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/AV4VB7PTRXWHLK7SJSN3KZEK4VJVLRQ7/?format=api",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/?format=api",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "AV4VB7PTRXWHLK7SJSN3KZEK4VJVLRQ7",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/NHX6X5EKQIQSZSS634TXEOLCBVH3Q3HB/?format=api",
    "sender": {
        "address": "w5did (a) amsat.org",
        "mailman_id": "8da25cae70294f3687f590ebe6fded03",
        "emails": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/sender/8da25cae70294f3687f590ebe6fded03/emails/?format=api"
    },
    "sender_name": "Louis McFadin",
    "subject": "[eagle] Re: Eagle 10 MHz Clock",
    "date": "2007-04-10T04:03:34Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/WHEP3V2KREMZ2UK3JYAZORDGXB22BY5I/?format=api",
    "children": [],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "If you have tried to make contact through two independently varying  \nsystems such as a receiver with it's LO and a transmitter with it's  \nLO. You would not need any additional justification.\nAO-40 was a very difficult satellite to use for that very reason. The  \nU band receiver local oscillator had it's drifting characteristic and  \nthe S band Tx had its own LO. Between the two you never knew exactly  \nwhat the transfer function would be. With a common reference  \noscillator hopefully closely controlled the transfer function will be  \nmuch better known.\nWith a common clock at least everything drifts together. With the  \nhigher frequencies of the C band system it will be even more important.\n\nLou McFadin\nW5DID\[email protected]\n\n\nOn Apr 9, 2007, at 11:06 PM, Jim Sanford wrote:\n\n> Bill et al:\n> The requirement for the 10MHz reference descends from the July 2004\n> meeting in Orlando.  As far as I know, it was never thoroughly\n> justified, it was stated and made sense at the time.  Still does,  \n> to me,\n> tho I could be convinced on a case basis that we might not need it.\n>\n> 73,\n> jim\n> [email protected]\n>\n>\n> Bill Ress wrote:\n>\n>> Some very good dialog has been taking place, lead by Juan Rivera  \n>> as he\n>> heads up the prototype U Receiver build and test project.\n>>\n>> Several very important questions have been raised but I'd like to\n>> address just one with this post.\n>>\n>> I've volunteered to design and build the S2 Receiver and the C\n>> Transmitter and support microwave component efforts on the phased  \n>> array\n>> for each. I am finishing efforts on a \"prototype\" single channel\n>> (assuming there might be several) S2 downconverter.\n>>\n>> I fully recognize than \"many\" system design parameters have not  \n>> yet been\n>> defined but I'm trying to get that \"definition\" effort moving along.\n>>\n>> This is the first one I'd like to address.\n>>\n>> In the coarse of designing the LO for the \"prototype\" S2  \n>> downconverter I\n>> have not been too concerned with use of the 10 MHz satellite  \n>> clock. But\n>> I think it's time for \"system\" project guidelines to be developed for\n>> this issue since it can affect the design of all LO's. I have  \n>> looked for\n>> guidance on the subject in Eaglepedia and have come up short.  \n>> Point me\n>> in the right direction if it's there (and I just couldn't find it).\n>>\n>> I hope I'm not rehashing old discussions (I've only been on the team\n>> since last October) but here are my questions:\n>>\n>> 1) What is the reason for requiring all LO's to be locked to a 10 MHz\n>> satellite system clock or are they?\n>>\n>> 2) Have the performance specifications for the 10 MHz clock been\n>> developed and what are they (in particular phase noise, frequency\n>> stability, susceptibility to digital hash, and power level  \n>> available to\n>> each using subsystem - to name a few)?\n>>\n>> My apologies for sending to the entire Eagle list but I'm not sure  \n>> who\n>> has the responsibility for the clock.\n>>\n>> Probably more questions to follow!!!\n>>\n>> Regards...Bill - N6GHz\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>> _______________________________________________\n>> Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA\n>> [email protected]\n>> http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle\n>>\n>>\n>>\n> _______________________________________________\n> Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA\n> [email protected]\n> http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle\n\n\n\n",
    "attachments": [
        {
            "email": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/AV4VB7PTRXWHLK7SJSN3KZEK4VJVLRQ7/?format=api",
            "counter": 2,
            "name": "attachment.html",
            "content_type": "text/html",
            "encoding": "iso-8859-1",
            "size": 12287,
            "download": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/AV4VB7PTRXWHLK7SJSN3KZEK4VJVLRQ7/attachment/2/attachment.html"
        }
    ]
}