Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
** GUYANA, Voice of Guyana, 3290, 11 May 2010 at 0714z onward, fair
signal at S-7 - S-9, but comparable noise level and only modest audio. SSB helps a lot, LSB best despite strong interference from periodic RTTY ID and carrier on 3287.44. Notch kills the het OK, but just gotta live with the RTTY ID when it comes up. OM kin English, barely discernible, plus musical numbers. If I had a bit more tonight I'd try a reception report for QSL - maybe later this week. Bruce Jensen California, USA |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
bpnjensen wrote:
** GUYANA, Voice of Guyana, 3290, 11 May 2010 at 0714z onward, fair signal at S-7 - S-9, but comparable noise level and only modest audio. SSB helps a lot, LSB best despite strong interference from periodic RTTY ID and carrier on 3287.44. Notch kills the het OK, but just gotta live with the RTTY ID when it comes up. OM kin English, barely discernible, plus musical numbers. If I had a bit more tonight I'd try a reception report for QSL - maybe later this week. Bruce Jensen California, USA Up late, are we? I'm listening to 'Coast to Coast' from Sacramento 1530 am. I tried 3287.44 and that is where I got the 'zero' beat on lsb. I only get the sporadic RTTY, no voice whatever. mike r75, 100 ft north/south antenna Calgary |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On May 11, 12:47*am, m II wrote:
bpnjensen wrote: ** GUYANA, Voice of Guyana, 3290, 11 May 2010 at 0714z onward, fair signal at S-7 - S-9, but comparable noise level and only modest audio. *SSB helps a lot, LSB best despite strong interference from periodic RTTY ID and carrier on 3287.44. *Notch kills the het OK, but just gotta live with the RTTY ID when it comes up. *OM kin English, barely discernible, plus musical numbers. *If I had a bit more tonight I'd try a reception report for QSL - maybe later this week. Bruce Jensen California, USA Up late, are we? I'm listening to 'Coast to Coast' from Sacramento 1530 am. I tried 3287.44 and that is where I got the 'zero' beat on lsb. I only get the sporadic RTTY, no voice whatever. mike r75, 100 ft north/south antenna Calgary There is indeed a strong zero beat at 3287.44 - that's the RTTY carrier (which I had hoped might be R. Madagasikara the other night, but no cigar). 3280 Guyana has vox and mx, but it's a pretty small station, maybe just 1 kW? Depending on its antenna orientation (or yours vs. mine) or that extra bit of space between Califormia and Calgary, it may be lost in the hash. The LSB was definitely more substantially modulated, and easier to hear. Bruce Jensen R75, 50 foot inverted-L NE-SW + AD DX Ultra ESE-WNW, phased for noise reduction (this arrangement helped a great deal too - I was able to gain a few dB s/n ratio over BG Noise with the MFJ-1026). near Frisco, California |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
0529 12may2010 14070 KHz 34.4, -118.4
Elecraft K3 with GAP vertical dipole. Automatically logged by fldigi. 6,318 miles |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On May 12, 5:28*am, dave wrote:
0529 12may2010 14070 KHz 34.4, -118.4 Elecraft K3 with GAP vertical dipole. Automatically logged by fldigi. 6,318 miles Sounds great! Too easy maybe? but great nonetheless. In amateur astronomy, we have two kinds of observers - Those who use a PC "go-to" to find and locate every faint galaxy to look at - and then sometimes they can see it and sometimes not, because they do not train themselves to hunt and then locate and observe; and Those who do it the old fashioned way by using star charts and the Mark I eyeball method - and then usually they see it. It takes longer, but we usually bag our quarry, and the reward tastes just a bit sweeter... I am not sure if this applies to what you're doing or not - but I surely enjoy the hunt and identification. Bruce |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
bpnjensen wrote:
On May 12, 5:28 am, wrote: 0529 12may2010 14070 KHz 34.4, -118.4 Elecraft K3 with GAP vertical dipole. Automatically logged by fldigi. 6,318 miles Sounds great! Too easy maybe? but great nonetheless. In amateur astronomy, we have two kinds of observers - Those who use a PC "go-to" to find and locate every faint galaxy to look at - and then sometimes they can see it and sometimes not, because they do not train themselves to hunt and then locate and observe; and Those who do it the old fashioned way by using star charts and the Mark I eyeball method - and then usually they see it. It takes longer, but we usually bag our quarry, and the reward tastes just a bit sweeter... I am not sure if this applies to what you're doing or not - but I surely enjoy the hunt and identification. Bruce My PC monitors a 2 KHz window from 14070.5 KHz to 14072.5 KHz The software decodes the messages, and looks for a repeated call sign after the word "de". If it catches a callsign, the software reports this reception to the pskreporter map. The sending station then gets almost real time confirmation that they are "getting out". Unless the stars talk back to you, it's completely different. |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On May 13, 7:37*am, dave wrote:
bpnjensen wrote: On May 12, 5:28 am, *wrote: 0529 12may2010 14070 KHz 34.4, -118.4 Elecraft K3 with GAP vertical dipole. Automatically logged by fldigi. 6,318 miles Sounds great! *Too easy maybe? but great nonetheless. In amateur astronomy, we have two kinds of observers - Those who use a PC "go-to" to find and locate every faint galaxy to look at - and then sometimes they can see it and sometimes not, because they do not train themselves to hunt and then locate and observe; and Those who do it the old fashioned way by using star charts and the Mark I eyeball method - and then usually they see it. *It takes longer, but we usually bag our quarry, and the reward tastes just a bit sweeter... I am not sure if this applies to what you're doing or not - but I surely enjoy the hunt and identification. Bruce My PC monitors a 2 KHz window from 14070.5 KHz to 14072.5 KHz The software decodes the messages, and looks for a repeated call sign after the word "de". *If it catches a callsign, the software reports this reception to the pskreporter map. *The sending station then gets almost real time confirmation that they are "getting out". Unless the stars talk back to you, it's completely different.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Uh, no Dave, it is a near perfect analogy. It is still the reception and confirmation of photons from a distant location, only the technology is different (and even less so if one is doing radioastronomy). You can nitpick this to death if you like, but most people are going to spot the similarities almost right away. |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 5/12/10 09:51 , bpnjensen wrote:
In amateur astronomy, we have two kinds of observers - Those who use a PC "go-to" to find and locate every faint galaxy to look at - and then sometimes they can see it and sometimes not, because they do not train themselves to hunt and then locate and observe; and Those who do it the old fashioned way by using star charts and the Mark I eyeball method - and then usually they see it. It takes longer, but we usually bag our quarry, and the reward tastes just a bit sweeter... I am not sure if this applies to what you're doing or not - but I surely enjoy the hunt and identification. Bruce Funny you should mention this....The NexStar by Celestron all have computerized motor drives that locate from a database with a couple of button presses. I was looking at the new scopes with my g/f (who is also a stargazer), recently, and she said, "doesn't this depend on whether the mount is set up correctly?" Why, yes. Yes, it does. Further, it takes exactly the same skills, and knowledge to set up the mount as it does to hunt the sky using charts and a timepiece. When I set up my C8 (Starbright) in the deep weeds, away from urban light pollution, there is, indeed, a sense of discovery, and capture, when I find a deep sky object using simple math, and basic charts. More importantly, and this applies to a lot of technology driven activities, today, when the technology fails, no matter the reason, I can still soldier on, having fun getting it done, with no more difficulty than simply opening a chart. |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On May 13, 8:05*am, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 5/12/10 09:51 , bpnjensen wrote: In amateur astronomy, we have two kinds of observers - Those who use a PC "go-to" to find and locate every faint galaxy to look at - and then sometimes they can see it and sometimes not, because they do not train themselves to hunt and then locate and observe; and Those who do it the old fashioned way by using star charts and the Mark I eyeball method - and then usually they see it. *It takes longer, but we usually bag our quarry, and the reward tastes just a bit sweeter... I am not sure if this applies to what you're doing or not - but I surely enjoy the hunt and identification. Bruce * *Funny you should mention this....The NexStar by Celestron all have computerized motor drives that locate from a database with a couple of button presses. *I was looking at the new scopes with my g/f (who is also a stargazer), recently, and she said, "doesn't this depend on whether the mount is set up correctly?" * *Why, yes. Yes, it does. * *Further, it takes exactly the same skills, and knowledge to set up the mount as it does to hunt the sky using charts and a timepiece. * *When I set up my C8 (Starbright) in the deep weeds, away from urban light pollution, there is, indeed, a sense of discovery, and capture, when I find a deep sky object using simple math, and basic charts. More importantly, and this applies to a lot of technology driven activities, today, when the technology fails, no matter the reason, I can still soldier on, having fun getting it done, with no more difficulty than simply opening a chart.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - In observing my friends' experiences, setting up the mount with a go- to is not too difficult. With a computerized go-to, the actual mechanical orientation of the mount and scope is no longer so critical. Once the scope is set up more or less level, you just aim it at a couple of bright stars with known coordinates, ID them to the PC, and the PC takes it from there. After that, you just punch in your object or choose from a menu, and the scope slews to the appropriate coordinates. With my 18" Newt Dob it's even easier to set up (just plop the thing on the ground, align the optics and go), although searching for objects, and keeping them in the field at high power, contains the challenge. I could have gotten a nifty go-to drive for it, but opted instead for an equatorial platform, which now requires a bit more set- up (using 16th century technology - a compass, Polaris and good, old- fashioned experience ;-) but it saves tremendous trouble down the road - I still have to find the objects manually (a task which I love, a great feeling of accomplishment) but the drive keeps them dead center for several minutes running, a real joy. It is nice to gaze at that 8- billion-LY distant quasar at 600x without having to repeatedly nudge the behemoth along... :-) |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On May 13, 9:12*am, Bob Dobbs wrote:
bpnjensen wrote: On May 13, 8:05*am, "D. Peter Maus" wrote: On 5/12/10 09:51 , bpnjensen wrote: In amateur astronomy, we have two kinds of observers - Those who use a PC "go-to" to find and locate every faint galaxy to look at - and then sometimes they can see it and sometimes not, because they do not train themselves to hunt and then locate and observe; and Those who do it the old fashioned way by using star charts and the Mark I eyeball method - and then usually they see it. *It takes longer, but we usually bag our quarry, and the reward tastes just a bit sweeter... I am not sure if this applies to what you're doing or not - but I surely enjoy the hunt and identification. Bruce * *Funny you should mention this....The NexStar by Celestron all have computerized motor drives that locate from a database with a couple of button presses. *I was looking at the new scopes with my g/f (who is also a stargazer), recently, and she said, "doesn't this depend on whether the mount is set up correctly?" * *Why, yes. Yes, it does. * *Further, it takes exactly the same skills, and knowledge to set up the mount as it does to hunt the sky using charts and a timepiece. * *When I set up my C8 (Starbright) in the deep weeds, away from urban light pollution, there is, indeed, a sense of discovery, and capture, when I find a deep sky object using simple math, and basic charts. More importantly, and this applies to a lot of technology driven activities, today, when the technology fails, no matter the reason, I can still soldier on, having fun getting it done, with no more difficulty than simply opening a chart.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - In observing my friends' experiences, setting up the mount with a go- to is not too difficult. *With a computerized go-to, the actual mechanical orientation of the mount and scope is no longer so critical. *Once the scope is set up more or less level, you just aim it at a couple of bright stars with known coordinates, ID them to the PC, and the PC takes it from there. *After that, you just punch in your object or choose from a menu, and the scope slews to the appropriate coordinates. With my 18" Newt Dob it's even easier to set up (just plop the thing on the ground, align the optics and go), although searching for objects, and keeping them in the field at high power, contains the challenge. *I could have gotten a nifty go-to drive for it, but opted instead for an equatorial platform, which now requires a bit more set- up (using 16th century technology - a compass, Polaris and good, old- fashioned experience ;-) but it saves tremendous trouble down the road - I still have to find the objects manually (a task which I love, a great feeling of accomplishment) but the drive keeps them dead center for several minutes running, a real joy. *It is nice to gaze at that 8- billion-LY distant quasar at 600x without having to repeatedly nudge the behemoth along... :-) We used to go to star parties in the local mountains and it was always interesting to play around with someone's Dob, like wrestling a water heater, because there was so much to see even if you didn't want to bother to convert RA-Dec to Alt-Az and use the inclinometer to find something in particular.. -- Operator Bob Echo Charlie 42- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - That's what I love about 'em :-) Running across something just for the heck of it! |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Voice of Guyana | Shortwave | |||
Voice of Guyana | Shortwave | |||
V. of Guyana | Shortwave | |||
BBC via Guyana? | Shortwave | |||
Voice of Guyana | Shortwave |