How much do the old, and new elpers cost?where could you buy them??? Just wondering...
The old-style are no longer available new, but they can occasionally be purchase on the secondary market
in the $150-300 range.
The new style go for $750.
(http://www.ltronics.com/LL-16_Opened.jpg)
http://www.ltronics.com/
The old L-Pers, when they very rarely become available, can be had on eBay or having a good network. The new L-Pers are $750 on the L-Tronics site plus a $70 case (you want one of these)
www.ltronics.com
EDIT: Beat by a hair.
Use a scanner with the Aviation Band and body blocking and send me the other $600!!! >:D
Quote from: Eclipse on March 30, 2011, 04:18:47 AM
The old-style are no longer available new, but they can occasionally be purchase on the secondary market
in the $150-300 range.
The new style go for $750.
http://www.ltronics.com/ (http://www.ltronics.com/)
The last two complete units I saw on eBay, many months ago, went for over $400 each, one with both the 121.5 MHz antenna and the 243 MHz antenna, and the other with just the 121.5 MHz antenna. A receiver by itself went for over $200.
/me wonders how much he could sell one for ...
(and then I could get one of the new ones, since I have two of the older ones)
Quote from: a2capt on March 30, 2011, 07:29:19 AM
/me wonders how much he could sell one for ...
(and then I could get one of the new ones, since I have two of the older ones)
Throw it/them up on eBay. Put a minimum bid or reserve on them, and go for it. You should be able to clear at least $300 on each one, if they are the complete units, with case.
. . if u have ur heart set on an l-per, i understand, i have one that goes with me wherever i go. i was lucky enough to get one of the last batch that were made. no, its not for sale.
. . if u have a problem with forking over $700 for a df unit, i understand. a $300 option would be a mk4 sniffer, which, with, say, a $165 bob miller antenna, might get u where u want to go. it will not do 243 mhz, but is synthesized for 120 thru 122 mhz aviation band, and the 143 thru 149 mhz ham/cap band. this would allow df training using any local aviation transmitter, such as the awos, or someone with a cap radio, if u only knew the frequency. (it will scan) i'm trying to get a 406 model built.
. . the antenna place: http://www.rdfantennas.com/welcome.htm
. . the mk4: http://www.foxhunt.com.au/2m_sniffer/manual.htm
. . there are several mk4 videos on youtube.
hope this helps,
bill
^ You seem to be missing several keys on your keyboard.
Nope... that's starshippe's 'fist' (a CW/morse code term for someone's posting style). When he first posted, he was called on the carpet by the old heads here on CAPTalk, but he explained himself and I not suffering any agita over his posting style.
And now... back to our topic! ;D
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on March 30, 2011, 03:13:04 PM
Nope... that's starshippe's 'fist' (a CW/morse code term for someone's posting style). When he first posted, he was called on the carpet by the old heads here on CAPTalk, but he explained himself and I not suffering any agita over his posting style.
And now... back to our topic! ;D
I guess I'm an old head then. I called him on it because it shows laziness and unprofessionalism to use such poor writing. I use better grammar in my text messages on my phone. And don't give me anything about: "but I use a computer all day at work," because I used to work 10 hour days 4 days a week for almost three years before getting laid off. On average 9.5 hours of that was at my computer. You either behave like a professional or you don't.
Is there some reason that UDFs don't use doppler direction finders while mobile? I understand that the L-Per is a lot more useful when operating portable, but it seems to me that a doppler coupled with a laptop and GPS might give pretty fast results. There are some pretty slick looking doppler RDF kits on the amateur radio market.
-- john
Quote from: jks19714 on March 30, 2011, 03:46:56 PM
Is there some reason that UDFs don't use doppler direction finders while mobile? I understand that the L-Per is a lot more useful when operating portable, but it seems to me that a doppler coupled with a laptop and GPS might give pretty fast results. There are some pretty slick looking doppler RDF kits on the amateur radio market.
-- john
My guess would be cost. An Lper is cheaper than a laptop.
QuoteIs there some reason that UDFs don't use doppler direction finders while mobile?
Here are three CAP Talk discussions on this topic. There are other threads here that have scattered messages about Doppler DF units.
Doppler DF http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=4246.0
DF Gear Evaluation http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=11068.0
L-Per Alternative http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=8573.0
Mike
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on March 30, 2011, 03:13:04 PM
Nope... that's starshippe's 'fist' (a CW/morse code term for someone's posting style). When he first posted, he was called on the carpet by the old heads here on CAPTalk, but he explained himself and I not suffering any agita over his posting style.
. . it
. . serves
. . no
. . purpose
. . and makes him look like typing the English language properly is a skill he has yet to master.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 30, 2011, 04:18:34 PM
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on March 30, 2011, 03:13:04 PM
Nope... that's starshippe's 'fist' (a CW/morse code term for someone's posting style). When he first posted, he was called on the carpet by the old heads here on CAPTalk, but he explained himself and I not suffering any agita over his posting style.
. . it
. . serves
. . no
. . purpose
. . and makes him look like typing the English language properly is a skill he has yet to master.
I agree with ya, the weird posting style can be annoying at times but it doesn't make me run to the hills with my hair on fire. Although I've seen worse texting styles.
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on March 30, 2011, 03:13:04 PM
Nope... that's starshippe's 'fist' (a CW/morse code term for someone's posting style). When he first posted, he was called on the carpet by the old heads here on CAPTalk, but he explained himself and I not suffering any agita over his posting style.
And now... back to our topic! ;D
I have just decided to forgo reading this type of post.
Quote from: ß τ ε on March 30, 2011, 04:42:23 PM
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on March 30, 2011, 03:13:04 PM
Nope... that's starshippe's 'fist' (a CW/morse code term for someone's posting style). When he first posted, he was called on the carpet by the old heads here on CAPTalk, but he explained himself and I not suffering any agita over his posting style.
And now... back to our topic! ;D
I have just decided to forgo reading this type of post.
More support for the "mute" button.
Yup. Be it as it may. But I too see it as plain old laziness, unprofessionalism and in general a lack of respect for whom you are speaking to, when I read stuff like that. So I just don't read it. I wonder how many others do the same.
Maybe I'm loosing out, maybe there could be an offer for a free million dollars in it, but somehow the odds against that are well in favor of it not being. Does a truck driver just drive sloppy on the way home because "well, I've been driving all day. I'm tired. I don't have to stop at that sign."
This isn't the HAM band. There is not a shortage of bandwidth here. The caps on service are not that bad that we need to skimp on characters. This isn't SMS.
Like a person that used to frequent our IRC channel constantly in the early 90s', "I type all day at work, I'm tired of it." ...and wondered why they got hardly any, if any, answers.
Even L-pers have more bandwidth available to them.
. . whether doppler or lobe switching, i think dfing while moving has disadvantages. i would prefer to find a large open space, pull well off the road, take a careful bearing, well away from the metal in the vehicle, and plot it using the current gps position. i think several of these would provide a better "fix" than one derived while in motion.
. . in addition, care must be taken while driving so that the driver is not distracted from his job.
bill
Quick question. Is there a reason we don't use this type of distress beacon locator?
http://www.landfallnavigation.com/sav21.html
I know..It is very expensive, but from videos I have seen, it seems to have a better accuracy.
Looks like another cheese block at twice the price.
If spending the same money is a given, which is better? One team with a "more accurate" device, or two teams working together?
Hard to say, but worthy of the discussion.
Nothing says a unit can't buy this, or whatever else they want, but with limited funds prices will always be a factor, especially when the
devices will basically do the same thing within our needs for margin of error.
L-Tronics was the traditional vendor of choice for years, but that doesn't make them a requirement.
A few years ago NHQ purchased and issues hundreds of the Siemac Pro Finds under a national contract. They were also more expensive
than L-Pers, and they were / are junk. Most of us who had them couldn't even get them to work at all, even after multiple trips back to the
vendor, and just returned them.
Most I'm aware of are sitting on a shelf, unused.
Quote from: elipod on April 01, 2011, 03:30:20 PMhttp://www.landfallnavigation.com/sav21.html (http://www.landfallnavigation.com/sav21.html)
Hey, at least it's available ... ;)
Quote from: elipod on April 01, 2011, 03:30:20 PM
Quick question. Is there a reason we don't use this type of distress beacon locator?
http://www.landfallnavigation.com/sav21.html
I know..It is very expensive, but from videos I have seen, it seems to have a better accuracy.
We don't use it because the headphones would only serve to reinforce the idea that you should hold your ear up to the L-Per as you twirl in circles like an idiot...
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on April 01, 2011, 04:54:44 PM
Quote from: elipod on April 01, 2011, 03:30:20 PM
Quick question. Is there a reason we don't use this type of distress beacon locator?
http://www.landfallnavigation.com/sav21.html (http://www.landfallnavigation.com/sav21.html)
I know..It is very expensive, but from videos I have seen, it seems to have a better accuracy.
We don't use it because the headphones would only serve to reinforce the idea that you should hold your ear up to the L-Per as you twirl in circles like an idiot...
You mean you can't DF by ear? The needle on my unit's ancient Lper sticks and using my ear is the only reliable method of doing the job. So far it has found dozens of practice beacons even with bad echoes.
The Vectra uses a very poor antenna. It has minimal sensitivity, and extremely wide "lobes" (relating to bearing accuracy) However, its okay for open water use, since even low power transmitters can often be DF'd to the horizon. As a terrestrial direction finder, its nearly useless. ( I had one and experimented with it extensively) I believe that someone at National purchased a few of these at one point, and also found them inadequate for our needs. Nothing against the devices; As a man-overboard locator, its perfectly fine.
Major Lord
The Vecta3 is/was built by ACR Electronics and was the replacement for the Vecta2. Both are listed as discontinued products on the ACR website. ACR is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Cobham Plc.
Seimac, maker of the Pro-Find referenced earlier, was also bought out by Cobham Plc. but unlike ACR, Seimac was combined with another company into Cobham Tracking and Locating. Good luck finding anything about the Pro-Find on the company website.
I never saw a Vecta from CAP, but at one time National bought Tracker FTVs. These have folding "circuit board" antennas like the Vecta. The Trackers were good for a demo to show what not to spend your money on when looking to buy a DF unit.
The Tracker can be seen here: http://www.landfallnavigation.com/ftvreceiver.html
The Tracker and Vecta can be seen next to one another on Scott Lanis' DF gallery, along with other DF units, here: http://www.cap-es.net/ES%20Electric%20Technology/DF%20Unit%20Gallery.htm
Quote...but from videos I have seen, it [Vecta3] seems to have a better accuracy [than the L-Per]
The accuracy of the Vecta, Tracker, L-Per and other DF units are very much dependent on the user. All of them require the user to find the "best" direction to the signal by the same process of turning in an arc and comparing signal strength.
Mike
Quote from: sardak on April 01, 2011, 05:38:52 PM
The Vecta3 is/was built by ACR Electronics and was the replacement for the Vecta2. Both are listed as discontinued products on the ACR website. ACR is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Cobham Plc.
Seimac, maker of the Pro-Find referenced earlier, was also bought out by Cobham Plc. but unlike ACR, Seimac was combined with another company into Cobham Tracking and Locating. Good luck finding anything about the Pro-Find on the company website.
I never saw a Vecta from CAP, but at one time National bought Tracker FTVs. These have folding "circuit board" antennas like the Vecta. The Trackers were good for a demo to show what not to spend your money on when looking to buy a DF unit.
The Tracker can be seen here: http://www.landfallnavigation.com/ftvreceiver.html
The Tracker and Vecta can be seen next to one another on Scott Lanis' DF gallery, along with other DF units, here: http://www.cap-es.net/ES%20Electric%20Technology/DF%20Unit%20Gallery.htm
Quote...but from videos I have seen, it [Vecta3] seems to have a better accuracy [than the L-Per]
The accuracy of the Vecta, Tracker, L-Per and other DF units are very much dependent on the user. All of them require the user to find the "best" direction to the signal by the same process of turning in an arc and comparing signal strength.
Mike
You are correct. It depends solely upon the user, and how he/she handles it. I meant, possibly it had a better user interface. More advancements.. well, obviously more 'spiffy' than our ancient elpers (the big ones with wood).
Out of the three elpers I have tried, the ancient one does the best job though :P