nokones

Part 95 defines plain language communications as: "Voice communications without codes or coded messages intended to provide a hidden meaning. Foreign languages and commonly known radio operating words and phrases, such as “ten four” and “roger,” not intended to provide a hidden meaning, are not considered codes or coded messages." Non-english languages on the airwaves are legal now. Years ago, only English was allowed.

According to the map, there is no repeater coverage in the Yosemite Valley. The sites you see on the map will not provide coverage info the Park.

The mount is the same mount that is used to mount a satellite dish TV antenna with an additional brace.

Here is my setup with a lightning arrestor and grounded to earth ground at the electrical panel.

What about a 700/800 MHz Smart Zone Trunking System? Wouldn't the said trunking system use an antenna array like that?

a.k.a. - Brevity Codes.

If my memory serves me right, I believe he mentioned that he was using a duplexer. Also, in another video he described the antenna configuration he originally placed on the roof and than reconfigured to improve for better Fars and it only showed one antenna arrangement.

As way the regulation is written, sub-section "c" refers to "any" repeater, because that is what it says "any" repeater. Yes, it also regulates the station identification requirements for private family only operated repeater(s) and that is spelled out in paragraph (1). Paragraph "2" is separated from Paragraph "1" and does not just mean a family private repeater, and paragraph (2) is still part of sub-section (c) which still means "Any". Please note that Paragraph 1 sentence ends and the "Any" repeater clause goes on to allow, and again, allow "any repeater" does not have to identify if the control and mobile stations identify, as they are supposed to. At the beginning of Section 95.1751, "each station" is referring to control and mobile stations, exclusive of Repeater stations. If it included repeater class of stations, there wouldn't need to be a sub-section (c). The paragraph (c)(1) clause could have been included in sub-section (a) and be paragraph (3) and there would not be a need for sub-section (c) Please feel free to get an interpretation from the FCC. I'm ready to be in position to be chastised and flamed to death. Government written statutes leaves it up to the means of interpretation. The point I'm trying to convey would leave a lot of means of interpretation in a court of law. That is how government writes regulation, policy, and statutes. I know, I have 36 years of writing and interpreting such statutes, regulations, and policies. Is it confusing, O' hell yes. You carefully have to read it as it is written and try to understand, what in the hell are they trying to regulate/allow.

I got this Bird 43 setup I purchased off of eBay and I don't have more than $300 total invested. I have slugs for 100W VHF Highband, 100W UHF, and a 10W UHF for reading the lower scale for the reflected power. I also have a MFJ Digital Meter that reads, VSWR, forward and reflected power, for checking the VSWR reading which the Bird does not do. The Bird is good for only the forward and reflected power checks. The MFJ is close to the accuracy for the power and can vary from check to check. The Telwave is a good unit and doesn't require slugs. Personally, I think the Telwaves read a tad on the high side, not sure which one is accurate the most. I always thought that the cool guys have the Birds so I wanted one so I can be a wanna-be.

Correct, if "each" station, meaning GMRS stations (control and/or mobile) transmitting to a repeater station for controlling the rebroadcast of a GMRS station, do not identify per the rule. Section 95.1751(c) addresses the station identification requirements for "any" Repeater station. Section 95.1751(c)(2) says if a GMRS station, meaning a control or mobile station, transmitting a control frequency to the Repeater station, does identifies with their FCC identification according to the subject rule, than the Repeater station does not need to automatically identify in this case.

You are correct and it is a lesson learned on my part. I found a brand new Vertex EVX R70 repeater still in the box $700 that I've been eyeing for a couple days and I may pull the plug and get it, and of course sell the two Wouxun radios.

I'm low level in old people country that is essentially a flat terrain.

I did separate the radios maybe about 5 feet between them at the most. My friend had his Maxons sitting on top of each other for the Test Comparison and they appeared to be working fine. The KG1000G Plus RF output power was about 37 watts into the duplexer and about high 20s to low 30s coming out of the duplexer, which varied at times. I was drawing between 10+ amps to about 12 amps with 14.1 volts when the two radios were in the repeat mode. In my opinion I think the KG1000G Plus radios are a poor repeater setup.

Yes, the duplexer was tuned to the operating frequency pair. All the cables were checked and double shield low loss RG-8X and the cable run between the antenna and duplexer is LMR400.

I'm sure there are several of you that have interconnected two KG1000G Plus radio together to make it into a repeater. I'm curious what where your results after you did this? Did you experience any desense whereas, you were only able to communicate no more than 3/4 of mile away with a portable radio? At first, I was ready to blame the duplexer. I asked a Club member for some help and he brought his Maxon radios over and there was a significant performance improvement in the distance using the same duplexer and the same newly made cables. So, based on our testing you would think that the problem was not with the duplexer but, with the radios. I even swap the transmit and receive functions between the two radios and the problem still existed. Has anyone else experience similar results with the KG1000G Plus radios being used as a repeater? I would like to hear from anyone that have had similar problems with their KG1000G Plus repeating radios.

I don't believe the series of letters used in the callsign is inclusive to Part 95 stations only.

The antenna is glued on and cannot be removed. The antenna must be permanently affixed per FCC type acceptance.

There is a 550 repeater near the west end of Santa Anna Mtn using 141.3 Hz in/out.

And you won't see the option to turn that feature on or off in the programming software. You will see what ID is being transmitted in the software and have the ability to change the ID.

Go into the DTMF-ID in the radio menu and select off.

They're missing some of the additional CTCSS tones. Per Midland, they have no plans if going beyond the standard codes and tones.

I picked this up on eBay and I'm about $300 into buying the Bird, The case, and an extra slug from Martin RF Supply.

WHAT! You mean they don't have tube testers at the Drug Stores like at Thrifty's? What in the hell is this world coming too!. I guess I'm going to be out of luck if I need to test or need a tube in the future for my radio.

Most of the Truck drivers do not speak english these days and these drivers that are non-english speaking or english as a secondary language more than likely are not aware that CB Radios are/were used by Truckers. In your travels look for the antenna(e) on the trucks and you will notice that a majority of the Trucks no longer have a CB or any other antenna hanging on the Truck. Very few Trucks run with a CB these days.

In California, there are government surplus property laws and all local (City and County) and State Agencies must sell their surplus property through public sales, pursuant to the Government Code. Some property must be auctioned and some you can buy on the spot. In California, all State Agencies must transfer their surplus property to the Department of General Services (DGS) Property and Reutilization Division and they sell/auction the state's surplus property. Depending on the property item, there is a replacement schedule the State Agencies must follow in order to get the funding for replacing specific equipment. The CHP would budget for the replacement of radios every 10 years but, I'm not sure if that is the case today. 17 years ago, that was the case.