Leaderboard

Good Day All, I wanted to do a follow-up and close the loop on this thread. I received an RMA to send the original radio back. I had the radio all packaged up ready return when I was contacted by BTWR who asked if I would considering comparing it against a replacement radio first. I was happy to oblige as that was my original hope anyway. Once in hand I tried to reproduce the conditions that lead to this post in the first place. Sadly, in many attempts, the over-the-air propagation was never consistent enough for me to rely on it like I could the day I performed my original comparisons. In the end, I purchased an RF signal generator and wide assortment of RF pads to have in my radio tool box so that my comparisons would be objective and not skewed by variable environmental conditions. Since I do not have a SINAD meter, the best I could hope for was comparing the radios and how effective they are at opening squelch at their lowest squelch. And since my original point of reference was the existing HT radios, I measured my existing HTs, the original and the replacement 1000G. So what did I find? I found the original 1000G slightly less sensitive than my 805G by an amount of 2dB, consistent with the manufacturer’s specifications. I found the new 1000G nearly the same as the original, to slightly better. I found my KG-UV9P to be 3dB more sensitive than my 805G. I found the meters on all the radios to have different swings, proving that the meters on the radios cannot be relied upon for any meaningful comparisons between models. I kept both 1000Gs in my shack for a while and have switched back and force between them on many occasions when I experienced weak and variable signals. Through lots of patience and switching I did discover that part of the problem I was experiencing with the original 1000G was that it seems to have a harder time decoding PL tones at the lower end of its receive range (when its meter appears with 5 or less bars). I found that when I switched to carrier squelch on these signals that squelch remained open more consistently down down to nearly 1 bar. I also found that the replacement 1000G did a better job of decoding PL down to a lower level. So, in conclusion, based on comparisons against same brand models, the difference in sensitivity between my original 1000G and my 805G appears to be consistent with the manufacturer’s specifications. And by the way, I have been in contact with Gman to discuss the practice of doing environmental effective sensitivity measurements using the ISO-Tee. There will likely be posts on this subject at some future date. Thanks G. Michael WRHS965 KE8PLM

644mm from where the whip disappears into the mount. Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

Maybe I cut too much, but I just kept trimming until I got to 1.3. I'm playing in the garage right now. Lemme dig up a tape measure and I'll tell you what length it is now..... Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

After giving it some thought, it may be a valid experiment. HT (or FT-817) is inside the zip log, wrapped with kitchen foil, on the wet sand or swamp ground. Make sure there is absolutely no electrical connection between radio, or cable shield and the foil. MASSIVE choke on the coax, inside the same Faraday cage. Operator 1 is next to the radio pressing PTT through the foil, Operator 2 is measuring field strengths with whatever method available.

Of course, the back connector and the front BNC connector are bolted to the same aluminum body of the FT-817/818. The ground bus inside the radio electrically bonded with body and case in several places. I can only come up with the one sure way to isolate the body of HT or any other radio: put in Faraday cage NOT electrically connected to the body, but providing very low impedance and very short path to the ground. Something along "wrap your HT with kitchen foil, put inside the zip log and bury in the wet sand on the ocean beach". Also, have a very high-impedance RF choke on the coaxial. But how are you going to press PTT and speak/listen? The remote mic cable will radiate better than HT body, it's longer! (look up so called Tiger Tail) And I will repeat, this is the property of the short wavelength. The shorter, the easier for RF to escape through ground buses, connectors, cables, etc. The only solution is to wrap yourself together with your HT and have yourself buried with the radio in the wet sand. You would need a snorkeling pipe. Make sure your will is current and signed by two witnesses. And report the results! I'm genuinely interested.

99% of the NMO mounts are RG58. There are some low loss ones that people have tried over the years but in a 15' cable you wont notice the difference unless you get up in the 2.4 ghz frequencies. If your really looking for a better mount and the bottom is exposed this is what I run on all my vehicles and SAR vehicles. https://www.theantennafarm.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=264_266_291&products_id=1125 The base is enclosed and helps with moisture. I still drop a piece of good heat shrink over the cable where it hits the base. I have them on vehicles in CNY winters for years. I run this on my JK (front fender mount) and on my JT (Back Rack mounted). Your antenna will make more difference on the jeep than the cable.

Listening to the soundbite included in the post I can say for sure this is not the case. You can hear it is coming from the repeater as the static at times mixes with the audible beep.

Jeep Jamboree teaming up with Midland is going to grow GMRS tremendously. Growth in GMRS will probably spark some increased interest in amateur radio. It's all good.