kipandlee

Rather than second hand misinformation, here is my review:
if you have one of the radios listed to be used with this device, it does exactly what it claims:
you can reprogram on the fly without a computer.
if will not cook you breakfast, or anything else your friend expected of a $22 device! ?

Hook the antenna up to an UHF antenna analyzer or to a VNA and run the correct tests and you should be able to find your answer.


Michael
WRHS965
KE8PLM

They are now somewhat buried in the new website configuration:
 

Just in case anyone checks the forums before the main site... we have a new myGMRS!
After well over a year of fooling around with the new website, I have finally launched it. This is a big leap in technology since the original website was created in 2006 and only had a few incremental updates over the years. This new platform will allow us to put out quicker updates, brand-new features, and bonus features for Premium Members.
Premium Membership is an optional subscription where you can remove ads from the website, generate PDF reports of repeaters and licenses in any state, and create your own Club listing (part of the forums) so you don't need to create your own website! All of the existing features of myGMRS will remain free, of course.
A new mobile app is also in the works, although we're not close to a release date for that. The long-awaited iOS version will be part of the release, as well as a completely new Android app.
Since this is such a radically different website, I'm sure there will be some issues along the way. If anyone runs into bugs or problems of any kind, please don't hesitate to submit a bug report at this Google Forms URL rather than the forums or by email (as it'll be much easier to review):  https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe6XLmCW-UU0Bp9lN9zM3L9gO_TCkArIN2oY-hOLG9x01B3lg/viewform
Thank you everyone for the wonderful support and thank you to our Beta testers. You know who you are!
Have a Happy New Year!

I know a handful of guys running both DB404 and DB411. Both will be a step up from the "hobby grade" tram. The considerations above do apply.

The DB404 and 408 is a rock solid repeater antenna or home antenna. If this is a true repeater site that's the only antenna I'd use. I run the DB404 and 408 on all my repeaters except on my Motorhome. With the proper hardline to the antenna you will see a noticeable difference. 

Fattening the radiation pattern is a double-edge sword as it may impact your coverage closer to the antenna.

This won't be a wildly popular thought but if you teach your g/f how to use a GMRS radio and you guys follow the same standards a family member would no one is going to know the difference and no one is going to ask you to pony up a marriage certificate.
 
To me, and this is just my opinion, this question is along the lines of Part 90 vs Part 95 gear. It seems the FCC just wants the spirit of the law followed. Do that and you will be left alone.
 
 

Yes Dan, that's exactly what I'm saying. A repeater owner has no responsibility for traffic across the repeater unless they specifically generate the input traffic. Access codes do not imply control as there is no operator at the station's controls. If repeater owners were held liable for illegal or improper traffic there wouldn't be any repeaters because of liability issues.

If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?
If the FCC writes a regulation that it never enforces, does it even matter?
If someone wins an argument on the internet, does anyone care?

Welcome  to the forum abbysdaddy

I put 1/2 heliax connectors on for years with nothing but a pocket knife and a couple cresent wrenches to tighten the connector body down.
If you are using Andrew / Comscope connectors they come with a guide for doing this.  Follow the directions and you will be fine.
 

I use LMR400 on my repeater for the main run and the shorter patch-cables.. Contrary to what all the experts claimed, it works just fine, and more than good enough for my non-life-critical application..
 

The only issue I had with this is that they declined to enforce a Busy Channel Lockout for automatic data/location bursts. You could set up your radio to transmit every 30 seconds, for example, and it'll beacon regardless of whether the channel is busy with voice traffic. Add in multiple radios in the same range, and I fear the GMRS channels will start to sound like APRS with data bursts all over the place.
I had proposed the busy channel lockout feature but they specifically rejected it, claiming it was up to the licensee to ensure their radio is not causing interference. But once you enable an automatic location report, the licensee is relinquishing control to the radio for some period of time. It only seems like common sense for the radio to hold off the transmission until the channel is clear again. I'd also think the manufacturers would voluntarily add this feature as it would increase the reliability of their messages in the presence of co-channel interference.
As far as FM on CB, I think it's great. It throws a lifeline to the CB radio manufacturers who can now introduce new FM-capable radios and revitalize the service a little bit. Seems GMRS has been taking over for quite a while, which is why some companies like Midland have all but given up on CB and moved onto making mobile GMRS products. For me, the interesting thing is that the reasons the FCC rejected digital voice on GMRS are the same reasons they initially denied Cobra's request to allow FM on CB. It fundamentally changes the nature of the service, it creates a compatibility issue between existing users and FM users, etc. They chose to mandate that AM is required on any FM-capable radios to ensure backwards compatibility. Using the same workaround, we could petition for digital voice on GMRS as long as digital radios are backwards compatible with analog on these channels so you can always talk to the analog people and hear the traffic on the channel. So for that, I'm very excited for the next round of interest in digital voice on GMRS. Seems a no-brainer now, we just need to file a well-organized petition for it with support from users and manufacturers.

So now if FM is allowed on 11M some agreement would be needed to keep those users from interfering with AM and SSB users. That could be informal or put into the rules by the FCC. There is sort of one now where SSB is primarily used on the upper channels.
I’m also wondering how much of the push to allow FM on 11M is a marketing thing by COBRA to protect their market share since Midland is pushing GMRS and the advantage of FM over AM in the overland community. By allowing FM that takes one of the advantages away Midland says they have by switching to GMRS.
I don’t see the FCC allowing automatic TX of GPS data on GMRS/FRS. There aren’t that many channels to begin with to let them get cluttered up with periodic automatic data transmissions. For people that scan the channels it would be very annoying to have the radio stop every few minutes on random channels due to short burp of GPS data. Further the radio would need a mandatory BCL, busy channel lockout, to stop any interference when a channel is in use.

I was going to try something like that with a cheap Kenwood Protalk radio if I ever found one for sale. These radios have a predefined list of frequencies the user can select from.
What can now happen with the code plug hacking is the manufacture can employ some level of encryption in the code plug itself. I've found where Kenwood has done this on several of their older analog and digital radios. It took a bit of work and some lucky guessing but it seems they use a simple method, they have a key byte stored in a fixed location in the code plug's header. This key byte is then "XOR'ed" with the rest of the contents. Once done all of the text strings for channel names etc. can be seen. I also found in at least one case where the radio's serial number seemed to be in it. The license key used to install the software was definitively in there for several models I checked. Just keep that in mind when sharing code plugs. 

FCC field agents carrying DNA kits.   That's something I haven't seen.

. I've had good luck with mine.

https://www.miklor.com/COM/Review_DMR-Amps.php

Best thing is look in the service manual. If its possible the manual will explain how its done. Looking briefly it appears the answer is no to your question.
http://manuals.repeater-builder.com/Kenwood/tk/TK-8360/TK-8360(H)(K2_M2)_B51-8964-00.pdf
As a matter of practice I spend time hunting down all the relevant documentation, in PDF format, for any radios I have or plan on buying.  I have a library of folders for each radio/model series with user guides, service manuals, notes, FCC grants, modifications if any and manufactures brochures. The last one is the first thing I look for when thinking about purchasing a used radio. Excellent source for features, exact frequency ranges, on UHF it's common to have more that one, number of memory channels etc. If I don't like what I see then I've saved myself some money by not getting something I won't like or can't use.
https://pdfs.kenwoodproducts.com/30/TK-7360HV-8360HUBrochure.pdf
http://manual.kenwood.com/files/53d7482397066.pdf
https://fccid.io/K44415502

that programing will not work
462.xxxx/467.xxxx is how it should be programed.
concur w/Radioguy7268 also

A Duplexer should be tuned for a single pair of frequencies - ie: 462.550 transmit (low) and 467.550 receive (high).
There are people selling duplexers that are supposed to be tuned to the middle of the GMRS band - and are advertised to cover all the GMRS repeater channels. What they don't tell you is that they don't perform as well as a duplexer that's actually tuned to the specific frequency pair that your repeater is using. This is ESPECIALLY true for the compact "flat pack" notch duplexers which are often used by budget conscious repeater owners.
A duplexer works best when it has high isolation & narrow notch windows. Trying to make the duplexer cover a wider range of frequencies will never improve system performance.
 

https://forums.mygmrs.com/topic/1847-any-suggestions-for-a-highway-channel/
 

I will post this again as it is universal to all RF
dB loss            power loss in %
0.5                        10                        100W in 90W out
1.0                        20
1.5                        30
2.0                        37
2.5                        44
3.0                        50
3.5                        56
4.0                        60
                                                               
flat packs tune for Notch/Notch ----\___/----\___/----and should never be tuned W/power
typical loss for the ones I use are 1.5 or less most ~1.

What are you using for cables to and from duplexer ? multiple adapters and poor cable will also eat up alot of power.

advertised loss is 2dB so you should be seeing 27-29 W out of it based on the 42 you are seeing out of the radio.