Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="s-band" data-source="post: 1011808" data-attributes="member: 407744">CH, I like the controller linked from your post: <a href="http://www.ringolake.com/pic_proj/satellite/sat_projects.html" target="_blank">N0QBH Free to Air Satellite PIC Projects</a> I can't work out what the pulse range is though as my co-rotor needs 0.3ms to 2.5ms to cover the full range. I'm not sure we can use just one frequency unless it is a beacon but we need a different sat. as 40.5 is slant linear polarised. 2 of my scans using the Z +AVC, done 4 hours apart, had a couple of dB differences on some TPs. When I compared Ku LNBs I took the average of all TPs. Perhaps that's the way to do it. Given that the skew has to be optimised a few times, it would be a real pain to do! It doesn't matter if the total number of TPs are different as long as there are a lot of them. We also need to do it at the same time.I went through my figures again and I'm questioning my earlier summary. Just staring at figures is not an ideal way to compare results! Another reason to try to distill all results into a couple of numbers. The Zinwell + AVC actually has the edge except on a couple of frequencies where it was a couple of dB below the rotor. It must have been those I looked at. For some reason, the corotor is bad (-4-5 dB ) at 3627L and generally at the bottom of the band (left) with all LNBs is worse. Right is ok and the noise figures of all LNBs are better at that end of the band, so I think it's a feed thing. Maybe I set the skew wrong for left.Generally your results were +0.5dB to 1dB higher than my best with a couple of exceptions where mine were 2dB over yours. We can't be sure what's happening at the other end of all TPs and measuring down to sub-dB is questionable.Going back to your thread, BM, it would be interesting to compare your rotor with an LNBF on a linear satellite.</blockquote>

Verification