooMailNeo@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
The Indonesian IiNUSAT nanosatellite is slated for an April/May launch on
the Indian PSLV C23. A paper describes it as having a 9600 bps downlink on
436.915 MHz with an uplink at 145.950 MHz.?
http://tinyurl.com/pmzu3ph
73 Trevor M5AKA
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 17:27:27 +0000 (GMT)
From: M5AKA <m5aka@xxxxx.xx.xx>
To: AMSAT BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: IiNUSAT nanosatellite
Message-ID:
<1391880447.10885.YahooMailNeo@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
IiNUSAT also mentioned at
http://tinyurl.com/Indonesian-Satellites
The page also mentions an Indonesian microsatellite INASAT-1 this I
understand was planned to have a FM Transponder Cross band Repeater 2m to
70cm and APRS Digipeater but I don't know it's current status.
,
73 Trevor M5AKA
On Saturday, 8 February 2014, 17:05, M5AKA <m5aka@xxxxx.xx.xx> wrote:
The Indonesian IiNUSAT nanosatellite is slated for an April/May launch on
the Indian PSLV C23. A paper describes it as having a 9600 bps downlink on
436.915 MHz with an uplink at 145.950 MHz.?
http://tinyurl.com/pmzu3ph
73 Trevor M5AKA
_______________________________________________
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: 08 Feb 2014 11:33:30 -0600
From: tosca005@xxx.xxx
To: Kevin M <n4ufo@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: "amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Listening on USB when operating CW
Message-ID: <Gophermail.2.0.1402081133300.3736@xxxx.xx.xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=UTF-8
Kevin:
I don't think that the OP was trying to complain about SSB operators being
less capable or less polite or less facile in their Doppler tuning
correction or whatever in comparison to CW operators. He was just making an
observation that sometimes two pairs of communicating operators have their
frequencies "collide" due to shifting Doppler and different ways of
tracking the tuning to compensate.
The issue is that (at least on all of my radios), when you are set to
receive in CW mode the radio does narrow its bandwidth considerably to get
the maximum benefit of CW's narrower frequency bandwidth requirement, which
is part of what makes it able to dig deeper into the noise level and pull
out an intelligible signal. When I am set to receive in CW and tune in an
SSB station (for example, during a terrestrial contest when there are lots
of signals of both types present), I can't understand the SSB conversation,
but if I am set to receive in SSB, the radio sets a wider bandwidth and I
can hear a CW signal quite well, and understanding it is mainly dependent
on how well or poorly I can copy CW at all. So the OP was pointing out that
if the CW operator was set to receive in SSB instead of CW, he would lose
the selectivity of the narrower bandwidth but probably would still be able
to copy the CW signal, with the added benefit of being able to hear and
understand a SSB QSO whose frequency happened to collide with his CW
operating frequency. No judgment was meant to be implied on who intruded on
whom, or why (strictly because of shifting Doppler vs. different techniques
of Doppler tuning correction). Just that for whatever combination of
reasons, the two QSO's happened to cross frequencies and intrude on one
another. By listening in SSB mode the CW operator would become more aware
of the intrusion and could better adjust his tuning to avoid it or move
away from the colliding signal.
When I am operating in a terrestrial VHF/UHF/microwave contest, there are
times when I can hear an operator well enough to copy him on SSB, but he is
unable to hear me well enough to copy me on SSB. I will then switch to CW
mode and send my information that way, counting on the superior legibility
of CW (to an operator who understands CW) to get my information across. The
problem that arises is that if the other operator copies my CW and realizes
that I copied his SSB just fine, he may reply in SSB (because he doesn't
have to change any settings on his radio, he just hits the transmit button
and talks), and with my radio set to CW mode, I can no longer copy him
legibly. So I have to quickly switch back to SSB mode as soon as I finish
sending my CW to hear his SSB reply. I guess my point is simply that while
I have not experienced the exact problem that the OP was talking about,
since I don't normally operate CW on the satellites, I understand what he
is talking about regarding the legibility of a CW signal in SSB receive
mode vs. the illegibility of an SSB signal in CW receive mode.
Bottom line: if you can hear the CW coming down from the satellite well
enough in SSB mode, it might very well be a good idea to listen in that
fashion. It may or may not be easy to configure your radio(s) to transmit
CW and listen to SSB, but if you can do it, and not lose the CW signal in
the noise, it may be a good way to go.
73 de John Toscano, W0JT/5, AMSAT-NA LM#2292
On Feb 7 2014, Kevin M wrote:
>
>
>> Computer-control stations and manual-control stations are adjusting for
>> Doppler differently. I have done - and will continue to do - both. In my
>> opinion, neither is incorrect; they simply differ from each other.
>
>
This was posted during the assemblage of my long winded reply. I think it
gets at the same thing I was beating around the bush at. I'm glad to know
when I am eventually able to get back on the linear birds (yagis, preamps,
cables and rotor in the closet... conduit for burying piled up outside) I
will be able to find someone to work without getting my rig hooked up to a
PC. (It will be enough to get the rotor hooked up to one!) I just hope I
can remember which dial to turn when... anyone hearing me screw the pooch,
please send instructions promptly! X^D
>
>73 all,
>
>Kevin, N4UFO
>proud to be a full fledged Gridiot!
>_______________________________________________
>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: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 13:01:31 -0500
From: "Rich/wa4bue" <richard.siff@xxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <tosca005@xxx.xxx>, "Kevin M" <n4ufo@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Listening on USB when operating CW
Message-ID: <A690A96F41FB473AAE5E8A12D5107D45@xxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1;
reply-type=response
1/2 the time I do not have a key plugged into the rig. I do call a CW op on
SSB but have not had a reply.
Back in the 80s there were a lot more CW ops.
Anyway I have no complaint any OSCAR contact is a good one.
Wish I could have worked the Alaska station today, awesome signal. Hope he
made a lot of "Qs".
God Bless
R
W4BUE
K4AMG.org club
----- Original Message -----
From: <tosca005@xxx.xxx>
To: "Kevin M" <n4ufo@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 12:33 PM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Listening on USB when operating CW
> Kevin:
>
> I don't think that the OP was trying to complain about SSB operators being
> less capable or less polite or less facile in their Doppler tuning
> correction or whatever in comparison to CW operators. He was just making
> an observation that sometimes two pairs of communicating operators have
> their frequencies "collide" due to shifting Doppler and different ways of
> tracking the tuning to compensate.
>
> The issue is that (at least on all of my radios), when you are set to
> receive in CW mode the radio does narrow its bandwidth considerably to get
> the maximum benefit of CW's narrower frequency bandwidth requirement,
> which is part of what makes it able to dig deeper into the noise level and
> pull out an intelligible signal. When I am set to receive in CW and tune
> in an SSB station (for example, during a terrestrial contest when there
> are lots of signals of both types present), I can't understand the SSB
> conversation, but if I am set to receive in SSB, the radio sets a wider
> bandwidth and I can hear a CW signal quite well, and understanding it is
> mainly dependent on how well or poorly I can copy CW at all. So the OP was
> pointing out that if the CW operator was set to receive in SSB instead of
> CW, he would lose the selectivity of the narrower bandwidth but probably
> would still be able to copy the CW signal, with the added benefit of being
> able to hear and understand a SSB QSO whose frequency happened to collide
> with his CW operating frequency. No judgment was meant to be implied on
> who intruded on whom, or why (strictly because of shifting Doppler vs.
> different techniques of Doppler tuning correction). Just that for whatever
> combination of reasons, the two QSO's happened to cross frequencies and
> intrude on one another. By listening in SSB mode the CW operator would
> become more aware of the intrusion and could better adjust his tuning to
> avoid it or move away from the colliding signal.
>
> When I am operating in a terrestrial VHF/UHF/microwave contest, there are
> times when I can hear an operator well enough to copy him on SSB, but he
> is unable to hear me well enough to copy me on SSB. I will then switch to
> CW mode and send my information that way, counting on the superior
> legibility of CW (to an operator who understands CW) to get my information
> across. The problem that arises is that if the other operator copies my CW
> and realizes that I copied his SSB just fine, he may reply in SSB (because
> he doesn't have to change any settings on his radio, he just hits the
> transmit button and talks), and with my radio set to CW mode, I can no
> longer copy him legibly. So I have to quickly switch back to SSB mode as
> soon as I finish sending my CW to hear his SSB reply. I guess my point is
> simply that while I have not experienced the exact problem that the OP was
> talking about, since I don't normally operate CW on the satellites, I
> understand what he is talking about regarding the legibility of a CW
> signal in SSB receive mode vs. the illegibility of an SSB signal in CW
> receive mode.
>
> Bottom line: if you can hear the CW coming down from the satellite well
> enough in SSB mode, it might very well be a good idea to listen in that
> fashion. It may or may not be easy to configure your radio(s) to transmit
> CW and listen to SSB, but if you can do it, and not lose the CW signal in
> the noise, it may be a good way to go.
>
> 73 de John Toscano, W0JT/5, AMSAT-NA LM#2292
>
> On Feb 7 2014, Kevin M wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> Computer-control stations and manual-control stations are adjusting for
>>> Doppler differently. I have done - and will continue to do - both. In my
>>> opinion, neither is incorrect; they simply differ from each other.
>>
>>
> This was posted during the assemblage of my long winded reply. I think it
> gets at the same thing I was beating around the bush at. I'm glad to know
> when I am eventually able to get back on the linear birds (yagis, preamps,
> cables and rotor in the closet... conduit for burying piled up outside) I
> will be able to find someone to work without getting my rig hooked up to a
> PC. (It will be enough to get the rotor hooked up to one!) I just hope I
> can remember which dial to turn when... anyone hearing me screw the pooch,
> please send instructions promptly! X^D
>>
>>73 all,
>>
>>Kevin, N4UFO
>>proud to be a full fledged Gridiot!
>>_______________________________________________
>>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: 8
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 13:49:41 -0500
From: Dave Webb KB1PVH <kb1pvh@xxxxx.xxx>
To: AMSAT -BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: SatPC32 CAT with IC-9100
Message-ID:
<CAEMY9Fe5FX72cG0W2-QYqG4yMxPSAiECcK0wQ2idPDA_Vnb+VA@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Gabriel,
I have the same setup and it works perfect. Email me direct and we can go
over settings if you want to
Dave-KB1PVH
Sent from my Verizon Wireless Droid RAZR
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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 9, Issue 48
***************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
