Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Above 108MHz with FM radio (or other)?

M

Michael J.

Jan 1, 1970
0
greetings all

I was wondering if there is any type of receiver I can find/purchase that would be
capable of tuning above the FM band, like from say 100 to 130 MHz. In this range I
would still want to be able to receive and demodulate FM signals (not the AM signals
of the aircraft band), but not necessarily to go so high as to be in the 2 meter ham
band. I've been looking all over the web but haven't found any receiver like this.
Does such an animal exist, or would I have to retune a standard FM band radio for
this job? Any advice/feedback/comments much appreciated.

MJ
 
D

Dbowey

Jan 1, 1970
0
MJ posted:

<< I was wondering if there is any type of receiver I can find/purchase that
would be
capable of tuning above the FM band, like from say 100 to 130 MHz. In this
range I
would still want to be able to receive and demodulate FM signals (not the AM
signals
of the aircraft band), but not necessarily to go so high as to be in the 2
meter ham
band. I've been looking all over the web but haven't found any receiver like
this.
Does such an animal exist, or would I have to retune a standard FM band radio
for
this job? Any advice/feedback/comments much appreciated.
Why would you want to receive and demodulate FM signals in that frequency
range? It appears that you may be wanting to transmit signals in that
frequency band. If so, don't. You should not mess around in the aircraft band
at all. Just because you can't hear a signal, doesn't mean the frequency isn't
in use.

If this isn't correct, what is your plan?

There are receivers able to function with AM and FM in that frequency range.

Don
 
M

Michael J.

Jan 1, 1970
0
If this isn't correct, what is your plan?

There are receivers able to function with AM and FM in that frequency range.

I have several transmitters around my house that transmit in this range. It's an
experiment in creating an electronic proximity net. The transmitter outputs are
< 5mW. What receivers do you know of (hopefully not much $$) that will receive in
this range? Thanks.

MJ
 
W

Watson A.Name - \Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\

Jan 1, 1970
0
Michael J. said:
range.

I have several transmitters around my house that transmit in this range. It's an
experiment in creating an electronic proximity net. The transmitter outputs are
< 5mW. What receivers do you know of (hopefully not much $$) that will receive in
this range? Thanks.

MJ

The freqs from 109 MHz up to the 144 MHz ham band are all used by
aircraft for both navigation and communication. In the U.S.
unauthorized transmitting on these freqs is a real big NO-NO, and will
cause the FCC to jump on you like flies on dog doo-doo. If you're going
to screw around with low power RF, do it in the low part of the FM BC
band, 88 to 92 MHx, or the 82 to 88 MHZ TV channel 6 if it's not used in
your area. If TV Ch 6 is used, then Ch 5 should be free. And there is
also the band for radio control of toys somewhere in the 72 to 76 MHz
band.
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
The freqs from 109 MHz up to the 144 MHz ham band are all used by
aircraft for both navigation and communication. In the U.S.
unauthorized transmitting on these freqs is a real big NO-NO, and will
cause the FCC to jump on you like flies on dog doo-doo. If you're going
to screw around with low power RF, do it in the low part of the FM BC
band, 88 to 92 MHx, or the 82 to 88 MHZ TV channel 6 if it's not used in
your area. If TV Ch 6 is used, then Ch 5 should be free. And there is
also the band for radio control of toys somewhere in the 72 to 76 MHz
band.

Unless you're someplace like Escondido. LA has 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 13,
and San Diego has 6 and 8 that I know of, and probably 10 and 12.

Good Luck!
Rich
 
D

Dave Holford

Jan 1, 1970
0
Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun said:
The freqs from 109 MHz up to the 144 MHz ham band are all used by
aircraft for both navigation and communication. In the U.S.
unauthorized transmitting on these freqs is a real big NO-NO, and will
cause the FCC to jump on you like flies on dog doo-doo. If you're going
to screw around with low power RF, do it in the low part of the FM BC
band, 88 to 92 MHx, or the 82 to 88 MHZ TV channel 6 if it's not used in
your area. If TV Ch 6 is used, then Ch 5 should be free. And there is
also the band for radio control of toys somewhere in the 72 to 76 MHz
band.
Don't forget that 75MHz is used for marker beacons on aircraft Instrument
Landing Systems.

Playing around between 108 and 136MHz is a sure way to get into serious
trouble - probably even make the news media when you get arrested.

Dave
 
S

Steve Evans

Jan 1, 1970
0
Why would you want to receive and demodulate FM signals in that frequency
range? It appears that you may be wanting to transmit signals in that
frequency band. If so, don't.

theres nothing in his posting to indicate any such intention. once
again you revael your ignorance.
 
D

Dbowey

Jan 1, 1970
0
Dumbass a.k.a Steve Evans posted:


< On 10 Dec 2004 23:04:54 GMT said:
Why would you want to receive and demodulate FM signals in that frequency
range? It appears that you may be wanting to transmit signals in that
frequency band. If so, don't.

theres nothing in his posting to indicate any such intention. once
again you revael your ignorance.

Learn to read to understand you ignorant ass. Learn to type while you're at
it.
 
S

Steve Evans

Jan 1, 1970
0
Dumbass a.k.a Steve Evans posted:




theres nothing in his posting to indicate any such intention. once
again you revael your ignorance.


Learn to read to understand you ignorant ass. Learn to type while you're at
it.

your a dipshit.
 
B

Bob

Jan 1, 1970
0
Steve Evans said:
your a dipshit.

--


You're -- not your.

You keep sticking your foot in your mouth every time you open it. You should
quit while you're still behind.

Bob
 
D

Dbowey

Jan 1, 1970
0
Steve,

That is "you're" not "your." As in - you're a dipshit, Steve.
 
C

Clarence

Jan 1, 1970
0
Dbowey said:
Steve,

That is "you're" not "your." As in - you're a <Dbowey>, Steve.


I'm sure you mean well. But get a life!

Usage defines correctness, and it is in very common use!
 
R

Roger Johansson

Jan 1, 1970
0
I'm sure you mean well. But get a life!
Usage defines correctness, and it is in very common use!

The english language is still strongly dominated by people who have
english as their native language, but that will soon change.

English will become the international language, and will change in
that process. It will be simplified, and special expressions will not
work in an international environment.

Greece was the dominating world power when chemistry was founded,
and we still see greek terminology in the field of chemistry.

Rome was the dominating world power when medicine was developed,
that is why latin is the language of medicine.

USA/Britain was the dominating world power in the era of electronics,
and in the era when the need for a common international language became
very strong, so english is the language of electronics and the international
language for the future.

The language english will be reformed in this process, simplified and
cleansed from strange expressions which americans use today.

English is no longer the property of americans/brits, it is now the property
of the world, and we will change it to suit our purposes.
 
D

Don Bruder

Jan 1, 1970
0
Clarence said:
I'm sure you mean well. But get a life!

Usage defines correctness, and it is in very common use!

Common use or not, the use of "you're" for "your" is *ABSOLUTELY,
TOTALLY, COMPLETELY WRONG*. It's a lovely barometer for how piss-poor
our educational system is here in the US, but it's still *WRONG*.
 
J

John Fields

Jan 1, 1970
0
USA/Britain was the dominating world power in the era of electronics,
and in the era when the need for a common international language became
very strong, so english is the language of electronics and the international
language for the future.

---
English is the language for the future because it's already been been
so changed by other languages that it would be difficult to find
another language more readily adaptable to change yet so readily
understood everywhere in the world.
---
The language english will be reformed in this process, simplified and
cleansed from strange expressions which americans use today.

---
You're a fucking idiot. English has never been and never will be
"cleansed", and the only reason you think some of the expressions we
use are strange is because you're so provincial you can't or don't
want to see the reason or the humor behind the expression. Which
expression(s) did you have in mind, anyway?
---
English is no longer the property of americans/brits, it is now the property
of the world, and we will change it to suit our purposes.

---
Not only a fucking idiot, but an envious, pompous little bitch as
well, huh?

English never has been our "property", it never will be, and by being
used it'll evolve all by itself with or without the help of goons like
you who'd like to think your "edicts" will have anything to do with
its evolution.

ISTM that you need to learn how to be grateful for the gifts that
you've received instead of begrudging where they came from.
 
C

Clarence

Jan 1, 1970
0
Don Bruder said:
Common use or not, the use of "you're" for "your" is *ABSOLUTELY,
TOTALLY, COMPLETELY WRONG*. It's a lovely barometer for how piss-poor
our educational system is here in the US, but it's still *WRONG*.
Don Bruder

Actually your wrong, you just can't admit it!
Pitiful attempted insult aside, you ARE acting childishly!
Stamp foot and cry loudly. No one cares!
 
S

Steve Evans

Jan 1, 1970
0
English is no longer the property of americans/brits, it is now the property
of the world, and we will change it to suit our purposes.

I somehow doubt it. you will adopt the current state of English as
devoured by your poor and huddled masses as directed by our popular
culture. We will tell *you* what to (and how to ) think!
 
D

Don Klipstein

Jan 1, 1970
0
English is the language for the future because it's already been been
so changed by other languages that it would be difficult to find
another language more readily adaptable to change yet so readily
understood everywhere in the world.

French used to be a contender. It appears to me that French lost ground
due to France being in some way hostile to the Internet back in the early
and mid 1990's.

The way I remember things, I saw sometime around 1995 a map of the world
with the nations being color coded by some measure of how established the
Internet was. France had the lowest color, same as most nations of
Africa. France looked like a hole in cut out of western Europe on that
map.

A major reason was, if I remember correctly, France being hostile to
privacy of electronic communications to such an extent that one had to
have a license for a modem.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])
 
R

Roger Johansson

Jan 1, 1970
0
I somehow doubt it. you will adopt the current state of English as
devoured by your poor and huddled masses as directed by our popular
culture. We will tell *you* what to (and how to ) think!

The native english speaking world has had a strong influence for many
years and still does. But the number of non-english people who use
english is steadily rising, and there are 5.5 billion more people to come.

I have seen how the situation has evolved over the last decade.
In the beginning I was very alone among loads of americans and a few
brits. Today the non-native english speaking participation in many
newsgroups is around 25 percent, and it is growing.

I predict, based on the current tendency, that the situation will be
50/50 within 2 years, and after that the native english-speaking will be
in a quickly shrinking minority. And they will have to think about how
they speak english to be fully understood by the majority of the
participators.

The production of movies and tv-shows was totally dominated by americans
between 1945 and now, but now we see how the rest of the world is
producing more and more programs and movies. The american dominance of
the world's media channels is quickly disappearing.
 
S

Steve Evans

Jan 1, 1970
0
[snip]
The production of movies and tv-shows was totally dominated by americans
between 1945 and now, but now we see how the rest of the world is
producing more and more programs and movies. The american dominance of
the world's media channels is quickly disappearing.

scary! the iinternet may be the leakage path whereby the sum total of
western technology is unwittingly exported to the East! :-(
 
Top