Leaderboard
Popular Content
Showing content with the highest reputation on 04/30/24 in Posts
-
FCC Improves On-line Interference Reporting
WRXB215 and 3 others reacted to back4more70 for a topic
My GMRS personality argues with my Amateur Radio personality constantly. It's like the other voices can't get a word in.4 points -
@WSCF738 just an FYI, propagation can be very different from what most repeater maps show. Typical repeater maps indicate a perfect circle when in fact, actual propagation looks more like this. As you can see, there is a dead zone in the square with "Dallas" written. It extends from the lower left of the square upwards. Then you can also see areas of light green much further away than that. Elevation, trees, houses, buildings, etc. all affect the actual propagation. This is why you can sometimes be closer and not get a signal but further and get a signal.2 points
-
Not really amplify, but the cookie sheet acts as a counterpoise. Your HT typically puts out about 5 watts, and the counterpoise helps to get more of that 5 watts out by providing the other half of the antenna, so to speak. The same as the roof of your vehicle would if you put the antenna on the roof. The antenna on your HT is essentially half the antenna, the other half is the metal under the antenna. Or if you're carrying your HT, your body is the counterpoise. Antenna theory is a big subject. It's sometimes hard to explain, but by God, people here will try. My suggestion would be to read up on it from sources like the ARRL, and check out KB9VBR's YouTube channel, KE0OG's channel, and others.2 points
-
Uniden Bearcat scanner for GMRS.
WSCH851 and one other reacted to SteveShannon for a question
I assume you mean RG58. It certainly might be the antenna, but I would consider the coax first. RG58 attenuates nearly 12 db at 400 MHz. Every 3 db is half of the signal or power, so 3 db loss is 1/2, 6 db is 3/4, 9 db is 7/8, and 12 db is 15/16 of the power lost. Coax is fine, as long as it’s a type that’s compatible with the frequency used.2 points -
FRS Mobile?
WRWE456 and one other reacted to SteveShannon for a topic
Let me clarify this a little. There are 22 FRS frequencies established by FCC regulations. Modern certified FRS radios can transmit on all of them. Those frequencies are grouped into three groups: 1-7, 8-14, and 15-22. The frequencies established for those channels are not sequential. The two groups with channels 1-7 and 15-22 are limited to 2 watts ERP (effective radiated power). But channels 8-14 are limited to 1/2 watt ERP. All of that is laid out in the FRS regulations here: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-95/subpart-B GMRS regulations allocate those same 22 frequencies for use by GMRS radios and add 8 more channels which handheld and mobile GMRS radios may use to transmit through repeaters. Those eight channels are referred to in regulations as the 467 MHz Main channels. So, the groups are channels 1-7, called the 462 MHz Interstitial channels; channels 8-14, called the 467 MHz interstitial channels; channels 15-22, called the 462 MHz Main channels; and finally the eight repeater channels which the FCC calls the 467 MHz Main channels, but some manufacturers refer to as 23-30 while others call RP15-RP22 or something similar. The GMRS regulations limit mobile (including handheld portables), repeaters, and base stations to 50 watts on the Main 462 and 467 MHz frequencies, but on the two Interstitial groups, output power is limited. On the Interstitial 462 MHz channels (FRS 1-7) GMRS radios are limited to 5 watts ERP. On the Interstitial 467 MHz channels (FRS 8-14) GMRS radios have the same 1/2 watt ERP limit as FRS. Furthermore, for GMRS, only handheld portable units may transmit on the Interstitial 467 MHz, so base and mobile GMRS radios are officially prohibited from transmitting on 8-14. Various radios handle that differently, but that’s the regulation. However, by regulation, FRS and GMRS radios are permitted to communicate with each other on those 22 channels which are shared between the two services. That’s clearly established in 95.531(c) in the FRS regulations and 95.1731 in the GMRS regulations. Here’s a link to the GMRS regulations: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-95/subpart-E I hope this helps.2 points -
Just don't use a cheap Chinese junk duplexer. Use a quality duplexer like EMR Corp. Celwave, Sinclair, Motorola, and Telewave.1 point
-
FCC Improves On-line Interference Reporting
SteveShannon reacted to OffRoaderX for a topic
My handshakes have often been described as both cold and icky.. and sometimes... moist..1 point -
@LarryWRWH885 Take a screenshot like @WRXR255 did and post it. That will help debug. Also, smudge out the tones if they are not public.1 point
-
FCC Improves On-line Interference Reporting
WRHS218 reacted to SteveShannon for a topic
I've heard that story before, but the Harvard Radio Club history says nothing of it: http://w1af.harvard.edu/php/history.php Wikipedia has an interesting page on the etymology of "ham". A couple different versions of that story appear there, but nothing truly definitive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_ham_radio1 point -
Unique Repeater Setups
SteveShannon reacted to quarterwave for a topic
Since I often see posts from people thinking out loud, or whom just got a license and got into radio, proposing to do some brand-new wild and crazy idea that will shock the world..... There is little new and shocking about how and what we can do with radio, both in HAM and GMRS. It's all been tried in one way or another. Now, that's not discouragement, but so many wild ideas get a critical response when the wild eyed newbies and inexperienced folks get to thinking with a keyboard. How about we proactively talk about unique setups or experiments we may done or seen. This way when Cleetus wants to link 17 repeaters in 4 square miles with MURS and CB channels, maybe he won't get run over by the radio police. He'll know that's not right, and won't work, at least within the rules. So if you have multiple repeaters, remote receivers, wireline controls, RF linked repeaters, poor mans LTR (AKA - PL scanning) or some other unique setup, we'd love to hear about it, how it is setup and if it works well.1 point -
Would this include the time when I was twelve, and I swiped a bottle of my sister's hand lotion and later that day, touched myself in an impure manner?1 point
-
Unique Repeater Setups
catbrigade reacted to WRKC935 for a topic
OK, first, multiple PL, which is a 'community repeater' isn't illegal. It has been done in the past and no doubt will continue to be done. Kenwood repeaters are the way to go here as the Motorola stuff requires a secondary repeater controller. Benefits to multi-PL is you can have a repeater that is both public (PL #1) and private (PL #2) and be right with the world. You can communicate via your private PL to your short list of users, and have the repeater open to all users without disturbing you. Now, stuff I am doing. Of course we know that hardline is expensive. Antenna's are too (at least good commercial stuff). I happened into an 8 port transmit combiner that I converted to two 4 port combiners and then added a hybrid combiner port to it in order to run 2 GMRS repeaters (600 and 675) on the same antenna. This consisted of two dual isolators, a 50/50 power divider and the existing can in the combiner. The two repeaters are feeding the two dual isolators, which feed into the power divider (working backwards) and then into the can that feeds the spider going tothe transmit antenna. That combiner also has a ham repeater at 442.775 feeding it. the other combiner only has a single GMRS repeater that belongs to the site owner. There is discussion for additional UHF repeaters to be put at the site for other hams to take advantage of the combiner and antenna heights. Of course, free or even reasonably priced tower access for a ham / gmrs repeater is a rare thing indeed. Other 'odd' things that I am doing. My repeaters are all 24 volt DC powered. MTR2000 /3000's are great repeaters, but they share one failure point. The power supplies in them tend to fail when running them from 110/220. But the 24 volt power input still works fine in most cases of a supply failure. So I am running a stack of 48 volt to 24 volt buck converters in parallel (old telco gear) that are 40 amps each on the 24 volt output. With 5 of these in parallel, I have a sizable supply of 24 volt power. Of course running those does require 48 volts. That is derived from an ElTek rectifier that has 6 30 amp modules in it and charge and maintain 6 strings 110amp hour batteries. The 48 volt also runs other microwave equipment and ethernet switches at the site. Last time I ran the calculations for expected battery capacity based on the load at the time I was at 4 days. So that's a bit outside the norm. Not too far, but not typical. I would have to think on the other 'non-typical' things I am doing with the current setup. While I know how to and have the ability to run receive sites on my setup, I somehow accidentally setup the receive and transmit antenna's in such a way that my coverage both directions is equal on both portable and mobile subscribers. If you can hear it it will hear you. So receive sites would actually break that equal coverage thing I have going on. Now my control station setup is a bit different that most. I am running a Motorola MotoBridge system that locates the radios and the gateways at the tower and the 'consoles' at my house via a microwave link to the tower. I have 2 gateways in active use and 3 more to install and expand the system as needed. The MotoBridge will allow for direct control of APX/XTL and XPR radios. In addition I can do tone remote (have a VHF and UHF MTR setup for tone configured as base stations) local control for basic PTT and audio and they will interface to several other radio types that are no longer around. I was doing this with a Centracom console system but that was becomeing difficult to deal with and I backed away from that for the time being.1 point -
FCC Improves On-line Interference Reporting
SteveShannon reacted to WRYZ926 for a topic
I hate when that happens. I have to deal with that myself. It gets so bad at times that I can't even keep my call signs straight.1 point -
Frequency Question
SteveShannon reacted to quarterwave for a question
If everyone is running good equipment, it should be fine. I've been in tight commercial sites where there were 5-6 UHF repeaters within 2MHz of each other. And VHF to contend with. If the filtering is good, you're ok.1 point -
Unique Repeater Setups
SteveShannon reacted to quarterwave for a topic
The sarcasm is strong with this one. There is probably alot of sideways stuff going on out there, but there are perfectly legit setups too. I've worked in commercial telecom and part 90 for over 30 years, sometimes the most unique solutions seem out of bounds, then all the haters have to peel their foot out of their mouths when they can't prove it is. I figure a collection of interesting experiments or setups to read about is way better than 9,000 random posts by newbies with the big new idea of the day.1 point -
FCC Improves On-line Interference Reporting
SteveShannon reacted to BoxCar for a topic
Another story is the commercial shipboard operators called the amateurs "ham fisted."1 point -
Unable to Test a repeater
SteveShannon reacted to WSCF738 for a question
Thanks to all who replied to my post. I did what was suggested, clear out the receive tone, and when I was in town at Home Depot yesterday I clicked the mic and did hear a "kerchunk" which was more then I ever heard. So I did a test and noticed that my signal strength went to 4. I didn't get a response but at least it looked like it was working. I wanted to show my wife that it was working but I couldn't repeat the results. It was kind of frustrating but at least it looks like what ya'll recommend worked. It sounded like, on the way home, that someone was talking on it but couldn't understand what they were saying.1 point -
Amateur Radio and GMRS.......They are separate services, I'd like to see it stay that way......Why usurp another radio service and ruin it????? GMRS+ is a load of crap - It is the last sheet on a roll of TP, worthless. The whole idea is NO EXAMS to use GMRS. Just because "we" hams can do it, doesn't mean we should on GMRS - experimental use? Aren't our amateur bands underused as it is? Policing??? "Self Policing" simply means YOU are policing YOUR OWN operation, not anyone elses. Channel cops?, Lets get them kids using their radios illegally --- That'l teach 'em -- we can hold their parents liable. It's ridiculous Get real.1 point
-
I'm pretty fit for a older man and not in a HOA thank goodness. Appreciate the information and my General test is coming up soon but I can still listen etc. Thanks again,1 point
-
This may help. I was troubleshooting with buytwowayradios.com today and they send me this pin diagram of the connection with a description of the pins.1 point
-
What's with the repeater drama?
WRYB563 reacted to SteveShannon for a topic
One way in which it’s possible is that there were several linked repeaters covering all those channels. 15-22 are the same frequencies as repeater transmit channels 23-30. (Repeaters receive about 5 MHz higher.) Another possibility is that you were monitoring two channels simultaneously and changing one channel while hearing the other. Welcome to the hobby and this forum!1 point -
FCC Improves On-line Interference Reporting
WRPG745 reacted to OffRoaderX for a topic
Sounds like they're working.1 point -
FCC Improves On-line Interference Reporting
AdmiralCochrane reacted to SOBX for a topic
WOW! NOTARUBICON replied to one of my comments! It's like meeting Elvis and shaking his hand! Love all your videos on Rumble, Sir. BRB...I gotta print this page out so I can frame it and hang it on the wall of my shack!1 point