Above 108MHz with FM radio (or other)?

M

Michael J.

Guest
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
 
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
 
On 10 Dec 2004 23:04:54 GMT, dbowey@aol.com (Dbowey) wrote:

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

There are receivers able to function with AM and FM in that frequency range.
Click to expand...
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
 
On 10 Dec 2004 23:04:54 GMT, dbowey@aol.com (Dbowey) wrote:

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

Fat, sugar, salt, beer: the four essentials for a healthy diet.
 
Dumbass a.k.a Steve Evans posted:


<< On 10 Dec 2004 23:04:54 GMT, dbowey@aol.com (Dbowey) wrote:

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
On 11 Dec 2004 23:29:50 GMT, dbowey@aol.com (Dbowey) wrote:

Dumbass a.k.a Steve Evans posted:


On 10 Dec 2004 23:04:54 GMT, dbowey@aol.com (Dbowey) wrote:

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.
Click to expand...
your a dipshit.

--

Fat, sugar, salt, beer: the four essentials for a healthy diet.
 
"Steve Evans" <smevans@jif-lemon.co.mars> wrote in message
news:kt3nr01kq0fn1qdhaojc8pjvlkm3alo8n8@4ax.com...
On 11 Dec 2004 23:29:50 GMT, dbowey@aol.com (Dbowey) wrote:

Dumbass a.k.a Steve Evans posted:


On 10 Dec 2004 23:04:54 GMT, dbowey@aol.com (Dbowey) wrote:

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.
Click to expand...

your a dipshit.

--
Click to expand...

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
 
Steve,

That is "you're" not "your." As in - you're a dipshit, Steve.
 
"Dbowey" <dbowey@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041212115835.06125.00001102@mb-m23.aol.com...
Steve,

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

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

Usage defines correctness, and it is in very common use!
 
"Clarence" <no@No.com> wrote:

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!
Click to expand...
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.


--
Roger J.
 
In article <m30vd.32520$zx1.25261@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
"Clarence" <no@No.com> wrote:

"Dbowey" <dbowey@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041212115835.06125.00001102@mb-m23.aol.com...
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!
Click to expand...
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 - dakidd@sonic.net - New Email policy in effect as of Feb. 21, 2004.
Short form: I'm trashing EVERY E-mail that doesn't contain a password in the
subject unless it comes from a "whitelisted" (pre-approved by me) address.
See <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd/main/contact.html> for full details.
 
On 12 Dec 2004 19:46:07 GMT, Roger Johansson <no-email@home.se> wrote:


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.
Click to expand...
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!

--

Fat, sugar, salt, beer: the four essentials for a healthy diet.
 
On 13 Dec 2004 00:48:07 GMT, Roger Johansson <no-email@home.se> wrote:

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

--

Fat, sugar, salt, beer: the four essentials for a healthy diet.
 
Clarence posted:

<< "Don Bruder" <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:2V1vd.11312$_3.128360@typhoon.sonic.net...
In article <m30vd.32520$zx1.25261@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
"Clarence" <no@No.com> wrote:

"Dbowey" <dbowey@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041212115835.06125.00001102@mb-m23.aol.com...
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!

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
Click to expand...
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!
Your language skill level is apparently a bit low, so you're screwed-up.

Why do you believe that just because you and others are incapable of using
words correctly (mis-spelling and mis-using), that general usage and defined
spelling will migrate to that low level? I believe that is wishful thinking on
your part, and is indicative of a lazy mind.
 
YD <yd.techHAT@techie.com> wrote:

I've modified El Cheapo FM receivers by simply removing the caps
parallel to the tuning caps. Takes a bit of tweaking the trimmers and
coils but I've been able to listen in on both aviation and police
bands. Not very sensitive but it works.
Click to expand...
Another way is to mix the antenna signal with a frequency which results
in a mix-product frequency you can receive with a normal FM receiver.

Connect a signal generator, or a home built oscillator, to the antenna,
set the oscillator to 30 MHz.

A signal of 130 MHz coming in to the antenna will be mixed with the 30
MHz from the oscillator and produce a 100 MHz signal and a 160 MHz
signal. The 100 MHz signal will be recieved by the radio as if it was a
normal FM station.

When signals of different frequencies are mixed you get two resulting
frequencies, the sum and the difference between the two frequencies.


--
Roger J.
 
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:38:41 -0500, Michael J. <michael_j@nospam.org>
wrote:

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
Click to expand...
I've modified El Cheapo FM receivers by simply removing the caps
parallel to the tuning caps. Takes a bit of tweaking the trimmers and
coils but I've been able to listen in on both aviation and police
bands. Not very sensitive but it works.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.
 
"Dbowey" <dbowey@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041212212427.06574.00001841@mb-m15.aol.com...

Not being qualified to speak for anyone but himself,
and doing rather poorly at his attempts to avoid a tantrum,
"Dbowey" contributed nothing of value to the thread.
 
On 13 Dec 2004 03:57:05 GMT, Roger Johansson <no-email@home.se> wrote:


When signals of different frequencies are mixed you get two resulting
frequencies, the sum and the difference between the two frequencies.
Click to expand...
---
Don't you mean the sum _of_ and the difference between the two
frequencies?

And don't the original signals remain?

--
John Fields
 
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 07:36:15 GMT, "Clarence" <no@No.com> wrote:

"Dbowey" <dbowey@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041212212427.06574.00001841@mb-m15.aol.com...

Not being qualified to speak for anyone but himself,
and doing rather poorly at his attempts to avoid a tantrum,
"Dbowey" contributed nothing of value to the thread.

---
Click to expand...
Being too ignorant to realize that he isn't qualified to possess an
opinion, Clarence persists in annoying his neighbors.

--
John Fields
 
"Don Bruder" <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:TKkvd.11696$_3.130065@typhoon.sonic.net...

Not qualified to speak for anyone but himself,
"Don Bruder" contributed nothing of value to the thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top