<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Is anyone thinking of going
to Goshen tomorrow for the Ham Fest?<br>
<br>
I'm seriously thinking<br>
<br>
Vinnie</font><br>
<br>
On 5/17/2010 6:19 PM, John Foege wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTimw8w6FVmgQcOJ-ecFiH6EFfzD6FnelGoLi-dTT@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Well, after searching Craigslist this morning, I found a Uniden
Bearcat 560xlt for $10. I didn't have any specs and I had no clue what
the block diagram of the receiver looked like. The price was right,
however, so I picked it up.
Turns out this Bearcat is almost identical in how it operates as, I
would assume, almost all others. It's a standard 2 stage conversion
receiver. The first IF is 10.7mhz and the second IF 455khz. The first
IF stage filter is just a run-of-the-mill 120kc or something wide
crystal filter. The FM IF demodulator section utilizes an MC3359 IC,
which incorporates a built-in mixer and FM demodulator and various
other assorted goodies. The MC3359 has a section for the external
455khz IF filter, which in this scanner is a Murata SFR-450D 5-pin
ceramic lattice filter. It has a 6db bandwidth of +/- 10khz. That's
pretty standard for a scanner reciever.
The weather satellites are FM modulated and deviate generally +/- 15kc
around the 137mhz carrier. So a 2nd-stage IF filter BW of 30kc would
be appropriate, however, one must also take into account the doppler
shifft of approximately +/- 4.5kc during a pass. Therefore, the
optimal 2nd IF filter BW is +/-20kc or 40kc total.
Unforunately, it is extremely hard to find a ceramic filter that has
this much BW. Best I could find was +/-30kc. According to the NOAA's
manual on constructing a station for APT (Automatic Picture
Transmission) reception, modified scanners with a 30-40kc 2nd IF
passband perform well. So, albeit 10kc low and sub-optimal, the 30kc
bandwidth on my modified bearcat will produce much better pictures
than the original 20kc. It is, after all, a 50% increase in bandwidth.
The only thing to do now is homebrew a quadrafiliar helix antenna for
the 137mhz band and scrap together a simple mast mount preamp for said
QFH antenna to make up for the less-than-spectacular sensitivity of
your typical scanner front-end.
Any comments? Suggestions? Anyone interested in the results or want me
to take some pics and document it? It's a pretty cool little project
for $15.
Scanner $10
New Ceramic filter $5
$15 is way better than $250++ for a new Weather Sat receiver from
various vendors brand new, and it should work just as well!
John
KB1FSX
_______________________________________________
450 mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:450@lists.vhfwiki.com">450@lists.vhfwiki.com</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.vhfwiki.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/450">http://lists.vhfwiki.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/450</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Vinnie Grosso
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Vinnie@Vinnievision.com">Vinnie@Vinnievision.com</a>
Office 917-546-6661
Cell 917-697-6229
Fax 212-501-7955
Skype/Twitter: Vinnievision
Let's do work worth doing !!
Megan Blewett
The Best Way to predict the Future, is to invent it !!
Peter Drucker
</pre>
</body>
</html>