Leaderboard

I wanted to point our our Community Guidelines for these forums. It's available in the footer of every page next to the Privacy Policy. Please read and understand these rules. They may change periodically if there is a need to curtail any poor behavior, but I expect the basics are good enough. The intent is to keep this a family-friendly place free of drama and argument and adult content. https://forums.mygmrs.com/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules Thank you.

As the title states, the new version on Chirp now supports the Baofeng UV9-G. I installed it and it seems to work great.

That is the purpose of talkaround.

Thanks wayoverthere. Appreciate the help and the link. What you linked is not what I own. I'm a big fan of BTWR. They help keeping this part of the industry moving forward. GMRS seems to be garnering more and more support. Just noticed in my County, here in Florida that some of the schools in the County school system have GMRS licenses and the frequencies and PL Codes are published. 73's Gil - Largo, FL

That’s ok: I take all your snipes at me as “tongue in cheek!” It fits in with my sense of humor.

That’s an idea. An in-ground socket. Maybe a flange at the top to make it easy to find. I’d probably plug it so it doesn’t fill with dirt between launches. Thanks for the idea.

Thank you for the welcome. I probably looked right past the forum where I should introduce myself. I absolutely agree that lipos would be lighter. However, I have a hundred or so SLA batteries and I thought that I could use them as ballast for the antenna base as well. I might end up switching to lipos after lugging them to the top of the hill a couple times. Or maybe I’ll get one of the younger rocketeers to carry them... ?

Noob Steve, Your proposed installation is sound and definitly workable. Probably the key item to your proposed install will be the antenna. No matter which antenna you use, the key will be antenna heighth. I would look into finding a metal fence post or long spike that could be driven into the hilltop and a PVC pipe slipped over it. Attach the antenna to the PVC for added height and you would be good to go. The spike or post could be left in place as there would be no damage to the environment (and unnoticeable unless you knew where to look). A ground rod or piece of rebar driven at least a foot nto the ground would be sufficient for your purposes and a 10 foot piece of 3/4 inch PVC serve as the mast. As you wouldn't launch in windy condition conditions, you don't need to worry about wind loading for the antenna.

Thank you Michael. I didn't know when the newest version would come out, but I saw it today and see that it now includes the Baofeng UV-9G. If only they would add support for the GM30/P15UV/TD-H5 triplets... and the DB20-G/AT-779UV/RA25 triplets, too! I'm still waiting for those to be added.

Thanks, Michael

So I'm glad I could get you guys excited about a discussion beyond your normal tech-talk induced state of arousal around here. I must have missed all that chatter on channel 20 when rolling down the interstate. Not sure how that could be, with the level of common knowledge you claim is out there.

"Affiliate link below" ?

OK, while not trying to make this overly complicated, I will only mention these concepts and not the math behind them. First off is that 3 dB of loss is meaningless when you start looking at the overall effect it has on the range of a radio system. Consider that a CB or ham radio with an S meter registered S-1 to S-9. The change of one S unit required the signal to change 6db. So if you were running 10 watts and were being heard with an S-8 you would need to increase your power to 40 watts to bring the meter up to S-9. And what did that really do to the overall signal quality? Not much. Here's the thing NO ONE ever brings up and involves the most math. Path loss. Path loss is the signal level loss though free space between the transmitting and receiving antenna's. And it's going to be over 100 dB. And this it where people fall flat with the idea of cable loss and antenna height. Path loss can indeed be calculated and the attenuation levels changes depending on the medium. The other this that no one takes into account is horizon. UHF signals do NOT bend in the atmosphere. They radiate in a straight line away from the antenna and once they reach the horizon they keep going straight. No amount of power increase will change this but a height increase in the antenna does. The other thing that the height increase changes is the medium that the signal is required to pass through. Meaning if your antenna is 5 feet off the ground, the signal coming from it has to radiate through trees, houses, buildings, and the minute it hits a hill it's done going that way. All of these objects attenuate the signal of block it completely. A typical building is going to be over 30dB of attenuation. So if the building is 90 feet tall, and to get over it requires a 3 dB loss of signal to radiate past it, then you loose the 3 dB in the cable to make up for the 30 dB loss trying to pass the signal through the building. Yes, you can over so it and place an antenna too high in the air. But unless you have a 1000 foot tower this is a topic NOT worth discussing.

Really, if they added a dedicated jack for the off-the-shelf ID-o-Matic board, that'd solve like every single problem in one fell swoop.

I have one of these operating up on a remote mountain side here in Alaska. It uses a SLA battery that is solar re-charged. I get a range of around 25 miles or so when coupled with handhelds such as Vertex VX-231s and/or Motorola PR400s. It probably can go further but I run into the inlet and can't test it further. Out at 25 miles it starts to get a bit noisy in the signal but the message is readable. I attached a photo of looking in out from where it's located at.

OK I'm jumping in on this bandwagon. I tend to go overboard when I learn new stuff, so technical aspects don't worry me. What does worry me, however are things like: 1. Requires a windows PC to function properly (I'm a Mac guy). PITA drivers to install, com ports to configure with USB emulators with poorly written drivers, etc. 2. Requires 10 hours of study to accomplish a task I will perform once or twice a year, and thus I will have to repeat that 10 hours of study every year because I can't remember the details from the last time. 3. Expensive recurring costs of ownership like annual subscriptions or costly maintenance updates. 4. Spending more than I needed to because of some whiz-bang feature I'll rarely or never actually use 5. Requires babying and constant "re-tuning" or calibration before using (spend as much or more time tweaking as using) (and yes, I regularly do all of these things, but I try now to avoid them!) I had just ordered a Surecom SW-33 Mark II and then came across this thread, so I cancelled the order while I ruminate a bit. I like information, and love data. I love to optimize stuff. But I don't see myself getting to the point where I'm going to have a bench with a bunch of oscilloscopes and soldering irons. (that was my Dad, who built Heathkit radios and TV sets when I was a kid back in the 70's) Given all that, I feel like spending $50 on the Surecom SW-102 or $60-$70 NanoVNA seems like a reasonable step up in price from the $45 Sw-33 given the extra functionality. Though looking at the video tutorials for the NanoVNA, it seems like overkill for me (violates rules 1, 2, 4, & 5 for me) ​I guess the real question is which of those options is most compliant for what I need (which I think is similar to the OP's original question). "Which one is "good enough" in terms of accuracy, usability, and features? There definitely seem to be some strong opinions, and if you spend time on forums, this sort of thing isn't uncommon (nor is it anything but well-meaning usually). It's sorta like the following exchange: ​OP: "Whats the best way to get from LA to NYC on a budget?" Reply 1: "Citation X - it's faster than a Gulfstream G-650 and less than half the cost" ​Then a debate rages about the differences between the Gulfstream and the Citation, with the inevitable person saying "Hey, you guys don't know what you're talking about. The Falcon 7x is a much better aircraft.. blah blah blah" Then the original poster comes back and says "I was wondering if Greyhound was cheaper and faster than taking the train..." Its all about relative perspective... :-) Oh, PS - after some thought and a bit more reading, I went ahead and purchased one of the Surecom 120 units. I'll bet it will do everything I'm likely to need for the couple of VHF/UHF radios I have.