Bob the Beacon freq. is 145938.5,0,usb,0,1.2K BPSK JACK KC7MG
This has been already taken to LoTW admins at ARRL but they insist in blaming the "sat operator" as she/he registered the QSO with wrong/missing information, which is true, but the system, LoTW the case, should avoid confirming a match between two stations when one of them does not specify PROPAGATION MODE = SAT. What LoTW actually does when one station specifies it and the other not is to confirm a match QSO but the credit goes to the terrestrial VUCC on VHF, UHF, etc. which, in my opinion, put high risk to terrestrial VUCC credibility through LoTW confirmations.
73 - Ed PY2RN.
Ed,
LoTW will not confirm a QSO when the propagation mode and satellite name don't match.
73,
Paul, N8HM
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Eduardo PY2RN [email protected] wrote:
This has been already taken to LoTW admins at ARRL but they insist in blaming the "sat operator" as she/he registered the QSO with wrong/missing information, which is true, but the system, LoTW the case, should avoid confirming a match between two stations when one of them does not specify PROPAGATION MODE = SAT. What LoTW actually does when one station specifies it and the other not is to confirm a match QSO but the credit goes to the terrestrial VUCC on VHF, UHF, etc. which, in my opinion, put high risk to terrestrial VUCC credibility through LoTW confirmations.
73 - Ed PY2RN. _______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. 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
Paul, may be I am the "lucky" one, but I have plenty of examples in LoTW here.One of the most interesting is a QSO between PY and CT made via AO-40 satellite, where I have set satellite name and propagation mode correctly, but the other station not, LoTW just credited terrestrial qso between PY and CT on 1.2GHz.
| Call Sign | | PY2RN | | DXCC | | BRAZIL | | CQ Zone | | 11 | | ITU Zone | | 15 | | Grid | | GG66LW | | Worked Station | | Worked | | CT1--- | | DXCC | | PORTUGAL (272) | | CQ Zone | | 14 | | ITU Zone | | 37 | | Grid | | IM67-- | | Date/Time | | 2002-11-08 23:50:00 | | Mode | | SSB (PHONE) | | Band | | 23CM | | QSL | | 2016-10-13 11:33:07 | | | | Record ID 570561985 Received: 2016-10-13 11:33:07
|
73 - Ed PY2RN
From: Paul Stoetzer [email protected] To: Eduardo PY2RN [email protected] Cc: "[email protected]" [email protected] Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 2:37 PM Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] LoTW still a big failure for checking satellite QSOs
Ed,
LoTW will not confirm a QSO when the propagation mode and satellite name don't match.
73,
Paul, N8HM
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Eduardo PY2RN [email protected] wrote:
This has been already taken to LoTW admins at ARRL but they insist in blaming the "sat operator" as she/he registered the QSO with wrong/missing information, which is true, but the system, LoTW the case, should avoid confirming a match between two stations when one of them does not specify PROPAGATION MODE = SAT. What LoTW actually does when one station specifies it and the other not is to confirm a match QSO but the credit goes to the terrestrial VUCC on VHF, UHF, etc. which, in my opinion, put high risk to terrestrial VUCC credibility through LoTW confirmations.
73 - Ed PY2RN. _______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. 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 have been provided plenty of evidence that I am wrong.
I know that it doesn't match in all cases when one side uploads as terrestrial and one side uploads as a satellite QSO. It definitely should not in any circumstances, though, and the ARRL definitely should correct the problem.
73,
Paul, N8HM
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Eduardo PY2RN [email protected] wrote:
Paul, may be I am the "lucky" one, but I have plenty of examples in LoTW here. One of the most interesting is a QSO between PY and CT made via AO-40 satellite, where I have set satellite name and propagation mode correctly, but the other station not, LoTW just credited terrestrial qso between PY and CT on 1.2GHz.
*Call Sign* PY2RN *DXCC* BRAZIL *CQ Zone* 11 *ITU Zone* 15 *Grid* GG66LW *Worked Station* *Worked* CT1--- *DXCC* PORTUGAL (272) *CQ Zone* 14 *ITU Zone* 37 *Grid* IM67-- *Date/Time* 2002-11-08 23:50:00 *Mode* SSB (PHONE) *Band* 23CM *QSL* 2016-10-13 11:33:07
https://lotw.arrl.org/lotwuser/qsodetail?qso=742711337
*Record ID* 570561985 *Received:* 2016-10-13 11:33:07
73 - Ed PY2RN
*From:* Paul Stoetzer [email protected] *To:* Eduardo PY2RN [email protected] *Cc:* "[email protected]" [email protected] *Sent:* Saturday, February 25, 2017 2:37 PM *Subject:* Re: [amsat-bb] LoTW still a big failure for checking satellite QSOs
Ed,
LoTW will not confirm a QSO when the propagation mode and satellite name don't match.
73,
Paul, N8HM
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Eduardo PY2RN [email protected] wrote:
This has been already taken to LoTW admins at ARRL but they insist in
blaming the "sat operator" as she/he registered the QSO with wrong/missing information, which is true, but the system, LoTW the case, should avoid confirming a match between two stations when one of them does not specify PROPAGATION MODE = SAT. What LoTW actually does when one station specifies it and the other not is to confirm a match QSO but the credit goes to the terrestrial VUCC on VHF, UHF, etc. which, in my opinion, put high risk to terrestrial VUCC credibility through LoTW confirmations.
73 - Ed PY2RN.
Sent via [email protected]. 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
It is not luck, Ed. I have had the same thing happen to me on at least two occasions. I am 100% confident my upload contained the PROP_MODE and SAT_NAME fields. The other station did not upload with those fields. The contact became a QSL record in the LoTW system as a terrestrial QSO. Fortunately I was able to assist the two stations to correct and re-upload. The QSL's then were corrected to a satellite contact.
I have encountered some other special cases like this from time to time in the LoTW system. It is not perfect but it generally works well and faster than postal card exchanges.
73 Clayton W5PFG
On 2/25/2017 11:50, Eduardo PY2RN wrote:
Paul, may be I am the "lucky" one, but I have plenty of examples in LoTW here.One of the most interesting is a QSO between PY and CT made via AO-40 satellite, where I have set satellite name and propagation mode correctly, but the other station not, LoTW just credited terrestrial qso between PY and CT on 1.2GHz.
| Call Sign | | PY2RN | | DXCC | | BRAZIL | | CQ Zone | | 11 | | ITU Zone | | 15 | | Grid | | GG66LW | | Worked Station | | Worked | | CT1--- | | DXCC | | PORTUGAL (272) | | CQ Zone | | 14 | | ITU Zone | | 37 | | Grid | | IM67-- | | Date/Time | | 2002-11-08 23:50:00 | | Mode | | SSB (PHONE) | | Band | | 23CM | | QSL | | 2016-10-13 11:33:07 | | | | Record ID 570561985 Received: 2016-10-13 11:33:07
|
73 - Ed PY2RN
From: Paul Stoetzer <[email protected]>To: Eduardo PY2RN [email protected] Cc: "[email protected]" [email protected] Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 2:37 PM Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] LoTW still a big failure for checking satellite QSOs
Ed,
LoTW will not confirm a QSO when the propagation mode and satellite name don't match.
73,
Paul, N8HM
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Eduardo PY2RN [email protected] wrote:
This has been already taken to LoTW admins at ARRL but they insist in blaming the "sat operator" as she/he registered the QSO with wrong/missing information, which is true, but the system, LoTW the case, should avoid confirming a match between two stations when one of them does not specify PROPAGATION MODE = SAT. What LoTW actually does when one station specifies it and the other not is to confirm a match QSO but the credit goes to the terrestrial VUCC on VHF, UHF, etc. which, in my opinion, put high risk to terrestrial VUCC credibility through LoTW confirmations.
73 - Ed PY2RN. _______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. 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
Sent via [email protected]. 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
The biggest issue I run into is when the band specification entry is the Downlink frequency rather than the uplink frequency (which seems to be the accepted convention) I believe these do not confirm at all.
I've also had people tell me when using eqsl.cc the convention is the opposite.
Dave W0DHB
-----Original Message----- From: AMSAT-BB [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Clayton W5PFG Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 11:17 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] LoTW still a big failure for checking satellite QSOs
It is not luck, Ed. I have had the same thing happen to me on at least two occasions. I am 100% confident my upload contained the PROP_MODE and SAT_NAME fields. The other station did not upload with those fields. The contact became a QSL record in the LoTW system as a terrestrial QSO. Fortunately I was able to assist the two stations to correct and re-upload. The QSL's then were corrected to a satellite contact.
I have encountered some other special cases like this from time to time in the LoTW system. It is not perfect but it generally works well and faster than postal card exchanges.
73 Clayton W5PFG
On 2/25/2017 11:50, Eduardo PY2RN wrote:
Paul, may be I am the "lucky" one, but I have plenty of examples in LoTW
here.One of the most interesting is a QSO between PY and CT made via AO-40 satellite, where I have set satellite name and propagation mode correctly, but the other station not, LoTW just credited terrestrial qso between PY and CT on 1.2GHz.
| Call Sign | | PY2RN | | DXCC | | BRAZIL | | CQ Zone | | 11 | | ITU Zone | | 15 | | Grid | | GG66LW | | Worked Station | | Worked | | CT1--- | | DXCC | | PORTUGAL (272) | | CQ Zone | | 14 | | ITU Zone | | 37 | | Grid | | IM67-- | | Date/Time | | 2002-11-08 23:50:00 | | Mode | | SSB (PHONE) | | Band | | 23CM | | QSL | | 2016-10-13 11:33:07 | | | | Record ID 570561985 Received: 2016-10-13 11:33:07
|
73 - Ed PY2RN
From: Paul Stoetzer <[email protected]>To: Eduardo PY2RN [email protected] Cc: "[email protected]" [email protected] Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 2:37 PM Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] LoTW still a big failure for checking satellite QSOs
Ed,
LoTW will not confirm a QSO when the propagation mode and satellite name don't match.
73,
Paul, N8HM
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Eduardo PY2RN [email protected] wrote:
This has been already taken to LoTW admins at ARRL but they insist in
blaming the "sat operator" as she/he registered the QSO with wrong/missing information, which is true, but the system, LoTW the case, should avoid confirming a match between two stations when one of them does not specify PROPAGATION MODE = SAT. What LoTW actually does when one station specifies it and the other not is to confirm a match QSO but the credit goes to the terrestrial VUCC on VHF, UHF, etc. which, in my opinion, put high risk to terrestrial VUCC credibility through LoTW confirmations.
73 - Ed PY2RN. _______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. 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
Sent via [email protected]. 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
_______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. 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
Agree Clayton, big LoTW fan myself, just think it needs a little trimming for satellite qso checking. Thanks all. 73 Ed PY2RN
From: Clayton W5PFG [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 3:16 PM Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] LoTW still a big failure for checking satellite QSOs
It is not luck, Ed. I have had the same thing happen to me on at least two occasions. I am 100% confident my upload contained the PROP_MODE and SAT_NAME fields. The other station did not upload with those fields. The contact became a QSL record in the LoTW system as a terrestrial QSO. Fortunately I was able to assist the two stations to correct and re-upload. The QSL's then were corrected to a satellite contact.
I have encountered some other special cases like this from time to time in the LoTW system. It is not perfect but it generally works well and faster than postal card exchanges.
73 Clayton W5PFG
On 2/25/2017 11:50, Eduardo PY2RN wrote:
Paul, may be I am the "lucky" one, but I have plenty of examples in LoTW here.One of the most interesting is a QSO between PY and CT made via AO-40 satellite, where I have set satellite name and propagation mode correctly, but the other station not, LoTW just credited terrestrial qso between PY and CT on 1.2GHz.
| Call Sign | | PY2RN | | DXCC | | BRAZIL | | CQ Zone | | 11 | | ITU Zone | | 15 | | Grid | | GG66LW | | Worked Station | | Worked | | CT1--- | | DXCC | | PORTUGAL (272) | | CQ Zone | | 14 | | ITU Zone | | 37 | | Grid | | IM67-- | | Date/Time | | 2002-11-08 23:50:00 | | Mode | | SSB (PHONE) | | Band | | 23CM | | QSL | | 2016-10-13 11:33:07 | | | | Record ID 570561985 Received: 2016-10-13 11:33:07
|
73 - Ed PY2RN
From: Paul Stoetzer [email protected] To: Eduardo PY2RN [email protected] Cc: "[email protected]" [email protected] Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 2:37 PM Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] LoTW still a big failure for checking satellite QSOs
Ed,
LoTW will not confirm a QSO when the propagation mode and satellite name don't match.
73,
Paul, N8HM
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Eduardo PY2RN [email protected] wrote:
This has been already taken to LoTW admins at ARRL but they insist in blaming the "sat operator" as she/he registered the QSO with wrong/missing information, which is true, but the system, LoTW the case, should avoid confirming a match between two stations when one of them does not specify PROPAGATION MODE = SAT. What LoTW actually does when one station specifies it and the other not is to confirm a match QSO but the credit goes to the terrestrial VUCC on VHF, UHF, etc. which, in my opinion, put high risk to terrestrial VUCC credibility through LoTW confirmations.
73 - Ed PY2RN. _______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. 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
Sent via [email protected]. 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
_______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. 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 never was able to get it to work years ago. Just gave up and moved on.
John
Most of the user issues lie with the logging programs feeding LotW. It "should" be easy to specify a satellite QSO. There is no reason you couldn't simply pick a satellite name, and the logging program fills in all the other details required in the background. Some satellites with multiple modes might require a mode selection like AO-7. (In general the satellite name is good enough to know what the frequencies involved are. LotW only goes by band, not actual MHz value).
As for uplink vs. downlink, it is no different than any other non-satellite contact. You log the frequency you transmit on.
The REAL issue is that many people don't confirm via LotW. I sort of figure I owe it to the other guy, so I take the time to make sure my entries are correct.
73, Bob, WB4SON
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 6:31 PM, John Becker [email protected] wrote:
I never was able to get it to work years ago. Just gave up and moved on.
John
Sent via [email protected]. 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'd say that it also doesn't help that hams that do use LOTW don't always log their QSOs. I've been using LOTW for eight monthsnow. I have about 425 QSOs, of which 297 have bee QSL'd through LOTW. Over half of those that have not been QSL'd (over sixty) are with LOTW users. Most are single QSOs, but a number are hams that I have QSO'd with multiple times.
Perhaps it may not be important to log those QSOs that have occurred with the same ham multiple times. For a ham working towards the Barbee (W4AMI) Satellite Operator Achievement Award, every QSO is important. At what point does one become a nag after politely asking others to QSL past QSOs via LOTW? I dislike being a nag!
I've also found that it is sometimes difficult to contact hams to request QSL via LOTW. LOTW does not provide a mechanism, so I've had to resort to searches via qrz.com in the hope of finding a valid email address. It is probably asking too much for LOTW to provided a mechanism to politely 'ping' users to log their QSOs.
73,
Mac / AE5PH
On 02/25/2017 06:51 PM, Bob wrote:
The REAL issue is that many people don't confirm via LotW. I sort of figure I owe it to the other guy, so I take the time to make sure my entries are correct.
73, Bob, WB4SON
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 6:31 PM, John Becker [email protected] wrote:
I never was able to get it to work years ago. Just gave up and moved on.
John
Sent via [email protected]. 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
Sent via [email protected]. 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
The W4AMI Award does not require confirmations. I log 100%, but some only log new calls.
73,
Paul, N8HM
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 22:40 Mac A. Cody [email protected] wrote:
I'd say that it also doesn't help that hams that do use LOTW don't always log their QSOs. I've been using LOTW for eight monthsnow. I have about 425 QSOs, of which 297 have bee QSL'd through LOTW. Over half of those that have not been QSL'd (over sixty) are with LOTW users. Most are single QSOs, but a number are hams that I have QSO'd with multiple times.
Perhaps it may not be important to log those QSOs that have occurred with the same ham multiple times. For a ham working towards the Barbee (W4AMI) Satellite Operator Achievement Award, every QSO is important. At what point does one become a nag after politely asking others to QSL past QSOs via LOTW? I dislike being a nag!
I've also found that it is sometimes difficult to contact hams to request QSL via LOTW. LOTW does not provide a mechanism, so I've had to resort to searches via qrz.com in the hope of finding a valid email address. It is probably asking too much for LOTW to provided a mechanism to politely 'ping' users to log their QSOs.
73,
Mac / AE5PH
On 02/25/2017 06:51 PM, Bob wrote:
The REAL issue is that many people don't confirm via LotW. I sort of figure I owe it to the other guy, so I take the time to make sure my entries are correct.
73, Bob, WB4SON
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 6:31 PM, John Becker [email protected]
wrote:
I never was able to get it to work years ago. Just gave up and moved on.
John
Sent via [email protected]. 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
Sent via [email protected]. 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
Sent via [email protected]. 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
Paul,
Thanks for the clarification. Not meaning to hijack the thread, but I'm a bit surprised about that. I would have thought that the need for verification would be a given. I guess it would have been impractical in the days when verification was only via QSL cards. With systems like LOTW and qrz.com, perhaps not as impractical. Well, who am I to argue?
73,
Mac / AE5PH
On 02/25/2017 09:46 PM, Paul Stoetzer wrote:
The W4AMI Award does not require confirmations. I log 100%, but some only log new calls.
73,
Paul, N8HM
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 22:40 Mac A. Cody <[email protected] mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
I'd say that it also doesn't help that hams that do use LOTW don't always log their QSOs. I've been using LOTW for eight monthsnow. I have about 425 QSOs, of which 297 have bee QSL'd through LOTW. Over half of those that have not been QSL'd (over sixty) are with LOTW users. Most are single QSOs, but a number are hams that I have QSO'd with multiple times. Perhaps it may not be important to log those QSOs that have occurred with the same ham multiple times. For a ham working towards the Barbee (W4AMI) Satellite Operator Achievement Award, every QSO is important. At what point does one become a nag after politely asking others to QSL past QSOs via LOTW? I dislike being a nag! I've also found that it is sometimes difficult to contact hams to request QSL via LOTW. LOTW does not provide a mechanism, so I've had to resort to searches via qrz.com <http://qrz.com> in the hope of finding a valid email address. It is probably asking too much for LOTW to provided a mechanism to politely 'ping' users to log their QSOs. 73, Mac / AE5PH On 02/25/2017 06:51 PM, Bob wrote: > The REAL issue is that many people don't confirm via LotW. I sort of > figure I owe it to the other guy, so I take the time to make sure my > entries are correct. > > 73, Bob, WB4SON > > On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 6:31 PM, John Becker <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> I never was able to get it to work years ago. >> Just gave up and moved on. >> >> John >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sent via [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>. 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > Sent via [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>. 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 > _______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>. 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 (8)
-
Bob -
Clayton W5PFG -
David W0DHB -
Eduardo PY2RN -
ingejack＠cox.net -
John Becker -
Mac A. Cody -
Paul Stoetzer