5 watts with an Arrow? Probably your only chance for success would be AO-51 or SO-50 in the middle of the night. AO-27 is only available on daylight passes, and the competition for ALL of the FM birds will be fierce. Someone from the ARRL, who shall remain nameless, is actually recommending as much uplink power as possible to improve one's chances, so that pretty much guarantees a mess on FM..................
George, KA3HSW
-----Original Message-----
From: "James A. Carmody" carmodyjim@yahoo.com Sent: Jun 12, 2007 11:05 PM To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Subject: [amsat-bb] FD Birds?
Any further thoughts on the best bird for FD FM/5W with an Arrow II?? Jim/nn5o
You're kidding? The ARRL telling people to have at it with QRO? DUH! Jim KQ6EA
--- George Henry ka3hsw@earthlink.net wrote:
5 watts with an Arrow? Probably your only chance for success would be AO-51 or SO-50 in the middle of the night. AO-27 is only available on daylight passes, and the competition for ALL of the FM birds will be fierce. Someone from the ARRL, who shall remain nameless, is actually recommending as much uplink power as possible to improve one's chances, so that pretty much guarantees a mess on FM..................
George, KA3HSW
-----Original Message-----
From: "James A. Carmody" carmodyjim@yahoo.com Sent: Jun 12, 2007 11:05 PM To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Subject: [amsat-bb] FD Birds?
Any further thoughts on the best bird for FD FM/5W
with an Arrow II??
Jim/nn5o
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
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:42:40AM -0700, Jim Jerzycke wrote:
You're kidding? The ARRL telling people to have at it with QRO?
--- George Henry ka3hsw@earthlink.net wrote:
5 watts with an Arrow? Probably your only chance for success would be AO-51 or SO-50 in the middle of the night. AO-27 is only available on daylight passes, and the competition for ALL of the FM birds will be fierce. Someone from the ARRL, who shall remain nameless, is actually recommending as much uplink power as possible to improve one's chances, so that pretty much guarantees a mess on FM..................
Where can we read about this ARRL recommendation?
73,
Now that I've had my coffee, I _do_ seem to remember reading this in a column by a well-liked QST author, but I thought it was last year. I couldn't believe it, either, that he'd recommend running something like 100+ Watts to a big Yagi. Field Day is crazy enough on the FM satellites, but to suggest something like this is completely irresponsible. The first or second year I ran the satellite station for my club, one of our own, well-known AMSAT'ers hogged every FM pass I tried to get in to. It was very discouraging, and people who were watching me operate, and knew nothing about satellites, commented that if that was what it was like, they had NO interest in even trying. C'est la vie, I guess! 73, Jim KQ6EA
--- Jeff Davis jl.davis@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:42:40AM -0700, Jim Jerzycke wrote:
You're kidding? The ARRL telling people to have at
it
with QRO?
--- George Henry ka3hsw@earthlink.net wrote:
5 watts with an Arrow? Probably your only
chance
for success would be AO-51 or SO-50 in the
middle of
the night. AO-27 is only available on daylight passes, and the competition for ALL of the FM
birds
will be fierce. Someone from the ARRL, who
shall
remain nameless, is actually recommending as
much
uplink power as possible to improve one's
chances,
so that pretty much guarantees a mess on FM..................
Where can we read about this ARRL recommendation?
73,
Jeff, KE9V AMSAT-NA AMSAT-DL _______________________________________________ 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
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Davis" jl.davis@gmail.com To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 11:42 AM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: FD Birds?
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:42:40AM -0700, Jim Jerzycke wrote:
You're kidding? The ARRL telling people to have at it with QRO?
--- George Henry ka3hsw@earthlink.net wrote:
5 watts with an Arrow? Probably your only chance for success would be AO-51 or SO-50 in the middle of the night. AO-27 is only available on daylight passes, and the competition for ALL of the FM birds will be fierce. Someone from the ARRL, who shall remain nameless, is actually recommending as much uplink power as possible to improve one's chances, so that pretty much guarantees a mess on FM..................
Where can we read about this ARRL recommendation?
73,
Jeff, KE9V
In the June issue of QST, in the "Field Day Cookbook" pullout.
George, KA3HSW
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
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433
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
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
Oh, boy, I just gotta open my big yap on this one.... I don't mean to insult anyone here, but C'mon, Steve! I have a 350 watt amp and a 30-element CP antenna, and I have a 750 Watt amp easily "available" to me. I also have access to a 1500 Watt amp, although I'd get nervous running that much to the antenna. Does this mean I should drag it out for Field Day? I don't think so, and I'm sure (well, at least I *hope*) that you didn't mean to imply that in the article. I know there will be some big guns on the FM satellites; there always are on Field Day. And I know the FM sats get overloaded on Field Day, and making your one, 100-point bonus contact can be very trying. Been there, done that, and it's no fun, especially for people trying it with an HT and Arrow-type antenna. It's one thing to run your FM mobile rig at 35, 50, 75 Watts or whatever it will do, but the blanket statement "As Much Power As You Have Available" is bit over-the-top. 73, Jim KQ6EA
--- "Ford, Steve, WB8IMY" sford@arrl.org wrote:
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
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
At 09:07 AM 6/15/2007, Andrew Glasbrenner wrote:
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.
Agreed, and it would just encourage bad habits at any time.
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
Again, I agree. I've operated both half and full duplex on FM, and quite frankly, there's no comparison. An attentive operator can tweak their signal (especially if hand pointing the beam), and they can also take steps to lessen QRM. I've been able to back off and let someone go, because I heard the heterodyne, and by unkeying, it gave the other operator enough S/N to complete a QSO. Don't underestimate the value of full duplex, even on FM.
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.
Agreed.
I'd be glad to help avoid these mistakes for future articles on satellite operations.
I haven't seen the article in question, but it appears to have many serious mistakes in it, from what you're saying. :-( I know if I was a newcomer to satellites and read that, I'd have got the wrong impression. Those writing articles should be much more careful.
73 de VK3JED http://vkradio.com
Steve,
I might be the only guy who thinks you were right to suggest using plenty of power. Everyone else can fuss, but we all know how it is.
Maybe to keep everyone else happy it could have been stated "use the minimum power necessary to talk over every else." That's the reality of operating AO-51 (FM birds) on field day.
Unfortunately I (and our FD group) have not found enough power to talk through the FM birds the last few years. QRP isn't going to get it in the mid section of the country where we are.
Crank it up!
73 Ernie W8EH
Ford, Steve, WB8IMY wrote:
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.
Wanna borrow my buddy's 1500 Watt amp? Jim KQ6EA --- Ernie Howard w8eh-Ernie@cinci.rr.com wrote:
Steve,
I might be the only guy who thinks you were right to suggest using plenty of power. Everyone else can fuss, but we all know how it is.
Maybe to keep everyone else happy it could have been stated "use the minimum power necessary to talk over every else." That's the reality of operating AO-51 (FM birds) on field day.
Unfortunately I (and our FD group) have not found enough power to talk through the FM birds the last few years. QRP isn't going to get it in the mid section of the country where we are.
Crank it up!
73 Ernie W8EH
Ford, Steve, WB8IMY wrote:
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.
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
Make sure everyone else at the FD site turns their radios off for the pass.
On another note, it's amazing that I can hear the clubs trying to make the satellites *better* on the input than their 2m FM setups that they run at FD. Maybe they should try to work some terrestrial stations with their satellite setups while waiting for the next pass.
73 de Pat --- KA9SCF.
On 6/14/07, Jim Jerzycke kq6ea@pacbell.net wrote:
Wanna borrow my buddy's 1500 Watt amp? Jim KQ6EA
participants (10)
-
Andrew Glasbrenner -
Ernest Erickson -
Ernie Howard -
Ford, Steve, WB8IMY -
George Henry -
Jeff Davis -
Jim Jerzycke -
Patrick Green -
Stephan Andre' -
Tony Langdon