| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 20.12.08 11:48l 738 Lines 27518 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 59778_CX2SA
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V3 660
Path: IZ3LSV<IK2XDE<DB0RES<DB0GOS<ON0AR<HS1LMV<CX2SA
Sent: 081220/1043Z @:CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA #:59778 [Minas] FBB7.00e $:59778_CX2SA
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: SatPC32 track error help (Alan P. Biddle)
2. Re: SatPC32 track error help (Alan P. Biddle)
3. Re: SatPC32 track error help (David - KG4ZLB/M?ZLB)
4. S band feed on ebay (w7lrd@xxxxxxx.xxxx
5. QRP ???? (Jack K.)
6. QRP re deux (Jim Danehy)
7. Re: QRP ???? (Bruce)
8. ERP is not QRP apples and oranges (Jim Danehy)
9. Re: ERP is not QRP apples and oranges (Scott Richardson)
10. Re: ERP is not QRP apples and oranges (n3tl@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx
11. Looking for TNC (D. Mynatt)
12. Re: ERP is not QRP apples and oranges (Jim Danehy)
13. 70 cm YAGI (Andrew Rich)
14. AO-51 QRP...or does anyone actually read the real schedule?
(Andrew Glasbrenner)
15. Re: ERP is not QRP apples and oranges (n3tl@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:30:13 -0600
From: "Alan P. Biddle" <APBIDDLE@xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: SatPC32 track error help
To: "'Leonard Revelle'" <n9ij@xxxxxxx.xxx>, <AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <8F921143F0D140C2BE14B8A7513936C4@xxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Len,
You posted that message at 12:50 CST, and the ISS was almost directly
overhead your QTH, so you were not hearing things. Hi Hi
Are other satellites being correctly displayed? If so, that points at old
ISS keps, however recently acquired. Unlike other satellites, the ISS is
frequently reboosted, and even some of the on line sources are a little slow
to catch up. Get the latest updates from Celestrak or directly from NORAD.
I am using the Keps at the end of the message, and they agree with a couple
of on line sources I checked. (Of course, they could ALL be wrong,
seriously.)
Another thing to check is that the program is properly converting the time
to UTC. From the SATPC32 mail screen, toggle between L and U. The
difference in the displayed times should be 6 hours. Rarely, the OS messes
up the daylight and standard time conversion.
Again, knowing whether this is an ISS-only problem is key information.
Alan
WA4SCA
ISS
1 25544U 98067A 08353.56913069 .00013457 00000-0 10664-3 0 8830
2 25544 51.6396 151.4641 0007727 102.5501 340.9706 15.71639760577543
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:45:07 -0600
From: "Alan P. Biddle" <APBIDDLE@xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: SatPC32 track error help
To: "'Leonard Revelle'" <n9ij@xxxxxxx.xxx>, <AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <63CA81E626E6452C8607FAB90EF9104D@xxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Uh, "mail screen" >> "main screen." Duh.
Alan
WA4SCA
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:47:36 -0500
From: David - KG4ZLB/M?ZLB <m0zlb@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: SatPC32 track error help
To: APBIDDLE@xxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <494C0868.6030000@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
And are you absolutely sure that you have you co-ordinates set correctly
(lat/long etc)
(That's caught me out one or two times) :-[
David
KG4ZLB/M0ZLB
www.kg4zlb.com
Alan P. Biddle wrote:
> Len,
>
> You posted that message at 12:50 CST, and the ISS was almost directly
> overhead your QTH, so you were not hearing things. Hi Hi
>
> Are other satellites being correctly displayed? If so, that points at old
> ISS keps, however recently acquired. Unlike other satellites, the ISS is
> frequently reboosted, and even some of the on line sources are a little slow
> to catch up. Get the latest updates from Celestrak or directly from NORAD.
> I am using the Keps at the end of the message, and they agree with a couple
> of on line sources I checked. (Of course, they could ALL be wrong,
> seriously.)
>
> Another thing to check is that the program is properly converting the time
> to UTC. From the SATPC32 mail screen, toggle between L and U. The
> difference in the displayed times should be 6 hours. Rarely, the OS messes
> up the daylight and standard time conversion.
>
> Again, knowing whether this is an ISS-only problem is key information.
>
> Alan
> WA4SCA
>
>
>
>
> ISS
> 1 25544U 98067A 08353.56913069 .00013457 00000-0 10664-3 0 8830
> 2 25544 51.6396 151.4641 0007727 102.5501 340.9706 15.71639760577543
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 22:12:06 +0000
From: w7lrd@xxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] S band feed on ebay
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID:
<121920082212.13105.494C1C36000288DF0000333122165279660B9D04C999@xxxxxxx
.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain
I have a "S" band feed on ebay for those interested
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=110328207714&ssPageNam
e=STRK:MESE:IT&ih=001
73 Bob W7LRD
Seattle
--
"if this were easy, everyone would be doing it"
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:45:27 -0700
From: "Jack K." <kd1pe.1@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] QRP ????
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <392BCAC1132F43E2B9BAE4EBCEBF9343@xxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I have been Reading the various comments regarding what is or is not QRP...
The various contests have all taken the easy way out - that is with a
transmitter output power level - but to my way of thinking it is only the easy
way out as the antenna, the coax, and the ability to direct or condense the
signal are equally - if not more so - of importance.
since the FCC has no problem with specifying ERP (Effective Radiated Power as
compared to a specified antenna) for some modes/bands, I see no reason why
that would not be the criteria for determining what is and what is not QRP...
After all the real goal as I understand it is to level the playing field and
the ERP rule would certainly do that.
So if you want to QRP (using the 5 watts criteria), then do so, but don't brag
to me when your ERP is really 125 watts because of your antennas gain and your
ability to place your signal on target and keep it there... It would seem to
me that is not in the spirit of the game either...
DE Jack - KD1PE
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:49:30 -0500
From: "Jim Danehy" <jdanehy@xxxxx.xx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] QRP re deux
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <19258D2A818646F4B542BC65CA073E24@xxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Jack KD1PE et al
A ham radio antenna installation is not very static (no pun intended) it is
rather dynamic ; to wit : improper assembly of a antenna (variation from the
instruction), age and mounting losses of the coax from ultra violet rays,
water intrusion, the angle of the antenna wave vs. where the satellite is at
the moment, use of improper coax connectors, i will keep the list brief . . .
to repeat it is a dynamic (constantly changing ) situation not a static (stay
put) system . . . when a TV or FM station states its ERP it can do so with
more certainty since it uses very sophisticated instrumentation and hardware
that is relatively static ( coax with helium etc) . . . commercial antennas
that have rigorous specifications installed by professionals etc . . . so for
a ham radio QRP set up you can make a SWAG (simple wild a_ _ guess) . . .
a db loss from ultra violet, another for water intrusion and still more for
bad connectors and you have 2 or 3 db (loss of half your imagined ERP) then
find out like I did that M Square sent me elements that did not pass QC
(quality control) and I got a simple ; " ah shucks" from my telephone call and
confirmation by others on this BB (bulletin board) that indeed they too had
received elements that did not conform to spec . . . a hack saw fixed that
goof
Add to that the db or two loss from the guy in New York State (some
university) that told me that he just assembled his M Square antenna by
starting with the longest element and progressively assembling the shorter
ones to the boom DESPITE admonishment from M Square that there would be 1 or
2 sequences when the progression would require a longer element ( probably to
reduce side lobes ) . . OK : so many feet of LMR 400 or RG 213 and what did
the manufacture say about db gain ? do the math calculating the feed line loss
and multiply that by the gain = simple QRP power . . . OK well what is the
mfg's gain . . . advertised , isotropic, vs a dipole . . . read the fine print
. . . not many do or even know the difference. . .what if any gain to you give
a 1/4 wave ground plane ? ? ? where is its major lobe when the satellite is at
70 degrees of elevation . . . OK let me change my QRP calculation after
checking the printout of the ground plane's loss . . .
the premise that I follow is that QRP in the ham fraternity for decades prior
to AMSAT was 5 watts output from the final stage of the transmitter . . . any
other attempt which hopes to replicate that simplistic approach is speculation
based upon a dynamic that is flawed from lack of accurate measurements . . .
and constantly changing parameters . .
HAPPY HOLIDAYS
Jim W9VNE
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:19:46 -0600
From: Bruce <kk5do@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: QRP ????
To: "amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <05C27D22-F812-48E4-9155-6C35BBF91E29@xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes
I think 5 watts to a 20 element beam and 20 beams phased would be neat
and as mentioned ... hardly QRP. I believe QRP is rated at power
transmitted from the business end of the antenna, not from the coax
connector end.
Otherwise, my 5 watt ht can be fed to a 200 watt linear and then a mag
mount and said to be QRP because the ht only has a 5 watt output.
Somewhere along the line, wasn't there questions pertaining to this in
our licensing exams?
73...bruce
Sent from my iPhone
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:01:12 -0500
From: "Jim Danehy" <jdanehy@xxxxx.xx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] ERP is not QRP apples and oranges
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <BAFCBF5DAF844533B3E1D766E981FDF6@xxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
ERP is not QRP . . . . . . I never saw anything in FCC exams about QRP or
ERP but it has been a long time for me since I was last examined . . .
folks are confusing ERP and QRP . . . 5 watts out QRP driving an amp . . .
get real . . . it is 5 watts out of the final stage feeding the antenna . . .
the gain of the antenna does not have anything to do with QRP it has to do
with ERP . . . one is apples and the other is oranges . . . the original
issue arose out of someone feeling that folks using the AO 51 QRP channel
were not using QRP . . . well I use 5 watts on the QRP channel but I only have
fairly big yagis for satellites . . . If the goal is to have HT users with
compromised antennas use the "QRP" channel then drop the QRP designation and
ask the users to keep the power to 5 watts out from the final stage of the
transmitter and then WHAT ? ? ? 5 watts many can compute but that is it .
. . ERP is guess work by most . . . that is my point . . . seems senseless to
me but surprising the responses . . . ERP is not QRP different concepts . . .
apples and oranges . . . .
Jim W9VNE
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:10:53 -0500
From: "Scott Richardson" <scott@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: ERP is not QRP apples and oranges
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <104943B67FC04880B5A5B6DED98C918F@xxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Is anyone in the know able to explain the _intent_ of "QRP" on AO-51?
TIA and 73, Scott N1AIA
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 01:17:03 +0000
From: n3tl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: ERP is not QRP apples and oranges
To: "Jim Danehy" <jdanehy@xxxxx.xx.xxx>, <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID:
<122020080117.22476.494C478F000B6287000057CC22243429029B0A02D2089B9A019C
04040A0DBF049BCC02@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain
Amen, brother.
Something occurred to me earlier today in thinking about this ongoing
discussion that includes a few different threads.
Given all the information I can find about the nominal transmitter powers of
the satellites I have worked [AO-7, AO-16, AO-27 (currently inactive), AO-51,
FO-29, SO-50 and VO-52], at least half of every satellite contact I've made
has been QRP - the half coming this way from space. Most of mine - but not all
- have been 2-way QRP.
73, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all,
Tim - N3TL
-------------- Original message from "Jim Danehy" <jdanehy@xxxxx.xx.xxx>: ----
----------
ERP is not QRP . . . . . . I never saw anything in FCC exams about QRP or
> ERP but it has been a long time for me since I was last examined . . .
> folks are confusing ERP and QRP . . . 5 watts out QRP driving an amp . . .
get real . . . it is 5 watts out of the final stage feeding the antenna . . .
the gain of the antenna does not have anything to do with QRP it has to do
with ERP . . . one is apples and the other is oranges . . . the original issue
arose out of someone feeling that folks using the AO 51 QRP channel were not
using QRP . . . well I use 5 watts on the QRP channel but I only have fairly
big yagis for satellites . . . If the goal is to have HT users with
compromised antennas use the "QRP" channel then drop the QRP designation and
ask the users to keep the power to 5 watts out from the final stage of the
transmitter and then WHAT ? ? ? 5 watts many can compute but that is it . . .
ERP is guess work by most . .
> . that is my point . . . seems senseless to me but surprising the responses
. .
> . ERP is not QRP different concepts . . . apples and oranges . . . .
>
> Jim W9VNE
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:30:47 -0700
From: "D. Mynatt" <dave@xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Looking for TNC
To: "AMSAT-BB" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <A0B20A6D92EA4BD2890916AA7AE4585F@xxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Hi all- I'm looking for TNC and have heard that an MFJ unit is very good. If
someone has a TNC for sale, I'd like to see if we could work something out for
after the 1st of JAN 2009. Please contact me off-line if you wish.
Thanks you,
Dave Mynatt
Program Director
========================
http://sciencecenter.no-ip.org
SID ID: S-0258
APRS Tier II Server @ pueblo.aprs2.net:14501
LAT: 38'16.278" N
LON: -104'40.537" W
Alt: 1460m
DM78qd // KA0SWT
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 21:47:01 -0500
From: "Jim Danehy" <jdanehy@xxxxx.xx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: ERP is not QRP apples and oranges
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <9E2FFDB4AA454E50B8F54CC02A637E16@xxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
AMSAT started using the term QRP when they probably should have used ERP or
more accurately "estimated" ERP . . . after all the goal is to allow those
with lesser powered rigs (HT) to have a channel on AO 51 where they could be
more competitive with restricted power . . . maybe a better interpretation of
ERP should be ESTIMATED RESTRICTIVE POWER rather than EFFECTIVE RADIATED
POWER which in amateur radio is more speculative than accurate as I have
attempted to point out in prior posts . . . unfortunately when I run 5 watts
output on AO51 "QRP" channel I only have one set of satellite antennas to
use . . .I could . . .( might be interesting ) use my Bird 25 watt 2 meter
slug . . . on the other side of the attenuator (which I built years ago 10
db) so I could use 1/2 watt Uplink to my 10 db antenna or 50 watts estimated
ERP . . .before I do that I think I will attempt my last ham goal, EME . . .
Jim W9VNE
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Danehy
To: n3tl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 9:40 PM
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] ERP is not QRP apples and oranges
AMSAT started using the term QRP when they probably should have used ERP or
more accurately "estimated" ERP . . . after all the goal is to allow those
with lesser powered rigs (HT) to have a channel on AO 51 where they could be
more competitive with restricted power . . . maybe a better interpretation of
ERP should be ESTIMATED RESTRICTIVE POWER rather than EFFECTIVE RADIATED
POWER which in amateur radio is more speculative than accurate as I have
attempted to point out in prior posts . . . unfortunately when I run 5 watts
output on AO51 "QRP" channel I only have one set of satellite antennas to
use . . .I could . . .( might be interesting ) use my Bird 25 watt 2 meter
slug . . . on the other side of the attenuator (which I built years ago 10
db) so I could use 1/2 watt Uplink to my 10 db antenna or 50 watts estimated
ERP . . .before I do that I think I will attempt my last ham goal, EME . . .
Jim W9VNE
----- Original Message -----
From: n3tl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: Jim Danehy ; amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] ERP is not QRP apples and oranges
Amen, brother.
Something occurred to me earlier today in thinking about this ongoing
discussion that includes a few different threads.
Given all the information I can find about the nominal transmitter powers
of the satellites I have worked [AO-7, AO-16, AO-27 (currently inactive), AO-
51, FO-29, SO-50 and VO-52], at least half of every satellite contact I've
made has been QRP - the half coming this way from space. Most of mine - but
not all - have been 2-way QRP.
73, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all,
Tim - N3TL
-------------- Original message from "Jim Danehy"
<jdanehy@xxxxx.xx.xxx>: --------------
ERP is not QRP . . . . . . I never saw anything in FCC exams about QRP
or
> ERP but it has been a long time for me since I was last examined . . .
> folks are confusing ERP and QRP . . . 5 watts out QRP driving an amp .
. . get real . . . it is 5 watts out of the final stage feeding the antenna .
. . the gain of the antenna does not have anything to do with QRP it has to do
with ERP . . . one is apples and the other is oranges . . . the original issue
arose out of someone feeling that folks using the AO 51 QRP channel were not
using QRP . . . well I use 5 watts on the QRP channel but I only have fairly
big yagis for satellites . . . If the goal is to have HT users with
compromised antennas use the "QRP" channel then drop the QRP designation and
ask the users to keep the power to 5 watts out from the final stage of the
transmitter and then WHAT ? ? ? 5 watts many can compute but that is it . . .
ERP is guess work by most . .
> . that is my point . . . seems senseless to me but surprising the
responses . .
> . ERP is not QRP different concepts . . . apples and oranges . . . .
>
> Jim W9VNE
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 13
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 11:17:08 +1000
From: "Andrew Rich" <vk4tec@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] 70 cm YAGI
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <01f501c96240$aecd2a00$6501a8c0@xxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi
I built an antenna for AO-51 which works well
I just cant seem to find the dimensions on the net
Here is a picture
http://www.tech-software.net/antennae/images/yagi_001.jpg
I want ot scale it and make one for 1090 MHz
Andrew VK4TEC
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 22:11:53 -0500
From: "Andrew Glasbrenner" <glasbrenner@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] AO-51 QRP...or does anyone actually read the real
schedule?
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: ao51-modes@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <19ADF42FB4E14B6BA3ECCD0FFDAE91E9@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
>From http://www.amsat.org/amsat-new/echo/CTNews.php:
QRP user FM Repeater, V/U (All users restricted to 10 watts or less, omni or
handheld antennas)
Uplink: 145.880 MHz FM
Downlink: 435.150 MHz FM
I think the removal of the "graphic" schedule will force people to spend an
extra 10 seconds to read what restrictions or intentions are in effect, and
this problem will be solved. I'm sorry it's come to this, again, but we
cannot sacrifice civility and order on the air for convenience.
73, Drew KO4MA
AMSAT-NA VP Operations
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 04:04:16 +0000
From: n3tl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: ERP is not QRP apples and oranges
To: "Jim Danehy" <jdanehy@xxxxx.xx.xxx>, <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID:
<122020080404.5686.494C6EBF000C563F0000163622243429029B0A02D2089B9A019C0
4040A0DBF049BCC02@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain
Jim and all,
"after all the goal is to allow those with lesser powered rigs (HT) to have a
channel on AO 51 where they could be more competitive with restricted power .
. . "
Maybe Drew, Gould or someone else will comment on this. I've never heard any
control operator or member of the AO-51 scheduling team state that as a reason
for a "QRP" frequency pair. The first time they activated that pair after I
started working the satellites, I didn't jump in with my 5 watts and Arrow. I
tried the AL800 whip, then 300 milliwatts, then 50 milliwatts on Duracells.
And when they all worked over there, I took 'em to 145.920/435.300 - and they
worked there, too. They also worked on AO-27 and SO-50 ... all of them not
just once or twice, but repeatedly.
I guess that's why I personally have never felt "less competitive" on the
"regular" AO-51 pair when I'm running 5 watts into a handheld antenna with
gain and directional radiation.
73 to all,
Tim
-------------- Original message from "Jim Danehy" <jdanehy@xxxxx.xx.xxx>: ----
----------
AMSAT started using the term QRP when they probably should have used ERP or
more accurately "estimated" ERP . . . after all the goal is to allow those
with lesser powered rigs (HT) to have a channel on AO 51 where they could be
more competitive with restricted power . . . maybe a better interpretation of
ERP should be ESTIMATED RESTRICTIVE POWER rather than EFFECTIVE RADIATED POWER
which in amateur radio is more speculative than accurate as I have attempted
to point out in prior posts . . . unfortunately when I run 5 watts output on
AO51 "QRP" channel I only have one set of satellite antennas to use . . .I
could . . .( might be interesting ) use my Bird 25 watt 2 meter slug . . . on
the other side of the attenuator (which I built years ago 10 db) so I could
use 1/2 watt Uplink to my 10 db antenna or 50 watts estimated ERP . . .before
I do that I
> think I will attempt my last ham goal, EME . . .
>
> Jim W9VNE
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jim Danehy
> To: n3tl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 9:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] ERP is not QRP apples and oranges
>
>
> AMSAT started using the term QRP when they probably should have used ERP or
> more accurately "estimated" ERP . . . after all the goal is to allow those
with
> lesser powered rigs (HT) to have a channel on AO 51 where they could be more
> competitive with restricted power . . . maybe a better interpretation of ERP
> should be ESTIMATED RESTRICTIVE POWER rather than EFFECTIVE RADIATED POWER
> which in amateur radio is more speculative than accurate as I have attempted
to
> point out in prior posts . . . unfortunately when I run 5 watts output on
AO51
> "QRP" channel I only have one set of satellite antennas to use . . .I could
. .
> .( might be interesting ) use my Bird 25 watt 2 meter slug . . . on the
other
> side of the attenuator (which I built years ago 10 db) so I could use 1/2
watt
> Uplink to my 10 db antenna or 50 watts estimated ERP . . .before I do that I
> think I will attempt my last ham goal, EME . . .
>
> Jim W9VNE
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: n3tl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> To: Jim Danehy ; amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 8:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] ERP is not QRP apples and oranges
>
>
> Amen, brother.
>
> Something occurred to me earlier today in thinking about this ongoing
> discussion that includes a few different threads.
>
> Given all the information I can find about the nominal transmitter powers of
> the satellites I have worked [AO-7, AO-16, AO-27 (currently inactive), AO-
51,
> FO-29, SO-50 and VO-52], at least half of every satellite contact I've made
has
> been QRP - the half coming this way from space. Most of mine - but not all -
> have been 2-way QRP.
>
> 73, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all,
>
> Tim - N3TL
>
>
> -------------- Original message from "Jim Danehy" :
> --------------
>
> ERP is not QRP . . . . . . I never saw anything in FCC exams about QRP or
> > ERP but it has been a long time for me since I was last examined . . .
> > folks are confusing ERP and QRP . . . 5 watts out QRP driving an amp . .
> . get real . . . it is 5 watts out of the final stage feeding the antenna .
. .
> the gain of the antenna does not have anything to do with QRP it has to do
with
> ERP . . . one is apples and the other is oranges . . . the original issue
arose
> out of someone feeling that folks using the AO 51 QRP channel were not using
QRP
> . . . well I use 5 watts on the QRP channel but I only have fairly big yagis
for
> satellites . . . If the goal is to have HT users with compromised antennas
use
> the "QRP" channel then drop the QRP designation and ask the users to keep
the
> power to 5 watts out from the final stage of the transmitter and then WHAT ?
? ?
> 5 watts many can compute but that is it . . . ERP is guess work by most . .
> > . that is my point . . . seems senseless to me but surprising the
> responses . .
> > . ERP is not QRP different concepts . . . apples and oranges . . . .
> >
> > Jim W9VNE
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 3, Issue 660
****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
