[amsat-bb] Re: Observations From Norway.
archie.hackett at hotmail.com
Tue Jan 15 09:38:47 PST 2008
You said ...
<I don't see how it addresses anything specifically
<of interest to young people. Did I miss something?
I think you may have missed the point about being able to do something you 'couldn't' do on a computer with MSN or a mobile phone with SMS - (which seem to be the main tools of communication of the younger generation today).
Also ... I did specifically say ...
"I don't pretend to have all the answers ... however ... one possible solution is to attract more of the 'FM only' amateurs onto linear
satellites, to explore other means of communication so that they're not 'stuck'
with the boring 'single user' solution.
Further, I entitled the message - "SUGGESTION" - it wasn't meant as anything more than that.
BTW ... FM "bandwidth" isn't much of an issue if the transponder is
'empty' - (as I mentioned for the mid-morning passes). Excessive power is far more detremental.
73 John. <la2qaa at amsat.org>
> CC: eu-amsat at yahoogroups.com; amsat-bb at amsat.org
> From: mvandewettering at gmail.com
> To: la2qaa at amsat.org
> Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Observations From Norway.
> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:40:04 -0800
> On Jan 15, 2008, at 3:25 AM, John Hackett wrote:
> > OBSERVATIONS FROM NORWAY
> > LA2QAA
> > 14 January 2008
> > An experiment,
> > As many of us are aware, the average age of Hams is creeping up and
> > satellite
> > operators are no exception - we're heading faster toward
> > 'extinction' as opposed
> > to distinction.
> My own opinions on this matter fall somewhere between rosy optimism
> and dire
> pessimism. Amateur radio is certainly changing, but it would be a
> sad, sad thing
> if it were not. We should be concerned about the greying of our
> population, but
> we shouldn't panic about it. If we were really concerned about
> numbers, we'd
> remove licensing requirements entirely and find manufacturers to package
> radios to look like cell phones. That would help swell our numbers,
> but it wouldn't
> really be amateur radio any more.\
> > The much debated 'no code' exam - (to encourage more younger
> > amateurs) - has,
> > IMHO - had the complete opposite effect. With MSN and SMS why bother
> > with
> > Amateur Radio? ... the answer would be ... to do something you
> > *CAN'T* do on
> > your pet computer.
> Morse code should have been dropped long ago. While a fun mode (for
> at least), it occupied a special niche in the regulations which far
> exceeded any
> practical reason for its retention. On the other hand, the idea that
> Morse kept
> large numbers of young people _differentially_ from becoming hands is,
> I admit,
> rather absurd.
> > So what can be done to turn around the negative trend of this sad
> > state of
> > affairs?. I don't pretend to have all the answers ... however ...
> > One possible solution is to attract more of the 'FM only' amateurs
> > onto linear
> > satellites, to explore other means of communication so that they're
> > not 'stuck'
> > with the boring 'single user' solution.
> I must admit that I'm a little dismayed by the constant barrage of
> negative comments
> that people seem to heap on the FM sats in this forum. I've been
> having a blast
> operating QRP style with a Kenwood TH-D7A and my trusty Arrow. From my
> QTH in CM87, I've worked Hawaii, Socorros Island, Fairbanks, Manitoba,
> Carolina: it's been a blast. Yes, they are single user satellites,
> and they can
> be crowded, but I've also had to call CQ on AO-51 a couple of times in
> the past
> month (before it crashed, sigh) because nobody was on the bird.
> > The usual fly in the ointment excuse, here is ... "but I haven't
> > got any gear
> > capable of for example CW" ... which is of course an excuse that is
> > as weak as
> > 'hiss' with a capital P.
> > It is perfectly feasible to modulate an FM signal by switching on
> > and off the
> > carrier ... some people have used the PTT button to achieve this
> > but a more
> > elegant solution is to feed a controlled CW signal directly into the
> > microphone
> > input of an FM ... A.K.A. MCW modulation.
> > Ahh! ... anti-social behaviour you say, sending 'FM' on a linear
> > satellite - due
> > to the power budget, since FM is a 100% duty cycle mode ...
> > BUT !!! ... if one were to QRP by 25% as well as increase the aerial
> > efficiency
> > by 25% - (or any permutation giving the same results) - one would
> > *NOT* be
> > 'hogging' any more of the available transponder power than one
> > normally would on
> > a linear satellite.
> I must admit, that's a novel suggestion that I had not heard of
> before. But doesn't
> this idea hog more of the available *bandwidth* on the transponder?
> I'd think that
> would be considered rather anti-social as well. Is this kind of
> operation considered
> > Remember, the difference between a satellite signal at the horizon
> > and at TCA (
> > time of closest approach) - is quite dramatic ... (not that many
> > people bother
> > to regulate their power for ... "enough to do the job" ... or, as
> > Bill used to
> > say ... "Tis' vain to do with more, that which can be done with less".
> > ("Bill" = William of Occam 1347).
> > Regular users of AO-7 will be aware that while activity has
> > increased this last
> > 12 months in the afternoon and evening passes, the morning passes
> > are still for
> > all intents and purposes devoid of any signal at all.
> > The increased use of AO-7 is most likely due to a lack of other
> > 'linear'
> > satellites,
> Well, and the rather interesting "cool" factor of working on a 30+
> year old satellite.
> > VO-52's apparent lack of activity is most probably due to the low
> > orbit which results in an increased Doppler rate and smaller
> > footprint. AO-7
> > does provide for 6500km footprints on a daily basis.
> Which is another reason that it's pretty neat to work.
> > Due to above "waffling" ... I intend to conduct a few QRP FM
> > experiments on the
> > mode-B morning passes. If you happen to hear an AO-7 'woodpecker'
> > you might like
> > to try switching to FM for a moment to see if you can hear some CW.
> I'll have a listen.
> > As long as you keep your power low ... (LIMA - OSCAR - WHISKEY
> > folks) ... QRP
> > PLEASE ... you signal won't be any more detrimental than a CW or SSB
> > one. Of
> > course, you *WILL* have to take the bananas out of your ears and use
> > them as
> > they were intended ... to listen !!!!!.
> I'm curious though: you began this message with a cry that we need to
> get more young
> people involved in amateur radio, and this was apparently your
> suggestion. In what
> way do you think this suggestion accomplishes your goals? Yes, it
> allows people to
> work a different mode on a satellite that they may not be familiar
> with, but it isn't exactly
> the friendliest or even the most useful path to satellites, and I
> don't see how it
> addresses anything specifically of interest to young people. Did I
> miss something?
> > 73 John. <la2qaa at amsat.org>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the
> > author.
> > Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
> > program!
> > Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
More information about the AMSAT-BB