larry@tapa.UUCP (Larry Pajakowski) (10/28/85)
I am considering the purchase of a Yaesu FRG-9600 and would like to hear others thoughts on broadband antennas for the 60-900mhz. coverage of the Yeasu receiver.
ai2q@ky2d-2.UUCP (Alex) (10/31/85)
> I am considering the purchase of a Yaesu FRG-9600 and would like to hear > others thoughts on broadband antennas for the 60-900mhz. coverage of the > Yeasu receiver. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** Larry: You might wish to consider the log-periodic array as a possible solution to solving the problem of an antenna which will give continuous coverage over a substantial portion of the spectrum your FRG-9600 will cover. The log-periodic is successfully used over a narrower range, typically from about 50 MHz to about 250 MHz in the form of common TV antennas. These arrays are referred to as "self-scaling" antennas, that is, they are NOT frequency sensitve, and as such, offer a good match to a fixed impedance feedline like ordinary coax over thier entire range. Refer to W6SAI's Radio Handbook for designs spanning 140 to 450 MHz. If you need more details, let me know. Good luck es 73 de Alex, AI2Q, Freeport, Long Island >>AR>>
parnass@ihu1h.UUCP (Bob Parnass, AJ9S) (10/31/85)
x I have a Hustler DCX discone antenna, for which Newtronics claims a frequency range of 40-700 MHz. It's still in the box, so I don't know how well it works. > I am considering the purchase of a Yaesu FRG-9600 and would like to hear > others thoughts on broadband antennas for the 60-900mhz. coverage of the > Yeasu receiver. -- =============================================================================== Bob Parnass, Bell Telephone Laboratories - ihnp4!ihu1h!parnass - (312)979-5414
larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (11/13/85)
> I am considering the purchase of a Yaesu FRG-9600 and would like to hear > others thoughts on broadband antennas for the 60-900mhz. coverage of the > Yeasu receiver. Use a log periodic antenna - they are simple to build for that frequency range. Or, if you want to mount something on a rotor for directivity, try a log spiral antenna - which is also simple to make from a large piece of PC board stock. === Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York === === UUCP {decvax,dual,rocksanne,rocksvax,watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry === === VOICE 716/741-9185 {rice,shell}!baylor!/ === === FAX 716/741-9635 {AT&T 3510D} ihnp4!/ === === === === "Have you hugged your cat today?" ===
karn@petrus.UUCP (Phil R. Karn) (11/19/85)
> > I am considering the purchase of a Yaesu FRG-9600 and would like to hear > > others thoughts on broadband antennas for the 60-900mhz. coverage of the > > Yeasu receiver. All the reaction I've heard to the FRG-9600 has been strongly negative. I was considering buying myself one until I saw the Icom R-7000. I think it's worth waiting for (and paying more for). Phil
wmartin@ALMSA-2.ALMSA (Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI) (11/22/85)
Not to beat a dead horse, but remember that the Icom R-7000 has the same bad design as the R-71, and other current Icom products, with a "dynamic" chip requiring continuous power to maintain the radio's basic operating system parameters and allow it to work at all. This means mandatory maintenance (replacing the backup battery, either by expensive service long after the warranty has expired, or by VERY CAREFUL self-maintenance) every 7 or so years (fewer to be safe). I would treat that as enough to disqualify the Icom from consideration either. It just doesn't strike me that ANY of these new wide-band scanning/monitoring radios (Yaesu FRG-9600, Icom R-7000, Regency M5000 or M7000, JIL SX-400, and whatever) are worth buying now, especially for anything near their list prices. In addition to the sort of design faults mentioned before, reviews indicate that performance quality certainly doesn't seem to be good enough to justify the prices. I would give the technology a few more years of development before putting my money on it... (If everybody realized this, and nobody bought these boxes, those remaining would be dumped and might be worth buying at under-$100 prices, realizing that you have to figure long-term high-maintenance costs in addition to the initial purchase price. Of course, the manufacturers would have to be told that these were not selling because they just were not good enough, not that there was no market for such devices. Then they'd have an incentive to continue R&D and come up with something better to supply the market. Otherwise they would just abandon the field.) Will
john@anasazi.UUCP (John Moore) (11/29/85)
In article <3484@brl-tgr.ARPA> wmartin@ALMSA-2.ALMSA (Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI) writes: >Not to beat a dead horse, but remember that the Icom R-7000 has the same >bad design as the R-71, and other current Icom products, with a "dynamic" >chip requiring continuous power to maintain the radio's basic operating >system parameters and allow it to work at all. This means mandatory >maintenance (replacing the backup battery, either by expensive service It seems to me that replacing a backup battery is hardly a difficult job. I replaced the one performing the same function on my Azden PCS-3000 and it took all of 10 minutes. Big deal. >In addition to the sort of design faults mentioned before, reviews I would like to hear from someone who has tested the R-7000 since I am considering buying one. A friend purchased an FRG-9600 for his communications company, and the RF quality was so bad that they sent it back. Anyone with good experience with this? >indicate that performance quality certainly doesn't seem to be good >enough to justify the prices. I would give the technology a few more >(If everybody realized this, and nobody bought these boxes, those remaining It is true that the R7000, the FRG9600, and the SX-400 (with adapters to make it wide coverage) are a bit expensive, but they do an awful lot compared to the $289 class of scanner. The MX-5000 & MX7000, purchased from mail order houses, are so inexpensive that this comment is completely wrong. >told that these were not selling because they just were not good enough, >not that there was no market for such devices. Then they'd have an >incentive to continue R&D and come up with something better to supply Or decide that high performance scanning receivers simply don't have a high enough demand, and drop the whole idea. Remember the Bearcat which had computer control? It was dropped because no one bought it. The manufacturer then concluded that computer control was -- John Moore (NJ7E/XE1HDO) {decvax|ihnp4|hao}!noao!terak!anasazi!john {hao!noao|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!terak!anasazi!john terak!anasazi!john@SEISMO.CSS.GOV (602) 952-8205 (day or evening) 5302 E. Lafayette Blvd, Phoenix, Az, 85018 (home address)