| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 15.08.17 16:24l 969 Lines 38297 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AMSATBB12204
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V12 204
Path: IW8PGT<CX2SA
Sent: 170815/1420Z @:CX2SA.SAL.URY.SOAM #:16816 [Salto] FBB7.00e $:AMSATBB12204
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.SAL.URY.SOAM
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Modulation levels on AO-85 (Tom Schuessler)
2. Re: Modulation levels on AO-85 (Adam Whitney)
3. Re: Modulation levels on AO-85 (Robert Bruninga)
4. Re: Modulation levels on AO-85 (Matthew Stevens)
5. Re: best tripod for the arrow II handheld antenna (Doug Andrews)
6. Re: best tripod for the arrow II handheld antenna
(Julian Horn (Clara))
7. Re: best tripod for the arrow II handheld antenna
(jbr13@xx.xxxxxxxxx.xxxx
8. Re: best tripod for the arrow II handheld antenna (Mike Diehl)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 21:47:21 -0500
From: "Tom Schuessler" <tjschuessler@xxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Modulation levels on AO-85
Message-ID: <002101d31570$d5a028c0$80e07a40$@xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
The issue with quieting vs. Modulation level is that if a station has enough
power to do full quieting FM into the AO-85 bent pipe, than even if he is a
weak talker, or his radio has low modulation gain, he will be heard because
the background noise is minimal. Having enough power to get to that point
is a good thing, but there are many stations, like myself sometimes, that
are using HTs for uplink and downlink. 5 watts, not the right transmit
polarization and a slightly deaf RX on AO-85 due to an antenna not quite
what it should've been (Documented shortly after AO-85 launch) and you have
a number of things lined up against you. This presents a situation where
this combination results with a station barely coming through the noise and
thus being hard to hear. Again remember that AO-85 is a bent pipe after it
is tuned on via hearing a station transmitting a 67 Hz tone so that is why
you can hear FM noise through it when no RX of uplink signal is present. It
has no squelch to prevent weak signals from getting through.
I have a little Chinese radio that definitely even on "Wide" mode, is
quieter than another radio I own. Most HT's give no option to adjust this
value. Yelling into these radios does not help as they seem to have some
level of high signal limiting or compression, as simple as plane old peak
clipping. I know that Yaesu does allow for mic gain adjustments on some of
their Fusion radios but most FM only handhelds have no option for fine
tuning.
My suggestion to little pistols like myself (When learning to work FM
satellites like AO-85), is to just not try during a busy pass but wait for a
lesser trafficked pass so you can learn how best to manipulate your
transmitting circumstances to hear yourself and be heard.
Jerry Buxton, the Fox series daddy, assures us that the newer iterations of
the AMSAT Fox birds will have a little better ears and hopefully that will
help immensely.
Have patience with the little guys. You probably were one once yourself.
Tom Schuessler
n5hyp@xxxx.xxx
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 19:27:29 +0200 (CEST)
From: jerry.tuyls@xxxxxxx.xx
To: amsat-bb <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Modulation levels on AO-85
Message-ID:
<1165542169.90891698.1502731649191.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxx.xx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Spending some time here by telling several times on AO-85 passes about bad
modulation to the same stations, but they DON'T listen.
Just ignoring them, because i cannot understand them on my TS-790/FT-847.No
narrow FM and no PL tone. Never got a problem.
And please...why do some stations upload logs with DWNlink freq on sat qso's
instead of the UPlink freq?
Always having some rejected qsl's because qso's don't match due to wrong
band. I log with VQlog, uplink and dwnlink freq etc, so i think the TX-freq
is most important for logging sat'qso's and not the RX-freq?
73's
Jerry,ON4CJQ
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 21:51:02 -0500
From: Adam Whitney <awhitney42@xxxxx.xxx>
To: Matthew Stevens <matthew@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: Paul Stoetzer <n8hm@xxxx.xxx>, "amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx
<amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Modulation levels on AO-85
Message-ID: <5B5C0AA3-57A0-484F-934E-110FDFC281C8@xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
K7TAB shared this link with me awhile back, which describes the fields/logic
that LOTW purportedly uses to match:
https://lotw.arrl.org/lotw-help/frequently-asked-questions/#datamatch
Adam, K0FFY
> On Aug 14, 2017, at 21:27, Matthew Stevens <matthew@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>
> I've had a few match even though I accidentally uploaded a "20m" SAT qso
because my logger autofilled the band field incorrectly lol.
>
> In the few cases I couldn't get a match because of some unknown hiccup in
LOTW, I have just changed the qso time by a minute or two (so lotw
recognized it as a different qso record), reuploaded and got a match.
>
> Most of the satellite lotw info I've read online has mentioned several
adif fields that don't seem to make a difference. In my experience, only the
callsign,gh SAT mode, satellite name, time, and mode (FM, SSB etc) have to
match. Ymmv.
>
> 73
>
> - Matthew nj4y
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Aug 14, 2017, at 21:42, Frank Westphal <k6fw1@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>>
>> My experience with LOTW and SAT QSO's is the frequency does matter. I
have had to fool my logging program to upload the uplink frequency to get a
match on a rare occasion. N5JB's guide to LOTW and satellite QSO's says 7
items must match to get a satellite verification in LOTW. Only 5 items need
to match for a non-satellite QSO.
>>
>> 73,
>> Frank
>> K6FW
>>
>>> On 8/14/17 6:30 PM, Paul Stoetzer wrote:
>>> The convention in logging split band or mode QSOs is to use what band or
mode you're transmitting on.
>>>
>>> That said, LoTW doesn't care about the frequencies if the propagation
mode is set to 'SAT'
>>>
>>> 73,
>>>
>>> Paul, N8HM
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Frank Westphal <k6fw1@xxxxxxx.xxx
<mailto:k6fw1@xxxxxxx.xxx>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I use LOGIC 9 and it uploads the downlink frequency. I enter both
>>> uplink and downlink frequencies into the logging program LOCIC 9.
I receive lots of matches and that seems to be the accepted
>>> convention. I know ARRL suggests uploading the uplink frequency
>>> in their documentation. LOGIC 9 does not follow that
>>> recommendation and from my experience most other sat operators are
>>> not either.
>>>
>>> YMMV
>>>
>>> 73,
>>> Frank
>>> K6FW
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/14/17 10:27 AM, jerry.tuyls@xxxxxxx.xx
>>> <mailto:jerry.tuyls@xxxxxxx.xx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Spending some time here by telling several times on AO-85
>>> passes about bad modulation to the same stations, but they
>>> DON'T listen.
>>>
>>> Just ignoring them, because i cannot understand them on my
>>> TS-790/FT-847.No narrow FM and no PL tone. Never got a problem.
>>>
>>> And please...why do some stations upload logs with DWNlink
>>> freq on sat qso's instead of the UPlink freq?
>>> Always having some rejected qsl's because qso's don't match
>>> due to wrong band. I log with VQlog, uplink and dwnlink freq
>>> etc, so i think the TX-freq is most important for logging
>>> sat'qso's and not the RX-freq?
>>>
>>> 73's
>>>
>>> Jerry,ON4CJQ
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
>>> Van: "R.T.Liddy" <k8bl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <mailto:k8bl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>>
>>> Aan: "Matthew Stevens" <matthew@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>> <mailto:matthew@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>>, "Joe" <nss@xxx.xxx
>>> <mailto:nss@xxx.xxx>>
>>> Cc: "amsat-bb" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx <mailto:amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>>
>>> Verzonden: Maandag 14 augustus 2017 02:33:37
>>> Onderwerp: Re: [amsat-bb] Modulation levels on AO-85
>>>
>>> "...food in the mic hole, etc."!!! LOL!!! - Bob K8BL
>>> From: Matthew Stevens <matthew@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>> <mailto:matthew@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>>
>>> To: Joe <nss@xxx.xxx <mailto:nss@xxx.xxx>>
>>> Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx <mailto:amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
>>> Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2017 7:25 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Modulation levels on AO-85
>>> Like Jerry said, its more an issue with mic gain or poor
>>> mic technique than anything else.
>>>
>>> - Matthew nj4y
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On Aug 13, 2017, at 19:18, Joe <nss@xxx.xxx
>>> <mailto:nss@xxx.xxx>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Plus a LOT of people are running Narrow Modulation now.
>>> Joe WB9SBD
>>> Sig
>>> The Original Rolling Ball Clock
>>> Idle Tyme
>>> Idle-Tyme.com
>>> http://www.idle-tyme.com
>>>
>>> On 8/13/2017 6:14 PM, Jerry Buxton wrote:
>>> 5 kHz is the nominal "wide" setting for ham radio
>>> equipment on the
>>> VHF/UHF bands. So a rig set to 5 kHz is what we all
>>> usually expect.
>>> 5 kHz deviation with 3 kHz audio (the usual top for
>>> most voice) would be
>>> about 16 kHz bandwidth. The deviation number alone is
>>> not equal to
>>> bandwidth. ("Carson's Rule")
>>> Low audio is usually just that, not talking loud
>>> enough, not talking
>>> into the mic properly, mic gain setting too low, food
>>> in the mic hole, etc.
>>>
>>> Jerry Buxton, N?JY
>>>
>>> On 8/13/2017 17:55, Ronald G. Parsons wrote:
>>> I?ve noticed lately that many stations on AO-85
>>> have barely audible modulation. Yet other stations
>>> have clear audio with good quieting. I have heard
>>> the some manufacturers of hand-held and mobile
>>> rigs are setting their maximum deviation to 5 kHz
>>> or even less. I have noticed the same effect on
>>> local repeaters. Has anyone done any tests of the
>>> deviation required for reasonable quieting on
>>> AO-85? Or are more stations using lower power than
>>> in the past?
>>>
>>> Ron W5RKN
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx
>>> <mailto:AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>. 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
>>> <http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx
>>> <mailto:AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>. 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
>>> <http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx <mailto:AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>.
>>> 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
>>> <http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx <mailto:AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>.
>>> 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
>>> <http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> | | Virus-free. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com> |
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx <mailto:AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>.
>>> 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
>>> <http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx <mailto:AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>.
>>> 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
>>> <http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx <mailto:AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>. 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
>>> <http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. 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@xxxxx.xxx. 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
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 23:06:04 -0400
From: Robert Bruninga <bruninga@xxxx.xxx>
To: amsat bb <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Modulation levels on AO-85
Message-ID:
<CALdCfNLeqazTrpOvs3QE3vcOaDyN6drkrCq1uHJ4kZL-3QnyGA@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> if a station has enough power to do full quieting FM...
>, than even if he is a weak talker, or his radio has low
> modulation gain, he will be heard because
> the background noise is minimal.
Push my button...!. <rant on>
Though my rant is more applicable to what I hear on repeaters every day...
I will not hear him. I adjust my volume for the least pain to my ears and
this means a proper setting for all the other users that are -properly-
modulating. Then a weak modulation signal comes in 10 to 20 dB down and
while driving or operating via satellites, I dont have enough thumbs to
adjust to make up for this persons inconsiderate operating level.
Plus, I dont drive anyting close to a luxury car. The volume is also set
above the road noise and just below the pain level. That range is narrow.
I only hear those properly modulated.
But what is interesting, when I comment on someone's low moddulation, sure
enough, some expert, sitting in his shack with an ambient noise level at
least 30 dB less than what I am hearing in my car will say, "sounds fine
here". And the offender never gets the message that he is just not worth
hearing in the mobile (or via the satellite).
This is NOT a comment on the current thread, but the topic of modulation
levels allowed me to crawl out from under my rock and vent at a 50 year
frustration since FM repeaters came around in the 70's. And my hearing is
NOT getting any better.. just worse.
Your mileage may vary.
<rant off>
Bob, WB4APR
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 23:10:09 -0400
From: Matthew Stevens <matthew@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tom Schuessler <tjschuessler@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Modulation levels on AO-85
Message-ID: <9DEC8431-FF76-4C7C-92D8-2E10956172C4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about. There's a big difference
between not fully capturing the repeater due to low power or mismatched
polarity, and having low audio.
I've heard many stations who were fully capturing the repeater (no noise on
their signal) yet were barely copyable because it sounded like they were
holding the mic 10 feet from their mouth. On the other hand, I've also heard
lots of stations with less than perfect, scratchy signals who had fine
modulation and were plenty loud.
As Jerry Buxton said earlier in this thread...If you've got a quiet signal,
the first place I would look is your mic and mic settings.
73,
- Matthew nj4y
> On Aug 14, 2017, at 22:47, Tom Schuessler <tjschuessler@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>
> The issue with quieting vs. Modulation level is that if a station has enough
> power to do full quieting FM into the AO-85 bent pipe, than even if he is a
> weak talker, or his radio has low modulation gain, he will be heard because
> the background noise is minimal. Having enough power to get to that point
> is a good thing, but there are many stations, like myself sometimes, that
> are using HTs for uplink and downlink. 5 watts, not the right transmit
> polarization and a slightly deaf RX on AO-85 due to an antenna not quite
> what it should've been (Documented shortly after AO-85 launch) and you have
> a number of things lined up against you. This presents a situation where
> this combination results with a station barely coming through the noise and
> thus being hard to hear. Again remember that AO-85 is a bent pipe after it
> is tuned on via hearing a station transmitting a 67 Hz tone so that is why
> you can hear FM noise through it when no RX of uplink signal is present. It
> has no squelch to prevent weak signals from getting through.
>
> I have a little Chinese radio that definitely even on "Wide" mode, is
> quieter than another radio I own. Most HT's give no option to adjust this
> value. Yelling into these radios does not help as they seem to have some
> level of high signal limiting or compression, as simple as plane old peak
> clipping. I know that Yaesu does allow for mic gain adjustments on some of
> their Fusion radios but most FM only handhelds have no option for fine
> tuning.
>
> My suggestion to little pistols like myself (When learning to work FM
> satellites like AO-85), is to just not try during a busy pass but wait for a
> lesser trafficked pass so you can learn how best to manipulate your
> transmitting circumstances to hear yourself and be heard.
>
> Jerry Buxton, the Fox series daddy, assures us that the newer iterations of
> the AMSAT Fox birds will have a little better ears and hopefully that will
> help immensely.
>
> Have patience with the little guys. You probably were one once yourself.
>
> Tom Schuessler
> n5hyp@xxxx.xxx
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 19:27:29 +0200 (CEST)
> From: jerry.tuyls@xxxxxxx.xx
> To: amsat-bb <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
> Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Modulation levels on AO-85
> Message-ID:
> <1165542169.90891698.1502731649191.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxx.xx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Spending some time here by telling several times on AO-85 passes about bad
> modulation to the same stations, but they DON'T listen.
>
> Just ignoring them, because i cannot understand them on my TS-790/FT-847.No
> narrow FM and no PL tone. Never got a problem.
>
> And please...why do some stations upload logs with DWNlink freq on sat qso's
> instead of the UPlink freq?
> Always having some rejected qsl's because qso's don't match due to wrong
> band. I log with VQlog, uplink and dwnlink freq etc, so i think the TX-freq
> is most important for logging sat'qso's and not the RX-freq?
>
> 73's
>
> Jerry,ON4CJQ
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. 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
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 00:37:28 +0000
From: Doug Andrews <dougg27@xxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Laura Tunnell <drlnt@xxx.xxx>, "amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx
<amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] best tripod for the arrow II handheld antenna
Message-ID:
<CO2PR06MB697B3226339FA2CB2947DF3B48D0@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
The one time I used a tripod it collapsed causing the coax to act like a
whip launching the radio to the ground.
That said, a regular camera tripod should work.
73
.- ..-. --... --.. --.-
-------- Original message --------
From: Laura Tunnell <drlnt@xxx.xxx>
Date: 8/14/17 1:55 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] best tripod for the arrow II handheld antenna
What is best tripod for the arrow II handheld antenna ?
_______________________________________________
Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. 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
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 07:40:28 +0100
From: "Julian Horn (Clara)" <julianhorn@xxxxx.xx.xx>
To: Mike Diehl <diehl.mike.a@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] best tripod for the arrow II handheld antenna
Message-ID: <99C00D38-14CE-4319-9F50-77D89EC49644@xxxxx.xx.xx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Apologies if this is a dumb question, but it is from a relative newcomer to
this field . . . :)
Has any research been carried out on the (medical) safety of hand-held
antennas such as the Arrow whilst transmitting?
I understand the power is relatively low, but unlike say a mobile (cell)
phone, average power I imagine will be much higher?
Are there any measurements of field strength this close to the driven
element and any assessments of the risks?
73, Julian M0NUX
> On 15 Aug 2017, at 01:14, Mike Diehl <diehl.mike.a@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>
> On a more serious note there are advantages to hand holding the Arrow even
if it feels like you need to be an octopus to pull it off. There's a certain
hand ear coordination that seems to come naturally when matching polarity by
simply twisting your wrist. This advantage alone can be significant over
fixed polarity or polarity matching by some mechanical means. The only time
I would recommend a tripod is if there is some physical reason for not being
able to hold it.
>
> Often times people go the tripod route because it seems like too many
things are going on at once. One common pitfall is trying to log while a
pass is in progress, usually on paper. A better solution is to record the
audio for playback later. A simple voice recorder or even a smartphone works
great. If using a voice recorder be sure to set the clock to UTC, timestamps
will make logging a lot easier.
>
> Another way to free up a hand is to use a boom mic headset with a foot
switch for PTT. By doing this you free up your hand to operate the VFO(s).
>
> Like Bryan pointed out, it can seem counterintuitive that holding the
antenna can make things easier but when you evaluate the rest of your
station you may find other ways to free yourself to aim.
>
> If you find that there's just simply no way to operate without a tripod
then maybe you can describe the difficulties you face. I've seen many clever
designs, each with their own advantages and disadvantages making them each
suitable to a different crowd. Let us know what you're looking to get out of
a tripod setup, I'm sure there are plenty of people willing to share their
solutions.
>
> 73,
>
> Mike Diehl
> AI6GS
>
>> On Aug 14, 2017, at 4:33 PM, Bryan KL7CN <bryan@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>>
>> Mike's being funny. :)
>>
>> I used to use a $10 tripod I got from the Goodwill. The main thing I
appreciated about it was its ability to do axial rotation -- think: camera
on its side. When the Arrow was attached, I would us that feature to rotate
the Arrow along its axis.
>>
>> Nowadays I do what Mike does: I hold the Arrow in my hand. It takes some
time to become comfortable with holding the antenna correctly while
adjusting for Doppler and pressing the mic button, but after some practice I
found it to be the most efficient way. It's counterintuitive, but using your
hand to orient the antenna is very fast and flexible.
>>
>> -- bag
>>
>> Bryan KL7CN/W6
>> Location: CM98, usually
>> E-Mail: bryan@xxxxx.xxx
>> Telephone/SMS: 408-836-7279
>>
>>> On Aug 14, 2017, at 16:23, Mike Diehl <diehl.mike.a@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> I find a biped to work best with an arrow antenna. Works great for
aiming and polarity matching.
>>>
>>> 73,
>>>
>>> Mike Diehl
>>> AI6GS
>>>
>>>> On Aug 14, 2017, at 1:55 PM, Laura Tunnell <drlnt@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What is best tripod for the arrow II handheld antenna ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. 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@xxxxx.xxx. 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@xxxxx.xxx. 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
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 08:39:53 -0400
From: jbr13@xx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] best tripod for the arrow II handheld antenna
Message-ID: <90853d6c0b357d5ded77b87bffacc6e3@xx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
I use a good camera tripod with the setup I made. Since I also do
photography it was on hand. If you get a cheap camera tripod, I am sure
you will have issues of some sort. A good heavier tripod is great, it
will keep from tipping over. You can see my arrow antenna rig on tripod
on my QRZ page.
Jason Rearick
N3YUG
On 08-14-2017 8:37 PM, Doug Andrews wrote:
> The one time I used a tripod it collapsed causing the coax to act like
> a whip launching the radio to the ground.
>
> That said, a regular camera tripod should work.
>
> 73
>
>
>
> .- ..-. --... --.. --.-
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Laura Tunnell <drlnt@xxx.xxx>
> Date: 8/14/17 1:55 PM (GMT-08:00)
> To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> Subject: [amsat-bb] best tripod for the arrow II handheld antenna
>
> What is best tripod for the arrow II handheld antenna ?
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. 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@xxxxx.xxx. 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
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 07:08:41 -0700
From: Mike Diehl <diehl.mike.a@xxxxx.xxx>
To: "Julian Horn (Clara)" <julianhorn@xxxxx.xx.xx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] best tripod for the arrow II handheld antenna
Message-ID: <9BE3C1CA-50CD-4F8F-A0D3-8DDAFA6738DD@xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Julian,
No apologies necessary, there's absolutely nothing wrong with asking
questions.
As far as research goes, I'm not aware of what studies have been done. This
is probably because it has been of little concern to me based on what I know
about RF and the design of Yagi-Uda antennas.
RF is non-ionizing meaning it is incapable of causing any changes at a
molecular level. RF only has the ability to cause heating of objects in its
vicinity. That said, I'm not sure it's even possible to feed an arrow with
enough power to cause any real heating without damaging the antenna first.
We can look at why antennas like this are used in the first place. These
antennas have a good front to back ratio that directs the RF away from the
handle. If we compare the radiation pattern of an arrow to that of a
standard rubber duck antenna you'll see that much less energy is directed at
the user. Personally, if I was concerned with exposure I would worry more
about a 1/4 wave whip than a Yagi. Of course that assumes I don't have the
Yagi pointed at myself. :)
If you would like more on the topic this page may be a good starting point
https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-technology/electromagnetic-compatibility-divis
ion/radio-frequency-safety/faq/rf-safety
Others in the group may know of studies done on the subject, I'm sure
they'll share if they do.
73,
Mike Diehl
AI6GS
> On Aug 14, 2017, at 11:40 PM, Julian Horn (Clara) <julianhorn@xxxxx.xx.xx>
wrote:
>
> Apologies if this is a dumb question, but it is from a relative newcomer
to this field . . . :)
> Has any research been carried out on the (medical) safety of hand-held
antennas such as the Arrow whilst transmitting?
> I understand the power is relatively low, but unlike say a mobile (cell)
phone, average power I imagine will be much higher?
> Are there any measurements of field strength this close to the driven
element and any assessments of the risks?
>
> 73, Julian M0NUX
>
>
>
>> On 15 Aug 2017, at 01:14, Mike Diehl <diehl.mike.a@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>>
>> On a more serious note there are advantages to hand holding the Arrow
even if it feels like you need to be an octopus to pull it off. There's a
certain hand ear coordination that seems to come naturally when matching
polarity by simply twisting your wrist. This advantage alone can be
significant over fixed polarity or polarity matching by some mechanical
means. The only time I would recommend a tripod is if there is some physical
reason for not being able to hold it.
>>
>> Often times people go the tripod route because it seems like too many
things are going on at once. One common pitfall is trying to log while a
pass is in progress, usually on paper. A better solution is to record the
audio for playback later. A simple voice recorder or even a smartphone works
great. If using a voice recorder be sure to set the clock to UTC, timestamps
will make logging a lot easier.
>>
>> Another way to free up a hand is to use a boom mic headset with a foot
switch for PTT. By doing this you free up your hand to operate the VFO(s).
>>
>> Like Bryan pointed out, it can seem counterintuitive that holding the
antenna can make things easier but when you evaluate the rest of your
station you may find other ways to free yourself to aim.
>>
>> If you find that there's just simply no way to operate without a tripod
then maybe you can describe the difficulties you face. I've seen many clever
designs, each with their own advantages and disadvantages making them each
suitable to a different crowd. Let us know what you're looking to get out of
a tripod setup, I'm sure there are plenty of people willing to share their
solutions.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Mike Diehl
>> AI6GS
>>
>>> On Aug 14, 2017, at 4:33 PM, Bryan KL7CN <bryan@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Mike's being funny. :)
>>>
>>> I used to use a $10 tripod I got from the Goodwill. The main thing I
appreciated about it was its ability to do axial rotation -- think: camera
on its side. When the Arrow was attached, I would us that feature to rotate
the Arrow along its axis.
>>>
>>> Nowadays I do what Mike does: I hold the Arrow in my hand. It takes some
time to become comfortable with holding the antenna correctly while
adjusting for Doppler and pressing the mic button, but after some practice I
found it to be the most efficient way. It's counterintuitive, but using your
hand to orient the antenna is very fast and flexible.
>>>
>>> -- bag
>>>
>>> Bryan KL7CN/W6
>>> Location: CM98, usually
>>> E-Mail: bryan@xxxxx.xxx
>>> Telephone/SMS: 408-836-7279
>>>
>>>> On Aug 14, 2017, at 16:23, Mike Diehl <diehl.mike.a@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I find a biped to work best with an arrow antenna. Works great for
aiming and polarity matching.
>>>>
>>>> 73,
>>>>
>>>> Mike Diehl
>>>> AI6GS
>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 14, 2017, at 1:55 PM, Laura Tunnell <drlnt@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> What is best tripod for the arrow II handheld antenna ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. 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@xxxxx.xxx. 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@xxxxx.xxx. 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
>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Sent via amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx.
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 member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
End of AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol 12, Issue 204
*****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
