Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
From: on Thu, 5 Apr 2007 17:08:48 EDT
On Apr 5, 12:52 pm, "J D" wrote: A while back I purchased an Icom V8000 with the mars cap conversion (136-174 mHZ) to use as a business band radio. Although the PTT gives me trouble now and then.... I really like the radio and i was thinking of getting one for the house to use as a base.... the Icom PS125 compatable with the V8000? The Icom V8000 is not legal for use on business band. The V8000 transmitter will only output on the 2m band. Its receiver already tunes 136 to 174 MHz, stock. While the PS-125 outputs 13.8 VDC @ 25 A maximum, the connectors of that and the V8000 aren't compatible. I got mine at no extra cost on an Icom deal through end of March, but the normal by-itself price is $300, too much for my thinking; there's plenty of 13 VDC @ 25 A regulated supplies out on the market. PS-125 case is styled to match the Pro line and the smaller mobiles (used at home) and looks nice. The V8000 needs only a 15 A maximum 13 VDC supply (1 A on receive) so a PS-125 would be running cool at home. All current Icom manuals, brochures, spec. sheets are downloadable at www.icomamerica.com 73, Len AF6AY |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 5, 9:25 pm, "AF6AY" wrote:
On Apr 5, 12:52 pm, "J D" wrote: A while back I purchased an Icom V8000 with the mars cap conversion (136-174 mHZ) to use as a business band radio. . The V8000 transmitter will only output on the 2m band. Its receiver already tunes 136 to 174 MHz, stock. With the "mars cap conversion" claimed by the author, the V8000 will both transmit and receive in the range 136 - 174MHz. It's use on "business band" is then possible, but not legal, without regard to the power supply selected. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
With the "mars cap conversion" claimed by the author, the V8000 will
both transmit and receive in the range 136 - 174MHz. It's use on "business band" is then possible, but not legal, without regard to the power supply selected. Is that because the radio lacks some sort of certification or are you assuming that the original poster lacks a business band license? |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "xxx" wrote in message ... With the "mars cap conversion" claimed by the author, the V8000 will both transmit and receive in the range 136 - 174MHz. It's use on "business band" is then possible, but not legal, without regard to the power supply selected. Is that because the radio lacks some sort of certification or are you assuming that the original poster lacks a business band license? Wouldn't the radio have to be type accepted (or whatever it's called) to be used on the business band? Dee, N8UZE |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dee Flint" wrote in message "xxx" wrote in message ... With the "mars cap conversion" claimed by the author, the V8000 will both transmit and receive in the range 136 - 174MHz. It's use on "business band" is then possible, but not legal, without regard to the power supply selected. Is that because the radio lacks some sort of certification or are you assuming that the original poster lacks a business band license? Wouldn't the radio have to be type accepted (or whatever it's called) to be used on the business band? Dee, N8UZE I don't know about US legal requirements (FCC..?) but here in the UK it's a requirement that *ALL* radio transmitting equipment is type approved, with the sole exception of that used by radio amateurs (and, I believe, the military, but not sure on that one). We are exempt because we have passed the necessary examinations to show we have the technical knowledge to modify transmitting equipment without causing interference to other users of the radio spectrum. 73 Ivor G6URP |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 6, 11:33 am, xxx wrote:
Is that because the radio lacks some sort of certification or are you assuming that the original poster lacks a business band license? Radio transmitters used on business band must be FCC approved ("certificated") for that service. The ICOM in question is not. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 7, 12:25 pm, Bruce in Alaska wrote:
The Phrase in question is "Type Accepted", "Type Accepted" (or "Type Acceptance") is an outdated term, replaced in FCC regs with the term "Certificated". 73, de Hans, K0HB |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article om,
"Type Accepted" (or "Type Acceptance") is an outdated term, replaced in FCC regs with the term "Certificated". While the term may have been purged from the R&R, I have seen it in the current question pool for commercial licenses. Element 1 has a question (#12) that reads: Q: "What is a requirement of all marine transmitting apparatus used aboard United States vessels?" A: "Only equipment that has been type accepted by the FCC for Part 80 operations is authorized." |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 14:25:28 EDT, Bruce in Alaska
wrote: The Phrase in question is "Type Accepted", and ALL Transmitters licensed under Part 90, 80, 20, and a few others, MUST be Type Accepted by the FCC, to be marketed, Imported, and sold, in the US. Any person may modify any piece of equipment they choose, HOWEVER, said modification MAY void the Type Acceptance for that piece of equipment, and therefor make it a violation of the Licensing Conditions as specified on the Station License granted by the FCC. Hey, Bruce, things have changed since the days when we looked for the FCC Form 452-C on each transmitter (a tag stating the name of the licensee and the call sign of the station that it was licensed under). Quite a while back, the FCC changed the level for Land Mobile (and other services') transmitters from "Type Acceptance" to "Certification" meaning that the manufacturers need not send the test data to the FCC and wait for the Type Acceptance to be issued but can self-test and certify that it meets specs, with test data made available if there is a question. This was because the industry complained that it was taking too long to process Type Acceptance applications, and the Commish' took the easy way out and changed the level rather than to do what should have been done, namely hire more examiners to make the process more timely. Oh, the requirement for the 452-C is gone as well. More "privatization".... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FS icom ps125 | Equipment | |||
wtb icom ps125 | Equipment | |||
FS: Icom 756 Pro II with PS125 | Swap | |||
FS: Icom 756 Pro II w/PS125,SM-20 | Swap | |||
FS: Icom 756 Pro II with PS125 | Swap |