|
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 |
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 |
|
What we need is a group devoted to off-topic posts. :-)
Yes. I think they have them, but I have never ventured there. 73 Gary N4AST |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:33 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com