I wouldn't get too wrapped with having all bands in
one box. If you are serious about VHF/UHF weak signal
work you want mono-band radios for each of the bands
anyhow. There is also good reason to have sub RX and
real-time spectrum sweep capability as well. I do like
the idea of a basic backplane though where the only
difference would be the modules that ultimately define
the band of operation.
One of the key features that such a radio must have is
robust computer control/interface capability as was
mentioned. It also needs to incorporate the excellent
low phase noise synthesizer technology of the Orion as
well as its ADC and 32 bit DSP designs. VHF/UHF radios
do need every bit as good, if not more performance in
those areas as HF gear does. Please no more of this FM
first design philosophy.
Duane
N9DG
--- "Dave Kamp, KW0D"
<kw0d@netexpress.net> wrote:
> Ah- that would be the Cygnus!
>
> Why not just make it a backplane machine with
band
> modules? I'd like 6, 2,
> and 432, but I know a few guys that'd like
> variations of 223, 432, 902 and
> 1296... choose your flavor, with PC control
> (Ethernet?), so it can be
> user-assembled for Sat, WS, or whatever...
>
> Oh, and something with 'standard' T_T performance
(
> not Japan Inc. ).
>
> DK :-)
>
> At 07:28 PM 08/05/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> >Well we have the 526, we are waiting for the
> 516.......would it be a
> stretch to do a 432/223 rig based on the the same
> hardware, maybe model
> number 624....(I wouldn't dreamof figuring out
the
> name!)? Just one
> persons question/suggestion?/.
>
>
> 73's from KW0D Dave in LeClaire, Iowa
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
|