Band designators, Modes
I thought AMSAT was moving away from Modes A, B, J, etc, but they seem too entrenched and still appear in current pubs. Regardless, the band designations, loosely based on microwave band designators (later "codified" by IEEE), were for whatever reason interesting to me so I made a chart. It started out as just the microwaves ... then I added the satellite stuff ... then I added the stuff that is microwave, but non-amateur/non-satellite but in the same neighborhood.
It's mostly microwave-centric but I put all the FCC bands designated for space station use in there, too, and as some of you know, that goes down as low as 40 m (which is *not* microwave :-) ).
Anyway, the only "name space collision" between AMSAT designators and IEEE designators is the AMSAT R band (47000 - 47200 MHz), which is part of the IEEE V band (40000 - 75000 MHz). That happens because AMSAT's V band is 144 - 146 MHz.
The only other anomaly is that we amateurs have two allocations within the what the IEEE calls the S-band (2000 - 4000 MHz), which are 2400 - 2450 MHz (13 cm) and 3400 - 3410 MHz (9 cm) -- both ham bands are wider but these are the FCC space station allocations. I've seen the amateur allocation at 9 cm referred to as "S2" but I don't know how official that is.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oJV0Bv24mHhq_eICUp3L6g4pTy-wItUWfkyT...
Anyway, I keep stumbling on allocations that seem relevant so I keep adding them. I need to add the historical notes, too, like where the K and X letters came from as well as the "hopefully-but-not-quite-yet-obsolete" satellite mode designators. Some of that info is linked to the page.
Looking forward to the Mode CX satellites ...
Nice spreadsheet and I'd like to save a copy.
Confession of ignorance: How do I save it as an Excel spreadsheet (or convert it and then save it, or ???)
Steve AI9IN
On 2016-07-04 15:59, Peter Laws wrote:
I thought AMSAT was moving away from Modes A, B, J, etc, but they seem too entrenched and still appear in current pubs. Regardless, the band designations, loosely based on microwave band designators (later "codified" by IEEE), were for whatever reason interesting to me so I made a chart. It started out as just the microwaves ... then I added the satellite stuff ... then I added the stuff that is microwave, but non-amateur/non-satellite but in the same neighborhood.
It's mostly microwave-centric but I put all the FCC bands designated for space station use in there, too, and as some of you know, that goes down as low as 40 m (which is *not* microwave :-) ).
Anyway, the only "name space collision" between AMSAT designators and IEEE designators is the AMSAT R band (47000 - 47200 MHz), which is part of the IEEE V band (40000 - 75000 MHz). That happens because AMSAT's V band is 144 - 146 MHz.
The only other anomaly is that we amateurs have two allocations within the what the IEEE calls the S-band (2000 - 4000 MHz), which are 2400 - 2450 MHz (13 cm) and 3400 - 3410 MHz (9 cm) -- both ham bands are wider but these are the FCC space station allocations. I've seen the amateur allocation at 9 cm referred to as "S2" but I don't know how official that is.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oJV0Bv24mHhq_eICUp3L6g4pTy-wItUWfkyT...
Anyway, I keep stumbling on allocations that seem relevant so I keep adding them. I need to add the historical notes, too, like where the K and X letters came from as well as the "hopefully-but-not-quite-yet-obsolete" satellite mode designators. Some of that info is linked to the page.
Looking forward to the Mode CX satellites ...
Interesting chart, Peter.
ITU and FCC, at one time, decided never to use these LETTER destination in favor of frequencies by the numbers. The numbers need no interpretation or qualification. AMSAT should go the simple route! Stick to the numbers, which EVERYONE understands.
73, art….. W4ART Arlington VA
On 4-Jul-2016, at 03:59 PM, Peter Laws plaws0@gmail.com wrote:
I thought AMSAT was moving away from Modes A, B, J, etc, but they seem too entrenched and still appear in current pubs. Regardless, the band designations, loosely based on microwave band designators (later "codified" by IEEE), were for whatever reason interesting to me so I made a chart. It started out as just the microwaves ... then I added the satellite stuff ... then I added the stuff that is microwave, but non-amateur/non-satellite but in the same neighborhood.
It's mostly microwave-centric but I put all the FCC bands designated for space station use in there, too, and as some of you know, that goes down as low as 40 m (which is *not* microwave :-) ).
Anyway, the only "name space collision" between AMSAT designators and IEEE designators is the AMSAT R band (47000 - 47200 MHz), which is part of the IEEE V band (40000 - 75000 MHz). That happens because AMSAT's V band is 144 - 146 MHz.
The only other anomaly is that we amateurs have two allocations within the what the IEEE calls the S-band (2000 - 4000 MHz), which are 2400 - 2450 MHz (13 cm) and 3400 - 3410 MHz (9 cm) -- both ham bands are wider but these are the FCC space station allocations. I've seen the amateur allocation at 9 cm referred to as "S2" but I don't know how official that is.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oJV0Bv24mHhq_eICUp3L6g4pTy-wItUWfkyT...
Anyway, I keep stumbling on allocations that seem relevant so I keep adding them. I need to add the historical notes, too, like where the K and X letters came from as well as the "hopefully-but-not-quite-yet-obsolete" satellite mode designators. Some of that info is linked to the page.
Looking forward to the Mode CX satellites ...
-- Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train! _______________________________________________ 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
Everyone, in some small sacred sanctuary of the self, is nuts. -Leo Rosten, author (1908-1997)
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Peter Laws plaws0@gmail.com wrote:
I thought AMSAT was moving away from Modes A, B, J, etc, but they seem too entrenched and still appear in current pubs.
I don't much care which designators are used but I would like to see AMSAT pick one and stick with it. If the organization wants to move away from A/B/J/KT/whatever, and towards a combination of uplink and downlink band letters, great, but then it needs to be a complete break.
Or simply conclude that no one could handle the new style and just go back to A/B/J/etc and come up with new single letters for the new combinations.
Or are we *really* going to stick with "nickel and dime"? Mode C/X sounds way better to me.
All that said, I keep finding more stuff for my table. I didn't really realize that the "hole" in our 13 cm S band was taken up mostly by the pay radio monopoly (who are on the ground as well as in the sky). Lots of other services nipping at our heels, too.
Putting new satellites on C/X is a good idea on many levels.
AMSAT publications generally use the "new designators" developed prior to the launch of AO-40, though sometimes with a parenthetical reference to the old mode designation.
For example, from the website post regarding the selection of RadFxSat-2 (Fox-1E) for a CSLI launch:
"The Fox-1E spacecraft bus will be built on the Fox-1 series but will feature a linear V/U (Mode J) transponder “upgrade” to replace the standard FM repeater which Fox-1A through D have carried."
Several parts of the website (such as the frequency guide) also use a less known custom with the second letter in lower case (to indicate that the second letter is 'down').
Eventually I would hope we would move away from "five and dime" or "nickel and dime" to using C/X in reference to 5 GHz uplinks and 10 GHz downlinks.
Regardless, I do think using letters to indicate uplink and downlink is both meaningful and useful. I especially appreciate the history behind the A, B, and J designations (A and B originating with AO-7's two transponders and J originating with AO-8's JAMSAT built transponder) and use those in general conversation with other satellite ops since it's even easier than saying U/V or V/U. The downside with U/V and V/U is it can get confused. For example, I know that a well-known but poorly-informed purveyor of amateur satellite information consistently confuses the two in his materials.
73,
Paul, N8HM
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Peter Laws plaws0@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Peter Laws plaws0@gmail.com wrote:
I thought AMSAT was moving away from Modes A, B, J, etc, but they seem too entrenched and still appear in current pubs.
I don't much care which designators are used but I would like to see AMSAT pick one and stick with it. If the organization wants to move away from A/B/J/KT/whatever, and towards a combination of uplink and downlink band letters, great, but then it needs to be a complete break.
Or simply conclude that no one could handle the new style and just go back to A/B/J/etc and come up with new single letters for the new combinations.
Or are we *really* going to stick with "nickel and dime"? Mode C/X sounds way better to me.
All that said, I keep finding more stuff for my table. I didn't really realize that the "hole" in our 13 cm S band was taken up mostly by the pay radio monopoly (who are on the ground as well as in the sky). Lots of other services nipping at our heels, too.
Putting new satellites on C/X is a good idea on many levels.
-- Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train! _______________________________________________ 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
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Paul Stoetzer n8hm@arrl.net wrote:
Several parts of the website (such as the frequency guide) also use a less known custom with the second letter in lower case (to indicate that the second letter is 'down').
Eventually I would hope we would move away from "five and dime" or "nickel and dime" to using C/X in reference to 5 GHz uplinks and 10 GHz downlinks.
Then let's start.
The actual designation has to be agreed upon first, though. Slash/no slash? Case/no case? Pick one, stick with it. What was the original decision anyway?
What is the problem with just using the numbers? Why is using letters better?
(Not being snippy here, maybe there is a good reason. If so, please explain.)
Steve AI9IN
p.s. "We've always done it that way" is not really a good reason in and of itself.
On 2016-07-06 14:31, Peter Laws wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Paul Stoetzer n8hm@arrl.net wrote:
Several parts of the website (such as the frequency guide) also use a less known custom with the second letter in lower case (to indicate that the second letter is 'down').
Eventually I would hope we would move away from "five and dime" or "nickel and dime" to using C/X in reference to 5 GHz uplinks and 10 GHz downlinks.
Then let's start.
The actual designation has to be agreed upon first, though. Slash/no slash? Case/no case? Pick one, stick with it. What was the original decision anyway?
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 1:52 PM, skristof@etczone.com wrote:
What is the problem with just using the numbers?
Which numbers? Wavelength or frequency?
There are at least three ways I see to describe a channel: frequency, wavelength, IEEE/AMSAT band name. If precision is the goal, then it probably needs to be frequency - but MHz or GHz? If you are talking a passband, then it seems like wavelength or band name would be better. Then there is also the old AMSAT mode describing both uplink and downlink, so 4.
Again, it doesn't much matter which, but to prevent confusion, pick one and stick with it.
You're asking for something that's not possible. AMSAT can officially use one thing in publications (and has I've stated, generally adheres to that - with possible exception of the monikers for the less well known C/X band combination), but getting an entire community of amateurs to use consistent terminology is not likely to happen.
For example, AMSAT-OSCAR 85 is no longer Fox-1A. It was renamed upon successful launch and activation per a longstanding satellite (and not just amateur satellite) tradition. Yet I still hear lots of people still call it Fox-1A or even Fox-1.
One thing that does irritate me is hearing linear transponders referred to as "analog transponders" or "the analog birds." Many FM transponders are analog in nature and, regardless of the implementation, are still relaying analog signals. And, of course, ARISSat-1 carried a linear transponder that was digital!
73,
Paul, N8HM
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Peter Laws plaws0@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 1:52 PM, skristof@etczone.com wrote:
What is the problem with just using the numbers?
Which numbers? Wavelength or frequency?
There are at least three ways I see to describe a channel: frequency, wavelength, IEEE/AMSAT band name. If precision is the goal, then it probably needs to be frequency - but MHz or GHz? If you are talking a passband, then it seems like wavelength or band name would be better. Then there is also the old AMSAT mode describing both uplink and downlink, so 4.
Again, it doesn't much matter which, but to prevent confusion, pick one and stick with it.
-- Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train! _______________________________________________ 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
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Paul Stoetzer n8hm@arrl.net wrote:
AMSAT can officially use one thing in publications (and has I've stated, generally adheres to that - with possible exception of the monikers for the less well known C/X band combination), but getting an entire community of amateurs to use consistent terminology is not likely to happen.
They really won't if AMSAT itself cannot seem to decide. Read the report in the current Journal about the Dayton Forum and see how much of it is old-style modes and how much is the new, preferred (at least by the guy that came up with it!) notation.
Again, I am arguing (and I am arguing!) in favor of one, consistent notation. Because "U/v, or UV, 70 cm up, 2 down, you know, the old Mode B" really sounds kind of silly.
Remember, if you google "amsat mode", the first link (here, at least, YMMV) is a 20+ year old FAQ that uses the old mode names ... Just sayin'.
Seems like we ought to have ONE notation that means ONE thing.
Count me in STRONGLY for FREQUENCY, not even meters and centimeters. My radio front panel reads in MHZ, not meters or centimeters. And absolutely none of the alphabet soup.
IMHO Bob, WB4APR Getting older and more forgetful every day...
-----Original Message----- From: AMSAT-BB [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Peter Laws Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 3:23 PM To: Paul Stoetzer Cc: AMSAT-BB Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Band designators, Modes
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Paul Stoetzer n8hm@arrl.net wrote:
AMSAT can officially use one thing in publications (and has I've stated, generally adheres to that - with possible exception of the monikers for the less well known C/X band combination), but getting an entire community of amateurs to use consistent terminology is not likely to happen.
They really won't if AMSAT itself cannot seem to decide. Read the report in the current Journal about the Dayton Forum and see how much of it is old-style modes and how much is the new, preferred (at least by the guy that came up with it!) notation.
Again, I am arguing (and I am arguing!) in favor of one, consistent notation. Because "U/v, or UV, 70 cm up, 2 down, you know, the old Mode B" really sounds kind of silly.
Remember, if you google "amsat mode", the first link (here, at least, YMMV) is a 20+ year old FAQ that uses the old mode names ... Just sayin'.
Seems like we ought to have ONE notation that means ONE thing.
-- Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train! _______________________________________________ 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
144 up/436 dn
No problem
Steve
On 2016-07-06 15:29, Robert Bruninga wrote:
Count me in STRONGLY for FREQUENCY, not even meters and centimeters. My radio front panel reads in MHZ, not meters or centimeters. And absolutely none of the alphabet soup.
IMHO Bob, WB4APR Getting older and more forgetful every day...
-----Original Message----- From: AMSAT-BB [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Peter Laws Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 3:23 PM To: Paul Stoetzer Cc: AMSAT-BB Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Band designators, Modes
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Paul Stoetzer n8hm@arrl.net wrote:
AMSAT can officially use one thing in publications (and has I've stated, generally adheres to that - with possible exception of the monikers for the less well known C/X band combination), but getting an entire community of amateurs to use consistent terminology is not likely to happen.
They really won't if AMSAT itself cannot seem to decide. Read the report in the current Journal about the Dayton Forum and see how much of it is old-style modes and how much is the new, preferred (at least by the guy that came up with it!) notation.
Again, I am arguing (and I am arguing!) in favor of one, consistent notation. Because "U/v, or UV, 70 cm up, 2 down, you know, the old Mode B" really sounds kind of silly.
Remember, if you google "amsat mode", the first link (here, at least, YMMV) is a 20+ year old FAQ that uses the old mode names ... Just sayin'.
Seems like we ought to have ONE notation that means ONE thing.
-- Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train! _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
...until you get to 145 up/432 dn, 437 up/144 dn, etc.
The concept of a band is to quickly describe a range of frequencies so you know what antenna to use (or similar).
-- bag
Bryan KL7CN/W6
On Jul 6, 2016, at 12:37, skristof@etczone.com wrote:
144 up/436 dn
No problem
Steve
On 2016-07-06 15:29, Robert Bruninga wrote:
Count me in STRONGLY for FREQUENCY, not even meters and centimeters. My radio front panel reads in MHZ, not meters or centimeters. And absolutely none of the alphabet soup.
IMHO Bob, WB4APR Getting older and more forgetful every day...
-----Original Message----- From: AMSAT-BB [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Peter Laws Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 3:23 PM To: Paul Stoetzer Cc: AMSAT-BB Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Band designators, Modes
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Paul Stoetzer n8hm@arrl.net wrote:
AMSAT can officially use one thing in publications (and has I've stated, generally adheres to that - with possible exception of the monikers for the less well known C/X band combination), but getting an entire community of amateurs to use consistent terminology is not likely to happen.
They really won't if AMSAT itself cannot seem to decide. Read the report in the current Journal about the Dayton Forum and see how much of it is old-style modes and how much is the new, preferred (at least by the guy that came up with it!) notation.
Again, I am arguing (and I am arguing!) in favor of one, consistent notation. Because "U/v, or UV, 70 cm up, 2 down, you know, the old Mode B" really sounds kind of silly.
Remember, if you google "amsat mode", the first link (here, at least, YMMV) is a 20+ year old FAQ that uses the old mode names ... Just sayin'.
Seems like we ought to have ONE notation that means ONE thing.
-- Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train! _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Souldn't the order be 436 dn/145 up?
Most radios and repeaters listings list the RX frequency (and receiver DIAL frequency first) then the TX second. You don't see the TX until you transmit which is a lower dutycycle. SO first frequency should be the RX freq. IHMO Bob
-----Original Message----- From: AMSAT-BB [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of skristof@etczone.com Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 3:37 PM To: AMSAT-BB Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Band designators, Modes
144 up/436 dn
No problem
Steve
On 2016-07-06 15:29, Robert Bruninga wrote:
Count me in STRONGLY for FREQUENCY, not even meters and centimeters. My radio front panel reads in MHZ, not meters or centimeters. And absolutely none of the alphabet soup.
IMHO Bob, WB4APR Getting older and more forgetful every day...
-----Original Message----- From: AMSAT-BB [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Peter Laws Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 3:23 PM To: Paul Stoetzer Cc: AMSAT-BB Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Band designators, Modes
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Paul Stoetzer n8hm@arrl.net wrote:
AMSAT can officially use one thing in publications (and has I've stated, generally adheres to that - with possible exception of the monikers for the less well known C/X band combination), but getting an entire community of amateurs to use consistent terminology is not likely to happen.
They really won't if AMSAT itself cannot seem to decide. Read the report in the current Journal about the Dayton Forum and see how much of it is old-style modes and how much is the new, preferred (at least by the guy that came up with it!) notation.
Again, I am arguing (and I am arguing!) in favor of one, consistent notation. Because "U/v, or UV, 70 cm up, 2 down, you know, the old Mode B" really sounds kind of silly.
Remember, if you google "amsat mode", the first link (here, at least, YMMV) is a 20+ year old FAQ that uses the old mode names ... Just
sayin'.
Seems like we ought to have ONE notation that means ONE thing.
-- Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train! _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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 do not think it would matter which order the numbers are written. simply make it a standard to add a U and D to indicate up and down. then order is irrelevant and there will never be any confusion. 437U/145D or 145D/437U. does one not know what that would be no matter how it were written? avoids any and all confusion and is more simplistic. or use little letters. 73...bruce
On 7/6/2016 2:44 PM, Robert Bruninga wrote:
Souldn't the order be 436 dn/145 up?
Most radios and repeaters listings list the RX frequency (and receiver DIAL frequency first) then the TX second. You don't see the TX until you transmit which is a lower dutycycle. SO first frequency should be the RX freq. IHMO Bob
-----Original Message----- From: AMSAT-BB [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of skristof@etczone.com Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 3:37 PM To: AMSAT-BB Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Band designators, Modes
144 up/436 dn
No problem
Steve
On 2016-07-06 15:29, Robert Bruninga wrote:
Count me in STRONGLY for FREQUENCY, not even meters and centimeters. My radio front panel reads in MHZ, not meters or centimeters. And absolutely none of the alphabet soup.
IMHO Bob, WB4APR Getting older and more forgetful every day...
-----Original Message----- From: AMSAT-BB [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Peter Laws Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 3:23 PM To: Paul Stoetzer Cc: AMSAT-BB Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Band designators, Modes
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Paul Stoetzer n8hm@arrl.net wrote:
AMSAT can officially use one thing in publications (and has I've stated, generally adheres to that - with possible exception of the monikers for the less well known C/X band combination), but getting an entire community of amateurs to use consistent terminology is not likely to happen.
They really won't if AMSAT itself cannot seem to decide. Read the report in the current Journal about the Dayton Forum and see how much of it is old-style modes and how much is the new, preferred (at least by the guy that came up with it!) notation.
Again, I am arguing (and I am arguing!) in favor of one, consistent notation. Because "U/v, or UV, 70 cm up, 2 down, you know, the old Mode B" really sounds kind of silly.
Remember, if you google "amsat mode", the first link (here, at least, YMMV) is a 20+ year old FAQ that uses the old mode names ... Just
sayin'.
Seems like we ought to have ONE notation that means ONE thing.
-- Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train! _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
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 _______________________________________________ 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
While everybody is worrying about a solution for a problem that really doesn't exist if you pay attention, I'll be in my garage working on reinventing the wheel.
Dave-KB1PVH
Thank you, Dave. Let us know how it comes out!
On 2016-07-06 15:50, Dave Webb KB1PVH wrote:
While everybody is worrying about a solution for a problem that really doesn't exist if you pay attention, I'll be in my garage working on reinventing the wheel.
Dave-KB1PVH _______________________________________________ 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
Agreed. Consistency would be nice, even if it means going back to the original designations.
Steve AI9IN
On 2016-07-06 15:22, Peter Laws wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Paul Stoetzer n8hm@arrl.net wrote:
AMSAT can officially use one thing in publications (and has I've stated, generally adheres to that - with possible exception of the monikers for the less well known C/X band combination), but getting an entire community of amateurs to use consistent terminology is not likely to happen.
They really won't if AMSAT itself cannot seem to decide. Read the report in the current Journal about the Dayton Forum and see how much of it is old-style modes and how much is the new, preferred (at least by the guy that came up with it!) notation.
Again, I am arguing (and I am arguing!) in favor of one, consistent notation. Because "U/v, or UV, 70 cm up, 2 down, you know, the old Mode B" really sounds kind of silly.
Remember, if you google "amsat mode", the first link (here, at least, YMMV) is a 20+ year old FAQ that uses the old mode names ... Just sayin'.
Seems like we ought to have ONE notation that means ONE thing.
It's a lot more characters to type - and especially to speak.
I'm not even sure why we are arguing about this. It takes approximately 20 seconds to memorize a table of both the old and new designations and the frequencies they represent. Just learn them and move on.
There are a lot more complicated things that people have to learn to be knowledgeable amateur radio and amateur satellite operators. A few letters to represent frequencies isn't a big deal.
73,
Paul, N8HM
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 2:52 PM, skristof@etczone.com wrote:
What is the problem with just using the numbers? Why is using letters better?
(Not being snippy here, maybe there is a good reason. If so, please explain.)
Steve AI9IN
p.s. "We've always done it that way" is not really a good reason in and of itself.
On 2016-07-06 14:31, Peter Laws wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Paul Stoetzer n8hm@arrl.net wrote:
Several parts of the website (such as the frequency guide) also use a less known custom with the second letter in lower case (to indicate that the second letter is 'down').
Eventually I would hope we would move away from "five and dime" or "nickel and dime" to using C/X in reference to 5 GHz uplinks and 10 GHz downlinks.
Then let's start.
The actual designation has to be agreed upon first, though. Slash/no slash? Case/no case? Pick one, stick with it. What was the original decision anyway?
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
Asking a question is not arguing.
Your two paragraphs below contain no rational arguments for keeping the letter based system.
Your argument is "We've always done it that way", so learn them and move on. Sorry, that doesn't cut it.
If you're going to use letters, can't there at least be a rational organizational scheme to the lettering system?
The current system looks like somebody just drew letters of a hat, then threw darts at a board of frequencies to see what the letter should represent.
The number based system would not be that hard. You decide on wavelength or frequency and go from there.
If I'm going to operate on SO-50, I'm going 2 m up/70 cm down. Most hams, whether they operate satellites are not, are likely to know what that means. I don't have to memorize or look up mode F or whatever the heck it is.
Steve AI9IN
On 2016-07-06 15:02, Paul Stoetzer wrote:
It's a lot more characters to type - and especially to speak.
I'm not even sure why we are arguing about this. It takes approximately 20 seconds to memorize a table of both the old and new designations and the frequencies they represent. Just learn them and move on.
There are a lot more complicated things that people have to learn to be knowledgeable amateur radio and amateur satellite operators. A few letters to represent frequencies isn't a big deal.
73,
Paul, N8HM
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 2:52 PM, skristof@etczone.com wrote: What is the problem with just using the numbers? Why is using letters better?
(Not being snippy here, maybe there is a good reason. If so, please explain.)
Steve AI9IN
p.s. "We've always done it that way" is not really a good reason in and of itself.
On 2016-07-06 14:31, Peter Laws wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Paul Stoetzer n8hm@arrl.net wrote:
Several parts of the website (such as the frequency guide) also use a less known custom with the second letter in lower case (to indicate that the second letter is 'down').
Eventually I would hope we would move away from "five and dime" or "nickel and dime" to using C/X in reference to 5 GHz uplinks and 10 GHz downlinks. Then let's start.
The actual designation has to be agreed upon first, though. Slash/no slash? Case/no case? Pick one, stick with it. What was the original decision anyway?
_______________________________________________ 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
There's a lot to be said for doing things they way they've always been done if it's not broken. The reason lots of us use A/B/J is because those letters have 40+ years of history behind them and most of the people we talk to understand them.
Of course, it's important to explain that to newcomers, and several AMSAT presentations I have seen do include a slide on mode designations.
Using letters to represent bands in satellite communications is actually consistent with industry, which generally does use the letter designations especially in terms of satellites. No one outside of hams refer to frequency bands by their wavelength, though. I know lots of professionals laugh at hams over the wavelength habit.
73,
Paul, N8HM
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 3:14 PM, skristof@etczone.com wrote:
Asking a question is not arguing.
Your two paragraphs below contain no rational arguments for keeping the letter based system.
Your argument is "We've always done it that way", so learn them and move on. Sorry, that doesn't cut it.
If you're going to use letters, can't there at least be a rational organizational scheme to the lettering system?
The current system looks like somebody just drew letters of a hat, then threw darts at a board of frequencies to see what the letter should represent.
The number based system would not be that hard. You decide on wavelength or frequency and go from there.
If I'm going to operate on SO-50, I'm going 2 m up/70 cm down. Most hams, whether they operate satellites are not, are likely to know what that means. I don't have to memorize or look up mode F or whatever the heck it is.
Steve AI9IN
On 2016-07-06 15:02, Paul Stoetzer wrote:
It's a lot more characters to type - and especially to speak.
I'm not even sure why we are arguing about this. It takes approximately 20 seconds to memorize a table of both the old and new designations and the frequencies they represent. Just learn them and move on.
There are a lot more complicated things that people have to learn to be knowledgeable amateur radio and amateur satellite operators. A few letters to represent frequencies isn't a big deal.
73,
Paul, N8HM
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 2:52 PM, skristof@etczone.com wrote: What is the problem with just using the numbers? Why is using letters better?
(Not being snippy here, maybe there is a good reason. If so, please explain.)
Steve AI9IN
p.s. "We've always done it that way" is not really a good reason in and of itself.
On 2016-07-06 14:31, Peter Laws wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Paul Stoetzer n8hm@arrl.net wrote:
Several parts of the website (such as the frequency guide) also use a less known custom with the second letter in lower case (to indicate that the second letter is 'down').
Eventually I would hope we would move away from "five and dime" or "nickel and dime" to using C/X in reference to 5 GHz uplinks and 10 GHz downlinks. Then let's start.
The actual designation has to be agreed upon first, though. Slash/no slash? Case/no case? Pick one, stick with it. What was the original decision anyway?
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 _______________________________________________ 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 (8)
-
Arthur Feller -
Bruce -
Bryan KL7CN -
Dave Webb KB1PVH -
Paul Stoetzer -
Peter Laws -
Robert Bruninga -
skristof＠etczone.com