[Milsurplus] Multiple Front End receiver

Tom Dawson wb3akd at earthlink.net
Fri Aug 27 06:36:22 EDT 2010 

John,


If you look at my suggestion, I stated:

"A technically feasible but, perhaps,  less practical approach to the UHF 
problem"

The image I had was a Nems-Clarke feeding several R-390's, SP-600's, R-388's 
or something like that.  That is, in fact, a technically feasible, but less 
practical approach to receiving UHF A/G signals.  No suggestion was made 
that it would cover the whole band, or out-perform the PRO-2006 or that it 
would be practical in any way, or at least any more practical than using a 
radio designed 60 years ago for intercepting present radio communications.

It might, however, be fun to put together, and was certainly fun to imagine.

As Beauregard Claghorn would say, "It's a JOKE, son...joke, that is".

73

Tom
WB3AKD

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "J. Forster" <jfor at quik.com>
To: "Tom Dawson" <wb3akd at earthlink.net>
Cc: "Kludge" <wh7hg.hi at gmail.com>; <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Multiple Front End receiver


> ???. Yes. So what.
>
> The suggestiuon was to use a telemetry receiver as a block down converter.
> To do that the full frequency range of interest has to fit through the IF.
> The OP requested a frequency range of far more than the IF BW of any
> telemetry reciever I'm aware of.
>
> AFAIK, there are no VHF or UHF receivers with IF BWs of tens of MHz with
> the possible exception of some pulse optimized RADAR receivers.
>
> -John
>
> =============
>
>
>> John,
>>
>> True, but there are MIL Receivers with inputs > 9 Mcs.
>>
>> 73
>>
>> Tom
>> WB3AKD
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "J. Forster" <jfor at quik.com>
>> To: "Tom Dawson" <wb3akd at earthlink.net>
>> Cc: "Kludge" <wh7hg.hi at gmail.com>; <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
>> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 1:26 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Multiple Front End receiver
>>
>>
>>>I am not aware of any Nems-Clarke / DEI / Vitro / ACL / W-J telemetry
>>> receivers with IF BW > 10 MHz.
>>>
>>> -John
>>>
>>> =============
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike,
>>>>
>>>> ARC TV-10 /CV whatever it is:  beyond being less than optimal as far as
>>>> sensitivity, it does not cover the whole band.
>>>>
>>>> I checked local craigslist for the PRO-200(4,5,6) series and there is
>>>> one
>>>> for only $50.00 so they would seem to fall within your budget.
>>>>
>>>> The kayak ride from the mainland would might stretch delivery times,
>>>> though.
>>>> I know that the 2005 and 2006 will definitely cover 225 to 400 MHz
>>>> band.
>>>> Also the old Regency MX-5000 covers both V/U ac bands.  The Regency
>>>> should
>>>> be even cheaper since it tops out at 512 MHz.
>>>>
>>>> (MIL Radio Content follows)
>>>> A technically feasible but, perhaps,  less practical approach to the
>>>> UHF
>>>> problem might be to use an old Nems-Clarke telemetry receiver that
>>>> covers
>>>> a
>>>> portion of the UHF band and feed the IF output to a batch of MIL Short
>>>> Wave
>>>> receivers.  Send pictures (prior to building collapse) if you choose
>>>> this
>>>> approach.
>>>>
>>>> 73
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>> WB3AKD
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Kludge" <wh7hg.hi at gmail.com>
>>>> To: <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 7:39 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Multiple Front End receiver
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Tom Dawson [mailto:wb3akd at earthlink.net]
>>>>> Sounds like you want to listen to multiple channels simultaneously so
>>>>> the
>>>>> single IF idea won't work as there is more chance of you successfully
>>>>> performing brain surgery than all those planes being within 20 Hz or
>>>>> so
>>>>> of
>>>>
>>>>> the channel frequency (assuming your multiple LOs were sufficiently
>>>>> accurate) so it would definitely be heterodyne city.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, so I've heard.  :-)
>>>>
>>>> Bill, KU8H, allowed as how a single LO with multiple IF et al chains
>>>> all
>>>> tied to a single audio stage could be a better approach.   Where a
>>>> problem
>>>> comes in with this is in the frequency spread.  The frequencies of
>>>> interest
>>>> (as requested by someone else) are as follows (all in MCs):
>>>>
>>>> HNL approach/departure  118.3  269.0
>>>> HNL clearance delivery  121.4  281.4
>>>> HJR tower  132.6  340.2
>>>> HJR ground  123.8  336.4
>>>> HJR clearance delivery  121.7  380.5
>>>>
>>>> I know there are five pairs rather than four.  I don't know if I'll be
>>>> able
>>>> to hear HNL's clearance delivery although I may be able to hear the
>>>> read
>>>> back.  I know I'll hear read back to HJR's clearance delivery and
>>>> should
>>>> hear both sides dependent on the transmitter antenna site.  (That may
>>>> also
>>>> come out of HNL.)
>>>>
>>>> If I choose a LO frequency wisely for each [sub-]band (or get lucky
>>>> with
>>>> the
>>>> crystals I have on hand which is more likely), I should be able to use
>>>> HF
>>>> coil sets for the IF transformers also several different frequencies
>>>> will
>>>> be
>>>> needed to achieve that.
>>>>
>>>>> Something like the ARC Receivers for VHF then another batch of ARC
>>>> Receivers
>>>>> stack with a TV-10 converter or something similar for UHF.
>>>>
>>>> Using R-13s and/or R-34s has the advantage that I can rack them in
>>>> slightly
>>>> altered 2 or 3 Rx command set racks (Pre-hacked ones would be good for
>>>> this.) then tune them as needed.  Once tuned, they can be disconnected
>>>> from
>>>> a normal control head and routed to a fairly conventional aircraft
>>>> audio
>>>> panel for mixing et al.
>>>>
>>>>> A Stack of PRO-2005/PRO-2006 scanners would fit the bill with no
>>>>> converter
>>>> , if you can
>>>>> find some to fit your budget.
>>>>
>>>> Will these cover the UHF aircraft band as well?  With the amount of
>>>> local
>>>> and "just passing through" military traffic, that is almost a
>>>> necessity.
>>>> (Because of that traffic, I might add Kaneohe MCAS (HNG)
>>>> approach/departure
>>>> at 125.0 & 263.5 MCs even though it's on the other end of the island.)
>>>> If
>>>> they do, I may do a split - A.R.C. for VHF and scanners for UHF. - if I
>>>> can
>>>> find the space.
>>>>
>>>>> (Non-sequitur: Let Google maps find directions between Honolulu and my
>>>> QTH.
>>>>> Directions included "Kayak across the pacific ocean-2756 Miles to
>>>>> WA.")
>>>>
>>>> So *that* is how UPS & FedEx get ground shipments here.  :-D
>>>>
>>>>> If you go the Shelf full of ARC receivers route, be sure to post a
>>>> picture.
>>>>
>>>> What about Collins 51X-2Bs (R-1123/ARC-73s) or even 618M-1s for the VHF
>>>> side?  Since I don't have to get finer than .1 MCs, I can use either
>>>> one.
>>>> (Before I get cards & letters, I know the AN/ARC-73 is good to .05
>>>> MCs.)
>>>> They're a heck of a lot more expensive than scanners or A.R.C.
>>>> equipment
>>>> but
>>>> they'd be sooo cool looking, especially if I can find racks to fit
>>>> them.
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>> Seriously, I'll see what I can do.  :-)
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Michael, WH7HG BL01xh
>>>> http://www.nationalmssociety.org/chapters/NTH/index.aspx
>>>> http://wh7hg.blogspot.com/
>>>> http://kludges-other-blog.blogspot.com
>>>> Hiki Nô!
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>> Milsurplus mailing list
>>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
>>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>>> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>>>>
>>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>> Milsurplus mailing list
>>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
>>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>>> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>>>>
>>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

More information about the Milsurplus mailing list