Posts by PA3FYM

Quote from HB9SKA

Edit: The FT-857D is not full-duplex capable, you need a 2nd receiver. Is this the "problem" ?

My definition of a 'problem' is an 'un- or suboptimal solved issue'. Because I have no 'issue' with transceive mode, I have no 'problem'. 😇

Yes, I had this from the beginning (12 Feb 2019) but nobody understood me

and I was 'crucified' for (suggesting) working 'simplex'. 😇

The small loop with marker 1 is the loop you want to try to get into the center of the Smith Chart.

Try to fiddle with the patch edges/corners and decrease, like G0MJW said, the sweep to 2.3 - 2.5 GHz.

Your results look nominal, but need some tweaking.

PA5CW Bought them in 2016 on 'the Jutberg flea market' to build my first Es'hail-2 transverter. (Because of that) Others bought them too and I haven't seen them ever since. I got a mail from somebody from Italy a long time ago about how to get the pallet running and mods for 2.4 GHz. So apparently they were available in Italy too . .

ON4CJQ It applies to the uplink facility. Remember, (not to you personally) you are working through a facility which is not yours.

So, the owner (Es'hailSat) decides which users he (it) accepts on his space vehicle.

It's the same as that you decide who enters your living room at home. Because it's your house.

There are no technicalities involved , it's the owner who decides, like you in your own house / living room.

The satellite operator, in this case Es'hailSat, has the right to define which or what kind of 'operation' they allow on their satellite(s). After all, the satellite is owned by Es'hailSat and not by us. For the QO-100 transponder Es'hailSat delegated governance to AMSAT-DL.

The reason why the satellite operator has this point of view is simple: reduce failure factors. QO-100 is aboard a commercial/professional space vehicle with other (paying!) users/customers with well defined service level agreements (SLA's).

Bear in mind that from a professional perspective it is 'odd' that a satellite operator allows 'non coordinated' users on/through their space vehicle!

Girls included !

Herewith I would like to congratulate and thank the AMSAT-DL team with the result of doubling the NB tpx bandwidth

and fulfilling the wish of a FSK CW beacon (with continuous carrier).

Thanks Peter, Mario, Jens and others for your efforts!

DK8KW and dg0opk FT8 works exactly the same are on e.g. the shortwave bands. If you can make FT8 QSO's there, you can make them via QO-100 as well. QO-100 does not know or does not react different that/when you are making FT8, it's all up to the uplinker (having a stable enough signal).

I reckon more than 1700 POTY's (kits) have been made. So there is potential activity enough. Furthermore there must be an RF incentive (i.e. make stuff for 2.4 GHz narrow band) to become active on the NB transponder. Making stuff for 2.4 GHz uplink seperates boys from men ; -)

I made FT8 QSO's with no issues. When you set your (Windows) time properly with rsNTP (google on it) and you're stable enough, and you have clear audio, it works flawlessly.

SP3OSJ Sorry to post this feedback here, but when I listen to your GPS stabilized RX (see YouTube movie) in relation with the beacon I hear unacceptable drift. It is not a steady tone and I hear too much phase noise (the tone is 'raw' and not clear).

DB2OS: it's less, but not completely gone here. Examples of the 'cracks' / glitches at 13.3 and 26.8 seconds in the following MP3-track

DF2HF: be sure that the braid of the semi rigid is well grounded! See points of interest below:

DB2OS: no, it was not the typical 'GSM sound' and the glitches/cracks are still there (just listened)

Just by accident I listened to the CW beacon on the Goonhilly WebSDR and seem(ed) to notice some short 'cracks' / ticks on the CW signal. These cracks/clicks are not related to the CW rhythm ('aka key clicks'). Also noticed this on the PSK-beacon.

To verify I listened with my own RX-setup and also heard these cracks/clicks. Sounds like there seems something (almost) 'loose' ...

<-- 'cracks'/clicks on the two long carriers

Edit: Don't seem to hear this with other signals.

oh2aue These frequencies are too close. I meant the 1200 MHz and (say) 1575 MHz range.

oh2aue Nice plots. Do you have an example/photo of these dual band patches? E.g. for GPS L1-L2, or Gal E1 - E5 ?

dj0abr or .. Obstler ; -)

G0MJW (I know that you know, but the picture was merely intended for other readers ; -)

Unlike science, the radio amateur community doesn't have a 'memory', so reinventing wheels and making 'new discoveries' is a 'mandatory part' of our hobby ; -)