Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: New poll for funcube

Expand Messages
  • m0tfo
    Ok thanks I have sent this to m0tfo@m0tfo.co.uk, all comment will be looked at very soon.
    Message 1 of 32 , 30 Apr 14:39
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Ok thanks I have sent this to m0tfo@..., all comment will be looked at very soon.

      --- In funcube@..., "Tony Langdon, VK3JED" <vk3jed@...> wrote:
      >
      > At 03:07 AM 5/1/2011, you wrote:
      >
      > I know you are supposed to vote on the website, but I felt this
      > deserved a more detailed response than the poll could offer.
      >
      >
      >
      > >Question 1 (Q1) -Would you benefit from a 2m filtered preamp?
      >
      > Maybe, but a cavity filter might be needed. I have extremely strong
      > signals present from paging transmitters between 148 and 149 MHz
      > locally. Anything would have to cope with that environment by having
      > extremely good linearity and/or very sharp filtering.
      >
      > >Question 2 (Q2)-How would you use a FCD preamplifier and filter?
      >
      > If I used it, it would be at the antenna.
      >
      > >Question 3 (Q3)-What connectors would be most suitable?
      >
      > SMA to dongle, SO-239, BNC or N to antenna
      >
      > >Question 4 (Q4)-As a FCD Pro user, would you be interested in a 2m
      > >filter / preamp
      >
      > At this stage, it's a bit early to tell.
      >
      > >Question 5 (Q5)-In your particular installation would you prefer connectors
      >
      > Yes
      >
      > >Question 6 (Q6)-We have prototyped 2 different preamps with
      > >different bandpass responses.
      > > Would you prefer
      >
      > If I need filtering, it's going to want to be tight, due to the
      > pagers just above 148 MHz. However, there might still be some
      > benefit from filters that aren't as tight, because there are a number
      > of strong signals in the 163 - 165 MHz region (mostly trunking radio
      > control channels)here (Uniden's scanners with "Close Call" are
      > fantastic for identifying strong local transmissions! :) ).
      >
      > >Question 7 (Q7) If not using one of the latest FCD with an internal
      > >bias T, do you think we should
      > > provide an optional bias T for use
      > > with other radios or earlier FCDs?
      >
      > It would be a nice option.
      >
      > 73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
      > http://vkradio.com
      >
    • siegfried jackstien
      .... what about a fcdplus (with added front end filters) ... but with the elonics tuner and a GOOD low noise preamp with high ip3 (pga103+)... If any needs
      Message 32 of 32 , Nov 23, 2012
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        .... what about a fcdplus (with added front end filters) ... but with the
        elonics tuner and a GOOD low noise preamp with high ip3 (pga103+)...

        If any needs shortwave a mixer can be added like it was done before with the
        old fcd (or just use a separate shortwave sdr!!)

        So ... we then would have the full bw of the elonics (with the well known
        gap around 1.1 gig) .... but with good filtering and sensitivity

        Now ... what about then adding a faster sampling chip?!?

        ... at the end we maybe would end with an rtl+e4k+filter stick :-)

        ....

        (still collecting parts for the frontend that I wanna build for rtl/fcd)

        Dg9bfc

        Sigi




        > -----Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht-----
        > Von: funcube@... [mailto:funcube@...] Im
        > Auftrag von tony_g3ovh
        > Gesendet: Freitag, 23. November 2012 13:30
        > An: funcube@...
        > Betreff: [FUNcube] Re: New poll for funcube
        >
        >
        >
        > Hi
        >
        > Can I make a suggestion - once Howard can get his hands on some of those
        > locked away Elonics E4000 tuners, perhaps he can make a batch of original
        > FCDs which do cover this band in full, and sell them at a cheaper price
        > than the original (so as not to compete with the Plus) - perhaps even
        > using the later 192KHz codec configuration. Then this would also restore
        > the down-converter market.
        > Or perhaps it should all be left to the cheap TV dongle market.
        >
        > Tony
        >
        > --- In funcube@... <mailto:funcube%40yahoogroups.co.uk> ,
        > "dgw007" <dgwooldridge@...> wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > > I would not go out and but another one now :) shame it misses the
        > military airband... That's about all I would like to be able to cover...
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In funcube@... <mailto:funcube%40yahoogroups.co.uk> ,
        > funcube@... <mailto:funcube%40yahoogroups.co.uk> wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
        > > > funcube group:
        > > >
        > > > Would you be prepared to pay more for a Pro+ that
        > > > covers down to 400MHz to cover radiosonde etc. This is
        > > > not achieved by a firmware change...
        > > > voter identity hidden.
        > > >
        > > > o Would be nice but wouldn't pay more
        > > > o Would be prepared to pay $60/EUR50/GBP40 more
        > > > o Would be prepared to pay $30/EUR25/GBP20 more
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > To vote, please visit the following web page:
        > > > http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/funcube/surveys?id=13160806
        > > >
        > > > Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
        > > > not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
        > > > web site listed above.
        > > >
        > > > Thanks!
        > > >
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.