| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 07.10.08 01:20l 387 Lines 14536 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 38906_CX2SA
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V3 507
Path: IZ3LSV<IK2XDE<DB0RES<OE6XPE<OE3XZR<OE1XAB<HG8LXL<CX2SA
Sent: 081006/2315Z @:CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA #:38906 [Minas] FBB7.00e $:38906_CX2SA
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: ARRL VUCC (n3tl(AT)bellsouth.net)
2. Clarification - AO-16 "award" (n3tl(AT)bellsouth.net)
3. K/CityTracker Tuner (Scott Smith)
4. Re: Programming language recommendation? (Bruce Robertson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:36:58 +0000
From: n3tl(AT)bellsouth.net
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: ARRL VUCC
To: "Jim Danehy" <jdanehy(AT)cinci.rr.com>, <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
Message-ID:
<100620081636.12402.48EA3EAA000895BC0000307222230682229B0A02D2089B9A019C
04040A0DBF049BCC02(AT)att.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Jim and all,
Thanks for your thoughtful post, and congratulations on your achievements
over
the years. That is all very cool!
You may have seen my update - that the ARRL Awards Desk informed the man
who
reviewed my application and cards that it will accept the contacts in
question, so my Satellite VUCC application is going in today with all 130
grid
squares I claimed being accepted and approved. I'm truly excited because
it's
Satellite VUCC totally handheld (i.e., radio in one hand, antenna in the
other), which was my goal.
I suspect I'm not the first to do it, but I'm thrilled to have Handheld
Satellite VUCC in the works. Who else has done HH/VUCC? Drop me a note -
we
need to start a net or something, or at least come up with a logo for our
QSL
cards!
Like you, Jim, I don't anticipate doing much more in the way of claiming
grids. Handheld Satellite VUCC was my goal. I'll continue to send QSLs to
stations when I work them the first time, and I'm sure I'll send SASEs to
stations whose grids I'd like to confirm - like VE8NSD from AO-51 last
night.
I also have on file an application for the AMSAT Satellite Achievement
Award
using only contacts I made runninng 50 mW RF out on the same set of 2 AA
Duracells in my HT. I'm at least as excited about that as I am HH/VUCC
because
of what it says about our abilities as amateurs to facilitate useful
communication under truly emergency conditions.
I would like to earn Satellite WAS because I'm fairly close (it sure won't
be
handheld, though!), and I hope to work and confirm the minimum of
states/provinces/countries necessary to apply for a separate AMSAT
Achievement
Award using only AO-16 "bent pipe" contacts. It's only got a few weeks
left,
it seems, and I'd sure like to be able to have that certificate as a
reminder
of (1) the resourcefulness of AMSAT folks in making it a viable
communicatons
tool again, and (2) the satellite itself, and how much fun it provided
after
many pretty much concluded it was gone forever.
I need four more at this point for the AO-16 award. Maybe I should list
what I
have here, and ask anyone who lives in other states/provinces/countries
within
the footprint (when it include EM84) to listen for me.
I thank the ARRL Awards Desk for accepting those grids, and I will contact
them about the one pass I worked from a grid border to confirm whether
they
will accept those handful of contacts I made, in case the stations I work
want
to claim the grids on the basis of our contacts. I'll let you know what I
hear.
73 to all,
Tim - N3TL
AMSAT Member No. 36820
Athens, Ga. - EM84ha
-------------- Original message from "Jim Danehy" <jdanehy(AT)cinci.rr.com>
: -
-------------
I was disappointed by N3TL's email posting on the AMSAT BB today
concerning
> ARRL's VUCC program as it applies to satellite operating.
> I have been an ARRL member for 55 years. I have VUCC on both 6 meters and 2
meters. I also am on the ARRL DXCC Honor Roll and I have the ARRL #1 Honor
Roll plaque for having worked all the DXCC countries. I have been around
for
awhile. I remember very well the Gus Browning , W4BPD QSLs from places
that he
never operated from or had permission to operate from. I also remember
problems that the league had with Don Miller, W9WNV for the same reason in
their DXCC
> program.
> I recently got back on the satellites (was on in 1974 through 1976). In
about 6 weeks I have worked over 130 Grid Squares. My goal is a VUCC on
the
satellites. Some of those have been Grid Expeditions. Not so certain now
that
I want to continue to expand my efforts and money (SASE and outgoing
postage)
only to have
> the league question the legitimacy of those operations.
>
> Does the ARRL question the "Rovers" that take part in the ARRL VHF contests
> ? I am unaware of any of those operations from rare grids being challenged
or
> disallowed. Someone please correct me if I am in error on that opinion.
>
> I had been planning to do some grid expeditions myself. There should be some
> communication and understanding by the league that is missing at this time.
It
> is a shame that there is inconsistency and selective application of
> documentation and confirmation standards of where you were operating from.
>
> Disappointed but not surprised by the ARRL's AD HOC rule enforcement.
>
> Jim W9VNE
> EM79tb Cincinnati, Ohio
> _______________________________________________
> 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
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 17:41:10 +0000
From: n3tl(AT)bellsouth.net
Subject: [amsat-bb] Clarification - AO-16 "award"
To: AMSAT-BB(AT)amsat.org
Message-ID:
<100620081741.10093.48EA4DB6000A08B70000276D22230682229B0A02D2089B9A019C
04040A0DBF049BCC02(AT)att.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Hey folks,
I've already received some emails about my comments re: an award for AO-16
that I hope to earn.
Please let me clarify.
There is NO "official" AO-16 Award that I'm aware of, from AMSAT or any
other
body.
I simply hope to apply for a separate and dsitinct AMSAT Satellite
Achievement
Award using ONLY contacts I made on AO-16 in its "bent pipe" mode. Bruce,
KK5DO, has already told me there won't be any kind of special endorsement
on
the award if I'm able to earn it, and I'll pay the standard fees as posted
on
the AMSAT Web site.
My interest in this is purely personal, and in large part inspired by a
combination a belief in the historical significance of things that happen
along the way - and my own sentimental nature.
In time, I believe we will come to see the historical significance of
AO-16
coming back to life and providing extra, unique and unexpected operating
opportunities. That's the historical significance.
The sentimentalist in me picks up on that - the ol' bird deserves to be
remembered, and the only way I can think of to do that is by trying to get
enough contacts to pick up a separate AMSAT Satellite Achievement Award
for
AO-16 contacts.
My sincere apologies for the confusion I seem to have created. There is no
"official" award - but maybe some of you will think the idea of
remembering
these seemingly last days of AO-16 in some special way is a good one. My
special way will be to apply for the AMSAT award if I can get the
remaining
contacts I need.
73 to all,
Tim - N3TL
AMSAT Member No. 36820
Athens, Ga. - EM84ha
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:47:58 -0600
From: Scott Smith <ve6itv(AT)shaw.ca>
Subject: [amsat-bb] K/CityTracker Tuner
To: Amsat <AMSAT-BB(AT)amsat.org>
Message-ID: <B2512B59440348DE9D02AE38F27C28AC(AT)ve6itv>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi, could some kind individual please show me an example of an
autoexec.bat
with the Kansas City Tracker Tuner installed. Tnx in advance. 73 de VE6ITV
Scott
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 15:49:16 -0300
From: "Bruce Robertson" <ve9qrp(AT)gmail.com>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Programming language recommendation?
To: "Greg D." <ko6th_greg(AT)hotmail.com>
Cc: AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>, Gordon JC Pearce MM3YEQ
<gordonjcp(AT)gjcp.net>
Message-ID:
<49657a760810061149x795b4dc5m8fd9fb6dfdafbd87(AT)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 11:43 PM, Greg D. <ko6th_greg(AT)hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Hi Bruce,
>
> How does the Picaxe compare to the BASIC Stamp line from Parallax? I've
built several Stamp projects, and they were very easy to deal with.
>
> Greg KO6TH
>
I believe they are quite similar in concept, but when I looked into
these devices, the picaxe chips were much cheaper than the basic stamp
ones. For instance, SparkFun has the 14-pin version for $4.
http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/categories.php?c=124
It could be that since then Parallax have improved their low-end
offerings.
As one path for becoming familiar with this field, these chips have
the advantage (over atmel and PIC) that much of the communication code
being supported by built-in commands. SPI, I2C, serial, etc. can be
explored with relative certainty that you're not going to mess things
up. Of course, now that I know how things ought to work, I'm more
confident to work with the atmel line. I suppose the disadvantage is
that you learn a one-off programming language.
I have found that the picaxe line are excellent for working with
children, as well. They were, after all, designed for the educational
market in the first place.
A full comparison of these devices should probably also include the
Arduino boards, which provide a standard platform, and might be best
for those who do not want to get into soldering and breadboarding.
Lest anyone think this has nothing to do with satellite work, let me
add two points: first, I have prototyped some code for the picaxe 28X1
that changes the values of digital pots in response to GS232 codes, in
the manner of AA2TX's iRotor project.
Second, I would love to see a really simple programmable device put
into orbit aboard a cubesat so that Middle School kids could write
programs here on earth, then submit them to the command station to be
uploaded to the bird. It would be a simple matter of specifying the
input signals for the device, say a couple of temperature sensors and
a light sensor, duplicating those materials in kits on earth, then
letting the kids write code that would produce telemetry or what have
you. Since the picaxe project is simply PIC code, using it would be a
matter of finding a space-hardened PIC of the proper kind and loading
it with the company's interpreter. One could dedicate one part of the
telemetry stream to the output of these students' programs.
73, Bruce
VE9QRP
> ----------------------------------------
>> Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 23:07:38 -0300
>> From: ve9qrp(AT)gmail.com
>> To: gordonjcp(AT)gjcp.net
>> CC: amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org
>> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Programming language recommendation?
>>
>> I appreciate Gordon's expert opinion below. If you'd like something
>> that is very, very simple to work with in order to explore the world
>> of PIC programming, you should also consider the picaxe line of
>> products. These comprise PIC chips with a basic interpreter on
>> board. The wiring for the programmer is very simple, and the toolchain
>> is easy because it removes the compiling stage.
>>
>> While I'm trying to move on to the atmel line, using this inexpensive
>> programmer:
>> http://www.ladyada.net/make/usbtinyisp/index.html
>>
>> I still find the picaxe chips dead handy for all sorts of little
>> jobs because so much is built into them.
>>
>> As for computer programming, I would encourage someone returning to
>> this practice to consider adding one of the cross-platform scripting
>> languages to his or her arsenal. Ruby and Python are both good
>> choices.
>>
>>
>> 73, Bruce
>> VE9QRP
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 7:18 AM, Gordon JC Pearce MM3YEQ
>> wrote:
>>> JW wrote:
>>>> Along the same line: anyone on here doing PIC programming or know of a
>>>> list for beginners? From CW keyers to Antenna control units and
>>>> everything in between it looks like it would be fun to program some
>>>> gadgets for around the shack...
>>>
>>> Without lighting up a PIC/AVR flamewar, I've pretty much entirely moved
>>> from PIC to AVR. The hardware is generally two to four times faster for
>>> the same clock rate (gets more done per cycle) and is easier to program
>>> - you can make up an AVR programmer for the parallel port that's
>>> basically three resistors!
>>>
>>> Furthermore, the toolchain is much better for AVR - Microchip are only
>>> interested in pushing their frankly dreadful Windows-only MPLAB
>>> software, while Atmel actively contribute to avr-gcc, a cross-platform
>>> toolchain based on the industry standard gcc. The whole AVR community
>>> seems a lot better than the PIC one, and I say that as a long-standing
>>> user of PIC microcontrollers.
>>>
>>> In short, PIC is great, but the community isn't as strong and the tools
>>> are rubbish. On the other hand, Microchip are always more than happy to
>>> sample parts and their customer support is *excellent*.
>>>
>>> AVR is technically superior in pretty much every way, with an excellent
>>> community. Unfortunately Atmel's tech support are a dour bunch who are
>>> often hard to get good information out of, and not great at sending
samples.
>>>
>>> I haven't tried the ARM-based AVRs or the MIPS-based PICs yet, though.
>>> Those might be something to tempt me back to Microchip, if MIPS is as
>>> good as I remember it ;-)
>>>
>>> Gordon
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> See how Windows Mobile brings your life together?at home, work, or on the
go.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/msnnkwxp1020093182mrt/direct/01/
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Sent via amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the
author.
Not an AMSAT member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
End of AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol 3, Issue 507
****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
