[amsat-bb] Re: This comment is INSANE...

[Tony Langdon]

At 09:07 AM 6/15/2007, Andrew Glasbrenner wrote:
>I'd like to add some comments and corrections to this thread. I certainly
>would
>have prefered that the League recommend using the least power required,
>same as outlined in the FCC regulations. Recommending excessive
>power only escalates the very problem we are trying to avoid, whether Field
>Day or not. AMSAT discontinued use of the 67 Hz tone on AO-51 for similar
>reasons.

Agreed, and it would just encourage bad habits at any time.

>I also would have preferred that the ARRL would make a point of recommending
>full duplex for ALL satellite operating, not just the transponder birds. The
>article

Again, I agree.  I've operated both half and full duplex on FM, and 
quite frankly, there's no comparison.  An attentive operator can 
tweak their signal (especially if hand pointing the beam), and they 
can also take steps to lessen QRM.  I've been able to back off and 
let someone go, because I heard the heterodyne, and by unkeying, it 
gave the other operator enough S/N to complete a QSO.  Don't 
underestimate the value of full duplex, even on FM.

>also recommended only tuning the downlink for both FO-29 and VO-52. For
>VO-52 and Mode U/V this is contrary to recommended practice and the least
>efficient means of doppler tuning in terms of bandwith usage and courtesy to
>other operators. If a station cannot implement full doppler tuning, it is
>always recommended they tune the higher of the two frequencies.

Agreed.

>I'd be glad to help avoid these mistakes for future articles on satellite
>operations.

I haven't seen the article in question, but it appears to have many 
serious mistakes in it, from what you're saying. :-(  I know if I was 
a newcomer to satellites and read that, I'd have got the wrong 
impression.  Those writing articles should be much more careful.

73 de VK3JED
http://vkradio.com