Posts by DH5DAX

Hallo Peter,

vielen Dank für die schnelle Antwort, ich muss hier aber doch nochmal nachhaken:

Quote from DB2OS

Konkret zu Deiner Frage:

Selbstverständlich wird sich AMSAT-DL selbst auch an diese Regeln halten. Der Aufbau einer solchen fernbedienten Remote-Station (§13AFuV) in Bochum ist nicht geplant.

vielleicht habe ich mich da missverständlich ausgedrückt, meine Frage war nicht ob sich die AMSAT-DL daran halten wird oder ob so ein Aufbau geplant ist, sondern ob die AMSAT-DL rein hypothetisch mit einer Clubstationsnutzung, insofern alle gesetzlichen Rahmenbedingungen eingehalten werden, einverstanden wäre - oder ob "wenn die Station dem Operator selbst gehört und an dessen eigenen Standort betrieben wird" tatsächlich so eng gefasst ist, dass sich die Aussage wirklich nur auf die Operator-eigene Station zuhause bezieht.

Also vielleicht nochmal ganz konkret formuliert:

Wenn ein Mitglied eines eingetragenen e.V. eine Rufzeichenzuteilung gemäß §13AFuV hätte und so eine Remote-Station am Clubstandort betreiben würde und die Mitglieder (remote) über QO-100 funken möchten, wäre die AMSAT-DL damit einverstanden?

Ich lese Deine vorige Antwort als "ja", möchte aber sicher gehen, dass ich hier keinen Interpretationsfehler mache.

vy 73,

Michael

Ich möchte hier keine Grundsatzdiskussion über die Rechtslage des Remote-Betriebs in Deutschland führen, denn diese ist durchaus noch sehr unklar und die BNetzA hat hierzu versprochen die entsprechenden Rahmenbedingungen zu schaffen.

Daher richtet sich meine Frage hier ganz klar an die Auffassung der AMSAT-DL:

Gilt "wenn die Station dem Operator selbst gehört und an dessen eigenem Standort betrieben wird" auch im Falle einer als e.V. gemeinschaftlich betriebenen Clubstation? Schliesslich ist ein Verein die Gemeinschaft seiner Mitglieder, somit gehört eine solche dann auch allen.

Konkret, wenn wir als Amsat-DL in Bochum eine Remote-Station bauen würden, die für Mitglieder nutzbar ist, wäre das von dieser Regelung abgedeckt?

Quote from dd9fj

Pluto with to low LO..

is LEILA a Pluto?

I noticed that when LEILA gets triggered on 10489.690, there is an image of LEILA at 10489.881.5 with almost 16dB SNR.

https://imgur.com/a/DD9qNmC

73,

Michael

Hallo Joachim,

Quote from DJ7WL

Sieht gut aus deine portable Antenne. Was ist das für eine Abdeckung für das Bamatech Feed? Ist das Bamatech Feed die Version mit dem LNB gleich dabei? Bei mir ist das auch die Version mit LNB. Da das Senden mit diesem Feed normal aussieht könnte mein Problem auch an dem LNB selbst liegen.

die Abdeckung ist eine Frischhaltedose aus dem Supermarkt, ich habe in den Deckel ein kreisrundes Loch geschnitten, Die Originaldichtung ist zusammen mit dem Reflektor zu dick, also habe ich sie weggelassen. Das ist so zwar nicht mehr ganz wasserdicht, aber erfüllt dennoch seinen Zweck ganz gut, es können sich keine Regentropfen zwischen Patch und Reflektor sammeln.

Ja, in die Richtung geht meine Vermutung auch, so stark aus dem Fokus kannst Du diese Version des Feeds ja garnicht montieren, dass der Empfang so schlecht wäre. Also tatsächlich mal den LNB prüfen.

vy 73,

Michael

I can provide a picture of the feed mounted to the dish, no problem.

Providing a picture of SDR Console with the feed is something that I'm not willing to do right now as it is cold and raining over here (it's my portable setup) so you'll have to trust me that it's only about 2dB down. I see an SNR of 40dB on the CW beacon with my POTY and 38dB with the Bamatech Feed+LNB.

We had only one QSO so far. I thank you very much and I'm looking forward to having more QSOs with you!

73, Michael

Quote from DJ7WL

i ask who has fitt a Bamatech Duofeed in the normal feed of a offset dish and is 100% happy with it.

I use the Bamatech Feed (including LNB) on my portable setup for it's small mechanical footprint.

It is about 2dB down on both tx and rx compared to my well-optimized POTY that I've been using and optimizing for a year at home.

Trying different lenses (or no lens at all) does make an impact, but not in the order of magnitude that you are observing, so there must be something fishy.

73, Michael

not being on the slow side either, here's my setup:

direct digital audio from vara modem into icom ic-9700

gps-locked homebrew upconverter with commercial class A PA

about 10 watts into 120cm with poty, but not 100% clear view to satellite, partially blocked by a wall and a balcony table

I tried as well and it seems to work very very nice!

09.10.2019 13:28:06 Connecting to IS0GRB... 1/2

09.10.2019 13:28:16 Connected to IS0GRB

09.10.2019 13:36:08 Disconnected TX: 111241 Bytes (Max: 3473 bps) RX: 127 Bytes (Max: 272 bps) Session Time: 07:52

----

** Messages sent: 1. Total bytes sent: 111113, Time: 07:46, bytes/minute: 14295

*** Messages Received: 0. Total bytes received: 0, Total session time: 07:46, bytes/minute: 0

*** Disconnecting

*** Disconnected from Winlink RMS: IS0GRB @ 2019/10/09 11:36:08

*** Session: 7.9 min; Avg Thruput: 14126 Bytes/min; 1 Min Peak Thruput: 14126 Bytes/min

I'll add a phrase I hear often and like very much:

"This is my first contact on the satellite"

Quote from G4IUG

Quote from DH5DAX Michael

He said "Because we are radio amateurs, not internet amateurs" did you miss that ?

so what exactly is your problem here? Is it the distance between operator and radio? Is it network technology? Or is it internet itself? Did you miss that we are an scientific radio service and not a historic preservation radio application?

So again, please let me know what your substantial problem with remote operations is - is it ony the term "internet"? Now imagine the very same technology used over hamnet with no internet involved. Is that still no ham radio?

Please, don't be emotional about technological topics. Thank you.

hehe I would take it happily as well, even if it doesn't fix my transmit problem, I'm really curious to see how well the software drift correction works

Quote from HB9SKA

OK I see it, but you have to fix/mount the "sunglasses", otherwise it falls to ground. I mean the "eyeglasses frame".

the fit is very snug on the octagon I used for experimenting, you have to force it on so it doesn't fall off even with some wind - I initially intended to make a 3d-printed adapter flange to fit around the lnb neck. that's what the three holes around the "nose dimple" were intended for. but as I already wrote, this was just one of my first dualband feed experiments which I have abandoned in favor of the G0MJW patch with waveguide feed. it is so convenient in many ways, the best I have tested so far.

now let's hope he can fix the pluto usb driver issues before the release

Quote from HB9SKA

And how do you mount this "sunglass" at the dish ? It's very interesting to operate with only 1 dish, also portable.

the same way you would mount sunglasses on your nose the dimple is 40mm so it snugly fits over a standard lnb

Quote from DD4YR

For a common focus of the array on a parabolic reflector I lack the physical justification, but I like to learn ... (stacking 4 LNB´s and gain rise up 6dB ? )

May I call you Schrödinger's Ham? You are right and wrong at the same time.

If we look at the near field, you are absolutely right, each helix of the array has it's own radiation lobe.

But if we look at the far field, the individual lobes of an array combine into a single lobe.

Getting far field conditions between the helices and the reflector isn't too hard at 13cm wavelength.

Your idea with stacking four lnbs may even work in theory, but in the real world the stacking distance in relation to the wavelength might be too big to form a properly phased array.

Have a look at this beautifully simulated example of a patch array: https://www.researchgate.net/p…h-antenna-array-in-3D.png

Let's do the math. For a two antenna array I assume transition from near to far field at 2*(stacking distance^2)/lambda. For 13cm wavelength and 8cm stacking distance, this would be less than 10cm from the antenne (2*(0,08*0,08)/0,13 =~ 0.098). For the same stacking distance at 3cm this would already be almost 43cm (2*(0,08*0,08)/0,03 =~ 0,426).

So if the distance between your "stacked LNBs" and the reflector is more than around 43cm, you should indeed observe stacking gain - but before you try, take into mind that you would need to phase the LNBs coherently with the same reference, otherwise phase difference would mingle with that gain.

But that's only for theory. I tried the 13cm version and it worked not too bad. Now you go try the 3cm version and I will happily doubt your results afterwards.

my dish has a calculated gain of 26dBic. The WiFi antenna is specified with 24dBi linear, so it would be equivalent to 21dBic. So calculated difference should be 5dB, measured difference is 6dB.

Quote from DD4YR

Is this constuction planned as a feed for a dish?

it was an experiment - the dimple is 40mm so it fits over the neck of a standard lnb