All Activity

Oh, yea. Whoops.

I think you are confused about what we are talking about. This is the microphone/handset - these are the only controls on the radio.

I went and did this. And it's quite easy; no problem finding it and downloading it to print. . And yes, the Official Copy I printed today does not have any mention of Line A that the one I printed in '20 did.

You know those loose azz buttons you complain about because of the jiggle confuckulation? That's how you change the channel

A definitive test, or comparison, should be done with a field strength meter and a uniform standardized test stand. That removes any personal bias and different physical antenna setups. Any changes in the far field has to be due to gain and pattern variations. Qualitative comments about hitting a repeater with one antenna and not another doesn't revel any insight on why that might be the case. Too many variables to control, any one or combination, can affect the results. I've tried this just for antenna matching. It's much more difficult to do than one realizes. I found just slight changes in orientation and ground plane made a big difference. https://www.hamradio.me/antennas/ht-antenna-comparisons.html https://reflector.sota.org.uk/t/antenna-testing-jig-swr/14791 Antenna Testing W9MDB.pdf

uhm..what? The microphone/handset is the ONLY way to change the channels.

Of course it can. You don't use the microphone for changing the channels.

As I have mentioned previously, I have used Parallels in my Mac to run Windows as far back as Windows XP for programming my non-Chirp radios. It is not well known that you don’t actually have to activate Windows for it to operate properly. To rephrase without double negatives, Windows operates properly without having to pay for it

Do they have anything like WINE for Linux that you can use on your Mac to run Windoze stuff? I run quite a bit of Windoze software on my MX Linux install without any issues what so ever. GNU/Linux has come a long way since I started using it way back in 2012. It's so easy to use a caveman could do it. LOL.

ahh yes.. right where someone would intuitively look for that setting.. Any idea if the channel can still be changed when locked?

We are talking HT antennas here and the human body holding the HT acts as the ground plane. In my anecdotal experience, I have always had better performance using my 5/8 2 meter telescoping antenna on my HTs, including my DSB Quansheng UV-K5(8), than either a 1/2 wave or rubber duck. Especially for those times a little extra “umph” gets me into a repeater or successfully complete a simplex QSO

Noticed Shaw Butte is back up this weekend, but the PL tone seems to have changed. I can hear it but can't get in.

A 5/8 wave requires a good ground plane. The reason it has a slightly better gain is the reflection off of the ground. Without that reflection it's basically no better than a 1/2 wave. And for an HT antenna you have crap for a ground plane. https://www.w8ji.com/VHF mobile vertical.htm

Based on your comment, I took a look at this “5/8 rubber duck” on the Smiley website. It seems a contradiction in terms: an antenna is either cut to 5/8ths length or is electronically made into a “rubber duck” with coils; but it seems to me it can’t be both! A true 5/8 should out perform a 1/2 wave or rubber dick.

Back to the original topic: according to comments on the Facetime Baofeng Owners Group, the DM-32 is limited to 50,000 Digital IDs, hence making it impossible to download the complete Digital ID library into memory. That plus it’s inability to use OpenGD77 firmware (or separately emulate its benefits) severely hampers the usefulness of the DM-32. I suspect that Baofeng does not want this model at its lower price point, to cannibalize sales of their more expensive models. To the OP: enjoy VHF/UHF and when you can get into HF, 10 meter band openings while we can enjoy the current sunspot cycle, but keep an open mind on the 24/7/365 availability of QSOs with DMR, of which low cost models with OpenGD77 continue to exist.

Under "Repeater Data Settings" Keypad Lock. Turn it off. Randy. You should take it back and give it to me. I could use the spare just in case. At least I know how to use it.

Pretty much any and all federal regulations were written by lawyers for lawyers. None are easy for the average person to understand. And as we see with FCC regulations and NFA/GCA regulations, some portions can and do conflict with each other. I don't blame you for wanting clarification if the line A issue might affect you or not. I also would not take what is posted on any forum as 100% correct without first verifying the information. I dealt with enough conflicting and/or confusing regulations back when I had my FFL. And it has not gotten any easier when dealing with the NFA and GCA.

You might want to look at the Diamond SRH320A. Not exactly cheap. SRH320A Triband HT Antenna.pdf

Right! I just don't like basing my understanding of the rules from a consensus of experienced users saying the rule is not longer on their license. If I was to go this alone (without this forum) how would I come to understand all this? marcspaz did a great job explaining in above post. If § 95.309 wasn't there, I would be satisfied with concluding Line A is not a GMRS thing anymore, but it's there and a GMRS user should not have to research treaties and international agreements to get yet another indirect answer to a poorly written rule.

ISN radios are not designed for voice, nor emergency operations. They are normally used for OT device control and monitoring. Usually the power is low, the ranges isn't very far per watt, and in general are typically programmed for some specific industry business. What are you trying to accomplish?

I just want to get comments on these radios if they're dependable during emergency use

Awesome link, thanks. Looks like LMR-400 would work well. At 220MHz and 20ft@10W I'd only get a 26% power loss so I'd still be putting out over 7W of power.

You will not see any loss or gain on 2m using 25 feet of RG8X. You will see a loss of 1-2 watts ERP (output at the antenna) using 25 feet of RG58. You would be okay with either coax as long as you stay at 35 feet or less. This was figured using an antenna with only 1 dB of gain. The more gain the antenna has the higher the ERP will be. The https://kv5r.com/ham-radio/coax-loss-calculator/ is an excellent source to figure out line loss with the different types of coax. Using any type of portable J pole or similar antenna up high will help extend your range when using a hand held radio. I have built a 2m j pole using faraday cloth and getting it up at 20-25 feet above the ground made a vast improvement. I can get into the local 2m repeater that's 22.5 miles away with a 5 watt HT but there is some noise on my transmission. I was told that I sounded like I was on my base radio when using the same HT connected to the faraday j pole.

Straight forward and/or simple to understand along with the federal government in the same sentence makes as much sense as military and intelligence used in the same sentence. This topic comes up regularly and the answers are always the same each time. I know my original official copy of my GMRS license issued in October 2023 had the line A restriction on it while a newer copy downloaded a few months ago does not have the line a restriction. I have driven myself batty trying to read, understand, and explain NFA and GCA regulations to people. I will let other members here explain the FCC regulations. PS: NFA and GCA makes as much sense as FCC regs do.

Somehow posted the PPOTA reply twice.