All Activity

The likelyhood is a fraction higher than zero - it's not absolute zero, but very close to zero.. Its funny how "some people" will proclaim that my cheap little CCR can't talk more than a few hundred yards, yet, one minute later they will proclaim that the same radio's spurious RF emissions will bring down a 747 at 38,000 feet or jam an entire police department's communications system from 5 miles away. OMG. The stars have aligned. I TOTALLY AGREE. spurious emissions is not something any one really needs to worry about. Atleast not from a ccr 2-5w ht

Usually that not SE but on the same frequency in a constant transmit mode.

Or 220 As already suggested, get FRS off 15-22. FRS users don't need 22 channels (most activity is on 1 and 3). True, but not what should be done. Removing regulations they don't care enough about to enforce should be SOP.

Spurou's emissions from baby room monitors have known to drive some radio enthusiasts nuts so i can imagine that spurious emmissions from a 5 Watt HT can do the same. However it's unlikely an HT will be in continuous XTMT mode so i dont think the damage would be that severed.

the radios are part 95, at least thats what i see on Maxon's site. . No warranty. Never needed it. i did buy the programing and the cable for another $50 bucks. The Duplexer was given to me from a guy here in town that took down a CH 18 repeater. However i did have BuyTwoWay re ture it. He bought it from BuyTwoway. I recently scored a 25W HR652 on Ebay for $700 bucks, it's pretty much like new and was used on a campus school building. Will be soon be selling the Maxons to recoup some money. No, the Maxons are not waterproof but the Hytera is IP67. And snow, what is that, i never see it or play in it

He's referring to the RT97L, 50W GMRS repeater. I'm curious - was your 40Watt repeater new, with a warranty, is it FCC Part 95 compliant, did it come pre-programmed with the GMRS repeater pairs, was the duplexer pre-tuned for GMRS, is it portable, and water proof, and does it automatically heat up to remove snow/ice when used outdoors in cold weather?

I dont't know which Retivis repeater your referring too, the RT97 is near $500 bucks. I paid 200 bucks for a 40 Watt repeater that works very well off my RV Solar Systems. If you're referring to using two HT's for a repeater.. good luck with that, it would really serve zero purpose other than to play with.

Here you go (yes, that is a man’s hand in my picture but I’m a small man)

They are close. But it's not the same hand.

I'm going to squirt some opinion anyway, even though you already know it. The likelyhood is a fraction higher than zero - it's not absolute zero, but very close to zero.. Its funny how "some people" will proclaim that my cheap little CCR can't talk more than a few hundred yards, yet, one minute later they will proclaim that the same radio's spurious RF emissions will bring down a 747 at 38,000 feet or jam an entire police department's communications system from 5 miles away. YES! at least, some do. I have seen this myself many times when comparing my XTL5000 radios in both my Jeeps to cheap radios in Jeeps just a couple of feet away - it actually happened yesterday. Our friend's radio was completely unusable when we were about 1/4 mile from a big antenna tower site, and the XTLs in my and my wife's Jeeps were silent. and this has happened many times. It is doubtful that any decent LMR radio would ever be affected by the spurious emissions from a 5w HT miles away.

I don't want to ask this question in an amateur radio forum because I'm afraid I couldn't get a straight answer, so I'll try it here. If I understand correctly, any "spurious emissions" will not be retransmitted by a repeater. It will pick up the strongest part of the signal and retransmit that on a different frequency. So, my question is, how much harm can spurious emissions from a 5 watt HT actually do? Yes, I understand about the possibility of creating interference in a frequency allocated to public safety or commercial radio, but realistically, how likely is that? Hams tend to think of these things from the standpoint of tall antennas and high wattage, and you likely could muck up stuff with a 50' antenna and 1,000 watts, but a 5 or even 10 watt HT doesn't seem to have much potential to cause trouble. Do commercial LMR and public safety radios have filters to eliminate the "fuzz" created by a low-power harmonic? I assume the technology exists, and if I were building a $1,200 radio for a police department, I'd certainly include it. I'm not arguing that a "cleaner" signal isn't better and more desirable, but I suspect the "dirty" signal from a cheap HT isn't going to actually matter to anyone. I already know @OffRoaderX's opinion but I'm curious what the rest of you think.

I can see that working okay, but it's certainly not cheap. For that price, you could come close to the new Retevis 25 watt repeater, which is almost certainly more rugged. It made sense when the only commercially available package options output 5 watts, but I'm not so sure it does now. Two radios designed for that purpose probably work pretty well, but the "two Baofengs in a can" stuff I've seen on YouTube is over-hyped.

About the only way to do that would be to carve off 8-10 frequencies from the 440 band, and hams would completely lose their s*** over that. I understand why. Once the camel's nose is under the tent, the rest will soon follow, and hams don't want to lose anything they have. I don't think there's any way the FCC will authorize new channels for GMRS. In this particular instance, it's not something they will consider at all, because the goal is to simplify rules, save money, and reduce regulatory burdens, and reallocating frequencies to GMRS won't do any of that. My prediction is that changes to amateur and GMRS regulations will be few or none. My reasoning is that ham and GMRS are already pretty lightly regulated and there's not much to be gained by changing anything. The only thing I could see happening is that other users could pressure the FCC to reallocate part of the amateur radio spectrum to give them more bandwidth, but again, at present that won't accomplish any of the FCCs goals. Indeed, it would make things more complicated since they'd have to write a whole new set of regulations. It may happen someday, but probably not under the present administration.

i used two Maxon 8402 radios that fit nicely in the can. (FAT 50 Ammo Can). The 8402's don't require a controller, it's built into the radio, just patch them together and do the progrming. . I also placed a sheet metal shield between the radios and mounted a cheap duplexer (buytwowayradios) on the exterior back side of the can.. The FAT 50 can is more than enough space. I picked these radios up on Ebay two years ago from someone that never used them. Both radios $200 bucks.. Every once in awhile they pop up. These radios have no problems working together in that can, as they are pretty decent commercial radios.

It's the same hand!

That what I was thinking, too. If it were some dodgy connections, might lead to a short which would cause other problems.

I've made an "ammo can" repeater, and it works...kinda. IME, you need about 30' of horizontal separation and 2' of vertical separation to get a result that's noticeably better than simplex. With a pair of UT-72 antennas I got pretty good results, but then it won't fit in an ammo can. They don't weigh much, so it's still packable, and if you're driving, it's no big deal at all. I've seen guys on YouTube claiming good results with antennas about 6" apart, but I haven't seen anyone actually demonstrating that. A pair of roll-up antennas should work, but you'd still need to carry a couple of 15' lengths of coax. The coax and roll-ups would fit in a large-ish ammo can with the other stuff, so it can be done, but it's not as easy, compact, or cheap as the YouTubers make it look. The range on the ammo can repeater didn't impress me either. Until now, the two common commercial ones were 10 watt units (actually probably ~5 out of the duplexer), which can still be useful if you position them advantageously, but vegetation definitely limits their range -- one of the few cases IMO in which adding more power is the solution. I've ordered one of the new 25 watt repeaters from Retevis and I'll be interested to see how it works. They claim 22 watts post-duplexer. We'll see.

The only way I can conceive of feeling a tingle from 7.4 vDC battery terminals would be if the person has sweaty hands and the part of the hand between the terminals has nerve endings near the skin’s surface, similar to touching a battery’s terminals with your tongue.

They look like some pretty meaty paws to me! And now the radio's backwards and it's not an H3 plus!

I haven’t noticed the battery “tingle” but I hold it with my left hand if that makes a difference lol. Numbers appearing may be ANI ID numbers. I have seen them on receive but I don’t recall seeing them on transmit but I don’t have them turned on.

You think those are man hands?

Apparently the AI likes to put man hands on woman holding radios.

When your programming cable is connected to the computer, your computer pick which comm port it wants to use. In the CPS, you have to tell the CPS which comm port the computer wants to use by going to the Set Up Page and click on Communications Port. You will notice that one of the 20 comm ports in the CPS is the only one that you can select so you need to select that port and click OK. Now, you can either read that codeplug or write to that codeplug. If any alerts come up just push pass it to write to the radio.

I don't believe that the old TK-880 software is capable of using anything other than Comm port 1 through 4. In your Kenwood software, what Comm port are you assigning the software to use? What does your Device Manager say is the port assigned to your USB programming cable?

Alien hands ...