Leaderboard

Gman1971, just give it up already. Moderator's edit: "...I disagree" Sorry moderators, ...but someone had to say it.

If you watch the following YouTube video you start to get a clearer picture of what line of sight without obstructions can do for your UHF range. Here the users are demonstrating 27km range using a handheld .5 watt radio over in Europe. Their elevation comes from being high on two opposing hillsides. One thing I have come to realize much better is that it is not just sufficient to get the antenna above nearby obstructions but you must also get it above a good percentage of all obstructions between the transmitting and receiving antennas. While the signal might be fully blocked by a hill abruptly, it does pass through and around foliage and many other obstacles but indeed it is attenuated by them. Place a good stand of trees between those same set of radios used in the video demo above and you suddenly you find yourself at .5 miles while the radio horizon might actually be 6 miles. In some recent modeling that I did (and already shared) using an online coverage calculator I was able to see first hand that modest increases in height can be met with insignificant range improvements, even over mostly level terrain. Whereas when I modeled a doubling or quadrupling of antenna height I observed more appreciable increase in coverage. When there are no obstructions, radio range is mostly affected by the radio (antenna) horizon. When you are above the horizon, the rest of the real-world’s obstacles placed in your way are your enemy. Michael WRHS965 KE8PLM Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Rugged Radios gets hit hard, see the FCC document. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-1395A1.pdf

From the grumpo-gMan1971, the Motosnob... Anyhow... happy Thanksgiving to all... God Bless and GodSpeed!! g.

Another option I've found to be a good compromise is to remove the sharkfin/oem antenna on the roof and install the NMO mount there. I've relocated the sharkfin internal components to the spoiler or to the third tail light on my cars. Saves the hole drilling dilemma, its easily reversible and no more scratching paint magmount shenanigans, or any other magmount issues. Works sufficiently well, although its a little less optimal than drilling the hole in the dead center of the roof... but my cars/vans have large panoramic sunroofs so makes it quite impossible to drill holes on a glass roof... so, the only place left is the OEM sharkfin location. UHF is not as bad as VHF, a 6 inch antenna is not even noticeable on a minivan. G.

So it appears that Rugged Radios was marketing as Part 90, radios that really can only be legally used by Hams - since arbitrary front panel TX frequency selection is a no-no for Part 90. Good - fine 'em. Being stupid is totally free - but that doesn't mean it is without cost...

I'm getting a 1.04 on the Midland Mag mount. Centered on the roof. About a foot back from the moonroof. On Channel 19. Kia Nero, small SUV, sport mini wagon. Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

Happy Thanksgiving back atcha! Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I have to admit I am surprised that the FCC does not seem to clearly mandate as part of its certifications that the radio firmware not allow Tx operation on frequencies and power outside the radio’s certification. When I read the rules I personally conclude that if the radio is not limited to specific frequencies and power by the nature of its hardware design then it becomes the responsibility of the radio’s firmware to keep the radio in compliance. I was recently surprised to discover that an otherwise legal FCC 95e “certified” radio was still fully capable of Tx operation on all amateur UHF frequencies (plus more) without hacking it, but also that it could transmit higher power on those GMRS frequencies where such power is not permitted. While the average person may not stumble on this it does shed light on the shortcuts the manufacturers are taking perhaps due to unclear language in FCC regs. While I am also a license amateur and permitted to use non-certified radios on amateur frequencies this may not be an issue, but the fact that this is possible on a GMRS radio that is not supposed to have said capability clearly shows a gap in the certification process. It would seem that based on the assertions in the FCC document that Rugged Radios has been exploiting this exact type of shortcoming. Michael WRHS965 KE8PLM Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

About darn time. I didn't believe what I read on another site, but these radios seem to be branded as portable scanners too... who knew. G.

+1 to mbrun. Also, remember that radio is a SNR game, or a Signal to Noise Ratio game.... sometimes the Signal might still be there, faint, but masked by the overwhelming Noise... much like light pollution under the night skies hides the fainter nebulae, stars, etc... you throw an H-Alpha filter, and all of the sudden the faint wonders of the night appear much clearer... same with radio. A few feet higher might not make the range noticeable better, but it seems to make the current link quality a bit better... and sometimes every bit counts. Also, remember that not all antennas radiate perfectly towards the horizon, there are nulls on the radiation pattern, both vertical and horizontal... and problems with grounding, problems with feedline, etc... they all introduce nulls on the pattern. So if a subscriber is in one of the antenna nulls will have the same effect as being behind difficult terrain. Wish I lived in a place with no obstructions... with no angry RF firebreathing broadcast 1400 foot towers... G.

Kerchunking is the act of keying up a repeater and not saying anything. When ever you key up while searching for a repeater tone always throw out your callsign.

If you don’t know about it already... http://www.repeater-builder.com

try inputting ctcss 141.3 on all your repeater channels and keying up and throwing out your call sign. If you hear it ID immediately or you hear a squelch tail after you key down you found a repeater. 141.3 is considered the travel tone and many open repeaters use it. After you find a repeater try calling out at different times of the day on it requesting permission to use it. That is what I do to access unlisted repeaters. So far everyone I have contacted has been very nice and usually don't mind you using them as long as you are licensed and don't abuse it. Things most repeater owner don't like is kerchunking, foul language, interruptions of on going conversations, and unlicensed users. Most repeater owners welcome more users so don't be mic shy.

15 to 20 miles but there is one high on a commercial tower that is close to 30. The higher the tower the further you will able to hit it. I am not far from you, I am down in the south east corner near DE, I may try to hit a few of the repeaters in your area the next time I am going up to cabelas.

I get that myself...which is why I can get that repeater I mentioned over 50 miles away with my base station @25W. It's located at almost 7100 feet and I am at just under 5100 feet with no obstructions in-between - classic LOS UHF radio wave propagation example. Another less understandable (to me) question about of radio propagation is If mpoole can't get 1/4 with only a 40 ft ridge running interference with his 50 watt rig; how come I can get nearly a mile with two HT (HT to HT @ 2w) with a 60 ft+ ridge in between? See elevation profile below. Situation is from my house in a suburban neighborhood with trees etc. to a park on the other side of the ridge. Signal reception to park is decent to excellent. House is at 5473 ft and reception is at 5506 ft on other side of ridge in park. John ];')

Well, wouldn't this be considered an adapter too? an adapter to the recessed threaded connector inside the radio? I mean, the fact that there is a thread inside the radio means you could buy an RG400 cable that threads into the back of the radio and go straight to the cavity/duplexer/antenna... etc. Correct? G.

Here is the official calculator for antenna/tower height. Remember, it's tower height PLUS any part of the antenna above the tower for the total height. TOWAIR Determination (fcc.gov)

Meh... a CCR quality with a higher price tag... pass. Also, for that price you can find used XPR5550 radios on eBay. G.

Measuring the SWR of quarter-wave HT antennas is incredibly difficult (if not practically impossible) to do by the average person because they generally lack the means to measure the antenna under the exact same conditions the antenna operates when mounted directly to the radio. Also, quarter-wave antennas are dramatically affected by the elevation above ground, the radio to human interface and other environmental factors. Half-wave rubber ducks are a different story. They are not affected by these things nearly as dramatically in my experience. There is a load of discussion on this very topic in many of the amateur radio forums available on the net. Only some of the most technically savvy have had the will and skill to overcome the obstacle and build test jigs to simulate the same conditions. I am only now just starting to dabble with this. One of the most common talked about solution includes sacrificing an existing HT to use as a component of the test jig. While we all like to talk about achieving a low SWR, a low SWR on a rubber duck is not as important as achieving a low SWR on a remote antenna (mobile, base, etc...) because you do not have the cable (aka feed line) losses eating up the power reflected back by the antenna. Instead, when you have an antenna connected directly to the radio, even when it is a less than perfect antenna, the highest majority of the transmitter power will still be radiated. From all my reading to date I have learned that the most effective way to contrast the performance of HT antennas is to use a field strength meter instead of an SWR meter. By contrasting the field strength of one rubber duck against another under identical test conditions you will be able to measurably determine which performs better. BTW, I too own a SureCom meter. Mine did come with a ground plane (GP) plate. All my 1/4 antennas perform poorly (from SWR perspective) without the GP (I have experienced as high as 12:1). With it, the values fall down into a range less than 3:1 on all of them. In contrast, the GP has negligible affect on the longer wavelength antennas which regularly seem to measure well below 2:1. Michael WRHS965 KE8PLM Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The Surecom 102 comes with a plate: https://www.409shop.com/thumb/phpThumb.php?src=../uplimg/mb100556_4b6eced6b53f86636eddd2f77f010506_mainpic.img&w=350&h=350&bg=FFFFFF&fltr[]=usm|80|0.5|3 Its is attached on the antenna side: https://www.409shop.com/thumb/phpThumb.php?src=../uplimg/mb100556_5e8455bf70241d5788b5403472e8102c_addpic1.img&w=700&fltr[]=usm|80|0.5|3

Nice! I'm in a mountainous area at 2150 ft running a 50 watt radio. Because of a ridge interference that is 40 ft higher than my antenna I can't reach 1/4 mile in that direction. As such I'm moving my repeater to a neighbor's work shop that is 120 higher than I am. So yes, the higher the better.

Yep, you all use the same call-sign, and it is a 15 minute interval, unlike the 10 minute interval in ham radio. As Marc said, identifiers are up to you, not regulated or required. In my family, we use unit numbers. I'm unit 1, (ex) wife (was) unit 2, sons are units 3,4, and 5, cousin Mike is unit 6. Grandpa goes by a handle: "The Old Timer". Still same call.