Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 Next
 41 
 on: Today at 11:59:48 AM 
Started by KJ4Z - Last post by KD8MJR
Yes I would like to hear what it means to him also.  I was looking forward to the ARRL clamping down on remote stations but it seems that WO7R welcomes the expansion.

 42 
 on: Today at 11:59:35 AM 
Started by KJ4Z - Last post by WO7R
Quote
#1 Think about it.  For islands like South Sandwich, solar power isn't an easy deal......  Maybe on Kingman Reef, but not South Sandwich or Kerguelen.

#2 Show me where there is a T1 connection to South Sandwich or Kingman Reef.  After all, latency is one of the toughest obstacles to deal with in remote operating.

#3 Good luck with a tower lasting 6 or 12 months there.  Hell, stuff at PJ2T and P40 breaks all the time, and that is with not nearly as much wind.

Yes, I think South Sandwich, for the imaginable future, is a bridge too far.  Too forbidding.  But, as you point out, not every place is that bad.

But, we don't need a T1 connection.  Latency is indeed a problem, but it can be managed.  A T1 connection isn't required.  What's required is that there isn't a lot of competition on the frequency.  Maybe somewhere in the 400 or 900 MHz ham bands, or even 2 meters.  It depends on where the human sits and what the regulations allow.  The added lag for the terrestrial station isn't that big an addition to latency here.  Even a thousand miles is nothing; it's making sure there aren't ethernet style collisions.

We only need one or two audio channels to run the whole thing.  We don't even need a lot of frequencies here.  One could imagine (for argument's sake if nothing else) a remote rig with crystals for frequency control.  Point is, the control logic would be low bandwidth.  What we need is "enough" audio bandwidth and something like isochronous communications flow.  The absolute bit rate is not the challenge.

We don't need a tower, either.  For a lot of these places, the Team Vertical approach works very well.  A couple of phased vertical dipoles (e.g. one at EU, one at NA and the "other side" hopefully covers the rest) could cover most of the world with adequate gain.  The big question would be the power budget.  Is 100 watts really enough, even with (say) a 3 or even 5 dB gain from the phased array?  (A pair of pairs should work the world in most cases; in extremis we could go with a single vertical).

In any case, walk before you run.  Before we start saddling ourselves with the added complexity of a tower (and its multiple failure modes in the rotor), making a switched vertical array, or even a single vertical, needs to be tried out and tried out in many places.

You might even operate for a week or so on-site before leaving the automated station behind.  This would allow it to be debugged and also knock down the hordes to a more manageable size.

 43 
 on: Today at 11:56:30 AM 
Started by KJ4Z - Last post by N5INP
You need to move beyond propositional logic to the predicate calculus.  This is more of a "for most" argument than a "there exists, therefore we must conclude" kind of argument.

OK WO7R, I'm going to get really philosophical now, because in the end that's where we're going to end up anyway.

In your mind, what is the purpose of each of these awards - why do they exist at all?

DXCC (just the first and basic one - 100 entities)

WAS (again - the most basic mixed award)

In other words, what in your mind should it mean to other people to get the basic DXCC award? Just that they contacted 100 DXCC entities and nothing more than that? Should it mean you spent $20k on a station? Should it mean you spent $200 on a station and spent 5 years to get the award? On the one I have it doesn't state a time period, the entities contacted, the different modes, it doesn't have power used, or how much money I spent on the station. So what should it really mean in your mind - both for the ham who did it and other people?

And - What, in your mind, should it mean to other hams to get the basic WAS award? There's nothing about demographics or anything else on it. It just states that I contacted every U.S. state and nothing more.

I'd really like to know your thoughts on this, because I think it's really at the crux of the problem some of us are having with RHR vs any type of award. I'd rather not argue too much about it, but I'd like for others to see where the differences are, and let people think about it perhaps more than they usually do.

What if, in years to come, a new mode will come around, along with some new type of receiver circuitry, that is almost 99% efficient at making contacts to any DXCC entity in the world, almost at will. Would the DXCC mean the same if that happened? What if I could make DXCC and more in 2 weeks on every band. I'd have a wall full of awards - but do they mean anything if it was that easy?

Like I said before - at some point - what is the point of an award?

Thanks.

 44 
 on: Today at 11:54:59 AM 
Started by K6UJ - Last post by N5PG
No, it was 7 MHz. GW4BLE used to have a pin to wear at DX Conventions and the like: it said

"LISTS ARE FOR LIDS"

Hence not "Lists" but "Lidsts" Grin

 45 
 on: Today at 11:54:17 AM 
Started by KJ4Z - Last post by N3QE
It's just not the same.  These things tend to be decided demographically.  If you want to pretend most hams take 20 years to finish their WAS, whatever one they pick, you can be my guest.  It's not the real world.

It's just not same as DXCC where most participants take aim at awards that can be expected to take 10 or 20 years.   Far and away most WAS awards are on a much shorter timescale.

It took me about 30 years of being a ham before I got DXCC or WAS (I think I got DXCC just a little before WAS). Now I can do either not just in a single weekend, but I'm trying to figure out if I can do them in an hour!

Tim.

 46 
 on: Today at 11:49:21 AM 
Started by N8NMA - Last post by KD0REQ
what's the rest of the number?  2N numbers are standard JEDEC registration parts, there should be a cross to a NTE replacement if you can't find the part in the online search of DigiKey or Mouser.

 47 
 on: Today at 11:45:28 AM 
Started by K3NRX - Last post by DL8OV
Try this one:

http://www.jumaradio.com/juma-pa1000/

Peter DL8OV

 48 
 on: Today at 11:38:48 AM 
Started by N4ZY - Last post by N4ZY
I just bought a used/good ft 950 transceiver I cannot make head nor tail of how to operate it. have Ben reading the manual but it don't make sense to me. . any help would appreciated.
                                    n4zy

 49 
 on: Today at 11:36:07 AM 
Started by EI2HEB - Last post by K5LXP
"Melting" isn't the major problem with non-RF relays, it's isolation - how much RF gets coupled through to the open paths of the relay.  It's not a very good switch if the open path is only a few dB down from the closed one.   I would guess voltage rating would come in second, more of a factor with high power and unmatched conditions.

Array Solutions uses off the shelf relays in some of their products and rates them at kilowatt levels, with decent isolation at HF. 

http://www.arraysolutions.com/Products/rf_relays.htm#top%20of%20page

They're not cheap though when you factor you may need a number of them for a given project.  I built a copy of their Sixpak product using small PCB relays with the caveat it cannot tolerate much power or mismatch and it's worked well for me over the years.  On my webpage I outline how I improved the RF performance of the relays with a simple modification.

http://www.qsl.net/k5lxp/projects/CoaxSwitch/CoaxSwitch.html


Mark K5LXP
Albuquerque, NM

 50 
 on: Today at 11:35:29 AM 
Started by KJ4Z - Last post by NN3W
Quote
Rare and semi-rare entities are characterized by an absence of technical personnel and infrastructure. An effective remote station would require power, and high-speed low-latency internet access; its antenna system would require periodic maintenance. This might be feasible in a few places, but not many.

I don't know if it is that cut-and-dried.

Suppose we did implement a remote station-on-a-skid.  Suppose we did deploy it on South Sandwich or some such, with battery-plus-solar panels.


#1 Think about it.  For islands like South Sandwich, solar power isn't an easy deal......  Maybe on Kingman Reef, but not South Sandwich or Kerguelen.

#2 Show me where there is a T1 connection to South Sandwich or Kingman Reef.  After all, latency is one of the toughest obstacles to deal with in remote operating.

#3 Good luck with a tower lasting 6 or 12 months there.  Hell, stuff at PJ2T and P40 breaks all the time, and that is with not nearly as much wind.

#4  You also have to remember that there are -still- environmental factors at place.  I can only imagine what FWS is going to say when you propose to put up three verticals on KH3 and tell FWS "que sera sera" when the verticals fall over and transition from being vertical antennas to scrap metal (for the birds to ingest and choke on, of course).

I believe that we will not see remote operated radio stations on sub-arctic or from arctic islands for a very long time.  Same with islands in the Pacific which are uninhabited and inaccessible via Internet.

Where you -could- see remote operating possibly working is from countries that have permanent populations and technology.  Places like 5A, XW, A5, E3.  Here, I think the limiter will be Internet speed.  Hell, when I was in New Zealand this past summer (a very First world country), I was howling at the frustration of trying to maintain a connection to my firm's VPN tunnel.  Do you think you're going to do better with what is effectively a DSL connection and trying to listen to CW?


Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!