[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] - [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: This comment is INSANE...



I'd like to add some comments and corrections to this thread. I certainly 
would
have prefered that the League recommend using the least power required,
same as outlined in the FCC regulations. Recommending excessive
power only escalates the very problem we are trying to avoid, whether Field
Day or not. AMSAT discontinued use of the 67 Hz tone on AO-51 for similar
reasons.

I also would have preferred that the ARRL would make a point of recommending
full duplex for ALL satellite operating, not just the transponder birds. The 
article
also recommended only tuning the downlink for both FO-29 and VO-52. For
VO-52 and Mode U/V this is contrary to recommended practice and the least
efficient means of doppler tuning in terms of bandwith usage and courtesy to
other operators. If a station cannot implement full doppler tuning, it is
always recommended they tune the higher of the two frequencies.

The table describing the frequencies to use for AO-27 and AO-51 is also in
error. The receive recommendations are on the money, but  apply the same
amount of tuning for Doppler shift to the uplink frequency. Total Doppler
shift on 2m from those orbits is only ~3 kHz, while the article recommends
10 kHz.

I would also be VERY careful about recommending plenty of "RF muscle" while
discussing manually pointing VHF and UHF antennas without an az/el rotor. RF
burns and glaucoma are not on my to do list for that weekend.

Satellite operators looking to make a quick FM contact should pay careful
attention to SO-50. It wasn't mentioned at all in the article and probably
will not have as much traffic. I also expect the L/U repeater running
concurrently with V/U on AO-51 to be useable to those with full doppler
tuning without much QRM. AO-7 may also provide QSOs for those who have
experience with that satellites particular quirks. Command stations are also
working on reviving AO-16 for use as a digipeater on FD, but there are
certainly no guarantees after 17 yrs in orbit.

I'd be glad to help avoid these mistakes for future articles on satellite 
operations.

73, Drew KO4MA
AMSAT-NA VP of Operations

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ford, Steve, WB8IMY" <sford@arrl.org>
To: <amsat-bb@amsat.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:04 PM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: This comment is INSANE...


> Stephan:
>
>
>
> I am the person at the ARRL that authored the statement in question. It
> appeared in a Field Day special insert published in the June issue of QST.
>
>
>
> The statement is part of a section that discusses how to make a successful
> Field Day contact on OSCAR 51, a satellite that presently functions as a
> single-channel FM repeater. The suggestion to use as much power as
> available applied to Field Day stations, not everyday operating. But more
> importantly, the suggestion was intended to apply to AO-51 *only.* I would
> never suggest such a practice for communicating through an SSB/CW linear
> transponder satellite, during Field Day or at any other time.
>
>
>
> I apologize for any misunderstanding. The article should have made this
> point clearer.
>
>
>
> 73 . . . Steve Ford, WB8IMY
>
> QST Editor
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org on behalf of Stephan Andre'
> Sent: Thu 6/14/2007 3:11 PM
> To: amsat-bb@amsat.org
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: This comment is INSANE...
>
>
>
> I would agree that the comment below is rather nuts, but it is important
> to remember that this is an *unattributed statement* at the current time.
> We cannot know that this was a true statement.
>
> I am hoping that someone connected with the ARRL can get someone
> there to comment on this.  Obviously this is a false statement, but I
> don't believe that an ARRL official said that.  If someone can produce
> an actual quote thats Googled, that is different.
>
> Either way the ARRL really ought to make some kind of statement
> about this.
>
> --STeve Andre'
> wb8wsf  en82
>
> On Thursday 14 June 2007 14:37:35 Ernest Erickson wrote:
>> After reading several articles posted by menbers, this
>> particular line really stood out.
>>
>> How can someone supposedly 'responsible' make such a
>> stupid comment?
>>
>> They obviously have no idea that more power than
>> neccessary robs power from ALL users on the
>> satellites.
>> (snip)
>>  Someone from the ARRL, who shall
>>
>> >> > remain nameless, is actually recommending as much
>> >> > uplink power as possible to improve one's
>>
>> chances,(/snip)
>>
>> This is especially true with SSB/CW transponders.
>>
>> This is thoughtless commenting in general, and must be
>> ignored, but such a person should be informed that
>> making statements such as this is NOT what we need
>> from a 'reputable' organization, if indeed, it
>> actually came from someone within the ARRL.
>>
>> Just my .02C on the subject.
>>
>> 73!
>>
>>
>> Ernest A. Erickson, KA9UCE
>> Applied Electronic Communications, AEC
>> 10711 East Verbina Lane
>> Florence, AZ. 85232
>> 520.723.0602
>> aec9823@yahoo.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. 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@amsat.org. 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@amsat.org. 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



AMSAT Top AMSAT Home