[amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs. Kenwood TS2000
Not trashing the 2000, but when it first came out I sold a TS-450 and an Icom 910 thinking that "one box" would be great. So, I purchased the 2000. Well, within one year, I sold the 2000 and bought a TS-870 for HF work and another IC-910. I could have lived with it as an HF radio and a UHF/VHF repeater radio. The "birdies" drove me crazy on certain sat frequencies. Not sure if that was ever fixed? It had more bells and whistles such as adding the sats name to the menu etc, but I thought the 910's receive capabilities were second to none for weak signal work. I still love my second IC-910! Still have the TS-870 too. Of course, all is one man's opinion. This could become the "great debate" thread. hi hi good luck, Greg N3MVF -Original Message- From: amsat-bb-boun...@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-boun...@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Tom Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 8:02 AM To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Subject: [amsat-bb] Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000 I plan to purchase a new home transceiver in the next few months and I've narrowed my choices between a 910H and a TS2000. Thinking only of satellite operation (ignoring the HF capability of the TS2000), is there a general preference in the Amsat community of one over the other? Reasons? Thanks for your opinions. Tom, KØTW ___ Sent via amsat...@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 ___ Sent via amsat...@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
[amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs. Kenwood TS2000
I love the 910H - Original Message - From: "Greg Dober" To: Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 11:20 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs. Kenwood TS2000 Not trashing the 2000, but when it first came out I sold a TS-450 and an Icom 910 thinking that "one box" would be great. So, I purchased the 2000. Well, within one year, I sold the 2000 and bought a TS-870 for HF work and another IC-910. I could have lived with it as an HF radio and a UHF/VHF repeater radio. The "birdies" drove me crazy on certain sat frequencies. Not sure if that was ever fixed? It had more bells and whistles such as adding the sats name to the menu etc, but I thought the 910's receive capabilities were second to none for weak signal work. I still love my second IC-910! Still have the TS-870 too. Of course, all is one man's opinion. This could become the "great debate" thread. hi hi good luck, Greg N3MVF -Original Message- From: amsat-bb-boun...@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-boun...@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Tom Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 8:02 AM To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Subject: [amsat-bb] Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000 I plan to purchase a new home transceiver in the next few months and I've narrowed my choices between a 910H and a TS2000. Thinking only of satellite operation (ignoring the HF capability of the TS2000), is there a general preference in the Amsat community of one over the other? Reasons? Thanks for your opinions. Tom, KØTW ___ Sent via amsat...@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 ___ Sent via amsat...@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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.426 / Virus Database: 270.14.87/2535 - Release Date: 11/29/09 19:31:00 ___ Sent via amsat...@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
[amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
Although I have owned Kenwood equipment (and still have the TS711/811 pair) I purchased an Icom IC-910 and have been very happy with it. I have a few friends with the TS2000 and although it is a nice rig, I found the IC-910 to be more sensitive to weak signals related to satellites and have at times received the signals without using my preamp. The TS2000 also have some birdies in the satellite frequencies that can be annoying and this problem has not nor do they plan on fixing. If you do not have a rig yet and wish a unit that covers HF/VHF/UHF than this may be the unit. Frankly, I don't like having all my eggs in one basket in the event the rig fails, you lose it all. You can get other rigs cheaper that cover HF/VHF/UHF that are not satellite rigs at affordable prices and still get the Icom IC-910 which is what I did. Also, if you want to add 1.2Ghz it is less than a 5 minute project on the IC-910. The TS2000 is a bit more time consuming and difficult. Just my two cents. Reid, W4UPD Tom wrote: > I plan to purchase a new home transceiver in the next few months and I've > narrowed my choices between a 910H and a TS2000. Thinking only of satellite > operation (ignoring the HF capability of the TS2000), is there a general > preference in the Amsat community of one over the other? Reasons? > > Thanks for your opinions. > Tom, KØTW > > > ___ Sent via amsat...@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
[amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs. Kenwood TS2000
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Greg Dober wrote: > Not trashing the 2000, but when it first came out I sold a TS-450 and an > Icom 910 thinking that "one box" would be great. So, I purchased the 2000. > Well, within one year, I sold the 2000 and bought a TS-870 for HF work and > another IC-910. I could have lived with it as an HF radio and a UHF/VHF > repeater radio. The "birdies" drove me crazy on certain sat frequencies. > Not sure if that was ever fixed? It had more bells and whistles such as > adding the sats name to the menu etc, but I thought the 910's receive > capabilities were second to none for weak signal work. I still love my > second IC-910! Still have the TS-870 too. > > Of course, all is one man's opinion. This could become the "great debate" > thread. hi hi I own a TS-2000. I have tried just about every solution for the birdies, and have found none that works well. Thus you have to be willing to lose SO-50 and AO-27 with this radio. Further draw-backs for this rig and satellite work is that the lowest adjustable power is 5w. I plan to install longish antennas in the near future, and with them my transmit power will be, in many cases, excessive no matter how low I set the TS-2000. I haven't used an IC-910, but I understand it has an excellent reputation. I note that 5w is the minimum power for it also, but other ICOM radios have an internal pot that allows you to adjust this low point. Does the IC-910 as well? If price is a consideration, note that the ICOM rig will require the purchase of additional filters, whereas the TS-2000 has fully-adjustable filters in place. I very much like this feature. I am very happy with my TS-2000 as an all-in-one rig, but if I could own two rigs, judging by the comments here and elsewhere I would probably get a IC-910 (or a software defined radio with transverters!). 73, Bruce VE9QRP > > -Original Message- > From: amsat-bb-boun...@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-boun...@amsat.org] On > Behalf Of Tom > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 8:02 AM > To: amsat-bb@amsat.org > Subject: [amsat-bb] Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000 > > I plan to purchase a new home transceiver in the next few months and I've > narrowed my choices between a 910H and a TS2000. Thinking only of satellite > operation (ignoring the HF capability of the TS2000), is there a general > preference in the Amsat community of one over the other? Reasons? > > Thanks for your opinions. > Tom, KØTW > > ___ > Sent via amsat...@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 > > > ___ > Sent via amsat...@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 > -- http://ve9qrp.blogspot.com ___ Sent via amsat...@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
[amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs. Kenwood TS2000
I own them both and love them both. I discovered the birdies in the TS2000 and that was real disappointment. For sat use, I would go with the 910 if you can. Mike McConnell W0PD Horizon City, TX Mike McConnell, Ph.D. W0PD w...@elp.rr.com AMSAT #36792 ARRL#0001168388 ___ Sent via amsat...@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
[amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs. Kenwood TS2000
With watt/swr meter in-line I have found my IC-910 to actually go down to as low as 1 - 2 watts. It have used it in a QRP mode at this level many times. I know that the brochure states 5 watts for 2/70cm and 1 watt for 1.2ghz, but found it to actually go lower, but still go to full power as advertised. Reid, W4UPD Bruce Robertson wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Greg Dober wrote: > >> Not trashing the 2000, but when it first came out I sold a TS-450 and an >> Icom 910 thinking that "one box" would be great. So, I purchased the 2000. >> Well, within one year, I sold the 2000 and bought a TS-870 for HF work and >> another IC-910. I could have lived with it as an HF radio and a UHF/VHF >> repeater radio. The "birdies" drove me crazy on certain sat frequencies. >> Not sure if that was ever fixed? It had more bells and whistles such as >> adding the sats name to the menu etc, but I thought the 910's receive >> capabilities were second to none for weak signal work. I still love my >> second IC-910! Still have the TS-870 too. >> >> Of course, all is one man's opinion. This could become the "great debate" >> thread. hi hi >> > > I own a TS-2000. I have tried just about every solution for the > birdies, and have found none that works well. Thus you have to be > willing to lose SO-50 and AO-27 with this radio. Further draw-backs > for this rig and satellite work is that the lowest adjustable power is > 5w. I plan to install longish antennas in the near future, and with > them my transmit power will be, in many cases, excessive no matter how > low I set the TS-2000. > > I haven't used an IC-910, but I understand it has an excellent > reputation. I note that 5w is the minimum power for it also, but other > ICOM radios have an internal pot that allows you to adjust this low > point. Does the IC-910 as well? If price is a consideration, note that > the ICOM rig will require the purchase of additional filters, whereas > the TS-2000 has fully-adjustable filters in place. I very much like > this feature. > > I am very happy with my TS-2000 as an all-in-one rig, but if I could > own two rigs, judging by the comments here and elsewhere I would > probably get a IC-910 (or a software defined radio with > transverters!). > > 73, Bruce > VE9QRP > > >> -Original Message- >> From: amsat-bb-boun...@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-boun...@amsat.org] On >> Behalf Of Tom >> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 8:02 AM >> To: amsat-bb@amsat.org >> Subject: [amsat-bb] Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000 >> >> I plan to purchase a new home transceiver in the next few months and I've >> narrowed my choices between a 910H and a TS2000. Thinking only of satellite >> operation (ignoring the HF capability of the TS2000), is there a general >> preference in the Amsat community of one over the other? Reasons? >> >> Thanks for your opinions. >> Tom, KØTW >> >> ___ Sent via amsat...@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
[amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
Hi Tom, I own a TS-2000X and thanks to the AMSAT Symposium :) an IC-910. I do more digital than voice, so my perspective is biased in that direction. Here are some of my thoughts: The CAT control of the TS-2000X is amazing. All menu options are available remotely via CAT. No so with the 910. The TS-2000X allows adjustments of modem/TNC levels in/out of the rig, 910 does not. The TS-2000X has built-in TXCO and DSP, 910 does not (yes, they are expen$ive options). The TS-2000X lets you work mode A, 910 does not. The TS-2000X gives me the full rated power output on both 2M and 70cm, the 910 does not (same antennas, feedlines, etc.)---does anybody have the solution to this? Even with flat SWR the 910 cuts back output to about 70-75W on 2M and 40-50W on 70cm!! Bummer The 910 receiver is much better on 2M than my TS-2000X, which is actually pretty deaf on 2M(even after doing the "resistor mod" to improve receive). The 910 does not have the AO-27/SO-50 birdy, while the TS-2000X does--this is my single biggest disappointment with this radio Tuning the TS-2000X "off frequency" by 5-7kHz above and below the real frequency helps a bit, but it's still a pain. In spite of the short comings of the TS-2000X, I don't think I'd trade it even up for an IC-910H with a the 1.2 gig module installed... 73, Mark N8MH > Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:02:24 -0700 > From: "Tom" > Subject: [amsat-bb] Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000 > To: > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > I plan to purchase a new home transceiver in the next few months and I've > narrowed my choices between a 910H and a TS2000. Thinking only of satellite > operation (ignoring the HF capability of the TS2000), is there a general > preference in the Amsat community of one over the other? Reasons? > > Thanks for your opinions. > Tom, K?TW ___ Sent via amsat...@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
[amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
Sorry to hear about your power output problems on your IC-910. I do not have that problem. It requires an SWR of over 1.5:1 before I start seeing it degrade in output power. I have almost 100 watts (stays around 98 watts output) for the entire 2 meter band until the swr goes above 1.5:1. 70 cm is the same. I have at least 75 watts out on 70 cm even running it into a 2 meter ground plane or MFJ discone. However, the 2 meter ground plane is very narrow for use on 70 cm and only allows reasonable swr on the satellite frequencies. I find that a simple 70 cm 30 degree sloper ground plane gives me better band width and of course works better on the satellites than the 2 meter. The two meter is only being used due to my sloper being rebuilt right now. I agree on the comments you made about the TS2000, but have definitely found the the TS2000 lacking in it "hearing" sensitivity. For a complete "DC to light" rig, the Kenwood is great, but like some of the other features about the IC-910 and already have many HF (dc to light ) rigs such as an Omni VI Ten Tec, Yaesu FT-817 and FT-857 and another hf/vhf/uhf rig was not necessary. I find that my preference is the IC-910 due to the comments I have made. I know of many who really like the TS-2000. As I stated before I have the Kenwood TS711/811 which have been super units, but no longer supported by the new software now available. Reid, W4UPD Reid, W4UPD Mark L. Hammond wrote: > Hi Tom, > > I own a TS-2000X and thanks to the AMSAT Symposium :) an IC-910. I > do more digital than voice, so my perspective is biased in that > direction. > > Here are some of my thoughts: > > The CAT control of the TS-2000X is amazing. All menu options are > available remotely via CAT. No so with the 910. > > The TS-2000X allows adjustments of modem/TNC levels in/out of the rig, > 910 does not. > > The TS-2000X has built-in TXCO and DSP, 910 does not (yes, they are > expen$ive options). > > The TS-2000X lets you work mode A, 910 does not. > > The TS-2000X gives me the full rated power output on both 2M and 70cm, > the 910 does not (same antennas, feedlines, etc.)---does anybody have > the solution to this? Even with flat SWR the 910 cuts back output to > about 70-75W on 2M and 40-50W on 70cm!! Bummer > > The 910 receiver is much better on 2M than my TS-2000X, which is > actually pretty deaf on 2M(even after doing the "resistor mod" to > improve receive). > > The 910 does not have the AO-27/SO-50 birdy, while the TS-2000X > does--this is my single biggest disappointment with this radio > Tuning the TS-2000X "off frequency" by 5-7kHz above and below the real > frequency helps a bit, but it's still a pain. > > In spite of the short comings of the TS-2000X, I don't think I'd trade > it even up for an IC-910H with a the 1.2 gig module installed... > > 73, > > Mark N8MH > > >> Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:02:24 -0700 >> From: "Tom" >> Subject: [amsat-bb] Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000 >> To: >> Message-ID: >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> I plan to purchase a new home transceiver in the next few months and I've >> narrowed my choices between a 910H and a TS2000. Thinking only of satellite >> operation (ignoring the HF capability of the TS2000), is there a general >> preference in the Amsat community of one over the other? Reasons? >> >> Thanks for your opinions. >> Tom, K?TW >> > ___ Sent via amsat...@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
[amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
At 11:30 AM 11/30/2009 -0500, "Mark L. Hammond" wrote: >Hi Tom, > >I own a TS-2000X and thanks to the AMSAT Symposium :) an IC-910. I >do more digital than voice, so my perspective is biased in that >direction. > >Here are some of my thoughts: > >The CAT control of the TS-2000X is amazing. All menu options are >available remotely via CAT. No so with the 910. > >The TS-2000X allows adjustments of modem/TNC levels in/out of the rig, >910 does not. > >The TS-2000X has built-in TXCO and DSP, 910 does not (yes, they are >expen$ive options). > >The TS-2000X lets you work mode A, 910 does not. > >The TS-2000X gives me the full rated power output on both 2M and 70cm, >the 910 does not (same antennas, feedlines, etc.)---does anybody have >the solution to this? Even with flat SWR the 910 cuts back output to >about 70-75W on 2M and 40-50W on 70cm!! Bummer > >The 910 receiver is much better on 2M than my TS-2000X, which is >actually pretty deaf on 2M(even after doing the "resistor mod" to >improve receive). > >The 910 does not have the AO-27/SO-50 birdy, while the TS-2000X >does--this is my single biggest disappointment with this radio >Tuning the TS-2000X "off frequency" by 5-7kHz above and below the real >frequency helps a bit, but it's still a pain. > >In spite of the short comings of the TS-2000X, I don't think I'd trade >it even up for an IC-910H with a the 1.2 gig module installed... > >73, > >Mark N8MH Mark, Didn't you have a kenwood TS-790 too? I use the TS-790, and a TS-440s HF rig and wondered how the receivers in the TS-2000 compare to the receivers in the TS-790 on 2m and 70cm. I wonder if people like its HF performance, I would be using it on HF in place of my 22 year old TS-440. KB7ADL ___ Sent via amsat...@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
[amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
I am not a TS-2000 user, but since it is a satellite rig, I tend to pay some attention when I see it discussed. There are several mods to improve RX sensitivity. Kenwood did make some fixes in later production runs of the rig which are reported to make a significant difference. You can go to the www.mods.dk web site for several user mods in this area. Being a Yaesu user, pending the acquisition of a Flex-5k, I don't have any first hand experience with any of them. Alan WA4SCA ___ Sent via amsat...@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
[amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
Thanks, Alan. I've done the "tack solder a resistor to change the bias" mod to both the 2M and 70cm receivers. It helped, but it's still not very good on 2M. On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Alan P. Biddle wrote: > I am not a TS-2000 user, but since it is a satellite rig, I tend to pay some > attention when I see it discussed. There are several mods to improve RX > sensitivity. Kenwood did make some fixes in later production runs of the > rig which are reported to make a significant difference. You can go to the > www.mods.dk web site for several user mods in this area. > > Being a Yaesu user, pending the acquisition of a Flex-5k, I don't have any > first hand experience with any of them. > > Alan > WA4SCA > > > > > -- Mark L. Hammond [N8MH] ___ Sent via amsat...@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
[amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
Hi Vince, Yes, I still have a TS-790A (actually two, a "good" one and a "parts puppy"). I would rate the 70cm receivers as about the same, but the 2M receiver on the TS-790A is better than my particular TS-2000x. It's more HF radio than I need, since I do so very little of it... 73, Mark N8MH On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL wrote: > At 11:30 AM 11/30/2009 -0500, "Mark L. Hammond" > wrote: >> >> Hi Tom, >> >> I own a TS-2000X and thanks to the AMSAT Symposium :) an IC-910. I >> do more digital than voice, so my perspective is biased in that >> direction. >> >> Here are some of my thoughts: >> >> The CAT control of the TS-2000X is amazing. All menu options are >> available remotely via CAT. No so with the 910. >> >> The TS-2000X allows adjustments of modem/TNC levels in/out of the rig, >> 910 does not. >> >> The TS-2000X has built-in TXCO and DSP, 910 does not (yes, they are >> expen$ive options). >> >> The TS-2000X lets you work mode A, 910 does not. >> >> The TS-2000X gives me the full rated power output on both 2M and 70cm, >> the 910 does not (same antennas, feedlines, etc.)---does anybody have >> the solution to this? Even with flat SWR the 910 cuts back output to >> about 70-75W on 2M and 40-50W on 70cm!! Bummer >> >> The 910 receiver is much better on 2M than my TS-2000X, which is >> actually pretty deaf on 2M(even after doing the "resistor mod" to >> improve receive). >> >> The 910 does not have the AO-27/SO-50 birdy, while the TS-2000X >> does--this is my single biggest disappointment with this radio >> Tuning the TS-2000X "off frequency" by 5-7kHz above and below the real >> frequency helps a bit, but it's still a pain. >> >> In spite of the short comings of the TS-2000X, I don't think I'd trade >> it even up for an IC-910H with a the 1.2 gig module installed... >> >> 73, >> >> Mark N8MH > > > Mark, > > Didn't you have a kenwood TS-790 too? I use the TS-790, and a TS-440s HF > rig and wondered how the receivers in the TS-2000 compare to the receivers > in the TS-790 on 2m and 70cm. I wonder if people like its HF performance, I > would be using it on HF in place of my 22 year old TS-440. > > KB7ADL > > -- Mark L. Hammond [N8MH] ___ Sent via amsat...@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
[amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
The IC-910H is officially discontinued by Icom. It's being replaced by the IC-9100 which is a "dc to light" "all-in-one" box like the TS-2000. The IC-9100 isn't yet available in the US - still awaiting FCC approval. According to Icom, the IC-9100 is a combination of the 746Pro (also discontinued) and the 910H. No pricing yet either, but I wouldn't be surprised if it comes out substantially more expensive that the TS-2000. Icom plans to debut the IC-9100 at next years Dayton Hamvention. If it's significantly more expensive than the TS-2000, I'll buy the Kenwood rig. Jeff Moore -- KE7ACY - Original Message - From: "Tom" I plan to purchase a new home transceiver in the next few months and I've narrowed my choices between a 910H and a TS2000. Thinking only of satellite operation (ignoring the HF capability of the TS2000), is there a general preference in the Amsat community of one over the other? Reasons? Thanks for your opinions. Tom, KØTW ___ Sent via amsat...@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
[amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
Thanks for all of the great information. Since both the TS2000 and IC910H have been around a while I believe that most of their 'problems' have been at least discovered. So, in that respect, I'm leaning away from the "still to be debugged" IC-9100. Also new rigs always are priced high in the beginning of their life, as we all know. I know that some of the ham dealers are offering "Closeout" prices on the 910H but I didn't see much difference from previous pricing. Not to prolong this thread but Jerry's append (below) brings up another question. How much antenna is "too much" for satellite operation. Someone earlier mentioned that an 11 element yagi might have a beam width too narrow to closely follow an LEO bird. I had planned on using yagis with 13 elements on 2M and 18 els on 70cm. Is that a bad plan? Thanks again. Tom, KØTW > Hi; I have owned the Ft-736 R and the Ft-847, which I am using now. >No matter which rig you decide to buy the most important thing > is the antenna system. >I use KLM,s with switchers and pre amps. > I switch my pre amps off and on from the shack. > My 847 has a pre amp built in too. > Nothing is better than MAST MOUNTED PRE AMPS THOUGH. >If my 847 goes bad I will replace it with another used 847. > I also work a lot of HF too. > I run barefoot on HF all the time. >I also get through all the pile ups because I have a good > antenna >with gain. > Through the years I have made over 15,000 satellite > contacts alone. > 73,s Jerry w0sat ___ Sent via amsat...@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
[amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
You know you have t much antenna when your neighbor's lights dim when you change AZ or EL. Stan, W1LE Tom wrote: > Thanks for all of the great information. Since both the TS2000 and IC910H > ___ Sent via amsat...@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
[amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
Tom, That is the old standard for satellite operation when we had MEO and HEO sats to work. Since I have my old antennas that is what I am putting up: 145: 7-element M2 yagi, mgf-1302 preamp, TR relay at tower, 50w FT-847 (about 20w max at antenna). The KLM-22C will replace this antenna once I have re-assembled. 435: M2-436CP42, 50w PA at tower, mgf-1302 preamp, with TR relay to support either mode-B or J 1268: 45-element loop-yagi, 15w Tx converter (DEMI 1268/144) (drives with 2w on 144) 2400: 33-inch dish, helix feed, MK232 LNA, two Drake converters (123 & 435 IF's) Since these are all narrow beamwidth antennas auto-tracking is desirable. I am using the B5400 az-el rotator with Unitrac-2000, SATPC32 I have all the antennasand the 1268 unit mounted . Dish is next then we swing it all up into place and install the outdoor box with 12v PS and electronics: http://www.kl7uw.com/sat.htm 73, Ed - KL7UW At 10:38 AM 11/30/2009, Tom wrote: >Thanks for all of the great information. Since both the TS2000 and IC910H >have been around a while I believe that most of their 'problems' have been >at least discovered. So, in that respect, I'm leaning away from the "still >to be debugged" IC-9100. Also new rigs always are priced high in the >beginning of their life, as we all know. I know that some of the ham dealers >are offering "Closeout" prices on the 910H but I didn't see much difference >from previous pricing. > >Not to prolong this thread but Jerry's append (below) brings up another >question. How much antenna is "too much" for satellite operation. Someone >earlier mentioned that an 11 element yagi might have a beam width too narrow >to closely follow an LEO bird. I had planned on using yagis with 13 elements >on 2M and 18 els on 70cm. Is that a bad plan? > >Thanks again. >Tom, KØTW > > > Hi; I have owned the Ft-736 R and the Ft-847, which I am using now. > >No matter which rig you decide to buy the most important thing > > is the antenna system. > >I use KLM,s with switchers and pre amps. > > I switch my pre amps off and on from the shack. > > My 847 has a pre amp built in too. > > Nothing is better than MAST MOUNTED PRE AMPS THOUGH. > >If my 847 goes bad I will replace it with another used 847. > > I also work a lot of HF too. > > I run barefoot on HF all the time. > >I also get through all the pile ups because I have a good > > antenna > >with gain. > > Through the years I have made over 15,000 satellite > > contacts alone. > > 73,s Jerry w0sat > > >___ >Sent via amsat...@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 73, Ed - KL7UW, WD2XSH/45 == BP40IQ 500 KHz - 10-GHz www.kl7uw.com 500-KHz/CW, 144-MHz EME, 1296-MHz EME DUBUS Magazine USA Rep dubus...@hotmail.com == ___ Sent via amsat...@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
[amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
I have owned a couple of TS2000s in the past and have been hearing this "deaf on VHF/UHF" comment before and don't know where it comes from. I have used a TS2000 with no problems on the sats, for tropo, and meteor scatter, and it hears just fine on 2m and 70cm with the internal preamp. The QST review of the radios support this. It measures the MDS on 2m at -141dbm for the TS2000 and -142dbm for the 910H. Not sure that you could hear that 1 DB difference. There is a bit more difference on FM in favor of the 910H. Like another person stated, you can catch the end of the AO27 and SO50 pass with the TS2000 when the downlink moves away from the birdie. I also heard that an external mast mounted preamp will put the sats signal above the birdie. ALso, given the prices for each one, the 910 probably becomes as expensive if not more expensive once you add a CW filter, TXCO, and DSP board, so it is similarly equipped as the TS2000, and the AF DSP in the Icom radios (706, 718, etc) isn't very impressive. Plus with the TS2000 you get 6m, which makes it a great VHF/UHF weak signal and contesting rig, and as a back up or primary HF rig. The crossband repeat feature is neat also, where you can work HF or 6m using an HT. 73s John AA5JG --- On Mon, 11/30/09, Perry Yantis wrote: > From: Perry Yantis > Subject: [amsat-bb] Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000 > To: amsat-bb@amsat.org > Date: Monday, November 30, 2009, 11:29 AM > > I am always amazed when I hear someone say the TS 2000 does > not have a > good receiver, mine is great!!! > > The TS 2000x I have hears all satellites very well. > > Remember there is an internal preamp on the TS2000. > > On hf it just seems to amplify the noise level so I leave > it off. > > But I leave it turned on all the time on vhf, uhf and it > automatically > comes on when you turn on 1.2. > > The last time I used an external preamp was on the KLM Echo > 2 back in > the 70's. > > > Since then I have used a Kenwood TS700, TS790, and now the > TS2000x. > > The TS2000x receives (with the internal preamp on for vhf, > uhf) about > the same as my old TS790 did (it did not have an internal > preamp). > > With M2 antennas, computer tracking and tuning, low loss > cable, and > cable lengths between 50-70 ft I have never had a problem > receiving > any amateur radio sats. > > Perry WB8OTH > > > ___ > Sent via amsat...@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 > ___ Sent via amsat...@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
[amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
Hi tom, I also have reasonably late production models of both the TS-2000x and the IC-910. I have two independent Az/El tracking arrays so I am able to compare the two rigs side by side on any given pass. I can not detect any difference in sensitivity between the two on either band. The TS-2000 has an advantage under marginal conditions because of the DSP. I presume the IC-910 would do as well if the DSP was added. Apart from the points listed below the 2000 has a +/- 10kHz RIT range against the +/- 1kHz on the 910. Useful where stations dont have Doppler correction - I run out of range on the 910. Also from my point of view the 2000 has a full range of DTMF tones and tone memories which I use on a daily basis. For me however the CAT control is by far the deciding factor. The only front panel control I use is the Power On. Everything else happens when I select a satellite on my display. The 910 is much more limited in this respect. The 438MHz birdie is a nuisance but as we do not have AO-27 in this part of the world and I can work AO-07 mode A on the 2000 it is swings and roundabouts. Both great satellite rigs so in the end I guess it comes down to a decision based on your particular type of operation. 73 Alan ZL2BX -Original Message- From: amsat-bb-boun...@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-boun...@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Mark L. Hammond Sent: Monday, 30 November 2009 16:30 To: amsat-bb@amsat.org; k...@cox.net Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000 Hi Tom, I own a TS-2000X and thanks to the AMSAT Symposium :) an IC-910. I do more digital than voice, so my perspective is biased in that direction. Here are some of my thoughts: The CAT control of the TS-2000X is amazing. All menu options are available remotely via CAT. No so with the 910. The TS-2000X allows adjustments of modem/TNC levels in/out of the rig, 910 does not. The TS-2000X has built-in TXCO and DSP, 910 does not (yes, they are expen$ive options). The TS-2000X lets you work mode A, 910 does not. The TS-2000X gives me the full rated power output on both 2M and 70cm, the 910 does not (same antennas, feedlines, etc.)---does anybody have the solution to this? Even with flat SWR the 910 cuts back output to about 70-75W on 2M and 40-50W on 70cm!! Bummer The 910 receiver is much better on 2M than my TS-2000X, which is actually pretty deaf on 2M(even after doing the "resistor mod" to improve receive). The 910 does not have the AO-27/SO-50 birdy, while the TS-2000X does--this is my single biggest disappointment with this radio Tuning the TS-2000X "off frequency" by 5-7kHz above and below the real frequency helps a bit, but it's still a pain. In spite of the short comings of the TS-2000X, I don't think I'd trade it even up for an IC-910H with a the 1.2 gig module installed... 73, Mark N8MH > Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:02:24 -0700 > From: "Tom" > Subject: [amsat-bb] Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000 > To: > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > I plan to purchase a new home transceiver in the next few months and I've > narrowed my choices between a 910H and a TS2000. Thinking only of satellite > operation (ignoring the HF capability of the TS2000), is there a general > preference in the Amsat community of one over the other? Reasons? > > Thanks for your opinions. > Tom, K?TW ___ Sent via amsat...@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 ___ Sent via amsat...@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
[amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
Your antenna plan is not bad, you just to make sure that their pointing (direction) are reasonably accurate. The larger the array, the higher the gain, the more narrow the beam width. The 11 element array pointing comment was just to be sure that that individual was reasonably close to the direction of the bird. Off pointed and he could be experiencing the problem he is seeing of not hearing the bird(s). If was meant only as another suggestion to look at. When I get my rotator fixed, I plan on putting the KLM two meter 22 element and 70 cm 40 element arrays back up. They worked extremely well on AO-7 and the HEOs that once circled the heavens. Reid, W4UPD Tom wrote: > Thanks for all of the great information. Since both the TS2000 and IC910H > have been around a while I believe that most of their 'problems' have been > at least discovered. So, in that respect, I'm leaning away from the "still > to be debugged" IC-9100. Also new rigs always are priced high in the > beginning of their life, as we all know. I know that some of the ham dealers > are offering "Closeout" prices on the 910H but I didn't see much difference > from previous pricing. > > Not to prolong this thread but Jerry's append (below) brings up another > question. How much antenna is "too much" for satellite operation. Someone > earlier mentioned that an 11 element yagi might have a beam width too narrow > to closely follow an LEO bird. I had planned on using yagis with 13 elements > on 2M and 18 els on 70cm. Is that a bad plan? > > Thanks again. > Tom, KØTW > > >> Hi; I have owned the Ft-736 R and the Ft-847, which I am using now. >>No matter which rig you decide to buy the most important thing >> is the antenna system. >> >> >> >> ___ Sent via amsat...@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
[amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
I have used a Cushcraft 13B2 (13 elements) on 2m and a Cushcraft 719B (19 elements) on 70cm on the satellites with no problem. Didn't experience either as being too narrow beamwidth for sat use. 73s John AA5JG --- On Mon, 11/30/09, wrb wrote: > From: wrb > Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000 > To: k...@cox.net > Cc: amsat-bb@amsat.org > Date: Monday, November 30, 2009, 2:11 PM > Your antenna plan is not bad, you > just to make sure that their pointing > (direction) are reasonably accurate. The larger the array, > the higher > the gain, the more narrow the beam width. The 11 element > array pointing > comment was just to be sure that that individual was > reasonably close to > the direction of the bird. Off pointed and he could be > experiencing the > problem he is seeing of not hearing the bird(s). If was > meant only as > another suggestion to look at. > > When I get my rotator fixed, I plan on putting the KLM two > meter 22 > element and 70 cm 40 element arrays back up. They worked > extremely well > on AO-7 and the HEOs that once circled the heavens. > > Reid, W4UPD > > > Tom wrote: > > Thanks for all of the great information. Since both > the TS2000 and IC910H > > have been around a while I believe that most of their > 'problems' have been > > at least discovered. So, in that respect, I'm leaning > away from the "still > > to be debugged" IC-9100. Also new rigs always are > priced high in the > > beginning of their life, as we all know. I know that > some of the ham dealers > > are offering "Closeout" prices on the 910H but I > didn't see much difference > > from previous pricing. > > > > Not to prolong this thread but Jerry's append (below) > brings up another > > question. How much antenna is "too much" for satellite > operation. Someone > > earlier mentioned that an 11 element yagi might have a > beam width too narrow > > to closely follow an LEO bird. I had planned on using > yagis with 13 elements > > on 2M and 18 els on 70cm. Is that a bad plan? > > > > Thanks again. > > Tom, KØTW > > > > > >> Hi; I have owned the Ft-736 R and the Ft-847, > which I am using now. > >> No matter > which rig you decide to buy the most important thing > >> is > the antenna system. > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > ___ > Sent via amsat...@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 > ___ Sent via amsat...@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
[amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
I am amazed at how many people take things stated out of context on this reflector. I never said that any of the arrays would not work due to being too narrow for satellite work. An individual asked about the problem they were having hearing the satellites and it was stated that if none of the other suggestions worked to consider that the arrays they are using are pointed correctly in the correct direction of the satellite. Pointing being off, the nulls could easily block the satellite's reception. The larger the array the more this might be evident. The larger the array, stacked arrays and even dish antennas, pointing becomes a bit more critical. Reid, W4UPD John Geiger wrote: > I have used a Cushcraft 13B2 (13 elements) on 2m and a Cushcraft 719B (19 > elements) on 70cm on the satellites with no problem. Didn't experience > either as being too narrow beamwidth for sat use. > > 73s John AA5JG > > --- On Mon, 11/30/09, wrb wrote: > > >> From: wrb >> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000 >> To: k...@cox.net >> Cc: amsat-bb@amsat.org >> Date: Monday, November 30, 2009, 2:11 PM >> Your antenna plan is not bad, you >> just to make sure that their pointing >> (direction) are reasonably accurate. The larger the array, >> the higher >> the gain, the more narrow the beam width. The 11 element >> array pointing >> comment was just to be sure that that individual was >> reasonably close to >> the direction of the bird. Off pointed and he could be >> experiencing the >> problem he is seeing of not hearing the bird(s). If was >> meant only as >> another suggestion to look at. >> >> When I get my rotator fixed, I plan on putting the KLM two >> meter 22 >> element and 70 cm 40 element arrays back up. They worked >> extremely well >> on AO-7 and the HEOs that once circled the heavens. >> >> Reid, W4UPD >> >> >> Tom wrote: >> >>> Thanks for all of the great information. Since both >>> >> the TS2000 and IC910H >> >>> have been around a while I believe that most of their >>> >> 'problems' have been >> >>> at least discovered. So, in that respect, I'm leaning >>> >> away from the "still >> >>> to be debugged" IC-9100. Also new rigs always are >>> >> priced high in the >> >>> beginning of their life, as we all know. I know that >>> >> some of the ham dealers >> >>> are offering "Closeout" prices on the 910H but I >>> >> didn't see much difference >> >>> from previous pricing. >>> >>> Not to prolong this thread but Jerry's append (below) >>> >> brings up another >> >>> question. How much antenna is "too much" for satellite >>> >> operation. Someone >> >>> earlier mentioned that an 11 element yagi might have a >>> >> beam width too narrow >> >>> to closely follow an LEO bird. I had planned on using >>> >> yagis with 13 elements >> >>> on 2M and 18 els on 70cm. Is that a bad plan? >>> >>> Thanks again. >>> Tom, KØTW >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hi; I have owned the Ft-736 R and the Ft-847, >>>> >> which I am using now. >> >>>> No matter >>>> >> which rig you decide to buy the most important thing >> >>>>is >>>> >> the antenna system. >> >> >> >>>> >>>> > > ___ Sent via amsat...@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
[amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
Being a recent newbie to the LEOs it had never even occurred to me that too narrow a beam width could present a problem with staying pointed at those satellites. Thanks, Reid, for bringing that thought up in my mind. I wasn't taking it out of context. I was just wondering if it was an unforeseen problem (by me) that I needed to address. It's things like this that allow us to learn. It appears that a narrow beam width is not normally a problem and I thank John and others who pointed that out. 73, Tom, KØTW > I have used a Cushcraft 13B2 (13 elements) on 2m and a Cushcraft 719B (19 elements) on 70cm on the > satellites with no problem. Didn't experience either as being too narrow beamwidth for sat use. > > 73s John AA5JG > > I am amazed at how many people take things stated out of context on this > reflector. I never said that any of the arrays would not work due to > problem they were having hearing the satellites and it was stated that > if none of the other suggestions worked to consider that the arrays they > are using are pointed correctly in the correct direction of the > satellite. Pointing being off, the nulls could easily block the > satellite's reception. The larger the array the more this might be > evident. The larger the array, stacked arrays and even dish antennas, > pointing becomes a bit more critical. > > Reid, W4UPD ___ Sent via amsat...@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
[amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Tom wrote: > > Being a recent newbie to the LEOs it had never even occurred to me that too > narrow a beam width could present a problem with staying pointed at those > satellites. Thanks, Reid, for bringing that thought up in my mind. I wasn't > taking it out of context. I was just wondering if it was an unforeseen > problem (by me) that I needed to address. It's things like this that allow > us to learn. > > It appears that a narrow beam width is not normally a problem and I thank > John and others who pointed that out. > I'm going to elaborate on this discussion, for the benefit of beginners who are considering building new stations with tracking antennas. The narrower the beam, of course, the greater the gain when pointing at the bird, both transmit and receive, and -- this is the critical issue -- the lower the gain when you are pointed away from the bird. Now with LEO satellites, some of which cross the sky in say 15 minutes, you need to have everything spot-on if your beamwidth is very narrow: the station clock has to be accurate within a second, the keps have to be up-to-date, etc. otherwise, your computer is telling the rotors to point in the sky where the satellite is going to be in five seconds, or will be in five. Especially with high passes, you can be off by enough to not be able to hear the bird at all. So on receive, long antennas, besides the additional expense and challenge of mounting them, also add the challenge of getting your station perfectly aligned, or you'll hear zippo. On transmit, long antennas present another challenge: they 'concentrate' your signal so that it might well be excessively powerful for the satellite in question. If my homebrew 7 - element 70cm yagi often needs to be down around 5w xmit on VO-52 to be in the right range of effective power, how will I deal with things when I have a 40-element beam? By all rights, I should put an attenuator between the rig and the antenna so that I can get down under a watt! It is my opinion, in fact, that a significant proportion of the over-powered signals on our birds are from people in just this situation: people using HEO antenna systems that simply can't provide a small enough signal! In fact, LEO satellites do not require these sorts of antenna systems for reliable use. A beginner will be perfectly happy with, say, four elements on 2m and 6-7 on 70cm (assuming the use of low-noise preamps, which you are *crazy*to do without on long antennas, too). The beauty of this system is that if a high wind knocks it slightly out of whack in azimuth, it will not be the end of your satellite work: you'll just have weaker signals, not silence. The other beauty of this system is that it doesn't require an elevation rotor *at all*. Because the elevation pattern of the antennas will more-or-less fill the sky if you point the array up about 10-20 degrees (make it 10 if you have a clear horizon). Now, suddenly, you've avoided all the hassle of another rotor, you've made your array lighter and easier to work with, and you have way less of a demand on your pointing system. Heck, if you want to go ol' school, you can do the pointing yourself with a twist of the dial. These yagis do not need to be brilliantly built: mine were made with welding rod and pine wood. They had very strange lobes off the side, and all the rest, but they netted me lots of Q's and were very reliable. To be even more radical, I urge beginners to start with omni-directional antennas and low-noise preamps. A wire dipole or a vertical, both with almost no coax between them and the preamp, should hear 'stuff' really well. Not Q-5, but a start. Then use this as a baseline from which to compare the theoretical and real-world improvement you get with your yagi array. If you aren't getting improvement, then work out what's up. This is not an argument against long arrays. I'm building some that I bought from someone on this list around this time last year. I want to do some exotic stuff like work Russia over the pole on AO-07 or hear every last beep out of the newest cubesat. But I'm aware that in my windy region these are going to be a bear to keep in place. So I'm putting as much work into an omni array, too. I plan to transmit from the latter when things get too QRO. I guess in summary I'd say that in my opinion a big antenna array isn't like a high-power computer, which works the same as a lower-powered one, but has the umph when you need it; it is like buying a high-powered plane as a new pilot: significantly more challenging, and possibly leading to frustration. 73, Bruce VE9QRP > >> I have used a Cushcraft 13B2 (13 elements) on 2m and a Cushcraft 719B (19 > elements) on 70cm on the >> satellites with no problem. Didn't experience either as being too narrow > beamwidth for sat use. >> >> 73s John AA5JG >> >> I am amazed at how many people take things stated out of context on this >> reflector. I never said that any of the arrays would
[amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
All excellent points Bruce and I might add to any beginners out there, the reason I went the way I did with my antennas back when I had my full blown satellite rig is that I "wanted" the challenge of building a homebrew AZ/EL setup. I did enough research to know that it certainly wasn't necessary for LEO's, omni's are fine. I'm considering homebrewing some eggbeaters, groundplanes and turnstiles just to experiment with. I guess I got it from my late father ( the original W4HIJ), I like to play with antennas. :-) Michael Bruce Robertson wrote >> I'm going to elaborate on this discussion, for the benefit of >> beginners who are considering building new stations with tracking >> antennas. The narrower the beam, of course, the greater the gain when >> pointing at the bird, both transmit and receive, and -- this is the >> critical issue -- the lower the gain when you are pointed away from >> the bird. Now with LEO satellites, some of which cross the sky in say >> 15 minutes, you need to have everything spot-on if your beamwidth is >> very narrow: the station clock has to be accurate within a second, the >> keps have to be up-to-date, etc. otherwise, your computer is telling >> the rotors to point in the sky where the satellite is going to be in >> five seconds, or will be in five. Especially with high passes, you can >> be off by enough to not be able to hear the bird at all. So on >> receive, long antennas, besides the additional expense and challenge >> of mounting them, also add the challenge of getting your station >> perfectly aligned, or you'll hear zippo. >> >> On transmit, long antennas present another challenge: they >> 'concentrate' your signal so that it might well be excessively >> powerful for the satellite in question. If my homebrew 7 - element >> 70cm yagi often needs to be down around 5w xmit on VO-52 to be in the >> right range of effective power, how will I deal with things when I >> have a 40-element beam? By all rights, I should put an attenuator >> between the rig and the antenna so that I can get down under a watt! >> It is my opinion, in fact, that a significant proportion of the >> over-powered signals on our birds are from people in just this >> situation: people using HEO antenna systems that simply can't provide >> a small enough signal! >> >> In fact, LEO satellites do not require these sorts of antenna systems >> for reliable use. A beginner will be perfectly happy with, say, four >> elements on 2m and 6-7 on 70cm (assuming the use of low-noise preamps, >> which you are *crazy*to do without on long antennas, too). The beauty >> of this system is that if a high wind knocks it slightly out of whack >> in azimuth, it will not be the end of your satellite work: you'll just >> have weaker signals, not silence. The other beauty of this system is >> that it doesn't require an elevation rotor *at all*. Because the >> elevation pattern of the antennas will more-or-less fill the sky if >> you point the array up about 10-20 degrees (make it 10 if you have a >> clear horizon). Now, suddenly, you've avoided all the hassle of >> another rotor, you've made your array lighter and easier to work with, >> and you have way less of a demand on your pointing system. Heck, if >> you want to go ol' school, you can do the pointing yourself with a >> twist of the dial. >> >> These yagis do not need to be brilliantly built: mine were made with >> welding rod and pine wood. They had very strange lobes off the side, >> and all the rest, but they netted me lots of Q's and were very >> reliable. >> >> To be even more radical, I urge beginners to start with >> omni-directional antennas and low-noise preamps. A wire dipole or a >> vertical, both with almost no coax between them and the preamp, should >> hear 'stuff' really well. Not Q-5, but a start. Then use this as a >> baseline from which to compare the theoretical and real-world >> improvement you get with your yagi array. If you aren't getting >> improvement, then work out what's up. >> >> This is not an argument against long arrays. I'm building some that I >> bought from someone on this list around this time last year. I want to >> do some exotic stuff like work Russia over the pole on AO-07 or hear >> every last beep out of the newest cubesat. But I'm aware that in my >> windy region these are going to be a bear to keep in place. So I'm >> putting as much work into an omni array, too. I plan to transmit from >> the latter when things get too QRO. >> >> I guess in summary I'd say that in my opinion a big antenna array >> isn't like a high-power computer, which works the same as a >> lower-powered one, but has the umph when you need it; it is like >> buying a high-powered plane as a new pilot: significantly more >> challenging, and possibly leading to frustration. >> >> 73, Bruce >> VE9QRP >> >> ___ Sent via amsat...@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join
[amsat-bb] Re: Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000
Hi ! There is more: - TS2000 has a built in antenna tuner Henk, PA3GUO (a proud TS2000X owner since 2001) ___ Sent via amsat...@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
