Gary S. wrote:

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 15:07:49 -0700, Tim Wescott
wrote:


Did you ever get an adequate answer to your original question, before we
got distracted by world politics? My newest radio is nearly 20 years
old, or I'd have helped you out myself.


The problem is that what he had asked for, continuous tx coverage for
"approximately 60 MHZ thru 500 MHZ", would be technically difficult,
and thoroughly illegal for amateurs.

That would cover from (almost) the 6 meter band, through all of VHF
and all of UHF, including a variety of licensed services, public
service, business bands, marine bands, , aircraft bands, amateur
bands, restricted military bands, etc.

Not sure whether FM is sufficient for what he wants either, or if he
needs multiple modes, making for more complexity and $$.

No company is going to make a radio which is illegal to own or use for
most of the country.

There are a few handheld models, such as the Yaesu VX-7, which are
capable of RX on most of the bands and modes he wants, and TX on 3 or
4 amateur bands (plus the MARS/CAP frequencies next to them).

Looking at getting his people licensed as amateur operators, then
MARS/CAP certified to mod their radios, might meet most of his
requirements.

He would still need to check legalities with the FCC on using amateur
bands for this purpose. Not clear to me either way.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
------------------------------------------------
at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

Please check your rule book.

There's nothing wrong with an amateur _owning_ a piece of equipment
capable of transmitting on all those frequencies, it's just not OK for
us to actually do it.

I read a QST article recently (I think in the July issue). Civilians
must be amateur radio operators to use the MARS frequencies, but
military operators need only the approval of their CO.

But you're right in that there isn't a continuous coverage transceiver.
There are both base and handheld units that will cover the various
bands (probably with separate final amps in the transmitters).

--

Tim Wescott, KG7LI

Rude Dog wrote:

Tim:

I did get some email responses with recommendations for civilian
transceivers with relatively wide freq ranges. I guess I was hoping the
homebrew gang could come up with the "silver bullet", you know something
like...

"oh that's easy, you get this x-brand $199 mobile and change a few jumper
settings and presto a transceiver with every frequency you ever wanted!"
:-)

Thanks!

Rude


If this is for MARS/CAP operation you should see if there's an active
MARS group close to base. There has to be a few amateur operators in
your unit who may know someone, if not you could contact the ARRL
directly and see if they could help.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 16:38:32 -0700, Tim Wescott
wrote:

Gary S. wrote:

The problem is that what he had asked for, continuous tx coverage for
"approximately 60 MHZ thru 500 MHZ", would be technically difficult,
and thoroughly illegal for amateurs.

That would cover from (almost) the 6 meter band, through all of VHF
and all of UHF, including a variety of licensed services, public
service, business bands, marine bands, , aircraft bands, amateur
bands, restricted military bands, etc.

Not sure whether FM is sufficient for what he wants either, or if he
needs multiple modes, making for more complexity and $$.

No company is going to make a radio which is illegal to own or use for
most of the country.

There are a few handheld models, such as the Yaesu VX-7, which are
capable of RX on most of the bands and modes he wants, and TX on 3 or
4 amateur bands (plus the MARS/CAP frequencies next to them).

Looking at getting his people licensed as amateur operators, then
MARS/CAP certified to mod their radios, might meet most of his
requirements.

He would still need to check legalities with the FCC on using amateur
bands for this purpose. Not clear to me either way.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)

Please check your rule book.

There's nothing wrong with an amateur _owning_ a piece of equipment
capable of transmitting on all those frequencies, it's just not OK for
us to actually do it.

Subtle. Could be interpreted as the intent to do so, without a
legitimate reason to have it.

Try to buy some lockpicks.

I read a QST article recently (I think in the July issue). Civilians
must be amateur radio operators to use the MARS frequencies, but
military operators need only the approval of their CO.

I hadn't known about the military side of that. He had mentioned these
were for civilians working with them, so I don't think the military
permission would cover them.

But you're right in that there isn't a continuous coverage transceiver.
There are both base and handheld units that will cover the various
bands (probably with separate final amps in the transmitters).

DC to daylight, all modes. And under $100.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
------------------------------------------------
at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

Rude Dog wrote,

Regardless of your political position one point is clear. We must win this
war on terrorism.



You can't actually win a war against an ism. Humans have been terrorizing
each other since the dawn of man and will continue to do so until they
become extinct. We use it ourselves against our enemies whenever the
need arises. The current use of the the words "war on terrorism" is
designed to get a soft-minded public to support the government's effort to
secure
the last vestiges of middle-east oil, and has very little to do with defending
ourselves against Muslim religious fanatics.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Gary S. Idontwantspam@net wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 16:38:32 -0700, Tim Wescott
wrote:

There's nothing wrong with an amateur _owning_ a piece of equipment
capable of transmitting on all those frequencies, it's just not OK for
us to actually do it.

Subtle. Could be interpreted as the intent to do so, without a
legitimate reason to have it.

Try again?

The "justice system" will make whatever interpretations it finds
convenient; ditto for the FCC. But then they've got to justify those
interpretations and the conclusions they draw from them.

I'm not a ham at the moment: my Novice ticket expired in 1964. I own
an Icom 751 transceiver, and intend to use it. That is, I intend to
use it _legally_, after I get a General ticket. But I'm not a ham now,
and I do intend to use the transceiver to transmit. Care to turn _me_
in? On what grounds?

Try to buy some lockpicks.

Lockpicks?

Easy, here in central Oklahoma: I walked into the locksmith's shop
nearby, and ordered two sets: one for work and one for home. I'm
the Officially-Designated Lock-Picker at work: open desks, doors,
file cabinets, and cars on legitimate request. Most recently I got
into a car that some idjit had left running and locked with the keys
inside, in the middle of one of our parking lots, blocking the only
entrance/exit.

I don't travel with my own set, lest some overzealous police type
decide that I'm equipped with the picks to use as burglar tools, but
I do open houses, desks, file cabinets, and cars for friends in the
area -- again, after being _sure_ that it's a legitimate request.

--
Mike Andrews

Tired old sysadmin

Mike Andrews wrote:

Gary S. Idontwantspam@net wrote:

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 16:38:32 -0700, Tim Wescott
wrote:


There's nothing wrong with an amateur _owning_ a piece of equipment
capable of transmitting on all those frequencies, it's just not OK for
us to actually do it.


Subtle. Could be interpreted as the intent to do so, without a
legitimate reason to have it.


Try again?

The "justice system" will make whatever interpretations it finds
convenient; ditto for the FCC. But then they've got to justify those
interpretations and the conclusions they draw from them.

I'm not a ham at the moment: my Novice ticket expired in 1964. I own
an Icom 751 transceiver, and intend to use it. That is, I intend to
use it _legally_, after I get a General ticket. But I'm not a ham now,
and I do intend to use the transceiver to transmit. Care to turn _me_
in? On what grounds?


Try to buy some lockpicks.


Lockpicks?

Easy, here in central Oklahoma: I walked into the locksmith's shop
nearby, and ordered two sets: one for work and one for home. I'm
the Officially-Designated Lock-Picker at work: open desks, doors,
file cabinets, and cars on legitimate request. Most recently I got
into a car that some idjit had left running and locked with the keys
inside, in the middle of one of our parking lots, blocking the only
entrance/exit.

I don't travel with my own set, lest some overzealous police type
decide that I'm equipped with the picks to use as burglar tools, but
I do open houses, desks, file cabinets, and cars for friends in the
area -- again, after being _sure_ that it's a legitimate request.

Good luck on your ticket -- you do know that if you pass the
technician's and the code test you can do code, and a bit of SSB on 10
meters?

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Good luck on your ticket -- you do know that if you pass the
technician's and the code test you can do code, and a bit of SSB on 10
meters?


Actually, if he passes the Tech, all he has to do is prove he held a Novice
ticket in 1964 and he can be issued credit for the code. Then all he needs to
pass is the written exam to upgrade to General.

Mike Andrews wrote:

I'm the Officially-Designated Lock-Picker at work

[...]

Mike Andrews

Tired old sysadmin

Somehow, those two jobs do seem to go together...


--
73 from Ian G3SEK

The current use of the the words "war on terrorism" is designed to get a
soft-minded public to support the government's effort to secure the last
vestiges of middle-east oil, and has very little to do with defending
ourselves against Muslim religious fanatics.

Hi Tom, How do you know all this? I hope it is not from conclusions developed
from the 5 O'Clock News. They tell you what they want you to hear. Have you
been over there to see what was going on? I am really interested.
These newsgroups have a history of providing references to bold theory
statements. Can you provide conclusive references to your non-technical,
political, don't belong here statements? I enjoy reading your on-topic
posts:-)
73 Gary N4AST

Gary wrote,

The current use of the the words "war on terrorism" is designed to get a
soft-minded public to support the government's effort to secure the last
vestiges of middle-east oil, and has very little to do with defending
ourselves against Muslim religious fanatics.

Hi Tom, How do you know all this? I hope it is not from conclusions
developed
from the 5 O'Clock News. They tell you what they want you to hear. Have you
been over there to see what was going on? I am really interested.
These newsgroups have a history of providing references to bold theory
statements. Can you provide conclusive references to your non-technical,
political, don't belong here statements? I enjoy reading your on-topic
posts:-)
73 Gary N4AST



I guess you don't agree with my "non-technical, political, don't belong here

statements." I was responding to another non-technical, political, don't
belong here statement by a person who was responding to another non-technical,
political, don't belong here statement by some eccentric Brit.
What we need is a group devoted to off-topic posts. :-)
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH