I was startled reading AA4KN's proclamation in his July, 2015 QST article that " ... a half-duplex rig will be adequate for the Fox satellites, but a "full duplex" transceiver is even better ... "
Gawd, if I had published that, I would have crosses burning on my front lawn.
Confirming we should still be teaching that "Working FOX-1A in true, full duplex mode is preferred ... " - and suggesting methods to accomplish just that?
Clint K6LCS
That's about as bad as when Steve Ford told everybody to run the most power they could for the FM satellites on Field Day!
73, Jim KQ6EA
On 07/04/2015 05:18 AM, Clint Bradford wrote:
I was startled reading AA4KN's proclamation in his July, 2015 QST article that " ... a half-duplex rig will be adequate for the Fox satellites, but a "full duplex" transceiver is even better ... "
Gawd, if I had published that, I would have crosses burning on my front lawn.
Confirming we should still be teaching that "Working FOX-1A in true, full duplex mode is preferred ... " - and suggesting methods to accomplish just that?
Clint K6LCS
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Clint and the list - Not sure how many AMSAT members in California are members of the Klan and are also passionate enough about half-duplex to burn crosses on your front lawn, certainly not me, but I do agree that we should be teaching that working the FM birds in Full Duplex is preferred, not just for the operator, but for other operators on the bird as well. We probably shouldn’t be dogmatic about it, as that turns people off, but I think we should encourage all FM satellite ops to work towards operating full duplex.
I suspect that the operable word in AA4KN’s article is “adequate”. What may be adequate for getting the 100 extra FD points, is really not suitable for long term development of skilled satellite operators. I think the chaos one hears on the FM birds during FD is testimony enough to the meaning of adequate in this context.
It is easy to work most of the FM birds, so easy that it can be done with half-duplex. Many never progress beyond that. But there are lots of advantages to full duplex: hearing your own signal, knowing its quality, hearing who else is on the bird, not stepping on them; learning to wait in turn to call DX and in short, knowing when to talk and when to shut up.
Teaching full duplex is not hard; a second rig can be inexpensive these days and loaning one to a half duplex op who wants to go full duplex is on possibility of easing people into full duplex. When some one mentions they are having problems working the FM satellites, I always ask if they are working full duplex. Most of the problems that a novice has can be identified and easily remedied by themselves if they go to full-duplex.
Another less obvious reason is that full duplex is almost mandatory on the linear satellites, and I think we should be trying to move newcomers from the FM birds to the linear birds. If they use Full-Duplex on the FM birds that is one less skill they have to learn when they go to the linear birds. The FM birds, while easy to work and loads of fun, offer only a fraction of the capabilities of which amateur radio communications are capable.
But I suspect that I am preaching to the choir. - Duffey KK6MC
On Jul 3, 2015, at 11:18 PM, Clint Bradford clintbradford@mac.com wrote:
I was startled reading AA4KN's proclamation in his July, 2015 QST article that " ... a half-duplex rig will be adequate for the Fox satellites, but a "full duplex" transceiver is even better ... "
Gawd, if I had published that, I would have crosses burning on my front lawn.
Confirming we should still be teaching that "Working FOX-1A in true, full duplex mode is preferred ... " - and suggesting methods to accomplish just that?
Clint K6LCS
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
I am a bit disturbed that Dave Jordan's fine article on FOX-1A in July's QST is being misrepresented by the quote that is purely out of context. Anyone who read the full article can clearly see that Dave is NOT advocating using half duplex to communicate with FOX-1A. The full text of the excerpt reads "With a minimum power output of 400mW, Fox1A should be easy to work with an ordinary VHF/UHF FM handheld transceiver and a dual-band handheld Yagi antenna. Most VHF/UHF handhelds can only communicate in "half duplex." This means they cannot receive simultaneously while transmitting. A half-duplex rig ill be adequate for Fox satellites, but a "full duplex" transceiver is even better. A full duplex transceiver receives and transmits at the same time. This allows you to monitor the quality of your signal through the satellite so that you can make antenna and frequency adjustments as needed."
As I read this it seems the author makes the statement as to why full duplex is superior and preferred over half duplex. A nice teachable moment for the newbie to understand that while FOX-1A and other FM satellites can in fact be worked half duplex it is best understand why full duplex is the preferred method. My first contacts were half duplex and I quickly learned that full duplex was not only preferred but is the acceptable way to communicate through any satellite. At the time I got started I was influenced by an article on the web titled "Work FM Satellites with your HT!" advocating that all I needed was a single handheld and a tape measure antenna. I notice that the article has been since updated to include "Ideally, we should be working the satellites in full duplex mode, where we can simultaneously listen to the downlink as we are transmitting." Thank you for clarifying this. However, I am confused, especially seeing this recent criticism, that the article just mentiend continues the previous sentence with " Although this method is preferred, it is not mandatory:"
I commend Dave for his article and efforts to keep us all informed and educated.
73,
EMike E. Michael McCardel, KC8YLD V.P. for Educational Relations, AMSAT-NA
Have you donated to get your Fox-1 Challenge Coin Yet? http://www.amsat.org/?p=3275
On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 1:18 AM, Clint Bradford clintbradford@mac.com wrote:
I was startled reading AA4KN's proclamation in his July, 2015 QST article that " ... a half-duplex rig will be adequate for the Fox satellites, but a "full duplex" transceiver is even better ... "
Gawd, if I had published that, I would have crosses burning on my front lawn.
Confirming we should still be teaching that "Working FOX-1A in true, full duplex mode is preferred ... " - and suggesting methods to accomplish just that?
Clint K6LCS
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
participants (4)
-
Clint Bradford -
E.Mike McCardel -
James Duffey -
Jim Jerzycke