All Activity

Well I'm not putting a 1/4 wave antenna up on an 80' tower. That would look silly. LOL

Also, they are going by what is at the antenna connector of the chassis. "Output Power listed is conducted power." Conducted Power: This refers to the RF (Radio Frequency) power that is supplied by the transmitter to its antenna, measured at the point where the cable connects to the antenna. This is different from radiated power, which is the power emitted into the air from the antenna. Based on what I read from Cornell, the FCC's definition of "conducted power" primarily refers to the total transmit power delivered to all antennas and antenna elements when the transmitter is operating at its maximum power control level. This is also referred to as "maximum conducted output power."

As long as it doesn't say "shall be". Should and must can be gotten around legally.

I found the authorization... it took a few minutes between meetings. LOL What is wild is, the FCC authorization only seems to be valid if the user is operating with a maximum of ZERO dBi gain antenna, unless I am reading this incorrectly. I mean, it says "should" not "must"... so I don't know the correct answer. There is nothing in the rules about antenna gain. Where is my FCC enforcement guy? We know you read this stuff... LOL. Can the FCC legally put a limit on one-off stuff like that without going through a PRM process and an update to the rules? Seems odd. https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/tcb/reports/Tcb731GrantForm.cfm?mode=COPY&RequestTimeout=500&tcb_code=&application_id=MjZkkijyA8IfBeMCZsYVMw%3D%3D&fcc_id=2AGNDGMRSRPT50 TCB GRANT OF EQUIPMENT AUTHORIZATION TCB Certification Issued Under the Authority of the Federal Communications Commission By: MiCOM Labs 575 Boulder Court Pleasanton, CA 94566 Date of Grant: 12/15/2023 Application Dated: 12/15/2023 BTECH (BaoFeng Tech) 702 N Industrial Ave Arlington, SD 57212 Attention: Greg Wilson , NOT TRANSFERABLE EQUIPMENT AUTHORIZATION is hereby issued to the named GRANTEE, and is VALID ONLY for the equipment identified hereon for use under the Commission's Rules and Regulations listed below. FCC IDENTIFIER: 2AGNDGMRSRPT50 Name of Grantee: BTECH (BaoFeng Tech) Equipment Class: Licensed Non-Broadcast Station Transmitter Notes: GMRS Repeater Grant Notes FCC Rule Parts Frequency Range (MHZ) Output Watts Frequency Tolerance Emission Designator 95E 462.55 - 462.725 46.7735 1.097 PM 16K0F3E Output Power listed is conducted power. The transmitter has maximum duty factor of 50 %. This device is authorized to operate in the following radio services: GMRS (Part 95E). There must be an informational insert inside the box (product package) or the Users Manual must include information that clearly informs the consumer (buyer/owner) when the radio is transmitting on GMRS frequencies, that operation on GMRS frequencies requires an FCC license and such operation is subject to additional rules specified in 47 C.F.R. Part 95. The ant gain used should be 0dBi as max,The device with it's antenna must be installed to provide a separation distance of at least 114cm from all persons. End users and installers must be provided with antenna installation instructions and transmitter operating conditions for satisfying RF exposure compliance.

Nothing says you have to throw BTech or yourself under the bus to make a suggestion for a rule change. Frankly, I don’t think the FCC knows when there are violations. They have neither the people nor an interest in challenging the certification atteststions submitted by manufacturers unless the problems are so egregious that someone reports them.

Also if you do a ctrl F5 it will clear your browser on that website and reload it. Maybe something wonky happened with some data. Not sure if that's universal, I know it works with Firefox

From time to time my browser displays something like you posted, but a quick refresh almost always results in the correct look. It usually happens when I have limited service and slow speeds. What does speedtest tell you? https://www.speedtest.net/

Works on Chrome for me also.

Ya, that's not happening. That's just causing trouble for myself. I'm sure if there were regulation violations Btech would be the first to know about it. I'll keep the box output under 50w and it's not going to bother anyone.

And it would make sense. You can have a 50 watt radio and put all kinds of doodads internally but as long as it all complies with part 95 and is 50 watts or less out the connector they probably don't care. Btech made a big deal out of it being an all in one unit along with being able to output close to 50 watts. You know people are always miffed when it says 50 and you only get 40 even though it likely won't even make a difference. But it's the thought that you paid for that output and it comes up short. As long as I can make it to my house I'm pretty alright with it. And I know that 25 watts from my house couldn't punch through the leaves and 50 watts does it in spades. So power can matter.

That would be a good thing to send to the fcc in response to their request for regulation simplification suggestions. I agree that it absolutely makes sense to look at the output of the box, but that’s not how the regulations are currently written.

yea, i just tried both and they are working.. I don't think it's my end. Two browsers dong the same??

I think you are correct, in that what the FCC care about is everything is in one chassis, and what transmit power is coming out of the chassis. Not necessarily the PA output power.

Manufacturer says the whole setup is Part 95 compliant. Pretty sure as long as it's designed and built as an all in one unit the output at the connector is what is limited to 50 watts.

I think that’s a problem on your end. Here’s how it looks in Chrome (and Safari) on my iPad:

This is what I have in Firefox. Looks normal

This is how the page is loading on Chrome and Brave this morning

I would also be weary of adjusting the power using the input voltage. That sounds dangerous for the long term survival of the circuits. That typically isn't the correct way to adjust a transmitter.

Thanks, Marc. The test report (not performed by the FCC) doesn’t even mention the existence of a duplexer. Although the test setup photos do show that the repeater output is what’s being tested, I wonder if the FCC even realized that there’s an internal duplexer.

I can find this stuff... but nothing I can open. Not sure where the actual letter and artifacts are. https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Sum&calledFromFrame=N&RequestTimeout=500&application_id=MjZkkijyA8IfBeMCZsYVMw%3D%3D&fcc_id=2AGNDGMRSRPT50

Steve, the FCC gave the repeater type certification based on the output of the duplexer because the duplexer is inside the chassis and considered and internal part of the radio... part of the design. https://fcc.report/FCC-ID/2AGNDGMRSRPT50 I am trying to find the official FCC cert, but that is the reference I found so far.

I’m not sure why you think regulations are different if the transmitter and duplexer are packed into an enclosure. The regulations very clearly state that the transmitter output power must be limited to 50 watts, not that the all-in-one box output power must be limited to 50 watts. You obviously understand the difference because you clearly distinguished between the transmitter output power and the duplexer output in your earlier post. But that was really the least of my concerns. The fact is that the transmitter is putting out 71 watts, which is harder on the circuits. That’s 40% higher power than designed.

This is compliant with part 95. Because it is sold as an all in one unit the output at the antenna connector is limited to 50 watts max. It has nothing to do with the internal components. But if you had this same transmitter and hooked it up to an external duplexer it would be against regulation. It's just like buying a 50 watt mobile radio. The output of the radio is 50 watts (or less) at the antenna output which falls within part 95. The duplexer needs to be inside the system and specifically designed to be an all in one system to comply. I think it's a 65 watt transmitter. I can't get it to go below 60 watts with the voltage on the power supply dialed down to 11.5 volts and I think it went up to about 71 when it was dialed up to 13.8v. I've never had it higher than that. This is what I bought, not something I made.

So far my wideband duplexer is working fine. Maybe the out of tune lets you throw more power at it. IDK. Looks like Btech will let me purchase another one of the newer Duplexers. It's the one I'm currently running and has been able to take the 70 watts in so far for about a year with no degradation. Not sure if they'll send it tuned to my spec or just send me another wideband. In which case I'll get it tuned. I have to go to their link they made specifically for me because the duplexers aren't in their catalog to sell.

The excessive RF power will take a toll on the circuitry of the transmitter as well as being non-compliant with GMRS regulations. I would suggest adjusting the RF output down to 50 watts at the transmitter output, before the input to the low side of the duplexer. Many times repeaters are run at reduced power levels to prevent early failure.