[Milsurplus] frequency selective level meters as rcvrs

Tue Jan 12 12:45:42 EST 2016

"For receiving, has anyone tried using analog frequency selective level meters. They cover VLF, LF, and MF and since they were used for "old" analog microwave they're cheap to buy."

I tried two of these as BCB and MF rcvrs and the performance was lackluster at best. What these excel at is serving as a modern day Q5er, outboard IF stage. Later models even have selectable USB LSB. Once sky high in price they now go for as little as $25 at swap meets, even modern ones with digital freq readouts. 

AF6IM

> On Jan 12, 2016, at 8:36 AM, milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net wrote:
> 
> Send Milsurplus mailing list submissions to
>    milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>    http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>    milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>    milsurplus-owner at mailman.qth.net
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Milsurplus digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: [ARC5] BC-375ers:  TU-22 Tuning Unit. (David Stinson)
>   2. Re: [ARC5] BC-375ers:  TU-22 Tuning Unit. (Mike Feher)
>   3. Re: Little "Field Day" Genny, Remarkable Price.
>      (joldenburg2 at new.rr.com)
>   4. Re: [ARC5] BC-375ers:  TU-22 Tuning Unit. (Mike Morrow)
>   5. Re: [ARC5] BC-375ers:  TU-22 Tuning Unit. (Juno)
>   6. Re: [ARC5] BC-375ers:  TU-22 Tuning Unit. (Kenneth G. Gordon)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 04:56:06 -0600 (GMT-06:00)
> From: David Stinson <arc5 at ix.netcom.com>
> To: Mike Feher <n4fs at eozinc.com>, milsurplus at mailman.qth.net,    'ARC-5'
>    <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] [ARC5] BC-375ers:  TU-22 Tuning Unit.
> Message-ID:
>    <4789029.1452596166056.JavaMail.root at wamui-junio.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mike Feher <n4fs at eozinc.com>
>> Subject: RE: [ARC5] BC-375ers:  TU-22 Tuning Unit.
>> 
>> Why is the TU-22 that much more desirable than the TU-26? 73 - Mike
> 
> Just because it's scarce and early and not a TU-26 ;-)
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 09:55:31 -0500
> From: "Mike Feher" <n4fs at eozinc.com>
> To: "'David Stinson'" <arc5 at ix.netcom.com>,
>    <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>,    "'ARC-5'" <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] [ARC5] BC-375ers:  TU-22 Tuning Unit.
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="utf-8"
> 
> That is what I thought Dave. Someone mentioned that it would be ideal for VLF work, but then so would the TU-26 and that is why I posed the question. 73 - Mike 
> 
> Mike B. Feher, N4FS
> 89 Arnold Blvd.
> Howell, NJ, 07731
> 732-886-5960 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Stinson [mailto:arc5 at ix.netcom.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 5:56 AM
> To: Mike Feher; milsurplus at mailman.qth.net; 'ARC-5'
> Subject: RE: [ARC5] BC-375ers: TU-22 Tuning Unit.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mike Feher <n4fs at eozinc.com>
>> Subject: RE: [ARC5] BC-375ers:  TU-22 Tuning Unit.
>> 
>> Why is the TU-22 that much more desirable than the TU-26? 73 - Mike
> 
> Just because it's scarce and early and not a TU-26 ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 15:47:42 +0000
> From: <joldenburg2 at new.rr.com>
> To: Richard <brunneraa1p at comcast.net>, milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Little "Field Day" Genny, Remarkable Price.
> Message-ID: <20160112154742.NU8HE.81818.root at dnvrco-web08>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> 
> One must remember that one is buying "LPG" when purchasing "propane" gas in the US. By definition LPG "may contain" up to 5% butane gas for the US market. Foreign markets, primarily warmer climates mix LPG at butane contents as high as 75%. Propane has a boiling point of -42 F. Butane's boiling point is much higher at +31 F.  Thus at max "permitted" mixture LP has a boiling point of -38 F which in these Northern areas approaches ambient low temperature during a severe cold snap. Having used LPG as a portable heat source in extreme cold I never exchanged a cylinder that ran low at extreme cold as it would yield usable pressure as the weather improved. It is conceivable that the refrigerant properties of a high volume draw on a cylinder will also effect gas pressure realized. Also LPG sold for use during warm months may exceed 5% butane and not be noted as such during summer use.
> 
> Jon AB9AH
> ---- Richard <brunneraa1p at comcast.net> wrote: 
> 
> =============
> Yes, Propane is good but requires consideration in cold weather.  I have 
> a dual-fuel generator, gasoline and Propane, which is a great comfort, 
> but at 50F or below I have to set the tank to be warmed by heat from the 
> engine or it won't go.  Once I was exercising it on Propane at 50F and 
> it quit with a quarter inch of ice on the tank. I think permanent 
> installations have tank heaters, and block heaters on the engine.
> 
> Richard, AA1P
> 
>> On 01/10/2016 08:06 PM, Kenneth G. Gordon wrote:
>>> On 10 Jan 2016 at 19:26, Peter Gottlieb wrote:
>>> 
>>> It didn't even seem like a good idea back when Bush pushed it through, but it
>>> sure made some farmers real rich!
>>> 
>>> I dislike using gasoline for generators anyhow, but it seems there's not much
>>> choice for small ones.
>> Oh, I agree! Gasoline doesn't store well, and diesel isn't a lot better. I wish
>> there was a way to easily convert my gennys to natural gas, propane or
>> methane.
>> 
>> Ken W7EKB
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
> 
> Jon Oldenburg AB9AH
> "A bicycle can't stand on it's own because it is two tired..."
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:14:20 -0600 (GMT-06:00)
> From: Mike Morrow <kk5f at earthlink.net>
> To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net, 'ARC-5' <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] [ARC5] BC-375ers:  TU-22 Tuning Unit.
> Message-ID:
>    <31131881.1452615261010.JavaMail.root at elwamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
>    
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> 
> Mike F. wrote:
> 
>> Someone mentioned that it would be ideal for VLF work, but then so
>> would the TU-26...
> 
> I suppose they both would NOT work equally.  Is there much besides old USN receivers (like the RAK, RBA, SRR-11, WRR-3, BRR-3, etc.) that will reach down to the *high* end of the VLF band of 30 kHz?  :-)
> 
> Mike / KK5F
> (AN/BRR-3 receivers with a TOTAL frequency coverage of 10 to 30 kHz were the most important radios on my ballistic missile submarine more than 40 years ago.   We had no transmitters for VLF, but TACAMO aircraft did.)
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:33:44 -0600
> From: Juno <wctaylor at juno.com>
> To: Mike Morrow <kk5f at arrl.net>
> Cc: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net, ARC-5 <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] [ARC5] BC-375ers:  TU-22 Tuning Unit.
> Message-ID: <3CB56BD5-F79B-4F24-802F-23704CC935EA at juno.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset=us-ascii
> 
> For receiving, has anyone tried using analog frequency selective level meters. They cover VLF, LF, and MF and since they were used for "old" analog microwave they're cheap to buy.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Jan 12, 2016, at 10:14 AM, Mike Morrow <kk5f at earthlink.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Mike F. wrote:
>> 
>>> Someone mentioned that it would be ideal for VLF work, but then so
>>> would the TU-26...
>> 
>> I suppose they both would NOT work equally.  Is there much besides old USN receivers (like the RAK, RBA, SRR-11, WRR-3, BRR-3, etc.) that will reach down to the *high* end of the VLF band of 30 kHz?  :-)
>> 
>> Mike / KK5F
>> (AN/BRR-3 receivers with a TOTAL frequency coverage of 10 to 30 kHz were the most important radios on my ballistic missile submarine more than 40 years ago.   We had no transmitters for VLF, but TACAMO aircraft did.)
>> 
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> 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
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> Protect what matters
>> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3165/5695293637cd429351b37mp10vuc
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 08:36:15 -0800
> From: "Kenneth G. Gordon" <kgordon2006 at frontier.com>
> To: milsurplus <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] [ARC5] BC-375ers:  TU-22 Tuning Unit.
> Message-ID: <56952B7F.22242.18FA3D5A at kgordon2006.frontier.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> 
>> On 12 Jan 2016 at 0:00, Mike Morrow wrote:
>> 
>> Mike F. wrote:
>> 
>>> Someone mentioned that it would be ideal for VLF work,
> 
> Well, I, at least wouldn't say "VLF work": LF work, surely, though. I have 
> been operating a forum dedicated to the 600 meter band for many years 
> now. If the FCC would ever get "off its duff" we would have a 7 kHz section 
> of that band for general ham use. It was authorized world-wide at some 
> recent WARC conference. This is the "new" 630 meter band.
> 
>>> but then so
>>> would the TU-26...
>> 
>> I suppose they both would NOT work equally.  Is there much besides old USN
>> receivers (like the RAK, RBA, SRR-11, WRR-3, BRR-3, etc.) that will reach down
>> to the *high* end of the VLF band of 30 kHz?  :-)
> 
> Yes. Stoddart "Noise Meters" of various models for some. I have several of 
> the Stoddart models, reaching down to something like 5 kHz.
> 
>> Mike / KK5F
>> (AN/BRR-3 receivers with a TOTAL frequency coverage of 10 to 30 kHz were the
>> most important radios on my ballistic missile submarine more than 40 years ago. 
>> We had no transmitters for VLF, but TACAMO aircraft did.)
> 
> Ah! Interesting! I had no idea. Thanks,
> 
> Ken W7EKB
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of Milsurplus Digest, Vol 141, Issue 28
> *******************************************