[amsat-bb] Modulation levels on AO-85
Matthew Stevens
matthew at mrstevens.net
Tue Aug 15 02:27:04 UTC 2017
I've had a few match even though I accidentally uploaded a "20m" SAT qso because my logger autofilled the band field incorrectly lol.
In the few cases I couldn't get a match because of some unknown hiccup in LOTW, I have just changed the qso time by a minute or two (so lotw recognized it as a different qso record), reuploaded and got a match.
Most of the satellite lotw info I've read online has mentioned several adif fields that don't seem to make a difference. In my experience, only the callsign,gh SAT mode, satellite name, time, and mode (FM, SSB etc) have to match. Ymmv.
73
- Matthew nj4y
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 14, 2017, at 21:42, Frank Westphal <k6fw1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> My experience with LOTW and SAT QSO's is the frequency does matter. I have had to fool my logging program to upload the uplink frequency to get a match on a rare occasion. N5JB's guide to LOTW and satellite QSO's says 7 items must match to get a satellite verification in LOTW. Only 5 items need to match for a non-satellite QSO.
>
> 73,
> Frank
> K6FW
>
>> On 8/14/17 6:30 PM, Paul Stoetzer wrote:
>> The convention in logging split band or mode QSOs is to use what band or mode you're transmitting on.
>>
>> That said, LoTW doesn't care about the frequencies if the propagation mode is set to 'SAT'
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Paul, N8HM
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Frank Westphal <k6fw1 at verizon.net <mailto:k6fw1 at verizon.net>> wrote:
>>
>> I use LOGIC 9 and it uploads the downlink frequency. I enter both
>> uplink and downlink frequencies into the logging program LOCIC 9. I receive lots of matches and that seems to be the accepted
>> convention. I know ARRL suggests uploading the uplink frequency
>> in their documentation. LOGIC 9 does not follow that
>> recommendation and from my experience most other sat operators are
>> not either.
>>
>> YMMV
>>
>> 73,
>> Frank
>> K6FW
>>
>>
>> On 8/14/17 10:27 AM, jerry.tuyls at telenet.be
>> <mailto:jerry.tuyls at telenet.be> wrote:
>>
>> Spending some time here by telling several times on AO-85
>> passes about bad modulation to the same stations, but they
>> DON'T listen.
>>
>> Just ignoring them, because i cannot understand them on my
>> TS-790/FT-847.No narrow FM and no PL tone. Never got a problem.
>>
>> And please...why do some stations upload logs with DWNlink
>> freq on sat qso's instead of the UPlink freq?
>> Always having some rejected qsl's because qso's don't match
>> due to wrong band. I log with VQlog, uplink and dwnlink freq
>> etc, so i think the TX-freq is most important for logging
>> sat'qso's and not the RX-freq?
>>
>> 73's
>>
>> Jerry,ON4CJQ
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
>> Van: "R.T.Liddy" <k8bl at ameritech.net <mailto:k8bl at ameritech.net>>
>> Aan: "Matthew Stevens" <matthew at mrstevens.net
>> <mailto:matthew at mrstevens.net>>, "Joe" <nss at mwt.net
>> <mailto:nss at mwt.net>>
>> Cc: "amsat-bb" <amsat-bb at amsat.org <mailto:amsat-bb at amsat.org>>
>> Verzonden: Maandag 14 augustus 2017 02:33:37
>> Onderwerp: Re: [amsat-bb] Modulation levels on AO-85
>>
>> "...food in the mic hole, etc."!!! LOL!!! - Bob K8BL
>> From: Matthew Stevens <matthew at mrstevens.net
>> <mailto:matthew at mrstevens.net>>
>> To: Joe <nss at mwt.net <mailto:nss at mwt.net>>
>> Cc: amsat-bb at amsat.org <mailto:amsat-bb at amsat.org>
>> Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2017 7:25 PM
>> Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Modulation levels on AO-85
>> Like Jerry said, its more an issue with mic gain or poor
>> mic technique than anything else.
>>
>> - Matthew nj4y
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Aug 13, 2017, at 19:18, Joe <nss at mwt.net
>> <mailto:nss at mwt.net>> wrote:
>>
>> Plus a LOT of people are running Narrow Modulation now.
>> Joe WB9SBD
>> Sig
>> The Original Rolling Ball Clock
>> Idle Tyme
>> Idle-Tyme.com
>> http://www.idle-tyme.com
>>
>> On 8/13/2017 6:14 PM, Jerry Buxton wrote:
>> 5 kHz is the nominal "wide" setting for ham radio
>> equipment on the
>> VHF/UHF bands. So a rig set to 5 kHz is what we all
>> usually expect.
>> 5 kHz deviation with 3 kHz audio (the usual top for
>> most voice) would be
>> about 16 kHz bandwidth. The deviation number alone is
>> not equal to
>> bandwidth. ("Carson's Rule")
>> Low audio is usually just that, not talking loud
>> enough, not talking
>> into the mic properly, mic gain setting too low, food
>> in the mic hole, etc.
>>
>> Jerry Buxton, NØJY
>>
>> On 8/13/2017 17:55, Ronald G. Parsons wrote:
>> I’ve noticed lately that many stations on AO-85
>> have barely audible modulation. Yet other stations
>> have clear audio with good quieting. I have heard
>> the some manufacturers of hand-held and mobile
>> rigs are setting their maximum deviation to 5 kHz
>> or even less. I have noticed the same effect on
>> local repeaters. Has anyone done any tests of the
>> deviation required for reasonable quieting on
>> AO-85? Or are more stations using lower power than
>> in the past?
>>
>> Ron W5RKN
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org
>> <mailto:AMSAT-BB at amsat.org>. AMSAT-NA makes this
>> open forum available
>> to all interested persons worldwide without
>> requiring membership. Opinions expressed
>> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect
>> the official views of AMSAT-NA.
>> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the
>> amateur satellite program!
>> Subscription settings:
>> http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>> <http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org
>> <mailto:AMSAT-BB at amsat.org>. AMSAT-NA makes this open
>> forum available
>> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring
>> membership. Opinions expressed
>> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the
>> official views of AMSAT-NA.
>> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the
>> amateur satellite program!
>> Subscription settings:
>> http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>> <http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org <mailto:AMSAT-BB at amsat.org>.
>> AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
>> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring
>> membership. Opinions expressed
>> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the
>> official views of AMSAT-NA.
>> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur
>> satellite program!
>> Subscription settings:
>> http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>> <http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org <mailto:AMSAT-BB at amsat.org>.
>> AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
>> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring
>> membership. Opinions expressed
>> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the
>> official views of AMSAT-NA.
>> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur
>> satellite program!
>> Subscription settings:
>> http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>> <http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb>
>>
>>
>>
>> | | Virus-free. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com> |
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org <mailto:AMSAT-BB at amsat.org>.
>> AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
>> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring
>> membership. Opinions expressed
>> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the
>> official views of AMSAT-NA.
>> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur
>> satellite program!
>> Subscription settings:
>> http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>> <http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org <mailto:AMSAT-BB at amsat.org>.
>> AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
>> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring
>> membership. Opinions expressed
>> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the
>> official views of AMSAT-NA.
>> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur
>> satellite program!
>> Subscription settings:
>> http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>> <http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org <mailto:AMSAT-BB at amsat.org>. AMSAT-NA
>> makes this open forum available
>> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership.
>> Opinions expressed
>> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official
>> views of AMSAT-NA.
>> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
>> program!
>> Subscription settings:
>> http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>> <http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed
> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
More information about the AMSAT-BB
mailing list