| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 11.06.09 05:34l 838 Lines 30245 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 41598-CX2SA
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V4 272
Path: IZ3LSV<IW2OHX<I4UKI<IK6ZDE<IK2XDE<F5GOV<CX2SA
Sent: 090611/0319Z @:CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA #:41598 [Minas] FBB7.00e $:41598-CX2SA
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Send AMSAT-BB mailing list submissions to
amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
amsat-bb-request@xxxxx.xxx
You can reach the person managing the list at
amsat-bb-owner@xxxxx.xxx
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of AMSAT-BB digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. K5D Sat QSL (Clare Fowler)
2. Re: IC-910 Data Connections (Alan P. Biddle)
3. Re: DJ-G7T programming cable question (Jim Wright)
4. Re: Commercial Imports (Clint Bradford)
5. Re: Way-OT: Re: Full Duplex HT's (Howard Kowall) (Ben
Jackson) (Gordon JC Pearce)
6. Re: Full Duplex HT's (Gordon JC Pearce)
7. Request cross test of satellite prediction. Thanks (RFI-EMI-GUY)
8. Re: Way-OT: Re: Full Duplex HT's (Howard Kowall) (Ben
Jackson) (Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK))
9. Re: Way-OT: Re: Full Duplex HT's (Howard Kowall) (Ben
Jackson) (R. Chastain)
10. Re: Way-OT: Re: Full Duplex HT's (Howard Kowall) (BenJackson)
(kd8bxp@xxx.xxxx
11. AO-51 Hamfest Demonstration, Saturday evening, Medellin,
Colombia (Daniel Schultz)
12. Re: RTFM question (Mark Lunday)
13. Thanks to all who help! (kd8bxp@xxx.xxxx
14. ND9M Sat Trip to Delaware (claryco@xxx.xxxx
15. Re: Way-OT: Re: Full Duplex HT's (Howard Kowall) (Ben
Jackson) (Tony Langdon)
16. Re: Full Duplex HT's (Tony Langdon)
17. Re: Full Duplex HT's (Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:40:42 -0400
From: "Clare Fowler" <lcfowler@xxxxx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] K5D Sat QSL
To: "amsat-bb" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <000601c9ea03$59ae33c0$089cfed8@xxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Received my K5D sat qsl in mail today.
Thanks for a new one.
Clare VE3NPC
Sat DXCC #64
211 submitted & confirmed by ARRL
17 more confirmed but not yet submitted
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:02:08 -0500
From: "Alan P. Biddle" <APBIDDLE@xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: IC-910 Data Connections
To: "'James Denneny'" <57jndenneny@xxxxxxx.xxx>, <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <F959EEAEDF5F4FBD8D66C741FFCE2630@xxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Jim,
There is a similar but not identical issue with my FT-847. I have used two
different approaches.
I used to run the leads, mostly in parallel except for the 1200 and 9600
baud outputs, to radio ports 1 and 2 on the DSP-2232. Switching the modem
loaded automatically switched the inputs and outputs.
Since I started using sound card programs several years ago, I made up a
simple ABC switch. DIN cables, jacks, boxes, and wafer switches are cheap
at a good hamfest, and not that expensive at parts stores. Another trick
for a selector, which I saw documented in QST, is to use a serial AB or ABED
box which are cheap, and nearly free at a hamfest flea market. You can make
up adapters, or install DIN sockets. All the wiring is at audio frequencies
and is uncritical. A metal box for shielding is recommended!
Note that however you do it, the audio levels from the DSP-2232 are not
constant when you change the modems. If you use the same radio port, you
will need to provide some sort of means of equalization. I used some cheap
trim pots in my switching box. If you use separate radio ports, you can set
them individually using the DSP-2232 level controls.
Alan
WA4SCA
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:20:13 -0400
From: Jim Wright <wrightjrjr@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: DJ-G7T programming cable question
To: Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF <nigel@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: Amsat-BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>, kg4zlb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4A30076D.9040800@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." seems more
appropriate to me. My delete key gets warm some times, but that is why
it was put there.
73,
Jim
ps: This was an exception. :-)
Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF wrote:
> Surely we should encourage people to think for themselves and at least try
to sort their own issues.
> What are they going to do when the more experienced are no longer here.
>
> Isn't "Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish;
and you have fed him for a lifetime" relevent
> here?
>
>
> David - KG4ZLB wrote:
>
>> Whether or not a question is raised after someone has actually tried to
work it out for themselves or not is immaterial.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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, 10 Jun 2009 13:48:29 -0700
From: Clint Bradford <clintbrad4d@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Commercial Imports
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <010F574D-0D3F-4822-8EA3-E3A64002362B@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>> ... But I am with Clint here ...
Oh, that'll win you friends ... (grin)
Clint Bradford
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:49:22 +0100
From: Gordon JC Pearce <gordonjcp@xxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Way-OT: Re: Full Duplex HT's (Howard Kowall)
(Ben Jackson)
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <1244666962.5593.16.camel@xxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain
On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 11:23 -0700, Clint Bradford wrote:
> The original post described a commercial HT ... operating WAY OUT of
> the 2M and 440 amateur bands. For marketing and sales within the
> United States, FCC certification is required.
>
> Do people purchase non-FCC-certified commercial rigs and use them on
> the amateur bands? Yes.
>
> Is it legal to do so? No.
It might be illegal in the US, but it's not illegal in the UK. Over
here, you are responsible for operating your equipment in-band, no-one
else. Certainly not the manufacturer.
Gordon
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:09:14 +0100
From: Gordon JC Pearce <gordonjcp@xxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Full Duplex HT's
To: "AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxxx <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <1244668154.5593.19.camel@xxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain
On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 14:39 -0400, David - KG4ZLB wrote:
> A couple or three years ago there was an influx of h/t's into the UK via
> e-bay with origins in China - I believe they were marketed under the
> name JingTong (I kid you not)
>
> If I recall correctly, they were so bad and caused so much interference
> that eventually the Regulatory Authority stepped in and ordered a ban on
> the sale of these things.
I actually have one of the JT-308s, and found it to be not too bad.
It's a bit deaf and it has not got the cleanest output but there are no
particular nasties in the output. A VX-7 is worse!
Gordon
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:49:10 -0400
From: RFI-EMI-GUY <Rhyolite@xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Request cross test of satellite prediction.
Thanks
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4A303866.3060008@xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Could some kind sole with a trusted program please run some or all of
the satellites below for the date June 15, 2009
for the coordinates for Virgin Gorda BVI (listed below) and cross check
my sample results below?
I am using keps 14 days old.
Thanks!
Location:
Virgin Gorda British Virgin Islands
Lattitude 18.433, Longitude - 64.416, 12 m AMSL
Radio visibility - Multiple satellite schedule for : Ao-16
Ao-16, Ao-27, Ao-51, Iss, So-50
+------------------ AOS ------------------+MAX EL.+ ----- LOS ------ +
UTC Date Time | Satellite Azm | Elev. | Time Azm |
Duration
06/15/09 00:58:00 | So-50 313.1? | 21.1? | 01:10:00 183.3?
| 00:12
06/15/09 05:10:00 | Ao-27 67.8? | 3.5? | 05:17:00 125.7?
| 00:07
06/15/09 06:37:00 | Ao-16 48.3? | 12.5? | 06:48:00 150.6?
| 00:11
06/15/09 06:46:00 | Ao-27 12.5? | 86.3? | 07:01:00 192.1?
| 00:15
06/15/09 07:56:00 | Iss 181.1? | 13.0? | 08:04:00 64.5?
| 00:08
06/15/09 08:15:00 | Ao-16 359.7? | 42.1? | 08:29:00 207.0?
| 00:14
06/15/09 08:28:00 | Ao-27 325.0? | 5.3? | 08:37:00 250.9?
| 00:09
06/15/09 09:29:00 | Ao-51 46.7? | 13.6? | 09:40:00 155.2?
| 00:11
06/15/09 09:31:00 | Iss 250.1? | 17.4? | 09:40:00 22.1?
| 00:09
06/15/09 11:06:00 | Ao-51 357.4? | 33.0? | 11:20:00 210.1?
| 00:14
06/15/09 11:43:00 | So-50 146.4? | 6.1? | 11:53:00 61.9?
| 00:10
06/15/09 13:21:00 | So-50 207.6? | 71.1? | 13:36:00 22.2?
| 00:15
06/15/09 15:06:00 | So-50 279.1? | 4.1? | 15:13:00 339.5?
| 00:07
--
Joe Leikhim K4SAT
"The RFI-EMI-GUY"?
"Use only Genuine Interocitor Parts" Tom Servo ;-P
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:21:04 -0700
From: "Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK)" <amsat-bb@xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Way-OT: Re: Full Duplex HT's (Howard Kowall)
(Ben Jackson)
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID:
<2e18ad3e0906101721k57b52b21k7de77306bb0eb8d9@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hi Clint!
> The original post described a commercial HT ... operating WAY OUT of
> the 2M and 440 amateur bands. For marketing and sales within the
> United States, FCC certification is required.
>
> Do people purchase non-FCC-certified commercial rigs and use them on
> the amateur bands? Yes.
>
> Is it legal to do so? No.
The problem with this whole line of messages is that two completely separate
issues are being thrown together - the purchase and use of the non-FCC-
certified radios by hams on the ham bands. I am not a lawyer. Here goes...
First of all, FCC requires certification for ham gear in two instances:
1. Amplifiers for bands below 144 MHz. (see 97.315 and 97.317 of the
FCC rules, http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/ )
2. Ham receivers or transceivers that cover outside ham bands above
30 MHz (receivers outside ham bands are covered by FCC Part 15;
transmitters outside the ham bands would be covered by another part
or part of the FCC rules depending on the frequencies covered).
Take a look at this web site:
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/
This lets you search the FCC Equipment Authorization Database. Take
the FCC ID number off your radio, cell phone, or anything else that might
have that number, and you get access to information about that item.
There is the grant of certification, sometimes there is other information like
test reports, copies of manuals, photos (internal and/or external), and other
items submitted by the manufacturer or importer/distributor as part of the
process.
If you have a dual-band HT or mobile, put that ID number into the link above
and read the grant. The grant only covers the receiver, not the transmitter
part of the radio. It will be certified according to some subpart of FCC Part
15, *not* Part 97. Sometimes the grant will be for the frequency ranges
outside the ham bands (this is all that FCC requires), but many will also
get certification for the ham bands to simplify the application. If the gear
only covers the ham bands, or is confined to operation below 30 MHz
(i.e., no expanded low-VHF or 6m coverage), certification is not required.
It appears that US Customs is not concerned with individuals buying these
non-certified radios in very small quantities from offshore shops or eBay
storefronts etc. If HRO, AES, etc. wanted to advertise one of these non-
certified radios, then I would expect FCC to step in and question it. Note
that the major ham manufacturers tease us with advertisements for new
radios in the magazines before certification has been granted by FCC,
but with a disclaimer that the radio cannot be offered for sale or lease
until that certification is granted. A way to step around restrictions on
marketing a non-certified radio, I think. It appears that FCC has not
tried to get eBay to stop those non-US sellers of the non-certified gear
from being visible to US visitors to that site. And the big 3 or 4 ham
manufacturers still announce radios without FCC certification with that
disclaimer in the ad.
Now on to using these radios. Clint - since you have been stridently
insisting on the illegality of using non-FCC-certified radios on the US
ham bands, could you please show us the specific law/rule/regulation
that states that hams cannot use non-certified commercial gear in the
ham bands? I am aware of is the technical requirements in FCC
Part 97, Subpart D, which cover whatever radio - homebrew, kit, or
made in a factory - that we may decide to use on the ham bands
and other parts about not causing interference etc. The radio may
not be FCC certified, but if it meets Part 97 - and the licensee is not
transmitting outside the bounds of his/her license with it - that's what
FCC is interested in. FCC Part 97 does not speak to the origin of
the radio or whether or not it has certification (except for HF and 6m
amplifiers, which require certification as outlined in 97.315 and
97.317).
Now, where was I again? Oh, yes, the AMSAT-BB list, talking about
amateur satellites... ;-)
73!
Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK
http://www.wd9ewk.net/
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:22:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: "R. Chastain" <suenrod@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Way-OT: Re: Full Duplex HT's (Howard Kowall)
(Ben Jackson)
To: Amsat-BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <305375.76944.qm@xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
I disagree. Since amateur radio operators can build their gear, ANY radio can
be used so long as it's spectral purity and power output?are within the
established limits. (At least here in the USA)
RoD
KD0XX
--- On Wed, 6/10/09, Clint Bradford <clintbrad4d@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
From: Clint Bradford <clintbrad4d@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Way-OT: Re: Full Duplex HT's (Howard Kowall) (Ben
Jackson)
To: "Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF" <nigel@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2009, 2:23 PM
The original post described a commercial HT ... operating WAY OUT of?
the 2M and 440 amateur bands. For marketing and sales within the?
United States, FCC certification is required.
Do people purchase non-FCC-certified commercial rigs and use them on?
the amateur bands? Yes.
Is it legal to do so? No.
Clint Bradford
_______________________________________________
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: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:44:24 +0000
From: kd8bxp@xxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Way-OT: Re: Full Duplex HT's (Howard Kowall)
(BenJackson)
To: amsat-bb@xxxxxx.xxxx amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID:
<126561387-1244681065-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-
674077844-@xxxxxxx.xxxx.xxxx.xx.xxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
CLIP {
It appears that US Customs is not concerned with individuals buying these
non-certified radios in very small quantities from offshore shops or eBay
storefronts etc. If HRO, AES, etc. wanted to advertise one of these non-
certified radios, then I would expect FCC to step in and question it. }
It seems to me a few years back the fcc did step in and stop the sales of some
china or tiwani (and I know I spelled that wrong). UHF radios at hamvention in
Dayton it was a few years ago maybe 2004/2005
one of my buddys got one of the radio it wasn't a jingtong but was something
like that weird two name thing. It was uhf and sort of meant for amateur use,
at least it had some features that hams would want pl tones, etc -- but it
from the factory was able to transmit on everything - and I think it would go
to 1khz steps as well. But basicly from 400 mhz to 499.999 mhz it would
transmit, the thing that got most people was the cost 25 bucks american brand
new - they sold a lot of them - the FCC shut them down in a matter of a few
hours
I think if they (FCC) knows about they will stop it, once it is here and in
the amateur's hands he is ultimatly reasonable for it's use or miss use -
There are a couple of amps floating around that don't meet the requirement and
legally can't be sold in the states (I believe what the ad for it says is it
can not be imported) the ad says once it is here it is legal to use I don't
know if that is true or not but I do know a lot of hams that have this amp - I
forget what model it is now, but it was made for the FT817. The reason it
couldn't get certified was because the power of the 817 is qrp and something
about in the hf bands you have to have 15 or 20 watts to drive the amp (-
honestly I knew I have since forgotten the amount) but that was generally why
this amp wouldn't pass the requirements
It was designed to work on the 817
Ok I am just rambling now sorry about that
Just thought I would put my 2 cents in
LeRoy, KD8BXP
Sent on the Now Network? from my Sprint? BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: "Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK)" <amsat-bb@xxxxxx.xxx>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:21:04
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Way-OT: Re: Full Duplex HT's (Howard Kowall) (Ben
Jackson)
Hi Clint!
> The original post described a commercial HT ... operating WAY OUT of
> the 2M and 440 amateur bands. For marketing and sales within the
> United States, FCC certification is required.
>
> Do people purchase non-FCC-certified commercial rigs and use them on
> the amateur bands? Yes.
>
> Is it legal to do so? No.
The problem with this whole line of messages is that two completely separate
issues are being thrown together - the purchase and use of the non-FCC-
certified radios by hams on the ham bands. I am not a lawyer. Here goes...
First of all, FCC requires certification for ham gear in two instances:
1. Amplifiers for bands below 144 MHz. (see 97.315 and 97.317 of the
FCC rules, http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/ )
2. Ham receivers or transceivers that cover outside ham bands above
30 MHz (receivers outside ham bands are covered by FCC Part 15;
transmitters outside the ham bands would be covered by another part
or part of the FCC rules depending on the frequencies covered).
Take a look at this web site:
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/
This lets you search the FCC Equipment Authorization Database. Take
the FCC ID number off your radio, cell phone, or anything else that might
have that number, and you get access to information about that item.
There is the grant of certification, sometimes there is other information like
test reports, copies of manuals, photos (internal and/or external), and other
items submitted by the manufacturer or importer/distributor as part of the
process.
If you have a dual-band HT or mobile, put that ID number into the link above
and read the grant. The grant only covers the receiver, not the transmitter
part of the radio. It will be certified according to some subpart of FCC Part
15, *not* Part 97. Sometimes the grant will be for the frequency ranges
outside the ham bands (this is all that FCC requires), but many will also
get certification for the ham bands to simplify the application. If the gear
only covers the ham bands, or is confined to operation below 30 MHz
(i.e., no expanded low-VHF or 6m coverage), certification is not required.
It appears that US Customs is not concerned with individuals buying these
non-certified radios in very small quantities from offshore shops or eBay
storefronts etc. If HRO, AES, etc. wanted to advertise one of these non-
certified radios, then I would expect FCC to step in and question it. Note
that the major ham manufacturers tease us with advertisements for new
radios in the magazines before certification has been granted by FCC,
but with a disclaimer that the radio cannot be offered for sale or lease
until that certification is granted. A way to step around restrictions on
marketing a non-certified radio, I think. It appears that FCC has not
tried to get eBay to stop those non-US sellers of the non-certified gear
from being visible to US visitors to that site. And the big 3 or 4 ham
manufacturers still announce radios without FCC certification with that
disclaimer in the ad.
Now on to using these radios. Clint - since you have been stridently
insisting on the illegality of using non-FCC-certified radios on the US
ham bands, could you please show us the specific law/rule/regulation
that states that hams cannot use non-certified commercial gear in the
ham bands? I am aware of is the technical requirements in FCC
Part 97, Subpart D, which cover whatever radio - homebrew, kit, or
made in a factory - that we may decide to use on the ham bands
and other parts about not causing interference etc. The radio may
not be FCC certified, but if it meets Part 97 - and the licensee is not
transmitting outside the bounds of his/her license with it - that's what
FCC is interested in. FCC Part 97 does not speak to the origin of
the radio or whether or not it has certification (except for HF and 6m
amplifiers, which require certification as outlined in 97.315 and
97.317).
Now, where was I again? Oh, yes, the AMSAT-BB list, talking about
amateur satellites... ;-)
73!
Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK
http://www.wd9ewk.net/
_______________________________________________
Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:47:57 -0400
From: "Daniel Schultz" <n8fgv@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] AO-51 Hamfest Demonstration, Saturday evening,
Medellin, Colombia
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <455NFkaU62014S03.1244681277@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Guillermo, HK6IOP, will be operating a satellite demonstration at a ham radio
conference in Medellin, Colombia, on Saturday June 13. He plans to be active
on AO-51 on the 23:30 UTC pass over Colombia. Please listen for him on AO-51
at that time. If you speak a little Spanish that might be helpful but is not
essential. Please help Guillermo in promoting satellite operation among the
hams of Colombia.
Dan Schultz N8FGV
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:03:16 -0400
From: "Mark Lunday" <mlunday@xx.xx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: RTFM question
To: "'Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF'" <nigel@xxxxx.xxx>, "'Luc Leblanc'"
<lucleblanc6@xxxxxxxxx.xx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <002c01c9ea30$678be140$36a3a3c0$@xx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Actually, a better approach might be to answer the question and also include
a reference to the location. The asker then sees a way to look that he or
she may not know. Also avoids making incorrect assumptions. I see this
method used a lot on technical mailing lists.
This way, we "teach others to fish for themselves."
Mark Lunday
WD4ELG
wd4elg@xxxx.xxx
http://wd4elg.net
-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
Behalf Of Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 12:11 PM
To: Luc Leblanc
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: RTFM question
There might not be a stupid question but there are certainly those that are
too lazy to first try to help themselves and
expect others to do everything for them.
Luc Leblanc wrote:
>
> It was a Fashion on this BB in the AO-40 time. Those who knows look at
those who don't from a different level... There is no stupid
> question and if this BB still have some use lets those who want to help
free to answer even if it is an obvious RTFM case at your eyes.
>
> I fight this mentality back years ago and even with instructions booklets
you still need the other experience just read the IC-220H manual
> and you will see even with the RTFM you will need to practice a lot.
>
> If only one question can save time and frustation the another one i feel
it worth the time spent to answer his question.
_______________________________________________
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: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 01:29:52 +0000
From: kd8bxp@xxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Thanks to all who help!
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID:
<1458562345-1244683793-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-
1532711286-@xxxxxxx.xxxx.xxxx.xx.xxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I just wanted to say publicly thanks to everyone who responded to my SO50
question
Learned a lot and ready to try again (in a few days probably weather pending)
- I really think the amsat-bb is a group of very hekpful people despite
reading a couple of the posts about "don't ask stupid questions or you didn't
look it up so I am not helping".
LeRoy, KD8BXP
Sent on the Now Network? from my Sprint? BlackBerry
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:54:11 -0400
From: claryco@xxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] ND9M Sat Trip to Delaware
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <8CBB84EA6555726-784-1617@xxxxxxx.xxxxxx.xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I'll be making another "grid-pedition", leaving tomorrow, 11 June; this run
will initially be to Delaware where I'll be QRV in both FM28 and FM29, perhaps
on the grid line, on all FM sats on Sunday, the 14th. If Murphy takes the day
off, I'll also hit the FO29, VO52, and AO7 birds as well.
There are at least two ops that I know of that need Delaware to wrap up their
WAS, so hopefully the satellite gods will be on our side.
On Monday, the 15th, I'll start heading south again and will put out all FM0x
and FM1x grids that have land in them and some, maybe all, of the FM2x grids,
then into southeastern GA and on south to Fort Lauderdale in EM96. A couple of
the less accessible grids appear to be FM02 and FM13. (An aqua-duck would be a
great asset!)
The trip up will be via interstate with no particular grids in mind, but I'll
stop and operate from whatever grid I'm in during each pass as I head
northeast.
I don't know what, if any, grid boundaries I'll hit this time, but as before
everything will be fully photo documented for anyone who may need it.
CU on the birds.
73,
Jim, ND9M
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:11:34 +1000
From: Tony Langdon <vk3jed@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Way-OT: Re: Full Duplex HT's (Howard Kowall)
(Ben Jackson)
To: Gordon JC Pearce <gordonjcp@xxxx.xxx>, amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4a3067e0.0e538c0a.4df2.ffffbe45@xx.xxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 06:49 AM 6/11/2009, Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
> > Do people purchase non-FCC-certified commercial rigs and use them on
> > the amateur bands? Yes.
> >
> > Is it legal to do so? No.
>
>It might be illegal in the US, but it's not illegal in the UK. Over
>here, you are responsible for operating your equipment in-band, no-one
>else. Certainly not the manufacturer.
Same for Australia, it's the amateur's responsibility that they are
operating in band and transmitting a clean signal. I can use any old
radio on the amateur bands, providing that I am actually in band, and
not transmitting spurious junk all over the place. However, like
much of the world, I can NOT use a modified amateur transmitter on
another service (e.g. CB, commercial 2 way, etc), because it is not
type approved for that service.
73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com
------------------------------
Message: 16
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:13:29 +1000
From: Tony Langdon <vk3jed@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Full Duplex HT's
To: Gordon JC Pearce <gordonjcp@xxxx.xxx>, "AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxxx
<amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <4a306852.25bb720a.4d18.3eb6@xx.xxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 07:09 AM 6/11/2009, Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
>I actually have one of the JT-308s, and found it to be not too bad.
>It's a bit deaf and it has not got the cleanest output but there are no
>particular nasties in the output. A VX-7 is worse!
I have one also. Biggest problem I found was that when I enabled
CTCSS, it put this loud rumble onto the audio. Sounded like I was
mobile. Certainly wasn't a clean CTCSS tone.
73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com
------------------------------
Message: 17
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 02:18:06 +0000
From: Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF <nigel@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Full Duplex HT's
To: Tony Langdon <vk3jed@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: "AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxxx <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>, Gordon JC Pearce
<gordonjcp@xxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <4A30695E.9070009@xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
The tone may well have been clean but was certainly much too loud. There's
usually a level pot you can adjust.
Tony Langdon wrote:
> I have one also. Biggest problem I found was that when I enabled
> CTCSS, it put this loud rumble onto the audio. Sounded like I was
> mobile. Certainly wasn't a clean CTCSS tone.
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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 4, Issue 272
****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
