[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] - [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: W9VNE input on transceiver question


I can work Europe on AO 7 and FO 29 . . . . mostly UK and the Benelux 
countries of ON and PA also F is pretty easy . . . CU3 too . . . I know 
there is an EA8 but have not yet worked him . . . I do not push DX because 
until the Germans or somebody else puts an HEO into orbit, working DXCC 
would be impossible . . .  unless I had a shot at DXCC I defer to the HF 
bands were I have worked them all . . . when DXCC becomes possible again on 
Satellites I will go after it then  . . . I am not not too optimistic . . . 
. not a lot of information flowing on the progress of an HEO . . . .

Thanks for your comments


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Lunday, WD4ELG" <mlunday@nc.rr.com>
To: "'Jim Danehy'" <jdanehy@cinci.rr.com>; <amsat-bb@amsat.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2008 9:09 PM
Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] W9VNE input on transceiver question

> Wow.  I wish I had asked this question on the AMSAT BB when I started back
> in April!  Great observations, Jim.  I am still a newbie, so this stuff
> helps me immensely.  And as we discussed 1/1 via email, my two FT817 and
> Arrow are going to be a challenge on the non-FM birds for me, but it would
> be boring if it were easy!
> What birds did you use to work Europe?
> Mark Lunday
> wd4elg@arrl.net
> http://wd4elg.net
> -----Original Message-----
> From: amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org] On
> Behalf Of Jim Danehy
> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2008 3:56 AM
> To: amsat-bb@amsat.org
> Subject: [amsat-bb] W9VNE input on transceiver question
> I was in a similar situation several months ago. I had a pair of M Square
> antennas along with the elevation rotor and a Ham M to turn the antennas.
> What to do for a rig. Well I bought a brand new Icom 910H. A great rig. I
> use SatPC32 software which interfaces to the Icom via Icom's interface
> accessory (plug and play). You forget about your doppler shift once set 
> up.
> I still control antennas manually with both rotors. The Icom 910H is a top
> of the line satellite transceiver. The only thing I would improve on it
> would be the RIT control. It only offers a 1 khz range but that is no big
> deal.
> It sounds like you are going to setup for the SSB satellites. They can
> become very lonely. AO7 is  used but by a handful of USA stations (you 
> will
> not work Europe from CO. It suffers from some stations using excessive 
> power
> and generating trash up and down the band too. FO 29 and VO 52  (both
> SSB/CW) also have a handful of operators.  No hashy trash because they are
> newer birds. AO7 is 34 years old and easy to trash it with hash if you use
> excessive power.
> If you live on the East Coast of the USA you could work Europe. QRZ.COM
> shows your location is in Colorado. Forget about working Europe. The FM
> satellites are very popular with AO 51 being the most popular. It suffers
> too from some poor operating at times. Most of the time it is OK. That 
> early
> evening pass can be bedlam. SO 50 is useful but not used very often 
> enough.
> It works well in my opinion. AO 16 is interesting but will be off the air
> very soon.
> The reason I mention all of the above  is because it impacts your 
> selection
> of a rig. If you want to work a lot of grid squares which many of us do, 
> the
> FM satellites are where the action is located. You do not need an Icom 
> 910H
> and the money it represents to work the FM satellites well. You can do 
> that
> with a HT (hand held). There are other dual band 440/144 FM rigs available
> for a fraction of the cost of an Icom 910H. The Kenwood TS2000 is a good 
> rig
> but it has a birdie on SO 50's downlink making it impossible to use that 
> FM
> satellite.
> There is a big difference, in my opinion between the FM and SSB/CW
> satellites. FM being used to its capacity on AO 51 and the SSB/CW birds
> suffering from inactivity. Just a fact of life. Some may disagree with 
> these
> observations. I was on the satellites back in the 1970s and  came back in
> August 2008. I have made QSOs with 15 countries and 200 Grids and 45 
> states
> in that time. I think my intense 3 months of operating provides me with
> enough observations to make these statements.
> I am often asked why not more activity on non-FM satellites. My answer has
> always been : 1) Doppler shift and 2) equipment. Unless you have software 
> to
> manage the doppler shift on 435 mhz  your signal will travel quickly 
> across
> the band. Some experienced ops can do it manually but they are pros.
> Equipment for SSB/CW is relatively (emphasis) scarce compared to FM only
> rigs. You do not need software to control Doppler shift on FM. . . . you 
> can
> control it in other ways.
> To choose a transceiver depends on how you want to spend your time. If you
> are preparing for the HEO (German venture) then go with the Icom 910H type
> rig. If you just want to get on the satellites for the satellite 
> experience
> you may find an FM only rig is more suited for you. Of course since you 
> are
> not currently on the satellites ( my inference ) you would not have the
> benefit of personal knowledge. I hope my observations are helpful.
> Selection of the gear depends on how you are going to use it. If you do 
> not
> know that there are really two different roads to currently travel you 
> could
> be wasting your money.
> Just my 2 cents and probably not worth even that amount of money.
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb

Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb