[amsat-bb] Modulation levels on AO-85

Adam Whitney awhitney42 at yahoo.com
Tue Aug 15 02:51:02 UTC 2017


K7TAB shared this link with me awhile back, which describes the fields/logic that LOTW purportedly uses to match: https://lotw.arrl.org/lotw-help/frequently-asked-questions/#datamatch

Adam, K0FFY

> On Aug 14, 2017, at 21:27, Matthew Stevens <matthew at mrstevens.net> wrote:
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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