| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 28.06.16 19:44l 927 Lines 37551 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AMSATBB11211
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V11 211
Path: IW8PGT<CX2SA
Sent: 160628/1740Z @:CX2SA.SAL.URY.SOAM #:47112 [Salto] FBB7.00e $:AMSATBB11211
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.SAL.URY.SOAM
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: FW: [FWD: RE: Southern CA Satellite Presentations]
(Peter Laws)
2. Re: Financial arguments about full duplex (Jerry Conner)
3. Re: FW: [FWD: RE: Southern CA Satellite Presentations]
(Jim Walls)
4. Re: Financial arguments about full duplex (Peter Laws)
5. Re: Financial arguments about full duplex (Andrew Glasbrenner)
6. Re: Financial arguments about full duplex (ez-peezy)
(Robert Bruninga)
7. Re: Financial arguments about full duplex
(Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK))
8. Re: FW: [FWD: RE: Southern CA Satellite Presentations]
(Jim Walls)
9. Re: Financial arguments about full duplex (ez-peezy)
(David Swanson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 10:04:33 -0500
From: Peter Laws <plaws0@xxxxx.xxx>
To: Jerry Conner <jerryconn@xxx.xxx>
Cc: AMSAT-BB <AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] FW: [FWD: RE: Southern CA Satellite
Presentations]
Message-ID:
<CANVAiQ_CBu8srWv-xmiDyC7SxHPiBmxnn3G21Hkb9R1XoU=EDA@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Jerry Conner via AMSAT-BB
<amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> Then what I am hearing, "AS A NEWBIE" is that I am not welcome on the Sats
because I do not have the financial resources to invest in all the equipment
needed to run full duplex. It is more than two cheap Chinese radios, it
also involves an antenna, which at the very least it is almost double the
cost of the two Chinese radios.
I think I paid $150-something for my Arrow II with the diplexer
(because I only use one radio) so yeah about the price of two cheap
Chinese HTs.
There is nothing stopping anyone from building an entirely adequate
antenna themselves. See, for example,
http://www.wa5vjb.com/references.html .
SO-50, with the FM uplink on 2 m, I don't see much need for full
duplex and, in fact, I've had good contacts on a single radio. I can
see where AO-85, with the FM uplink on 70 cm having a bigger Doppler
swing, that it would be very helpful to have an ear on the downlink.
For data, since most digis seem to be on 2m up and down, I don't see
the big deal.
On the sats with a linear transponder, it's a different matter since
you need to find where you are unless you are using a computer to
correct your at-sat frequency.
All that said, if you want this to be a cheap hobby, you're really
going to have to work at it.
--
Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 11:32:30 -0400
From: "Jerry Conner" <jerryconn@xxx.xxx>
To: <AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Financial arguments about full duplex
Message-ID:
<!&!AAAAAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAAAD6luELkFsVNoPZSuBSLh4UBAMO2jhD3dRHOtM0AqgC7tuYAAAAAAA
4AABAAAADCf21VprQCS4K5dr4rtTPFAQAAAAA=@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
That is what I have done, built a cheap antenna. I have a Chinese radio and
I have made contacts on SO-50, half duplex. I DO NOT get on the linear
birds because primary I do not have the means to run 2M/70CM SSB. I can also
understand that it would near impossible to effectively make a contact But
newbies can/should be given guidance in the form of Elmers. Not being told
they are not welcome if they don't have the equipment others have. By the
way check the prices an arrow antenna that will give someone the best chance
to get into AO-85 with a Cheap Chinese radio is about $150.00.
I love VHF/UHF but I can't do much more than be a spectator at this point
due to the equipment required. I will get there eventually.
I am just trying to point out that not everyone has the ability and may
never have the ability work the satellites with the gear that others have.
I would love to have a way to do so but for now it is not in the cards in my
household. I am OK with that.
So when the arrows start flying try not to hit the people that you should be
trying to bring in the fold to help, in any way they can, put more
satellites in orbit for us all to enjoy. Just my viewpoint from down here.
73
Jerry W4JWC
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Glasbrenner [mailto:glasbrenner@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 11:03 AM
To: Jerry Conner <jerryconn@xxx.xxx>; AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Financial arguments about full duplex
The financial argument is a weak one at best. A WA5VJB Cheap yagi is about
10 dollars of materials (you can skip the diplexer with two radios), and I
have recently seen and purchased older full sized 2m HTs and UHF analog only
scanners for as cheap as 5 dollars at hamfests. Add a $30 Baofeng and you
have a satellite setup for next to nothing.
Don't want to build or can't? The price difference between an Arrow antenna
with a diplexer, and one without is about $60, or the cost of TWO cheap HTs.
Use the extra $30 to buy some good cables.
I certainly don't mind if those getting started try half-duplex at first,
and it has it's place in some situations. I even wrote an article 10 years
ago about half duplex ops with the FT-817 on FO-29, which I plan to update
soon, but the linear sats are different animals, with different challenges.
Once you try full duplex and realize the benefits of being able to hear if
you are causing or being QRM, and being able to twist the antenna during
transmit to get a better uplink signal, you won't want to go back to the old
way.
73, Drew KO4MA
-----Original Message-----
>From: Jerry Conner via AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
>Sent: Jun 28, 2016 10:42 AM
>To: AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx
>Subject: [amsat-bb] FW: [FWD: RE: Southern CA Satellite Presentations]
>
>
>
>Then what I am hearing, "AS A NEWBIE" is that I am not welcome on the Sats
because I do not have the financial resources to invest in all the equipment
needed to run full duplex. It is more than two cheap Chinese radios, it
also involves an antenna, which at the very least it is almost double the
cost of the two Chinese radios.
>
>Money that some of us have a hard time pulling together.
>
>I have a hard time with all the purest, my way or the highway mentality I
am hearing.
>
>
>
>Just my 2 cents
>
>Jerry W4JWC
>
>
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Southern CA Satellite Presentations
>From: Michael <Mat_62@xxxxxxx.xxx <mailto:Mat_62@xxxxxxx.xxx> >
>Date: Mon, June 27, 2016 9:04 pm
>To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx <mailto:amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
>
>I could care less whether you have ever uttered it or not in one of
>your live presentations. It is printed in black and white in your handout.
>You just quoted it yourself. The minute you typed that phrase and began
>giving out handouts or telling people to print it out you became guilty
>of spreading ignorance as far as satellite operation is concerned. You
>are leading newbie sat operators down a path they should not be on. If
>one does not have the means to hear their own signal coming back from
>the bird so as to insure they are "making it there" then they should
>not be on the satellites. End of story.
>Michael, W4HIJ
>On 6/26/2016 11:37 PM, Clint Bradford wrote:
>>>> ... you would quit telling people that full duplex is "not mandatory"
for working sats.
>> You've never attended one of my sat sessions. I have never uttered
>> the sentence to groups, "It is not mandatory to work full-duplex. -
>> PERIOD." My standard mantra for the easy FM birds is all over the place:
>>
>> "Ideally, we should be working the satellites in full duplex mode,
>> where we can simultaneously listen to the downlink as we are
>> transmitting. Although this method is preferred, it is not mandatory:
>> Carefully monitor the downlink, and wait for a break in the conversations
to announce yourself."
>>
>> People you might be hearing stepping on others are not following those
instructions.
>>
>> And all my audiences are very graphically shown and told the reasons
>> why working full- duplex is preferable.
>>
>> I didn't work full-duplex when speaking with Commander Wiseman - who
>> was aboard the ISS at the time during Field Day 2014.
>>
>> If you haven't already given a presentation to your club on working
>> the easy birds, I am available. Just send me an email message.
>>
>> Clint Bradford K6LCS
>> (909) 999-SATS
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>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: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 08:33:50 -0700
From: "Jim Walls" <jim@xxxxx.xxx>
To: <AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] FW: [FWD: RE: Southern CA Satellite
Presentations]
Message-ID: <d5a11b43d9f8421b96a8e54f54a92689@xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Jerry Conner said (in part):
> I have a hard time with all the purest, my way or the highway mentality
I am hearing.
It's not that it's a elitist mentality, it's simply a technical
requirement for successful operation. Even on a FM satellite, operating
without full duplex would be about like trying to use your local 2M
repeater with a transmitter and no receiver turned on until AFTER you
called someone. You have no way of knowing if someone else is talking.
Since on most FM satellites, the idle time between conversations is
measured in milliseconds, your chances of successfully hitting an idle spot
without knowing if your are getting through is quite slim. On SSB or CW on
a linear satellite, without full duplex, you will forever be chasing trying
to figure out where your downlink is. Even with complete computer control
of dopler shift, you will still be chasing the other guy.
On an FM satellite, the situation goes something like this. A contact
ends, and for example three people key up to make a call at essentially the
same time. Depending on signal levels, maybe one person has a strong
enough signal to capture everyone else, but more likely there is a massive
hetrodyne between several signals. With everyone operating full duplex,
we all hear that either someone else is capturing the uplink or the
hetrodyne and drop carrier. If you're not using full duplex, you blindly
keep transmitting and creating interference for the rest of the users.
The exception to all this is that if you are operating in a location that
has almost no one to talk to (Hawaii comes to mind) since you are almost
the only one around, you might get away without full duplex most of the
time. A decade or so ago, every night there was a SE to NW pass that was
well off the southern California coastline - such that the footprint only
covered 50 - 100 miles along the coast. There were a small enough number
of us in the footprint that we could actually hold several minute
conversations with one or two other people. Non full duplex would likely
have worked in that case. However for the previous pass that covered most
of the US, I would not have even considered it.
BTW, note that in my first sentence, I said "it's simply a technical
requirement for successful operation." The key word there was successful.
Without full duplex you will occasionally make a contact (especially as
mentioned earlier if you are almost the only person in the footprint), but
if you want to routinely be successful on busy passes, there is no
alternative to being full duplex. Period.
Jim Walls - K6CCC
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 10:54:34 -0500
From: Peter Laws <plaws0@xxxxx.xxx>
To: AMSAT-BB <AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Financial arguments about full duplex
Message-ID:
<CANVAiQ9KRgPeyizUzrFSG1EXF7tF6jsPme-G6rFgm77C0HZpkQ@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Jerry Conner via AMSAT-BB
<amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> That is what I have done, built a cheap antenna. I have a Chinese radio
and I have made contacts on SO-50, half duplex.
Can't possibly be true because full duplex is a TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT
FOR SUCCESSFUL OPERATION. If you don't meet the requirements, you
can't possibly be successful.
You are not alone: my own non-full duplex contacts were also not
successful because of my failure to use a second receiver. I've
petitioned ARRL to remove my QSLs from LOTW and have disassembled and
buried my diplexer-equipped antenna because of this.
The shame of it all.
--
Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 11:56:11 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
From: Andrew Glasbrenner <glasbrenner@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Jerry Conner <jerryconn@xxx.xxx>, AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Financial arguments about full duplex
Message-ID:
<25950095.1467129371777.JavaMail.wam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>That is what I have done, built a cheap antenna. I have a Chinese radio
and I have made contacts on SO-50, half duplex. I DO NOT get on the linear
birds because >primary I do not have the means to run 2M/70CM SSB. I can
also understand that it would near impossible to effectively make a contact
But newbies can/should be >given guidance in the form of Elmers. Not being
told they are not welcome if they don't have the equipment others have.
The discussion centers on the importance of best practices being taught and
demonstrated by those elmers you mention. Elmers walk with you, guiding,
correcting, encouraging along the way. The need to have practical knowledge,
and all too often we see people who don't operate, or just started
themselves, passing out poor or erroneous information. If the shields can be
dropped for long enough, there are lots of elmers right here on this list to
help the newbies out. Elmers should continue to learn as well.
> By the way check the prices an arrow >antenna that will give someone the
best chance to get into AO-85 with a Cheap Chinese radio is about $150.00.
Elmer moment right here: The arrow without the diplexer is $60 cheaper than
the one with the diplexer
(http://store.amsat.org/catalog/index.php?cPath=1). Use that $60 for a 2nd
receiver and now you can hear if you are getting into AO-85 or SO-50, adjust
for Doppler on AO-85, and make more contacts, and cause less QRM. You'll
need a set of headphones as well, about $5 at Big Lots or Walmart. Better
experience for you, better for everyone else, less money.
Or, build the functionally same antenna for $10 and a few hours time, and
save some more bucks. I love my Arrow(s), but a WA5VJB or IOio antenna works
just as well. Links to plans can be found here:
http://www.amsat.org/?page_id=2144
73, Drew KO4MA
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 12:03:38 -0400
From: Robert Bruninga <bruninga@xxxx.xxx>
To: AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Financial arguments about full duplex
(ez-peezy)
Message-ID: <bdd9875487cda383f448e2af579c5863@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
You can make a UHF Satellite Receive Antenna for about a dollar.
You take a 18" by 3' rectangle of garden fence, bend it into a linear
parabola, mount a $35 UHF HT at the focal point and make a handle for it.
Done.
See the June 2004 QST cover photo of it in use by students:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/files.qrz.com/h/kb9sxh/cover_shot_QST_bmp.jpg
No coax, no feeds, no nothing. Just the HT, 6" from the back of the
parabola. And it is lighter than an arrow (also shown in that photo)
Bob, WB4APR
-----Original Message-----
From: AMSAT-BB [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On Behalf Of Andrew
Glasbrenner
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 11:03 AM
To: Jerry Conner; AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Financial arguments about full duplex
The financial argument is a weak one at best. A WA5VJB Cheap yagi is about
10 dollars of materials (you can skip the diplexer with two radios), and I
have recently seen and purchased older full sized 2m HTs and UHF analog
only scanners for as cheap as 5 dollars at hamfests. Add a $30 Baofeng and
you have a satellite setup for next to nothing.
Don't want to build or can't? The price difference between an Arrow
antenna with a diplexer, and one without is about $60, or the cost of TWO
cheap HTs. Use the extra $30 to buy some good cables.
I certainly don't mind if those getting started try half-duplex at first,
and it has it's place in some situations. I even wrote an article 10 years
ago about half duplex ops with the FT-817 on FO-29, which I plan to update
soon, but the linear sats are different animals, with different
challenges.
Once you try full duplex and realize the benefits of being able to hear if
you are causing or being QRM, and being able to twist the antenna during
transmit to get a better uplink signal, you won't want to go back to the
old way.
73, Drew KO4MA
-----Original Message-----
>From: Jerry Conner via AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
>Sent: Jun 28, 2016 10:42 AM
>To: AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx
>Subject: [amsat-bb] FW: [FWD: RE: Southern CA Satellite Presentations]
>
>
>
>Then what I am hearing, "AS A NEWBIE" is that I am not welcome on the
Sats because I do not have the financial resources to invest in all the
equipment needed to run full duplex. It is more than two cheap Chinese
radios, it also involves an antenna, which at the very least it is almost
double the cost of the two Chinese radios.
>
>Money that some of us have a hard time pulling together.
>
>I have a hard time with all the purest, my way or the highway mentality I
am hearing.
>
>
>
>Just my 2 cents
>
>Jerry W4JWC
>
>
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Southern CA Satellite Presentations
>From: Michael <Mat_62@xxxxxxx.xxx <mailto:Mat_62@xxxxxxx.xxx> >
>Date: Mon, June 27, 2016 9:04 pm
>To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx <mailto:amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
>
>I could care less whether you have ever uttered it or not in one of
>your live presentations. It is printed in black and white in your
handout.
>You just quoted it yourself. The minute you typed that phrase and began
>giving out handouts or telling people to print it out you became guilty
>of spreading ignorance as far as satellite operation is concerned. You
>are leading newbie sat operators down a path they should not be on. If
>one does not have the means to hear their own signal coming back from
>the bird so as to insure they are "making it there" then they should
>not be on the satellites. End of story.
>Michael, W4HIJ
>On 6/26/2016 11:37 PM, Clint Bradford wrote:
>>>> ... you would quit telling people that full duplex is "not mandatory"
for working sats.
>> You've never attended one of my sat sessions. I have never uttered
>> the sentence to groups, "It is not mandatory to work full-duplex. -
>> PERIOD." My standard mantra for the easy FM birds is all over the
place:
>>
>> "Ideally, we should be working the satellites in full duplex mode,
>> where we can simultaneously listen to the downlink as we are
>> transmitting. Although this method is preferred, it is not mandatory:
>> Carefully monitor the downlink, and wait for a break in the
conversations to announce yourself."
>>
>> People you might be hearing stepping on others are not following those
instructions.
>>
>> And all my audiences are very graphically shown and told the reasons
>> why working full- duplex is preferable.
>>
>> I didn't work full-duplex when speaking with Commander Wiseman - who
>> was aboard the ISS at the time during Field Day 2014.
>>
>> If you haven't already given a presentation to your club on working
>> the easy birds, I am available. Just send me an email message.
>>
>> Clint Bradford K6LCS
>> (909) 999-SATS
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>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, 28 Jun 2016 16:35:08 +0000
From: "Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK)" <amsat-bb@xxxxxx.xxx>
To: Jerry Conner <jerryconn@xxx.xxx>, "amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx
<amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Financial arguments about full duplex
Message-ID:
<CAN6TEUcs1093+pAjNAzH7oyXWYhVS1VMoKc-eNc4HG+An=Y7WA@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hi Jerry!
I had written about using certain Chinese-made dual-band HTs to
work AO-85 full-duplex a few months ago on this list, and an
article based on those posts appeared in a recent AMSAT Journal.
But that is not the only way, or even the cheapest way, to get on
AO-85 (or other U/V FM satellites) full-duplex. I, like many others
reading this list, have worked stations using two Baofeng HTs and
a homebrew 2m/70cm Yagi like the WA5VJB design. Two Baofengs
should be in the $60 to $70 range, and a homebrew Yagi a few
dollars more in parts. Basically, for less than $100, a ham can
have a station capable of full-duplex operation for FM satellites.
If someone already has an HT, then the costs for a second radio
and parts for a 2m/70cm homebrew Yagi become more like $40 or $50.
As I mentioned in other recent posts on here, I worked an FM satellite
pass during Field Day half-duplex, on LilacSat-2 (like SO-50,
using a 2m uplink and 70cm downlink). It can be done, but many of us
hear the complaints from those who have tried the half-duplex
approach unsuccessfully. If anything, the advice about working
FM satellite full-duplex is an attempt to set expectations for success
on these satellites. Yes, half-duplex can work, but full-duplex
works better.
As for the linear transponders, that will take different equipment
where there really isn't the same inexpensive option as we have with
the Chinese-made HTs for FM satellites. There are options to hold
down the costs for equipping your station to work these satellites.
Using a pair of all-mode HF/VHF/UHF transceivers, or one of those
transceivers with a software-defined receiver, are a couple of
examples of this. But it can be done.
Good luck, and 73!
Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK
http://www.wd9ewk.net/
Twitter: @xxxxxx
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Jerry Conner via AMSAT-BB <
amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> That is what I have done, built a cheap antenna. I have a Chinese radio
> and I have made contacts on SO-50, half duplex. I DO NOT get on the linear
> birds because primary I do not have the means to run 2M/70CM SSB. I can
> also understand that it would near impossible to effectively make a contact
> But newbies can/should be given guidance in the form of Elmers. Not being
> told they are not welcome if they don't have the equipment others have. By
> the way check the prices an arrow antenna that will give someone the best
> chance to get into AO-85 with a Cheap Chinese radio is about $150.00.
> I love VHF/UHF but I can't do much more than be a spectator at this point
> due to the equipment required. I will get there eventually.
>
> I am just trying to point out that not everyone has the ability and may
> never have the ability work the satellites with the gear that others have.
> I would love to have a way to do so but for now it is not in the cards in
> my household. I am OK with that.
>
> So when the arrows start flying try not to hit the people that you should
> be trying to bring in the fold to help, in any way they can, put more
> satellites in orbit for us all to enjoy. Just my viewpoint from down here.
> 73
> Jerry W4JWC
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 09:48:00 -0700
From: "Jim Walls" <jim@xxxxx.xxx>
To: "amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] FW: [FWD: RE: Southern CA Satellite
Presentations]
Message-ID: <df6ba3399abd4213842647375bcbfa24@xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
First, I said (in part):
>> "If you're not using full duplex, you blindly
>> keep transmitting and creating interference for the rest of the users."
Then skriostof@... said (in part):
> Not OK. If you're not using full duplex, you LISTEN to see if someone
> answers your call. It is possible to successfully operate without
full-duplex.
Not quite. Repeating my situation of three people making a call after the
previous conversation ends.
You are operating full duplex:
You start transmitting, and hear a hetrodyne, and stop transmitting within
a second. Another person successfully makes a call because the hetrodyne
ends.
You are not operating fulll duplex:
You start transmitting and speak the callsign of the person you are
calling followed by your own callsign before you unkey. No one is heard
because of the hetrodyne.
Jim Walls
K6CCC
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 12:38:50 -0500
From: David Swanson <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Financial arguments about full duplex
(ez-peezy)
Message-ID:
<CANq+eyU8zc-DKF_N3=Jkt_9d1yhdzGFXwPowmjcp=2zNrCneJg@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I just want to throw this out, not as a "You Can" but as a "I did" as those
are two completely separate distinctions in an argument.
I made my first few hundred contacts using this to receive SO-50:
https://goo.gl/photos/K2YrjzCVXF1MTPV46
And This to Transmit on:
https://goo.gl/photos/pyFHt7CfNpnjzLPS7
I used a FT-1900 that a local ham club DONATED to me to transmit:
https://goo.gl/photos/pyFHt7CfNpnjzLPS7
And a Baofeng to receive:
https://goo.gl/photos/3rDVBdbjjzt8cGfq9
I did this not out of financial concerns - I could have easily afforded a
bigger more potent station - but I just wanted to see what I could do (and
my wife was not super keen on me spending thousands of dollars on a hobby I
wasn't sure I was going to embrace yet). The connectors were hamfest so-239
adapters I picked up for 99 cents each, the coax was donated by local old
men who had small chunks laying around.. the wood for the booms was
leftover trim board I had from construction projects, and brass welding rod
was measured in dollars per pound at the local tractor supply. I was
literally on the birds those first 6 months or so with less than $50
invested in gear... and during that time I got VUCC, handed out something
like 25 grids while /P, and got hooked on something that has turned into so
much more than just a hobby for me.
I know we're all prone to hyperbole and reductio ad absurdum when
internetting, but c'mon folks.. I really have to laugh at the "oh woes to
me, 50 bucks is just too much" when I've seen what dudes in countries less
wealthy than mine can do with their Satellite stations made out of fence
posts and old televisions. The only line I see to operating on Satellites
is 1. Do you have/can build a radio? and 2. Are you a jerk? If the answers
are Yes and No, then you're welcome on the birds.
-Dave, KG5CCI
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Robert Bruninga <bruninga@xxxx.xxx> wrote:
> You can make a UHF Satellite Receive Antenna for about a dollar.
> You take a 18" by 3' rectangle of garden fence, bend it into a linear
> parabola, mount a $35 UHF HT at the focal point and make a handle for it.
> Done.
>
> See the June 2004 QST cover photo of it in use by students:
> https://s3.amazonaws.com/files.qrz.com/h/kb9sxh/cover_shot_QST_bmp.jpg
>
> No coax, no feeds, no nothing. Just the HT, 6" from the back of the
> parabola. And it is lighter than an arrow (also shown in that photo)
>
> Bob, WB4APR
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AMSAT-BB [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On Behalf Of Andrew
> Glasbrenner
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 11:03 AM
> To: Jerry Conner; AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx
> Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Financial arguments about full duplex
>
>
> The financial argument is a weak one at best. A WA5VJB Cheap yagi is about
> 10 dollars of materials (you can skip the diplexer with two radios), and I
> have recently seen and purchased older full sized 2m HTs and UHF analog
> only scanners for as cheap as 5 dollars at hamfests. Add a $30 Baofeng and
> you have a satellite setup for next to nothing.
>
> Don't want to build or can't? The price difference between an Arrow
> antenna with a diplexer, and one without is about $60, or the cost of TWO
> cheap HTs. Use the extra $30 to buy some good cables.
>
> I certainly don't mind if those getting started try half-duplex at first,
> and it has it's place in some situations. I even wrote an article 10 years
> ago about half duplex ops with the FT-817 on FO-29, which I plan to update
> soon, but the linear sats are different animals, with different
> challenges.
>
> Once you try full duplex and realize the benefits of being able to hear if
> you are causing or being QRM, and being able to twist the antenna during
> transmit to get a better uplink signal, you won't want to go back to the
> old way.
>
> 73, Drew KO4MA
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Jerry Conner via AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
> >Sent: Jun 28, 2016 10:42 AM
> >To: AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx
> >Subject: [amsat-bb] FW: [FWD: RE: Southern CA Satellite Presentations]
> >
> >
> >
> >Then what I am hearing, "AS A NEWBIE" is that I am not welcome on the
> Sats because I do not have the financial resources to invest in all the
> equipment needed to run full duplex. It is more than two cheap Chinese
> radios, it also involves an antenna, which at the very least it is almost
> double the cost of the two Chinese radios.
> >
> >Money that some of us have a hard time pulling together.
> >
> >I have a hard time with all the purest, my way or the highway mentality I
> am hearing.
> >
> >
> >
> >Just my 2 cents
> >
> >Jerry W4JWC
> >
> >
> >
> >-------- Original Message --------
> >Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Southern CA Satellite Presentations
> >From: Michael <Mat_62@xxxxxxx.xxx <mailto:Mat_62@xxxxxxx.xxx> >
> >Date: Mon, June 27, 2016 9:04 pm
> >To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx <mailto:amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
> >
> >I could care less whether you have ever uttered it or not in one of
> >your live presentations. It is printed in black and white in your
> handout.
> >You just quoted it yourself. The minute you typed that phrase and began
> >giving out handouts or telling people to print it out you became guilty
> >of spreading ignorance as far as satellite operation is concerned. You
> >are leading newbie sat operators down a path they should not be on. If
> >one does not have the means to hear their own signal coming back from
> >the bird so as to insure they are "making it there" then they should
> >not be on the satellites. End of story.
> >Michael, W4HIJ
> >On 6/26/2016 11:37 PM, Clint Bradford wrote:
> >>>> ... you would quit telling people that full duplex is "not mandatory"
> for working sats.
> >> You've never attended one of my sat sessions. I have never uttered
> >> the sentence to groups, "It is not mandatory to work full-duplex. -
> >> PERIOD." My standard mantra for the easy FM birds is all over the
> place:
> >>
> >> "Ideally, we should be working the satellites in full duplex mode,
> >> where we can simultaneously listen to the downlink as we are
> >> transmitting. Although this method is preferred, it is not mandatory:
> >> Carefully monitor the downlink, and wait for a break in the
> conversations to announce yourself."
> >>
> >> People you might be hearing stepping on others are not following those
> instructions.
> >>
> >> And all my audiences are very graphically shown and told the reasons
> >> why working full- duplex is preferable.
> >>
> >> I didn't work full-duplex when speaking with Commander Wiseman - who
> >> was aboard the ISS at the time during Field Day 2014.
> >>
> >> If you haven't already given a presentation to your club on working
> >> the easy birds, I am available. Just send me an email message.
> >>
> >> Clint Bradford K6LCS
> >> (909) 999-SATS
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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 11, Issue 211
*****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
