Posts by PA3FYM

Where do you use the ADF4350 for, to produce 404 MHz LO (432 - 28 MHz) ?

Yeah, depending on the settings the ADF can create harmonics and spurs which these prescalers don't understand. Bear in mind, at the time these prescalers were developed .... there were no ADF's ; -)

It's noise ... not 'QRM'. Noise.

OK, clear, I tried a MB506 (/64) with an ADF4351 but it didn't work. For the 1650.5 variant it took the 825.25 spur... too much hassle to filter it. I found another prescaler .. which works ... ; -)

Yes, 25.78 is bigger than 25 ;; -) But I think you don't mean that. In other words, what is your question?

SV1BDS You mean wobbling of frequency? If yes, no, it's rock stable here.

Curious about your SNR results for 430, 739 and 950 MHz IF.

Observation using the same LNB:

With my normal RX setup (LNB + 25 MHz GPS ref, IF = 739 MHz - 307 MHz = 432 MHz) I determine around 30 dB SNR of the CW-beacon.

Injecting 25.78... MHz, to produce an IF of 432 MHz directly, the SNR of the beacon decreases here with ca. 5 dB (around 25 dB SNR now)

Anyone else did this experiment with his setup (using the same LNB) and what were the results?

Note: I know the 432 MHz IF is way out of spec and different LNB's behave different

Indeed, it's the experiment that counts.

My experience with people who are stating something is illegal (or not allowed in their perception), is that these people are not (cap)able of carrying out these experiments themselves.

Experiments facilitate progress, shouting at progress is identical to whistling at the referee with biscuits in your mouth ; -)

It wasn't my intention to bring up this point again, downlink frequency is fine with me, that's where one is received and that is the frequency to be spotted on e.g. the DX-cluster.

My issue arose from 'Leagues' features in ClubLog, where I appear in a league in which I didn't participate (I think ...) ; -)

DL5RDI That's exactly why I asked October last year: "What is 'the frequency'?". In the SAT world it's the downlink (10489.xxx) in the QSL-world it's the uplink (2400.yyy) .. (?)

About logging: we live 30 years later, the world has changed and DL-regulation is not representative/leading.

My intention is/was merely to upload ADIF-contents which does not interfere with other perspectives. If I appear in ClubLog leagues with 72 DXCC worked on 13cm I feel uncomfortable, because I did not 'work' them on 13cm but through a bent pipe in the sky which outputs my signal on another frequency.

Anyway, perhaps I am splitting hairs ; -)

DH2VA No problem, I sometimes may sound sharp, but my mindset is flexible ; -) If the 'word' is DVB-S2, then it's DVB-S2 : -)

Bitte die Geschichte hier lesen, bevor die Satelliet lanziert wuerde, haette ich die Frage schon gestellt:

Sehe hier. Also DER (DIE? <-- Deutsch is nicht meine Muttersprache) Frequenz is die Ausgangsfrequenz.

So 'QSL-maBig' soll es die Empfangsfrequenz (10489.xxx) sein (?)

Clear explanation, but then the term 'DATV' , 'TV' , 'ATV' needs to be replaced with 'DVB-S2' (to name a suggestion). In the professional world (like SNG (satellite news gathering) several audio channels (digital, VoIP) are normal e.g. to have communication with the studio control room or camera men.

DB2OS Everything is possible but your own WB tpx operating rules speak explicitly about 'TV' (DATV, DVB-S2 + bandplan etc). TV has a visual component, i.e. its intention is to transmit pictures/movies etc where sound and/or data component are 'by-catches'. If we leave that perception all (WB) experiments -regardless of their mode of transmission- are 'allowed' on the WB tpx.

Why haven't I all these uncertainties/problems ?

No, don't think they count for 13cm -sec- DXCC ranking as they are not single band QSO's via tropo, or e.g. EME. They (may) count for 'satellite DXCC' (provided it are real 2-way contacts and one party does not use a WebSDR <-- which I cannot enforce b.t.w.). With other satellites it's also Fin is not Fout (e.g. 435 MHz in, 145 MHz out).

--- white paper --- / --- proposal ---

Yesterday I made some attempts to upload my QO-100 ADIF log to ClubLog. I followed the recommendations from here (<SAT_NAME:6>QO-100 <PROP_MODE:3>SAT <BAND:4>13CM etc), changed the RX frequencies in 10489.xxx. The log was accepted and processed. However, it was classified as 70cm log (because I use 432 MHz as simplex/transceive IF). After some digging it appeared that every ADIF log entry had a <BAND:4>70CM field.

Naively as I normally am (NOT ; -) I changed all the RX/TX fields with 3CM --heeding the convention postulated here as an answer to my question concerning 'What is THE frequency?' (I asked this question ~1 month before the satellite was launched because I envisaged difficulties)--- I could upload the log, but it was NOT processed. Apparently ClubLog's perspective is there is no life above 13cm ; -)

Changing all band fields to <BAND:4>13CM resulted in acceptance and processing of my log. Fine! one can say. But I feel very uncomfortable as I am now (highly) ranked in a world wide 13cm league for which the seemingly underlying philosophy is I made 2-way QSO's on a single band (as is the case with all other bands). In my case this is not true. So, the recommendations given on this forum, to have a QO-100 log accepted, are a 'work around' (or loop hole) to use (QSL / OQRS etc) facilities of ClubLog for QO-100.

My proposal is the following (and I am willing to pick up the glove to try to seduce/convince ClubLog):

1. add bands >13cm to the ClubLog database (I reckon EME'ers will agree ; -)

2. in the special case of QO-100 add a separate category (or 'band') 'QO-100' where ADIF FREQ can be anything, and FREQ_RX field is 10489.xxx Everyone knows/will know that 10489 is allocated to the IARU SAT coordination, so it'll not be mixed up with terrestrial work or EME.

3. because of 2) or <BAND:3>3CM is 'THE frequency' or <BAND:6>QO-100 to let your uploaded log fall into the proper ClubLog category.

What say?

Can we make a sked? I need that square : -)

dd9fj When you twist the contraption 45 degrees, is it possible to increase the dish-lens distance somewhat?

Understood, perfect. Note that perhaps using DEMA (double exponential moving average) may not be 'scientifically correct' (that algorithm has advantages and disadvantages) but it at least gives some additional discipline : -)