Email Detail

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "url": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/DEKCEX3JX3S22352ZBBEHIRIEQJEN2CD/?format=api",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/?format=api",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "DEKCEX3JX3S22352ZBBEHIRIEQJEN2CD",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/VMQN3AOELRSC6MPHVK7BJMLWNNYYCWGV/?format=api",
    "sender": {
        "address": "ka8kpn (a) brokersys.com",
        "mailman_id": "89176305e99b441cbf14e6a0bff09344",
        "emails": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/sender/89176305e99b441cbf14e6a0bff09344/emails/?format=api"
    },
    "sender_name": "Jonathan Guthrie",
    "subject": "[amsat-bb] Re: Icom 9100",
    "date": "2010-05-17T23:22:40Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/LJLOLJ5BRHVFB54VYXZGNRCQVYARMJ3I/?format=api",
    "children": [],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "Full duplex transceiver?\n\nBack in the dim dawn of history, there used to be those who constructed \ntransmitters that were separate from receivers.  Although constructing \nsuch a thing is beyond me, I would like to see someone create a device \nthat was intended to feed the input of an upconverter.  I can already \nget general-coverage receivers at reasonable cost.  If I'm computer \ncontrolling one or the other of them, or both, there is no real \nadvantage to having the in the same physical box.\n\nI can understand why such a thing might be less than perfectly useful \nfor those who want a portable station, but it would seem to me to be \njust fine for someone who wants to operate a fixed station.\n\nOn 05/17/2010 05:38 PM, [email protected] wrote:\n> On May 16 2010, Sebastian wrote:\n>\n>> Perhaps others such as DEMI, will see this as an opportunity and come up\n>> with alternatives?\n>\n> Well, keep in mind that DEMI's strength is in transverters, and what is\n> hard to obtain for satellite operation from most common-place existing\n> equipment is a full-duplex transceiver. I don't think that DEMI is likely\n> to start building transceivers, but if you had a true full-duplex\n> transceiver, they would have transverters available to upgrade the radio to\n> the satellite bands needed.\n>\n> Here's a thought: buy two SoftRocks for a lot less than the price of the\n> Flex 5000 -- one would be the v6.3Rx/Tx and the other could be the V9 Rx\n> only. This would net you two independent receivers and one transmitter, and\n> with clever wiring, selection of VHF&  up transverters, and maybe a little\n> bit of software development, you could turn that into a software-defined\n> radio that would be capable of full-duplex cross-band operation. (The V9 Rx\n> would be the primary receiver, the receiver in the V6.3Rx/Tx would be\n> \"spare\" or \"extra\" or even ignored.) You'd need to configure the\n> transverters with \"split IF\", and use two coaxial relays to route the 28\n> MHz SoftRock IF Rx and Tx separately to the correct receive and transmit\n> transverters. A bit of innovation/homebrewing would be needed for\n> convenient band-switching, since you would need to switch two different\n> transverters into the correct \"position\" depending on the mode: V/U vs. U/V\n> vs. V/S vs. U/S vs. L/S vs. L/U vs. whatever other modes you wanted to\n> support. But 4 transverters (145, 435, 1269, and 2400 MHz) would give you\n> lots of satellite modes. Oh, don't forget there are some birds with HF\n> links and the SoftRock can do HF natively too...\n>\n> If only I had the time to work on such a thing...\n>\n> Ideally, the transverters would be dual frequency, so that you could tune\n> to 432 terrestrial or 435 satellite; 1269 satellite or 1296 terrestrial;\n> and 2304 terrestrial or 2400 satellite. Newer DEMI transverters with the\n> synthesized LO board can be configured that way, at least on the higher\n> bands. Then you'd have not only a kick-@$$ satellite system, but also an\n> outstanding weak-signal terrestrial system.\n>\n> Unfortunately, DEMI is once again revamping their lineup of products. Of\n> course, this is good for us who want the latest and best, but bad for us\n> who want something right NOW. Prices and specs are a little bit harder to\n> obtain from DEMI right now, but I expect that the wait will be worth it.\n>\n> 73 de W0JT\n>\n>> On May 15, 2010, at 9:43 PM, Michael Tondee wrote:\n>>\n>>> I guess once I put the upcoming V/U module in my Flex 5000 I'll have\n>>> that amount of money in it but I won't have had to spend it all at once\n>>> and IMHO I'll have a markedly better radio. Also one that isn't outdated\n>>> a day after I walk out of the store with it.\n>>>\n>>> On 5/15/2010 7:22 PM, Mik Forsythe wrote:\n>>>> Just left Dayton a few hours ago. Icom said that it is basically a\n>>>> 7600 and a 910. It is bigger than the 910. It was in a display case so\n>>>> I can't tell you what the feel was like of the weight. Price is in the\n>>>> $4,000.00 range so that will kill a lot of the satellite market if you\n>>>> ask me.\n>\n> _______________________________________________\n> Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author.\n> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!\n> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb\n>\n> \n>\n\n\n!DSPAM:117,4bf1cfd4170036849314807!\n\n\n",
    "attachments": []
}