Wide Freq Range?
 

I hope members of this group can help me. I am in the Army National Guard
and I am charged with setting up emergency communications for my unit. I
need a transceiver that has a wide frequency range that can be issued to
our civilian emergency responders for commo with our land mobile units (we
cannot issue our military radios). I am looking for approximately 60 MHZ
thru 500 MHZ.

Any suggestions?

Thanks!

Rude Dog wrote:
I hope members of this group can help me.Â*Â*IÂ*amÂ*inÂ*theÂ*ArmyÂ*NationalÂ*Guard
and I am charged with setting up emergency communications for my unit.Â*Â*I
needÂ*Â*aÂ*transceiverÂ*thatÂ*hasÂ*aÂ*wideÂ*freque ncyÂ*rangeÂ*thatÂ*canÂ*beÂ*issuedÂ*to
our civilian emergency responders for commo with our land mobile units (we
cannot issue our military radios).Â*Â*IÂ*amÂ*lookingÂ*forÂ*approximatelyÂ*60 Â*MHZ
thru 500 MHZ.

Besides the obvious equipment limitation, there may be laws limiting what
you want to do. The Guard *might* escape prosecution, but your volunteers
might not.

I wonder if there might be military surplus gear available that fits?

--
Spammers are people who are too lazy and cowardly to rob liquor stores, but
still want to make money by stealing instead of working.
-- Morely Dotes, The Open Sourceror's Apprentice

You must follow FCC rules and regs.
Depends on what your land mobile units modulation is, AM, FM, SSB, SS, FHSS
?
You can get narrowband FM radios cheap in some parts of the bands you
indicated and use "talk around"
Or just get cellphones.

"clifto" wrote in message
...
Rude Dog wrote:
I hope members of this group can help me. I am in the Army National
Guard
and I am charged with setting up emergency communications for my unit. I
need a transceiver that has a wide frequency range that can be issued to
our civilian emergency responders for commo with our land mobile units
(we
cannot issue our military radios). I am looking for approximately 60 MHZ
thru 500 MHZ.

Besides the obvious equipment limitation, there may be laws limiting what
you want to do. The Guard *might* escape prosecution, but your volunteers
might not.

I wonder if there might be military surplus gear available that fits?

--
Spammers are people who are too lazy and cowardly to rob liquor stores,
but
still want to make money by stealing instead of working.
-- Morely Dotes, The Open Sourceror's Apprentice

Drake, Signal, Collins and Harris all have units that can do from
DC-Daylight trancieive.

--
Gregg
*It's probably useful, even if it can't be SPICE'd*
http://geek.scorpiorising.ca

The Brits do not support the religious loony Blair in his
thirst for blood.

"Tdonaly" wrote in message
...
Airy R. Bean wrote,
The wisdom, or, rather, the complete lack of it, is apparent now.
Saddam Hussein has done some wicked things, almost as wicked as
Ronnie Reagan in Nicaragua, but Hussein was a paper tiger at the
end, controlled by UN Sanctions. There was no point to the war, and
just like the attack on the World Trade Centre by Al Q'Aeda, was
initiated by religious loonies, Blair, Windsor and Bush. Many people have
died needlessly to suit the political ambitions of this Terrible Trio.
The British pot calling the American kettle black.

"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message
...
: One wonders why Yankland fought in WWII. Your description
: of the DHS makes it seek like the SS of today.


Actually not!
But I also wonder why we didn't fix the Island when we had the
chance. Probably not worth the effort. My Ancestors left when it
was under Henry VIII! It's pretty much gone down hill from there.

Your the proof!

"Tim Wescott" wrote
: Roger Gt wrote
: 'Airy R. Bean" wrote
snip
:
: Just to make sure that I'm universally reviled, I must point out
that
: he's a jerk, not a threat. People who want to abandon our
hard-won
: freedoms in exchange for the illusory "security" that comes from
: right-wing totalitarianism are threats as well as jerks (see
John
: Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld for examples).
: Tim Wescott

Sadam was also described as a "Jerk" but that was only his good
side!

Hey, you don't have to try, We know your a left wing nut.
But FYI, It's what we have now and the danger is real. I am not a
right winger, more of a "Libertarian" (Not liberal) but not as
stupid as the party by the same name. I revile religious
involvement in government and socialist programs creeping in to
further enslave the people. And those are my good points! :)

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

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

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 22:25:31 GMT, Gary S. Idontwantspam@net 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.

One reason that we have broad band power amplifiers for the 1-30 MHz
range is that we have transistors with sufficient ( 10) _current_
gains at the highest operating frequency (i.e. the transistor fT is at
least 300 MHz).

To reach 500 MHz operating frequency, the fT would have to be
somewhere close to 5 GHz, which is available at low power levels ( 1
W), but not with significant power levels.

It should be noted that even if there is no _current_ gain above the
fT frequency, there might still be some _voltage_ gain (and hence
_power_ gain) above transistor fT, especially when tuned loads are
used. This is why you can build VHF/UHF amplifiers for a limited
frequency range with considerable power output.

Paul OH3LWR