** 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

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

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

0529 12may2010 14070 KHz 34.4, -118.4

Elecraft K3 with GAP vertical dipole.

Automatically logged by fldigi.

6,318 miles

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

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.

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.

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.

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... :-)

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!