P.S. QRP is not very well suitable for HEO work. You know you can change your call letter anytime you wants here. But you can choose otherwise and remain on LEO or cubes, for me i prefer HEO with enough ERP could be VE9ERP will be a good choice too. (JOKE) only a letter to change but this one makes our hobby sharp.
I've worked AO-40 near apogee QRP using a phased pair of homebrew quagis. You just need to work out your power budget and see how much antenna you need to get enough ERP.
I also routinely work the FM birds at 1W. (And for passes west of the Great Plains, 140mW if there's not too much terrestrial QRM and i've got a good horizon.) I'll run up to 5W while roaming, as i often don't get a second chance. -- KD6PAG (Networking Old-Timer, Satellite QRPer)
[Note: If i'm in your address book, please replace 'qsl.net' with 'amsat.org'.]
On 15 Sep 2006 at 16:18, John Mock KD6PAG wrote:
I've worked AO-40 near apogee QRP using a phased pair of homebrew quagis. You just need to work out your power budget and see how much antenna you need to get enough ERP.
I'm glad to hear that but on the downlink did you ever suffer from any interference from 2.4ghz devices? That is the whole question at the beginning of this thread.
It seems for some when all theses goodies are migrating up to 5.8ghz they choose to cancelled 2.4ghz on the downlink to put it on 5.8ghz for Eagle? Put it this way it seems oversimplistic but under the sun of San Diego a sudden light shine coming from probably Tijuana where Tequilla is cheaper than a bottle of coke...
To be on 2.4 or not to be on 2.4 that is the question!
P.S.(I don't drink coke there is too much sugar in it and it's make me too fat)
"-" The medium is the message...The content is the audience...;)
Luc Leblanc VE2DWE WAC basic,CW,Phone,Satellite Skype VE2DWE www.qsl.net/ve2dwe
Hi Luc, All,
Interference ------------
802.11b/g (2.4 GHz, WiFi) is channelized in the 2412-2484Mc range which is a clear overlap with the HAM frequencies (2300-2450Mc in ON).
802.11a (5GHz) is channelized in the 5170-5320Mc range. This is not overlapping the 5650-5850Mc range assigned to us HAMS (again in ON). There is 330Mc separation between the highest allowed 802.11a channel and the lowest HAM frequency.
It appears to me that 5Ghz is the better option based on this separation. Has any work been done on verifying interference on 5GHz?
Emergency Use -------------
As mentioned, IP is the way to go. But I'm struggling with the concept of using an amateur satellite for emergency digital communications of anything but the smallest magnitude. What is needed is 1.) high bandwidth, 2.) all the time, 3) in several/many locations.
From experience I can tell that the commercial competition (so to speak) is
able to deploy fully equipped ground stations with Mbps capacity within hours/days depending on the location. Those include power generation too.
|-----Original Message----- |From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On |Behalf Of Luc Leblanc VE2DWE |Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 05:33 |To: [email protected] |Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: HEO QRP [was: A emergency use for Eagle's |digitalside] | |On 15 Sep 2006 at 16:18, John Mock KD6PAG wrote: | | |> |> I've worked AO-40 near apogee QRP using a phased pair of homebrew quagis. |> You just need to work out your power budget and see how much antenna you |> need to get enough ERP. |> |I'm glad to hear that but on the downlink did you ever suffer from any |interference from 2.4ghz |devices? That is the whole question at the beginning of this thread. | |It seems for some when all theses goodies are migrating up to 5.8ghz they |choose to cancelled |2.4ghz on the downlink to put it on 5.8ghz for Eagle? Put it this way it |seems oversimplistic but |under the sun of San Diego a sudden light shine coming from probably |Tijuana where Tequilla is |cheaper than a bottle of coke... | |To be on 2.4 or not to be on 2.4 that is the question! | |P.S.(I don't drink coke there is too much sugar in it and it's make me too |fat) | | | |"-" |The medium is the message...The content is the audience...;) | |Luc Leblanc VE2DWE |WAC basic,CW,Phone,Satellite |Skype VE2DWE |www.qsl.net/ve2dwe |_______________________________________________ |Sent via [email protected]. 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
Marc, The more I think about the possibilities the more I like this project (not speaking about bands but about the data). I agree, more bandwidth is needed but you have to start somewhere. Eagle could be a start to a larger project that would provide more bandwidth using TCP/IP.
256kbps isn't all that slow, though. I wouldn't go surfing any large websites but you could easily setup e-mail (Winlink?) to use that bandwidth efficiently (4 times faster than the fastest dial-up). In the event of an emergency one could easily setup a small LAN and share that connection out to multiple computers. Again, not fast but faster than what you had.
I think there was an option to have more bandwidth with a larger dish but I don't have the latest Eagle paperwork in front of me to see. All we would need would be some providers for network connectivity (read that Internet connectivity) and we could have remote Internet connectivity for those that are out on DXpeditions or are out on the high seas or those that are mobile or those that are snowed in would all have Internet access plus have access to real live people.
Just a thought out loud, though. Not sure if Eagle will be able to do anything I've just written about but it does sound promising.
So to the Eagle staff, are we talking TCP/IP data on the digital side??? Is any of this stuff possible?
73s, Eric KF4OTN
Marc Vermeersch wrote:
Hi Luc, All,
Interference
802.11b/g (2.4 GHz, WiFi) is channelized in the 2412-2484Mc range which is a clear overlap with the HAM frequencies (2300-2450Mc in ON).
802.11a (5GHz) is channelized in the 5170-5320Mc range. This is not overlapping the 5650-5850Mc range assigned to us HAMS (again in ON). There is 330Mc separation between the highest allowed 802.11a channel and the lowest HAM frequency.
It appears to me that 5Ghz is the better option based on this separation. Has any work been done on verifying interference on 5GHz?
Emergency Use
As mentioned, IP is the way to go. But I'm struggling with the concept of using an amateur satellite for emergency digital communications of anything but the smallest magnitude. What is needed is 1.) high bandwidth, 2.) all the time, 3) in several/many locations.
From experience I can tell that the commercial competition (so to speak) is
able to deploy fully equipped ground stations with Mbps capacity within hours/days depending on the location. Those include power generation too.
|-----Original Message----- |From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On |Behalf Of Luc Leblanc VE2DWE |Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 05:33 |To: [email protected] |Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: HEO QRP [was: A emergency use for Eagle's |digitalside] | |On 15 Sep 2006 at 16:18, John Mock KD6PAG wrote: | | |> |> I've worked AO-40 near apogee QRP using a phased pair of homebrew quagis. |> You just need to work out your power budget and see how much antenna you |> need to get enough ERP. |> |I'm glad to hear that but on the downlink did you ever suffer from any |interference from 2.4ghz |devices? That is the whole question at the beginning of this thread. | |It seems for some when all theses goodies are migrating up to 5.8ghz they |choose to cancelled |2.4ghz on the downlink to put it on 5.8ghz for Eagle? Put it this way it |seems oversimplistic but |under the sun of San Diego a sudden light shine coming from probably |Tijuana where Tequilla is |cheaper than a bottle of coke... | |To be on 2.4 or not to be on 2.4 that is the question! | |P.S.(I don't drink coke there is too much sugar in it and it's make me too |fat) | | | |"-" |The medium is the message...The content is the audience...;) | |Luc Leblanc VE2DWE |WAC basic,CW,Phone,Satellite |Skype VE2DWE |www.qsl.net/ve2dwe |_______________________________________________ |Sent via [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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
At 01:47 AM 9/19/2006, Marc Vermeersch wrote:
802.11a (5GHz) is channelized in the 5170-5320Mc range. This is not overlapping the 5650-5850Mc range assigned to us HAMS (again in ON). There is 330Mc separation between the highest allowed 802.11a channel and the lowest HAM frequency.
You guys don't have 802.11a "high band"? in the 5.7 GHz range? We certainly do here.
73 de VK3JED http://vkradio.com
|You guys don't have 802.11a "high band"? in the 5.7 GHz range? We |certainly do here.
Tony, Thanks for pointing that out and I stand corrected. There is also an allocation 5470-5725Mc.
| |73 de VK3JED |http://vkradio.com
Hi Marc,
You're lucky. Here in the US the 5 ghz 802.11a Wi-Fi band is split in to sections, one of which runs from 5725 - 5850, right on top of most of our allocation. And, the FCC is adding more channels in the 5470 -5725 section, presumably in expectation of increased demand. That polishes off the rest of our allocation.
I don't know where the 5 ghz cordless phones go - they're the big "Clickers" on 2.4 ghz where they disturb the entire band. I think the 5 ghz phones are below our allocation, but I'm not sure.
Greg KO6TH
----Original Message Follows---- From: "Marc Vermeersch" [email protected] To: "'Luc Leblanc VE2DWE'" [email protected], [email protected] Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: HEO QRP [was: A emergency use for Eagle'sdigitalside] Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:47:02 +0200
Hi Luc, All,
Interference ------------
802.11b/g (2.4 GHz, WiFi) is channelized in the 2412-2484Mc range which is a clear overlap with the HAM frequencies (2300-2450Mc in ON).
802.11a (5GHz) is channelized in the 5170-5320Mc range. This is not overlapping the 5650-5850Mc range assigned to us HAMS (again in ON). There is 330Mc separation between the highest allowed 802.11a channel and the lowest HAM frequency.
It appears to me that 5Ghz is the better option based on this separation. Has any work been done on verifying interference on 5GHz?
Emergency Use -------------
As mentioned, IP is the way to go. But I'm struggling with the concept of using an amateur satellite for emergency digital communications of anything but the smallest magnitude. What is needed is 1.) high bandwidth, 2.) all the time, 3) in several/many locations.
From experience I can tell that the commercial competition (so to speak)
is able to deploy fully equipped ground stations with Mbps capacity within hours/days depending on the location. Those include power generation too.
|-----Original Message----- |From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On |Behalf Of Luc Leblanc VE2DWE |Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 05:33 |To: [email protected] |Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: HEO QRP [was: A emergency use for Eagle's |digitalside] | |On 15 Sep 2006 at 16:18, John Mock KD6PAG wrote: | | |> |> I've worked AO-40 near apogee QRP using a phased pair of homebrew quagis. |> You just need to work out your power budget and see how much antenna you |> need to get enough ERP. |> |I'm glad to hear that but on the downlink did you ever suffer from any |interference from 2.4ghz |devices? That is the whole question at the beginning of this thread. | |It seems for some when all theses goodies are migrating up to 5.8ghz they |choose to cancelled |2.4ghz on the downlink to put it on 5.8ghz for Eagle? Put it this way it |seems oversimplistic but |under the sun of San Diego a sudden light shine coming from probably |Tijuana where Tequilla is |cheaper than a bottle of coke... | |To be on 2.4 or not to be on 2.4 that is the question! | |P.S.(I don't drink coke there is too much sugar in it and it's make me too |fat) | | | |"-" |The medium is the message...The content is the audience...;) | |Luc Leblanc VE2DWE |WAC basic,CW,Phone,Satellite |Skype VE2DWE |www.qsl.net/ve2dwe |_______________________________________________ |Sent via [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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
participants (6)
-
Eric H Christensen -
Greg D. -
John Mock KD6PAG -
Luc Leblanc VE2DWE -
Marc Vermeersch -
Tony Langdon