Lscott
-
Posts
2918 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
99
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Classifieds
Posts posted by Lscott
-
-
I have a business account with Esri to use ArcGIS. About $4k a year, but they will even create custom maps for us, which is awesome.
Have you use this software before?
-
This reply is in response to the OP question ... Here’s another perspective ... I tested and passed my Tech license in Nov 2017. Prior to that, I went to a local Ham club meetings in hopes of meeting and interacting with other Hams. After an introduction to the group, there was little interaction and discussion, I felt invisible. I attended meetings for three months and finally just stopped going. I had a BaoFung radio which was a pain to figure out but I finally got it working. The local repeater was silent ... I’d sign on as monitoring and listen to the repeater call sign. Crickets. I got the big C, retired, and put the radio in a box for two years because I had other priorities. It was like starting over but I did a lot of reading and decided to give it a try again. I ditched the BF and got a Yaesu FT-70 and found a much more useable handheld. I was in Arizona now and again attempted to get things going. Current situation did not allow face to face meetings, and I did get logged into a club net meeting ... much better response, actually had my first conversation with another Ham while I switchEd antennas and checked the response. After that, crickets on the local repeater, so I scanned the spectrum and listened to the local aircraft traffic pattern and other freqs with activity. I blundered on to the the local GMRS repeater by accident. I found an active group of users and just listened ... after a month or so of listening, I decided to get my GMRS license and do what I wanted to do on the radio in the first place - communicate with people and family in my area. I didn’t have an interest in building or tweeking or exploring technical opportunities ... I wanted to turn it on and talk. I wanted to communicate and my experience was limited or no communication on the amateur bands. GMRS did that for me. Ham was just a no show ... my face to face interactions with my first Ham club didn’t help. So, this is another perspective on Amateur vs. GMRS ... BTW, I’m still an ARRL member but not sure why at this point.
Yeah, I can see your point. Many of the older Hams hangout on HF. They might have a VHF/UHF radio but likely don’t use it much except on the morning or evening commute. The other times the portable radio gets used at the Ham Radio flea markets then goes home to sit around until the next one. Alas there are those few Hams that just have an elitist attitude and won’t talk to people with a Tech Class license. Sometimes you can tell by the call sign format the license class. Certain formats are reserved for higher license classes.
I’ve kept my original Tech call sign just to surprise those that look me up on the FCC database or on QRZ.
-
Does your county have a GIS system in place? USGS will get you in the ball park for free, but if your county has a GIS system, you can make your map with county flown topo. Either will work without actually having your area surveyed. I do an incredible amount of drainage design with county information.
I’m not sure. The few minutes I poked around on the USGS site all I found were the small 7.5x7.5 topo maps that looked like a postage stamps scattered across the Detroit Metro area. I need to spent a bit more time looking around there to see if there is something that covers several counties that can be downloaded.
-
Thanks. I’ll have to look at that. I’ve got a friend who is looking for a cheap tower to put up. Something like an old TV type with a multi-band stick antenna. It would good to know what his likely range will look like based on the surrounding terrain.
-
I have a business account with Esri to use ArcGIS. About $4k a year, but they will even create custom maps for us, which is awesome.
That’s a wee bit outside of my threshold of financial pain. I guess I’ll have to do some more poking around on the USGS site and see if there is anything remotely like the service you have.
-
As I look at the topo maps, there is a bit of a problem in your area.
What source are you using for the topo maps to get the elevation data?
-
There is an open source project for solving transmission line problems using Smith charts. I was alerted by a fellow Ham and EE who uses it.
-
You might want to check with a local Ham Radio club. Many members have various types of antenna measuring equipment and one of them likely would he happy to help check it for you.
You may be in for some luck. The last weekend of June is Field Day for Amateur Radio. Many groups, even single operators, setup in local parks, parking lots etc. and operate off of portable/emergency power power. It's a good place to meet other radio minded people and somebody I'm sure has the equipment on site to check your antenna system out. Oh, don't be surprised if somebody suggests getting your Ham License.
-
-
Thanks again Lscott. That WikiPedia list is better than the one found on hamradio.me, and the last place I would have looked, lol.
In my downtime I also found that ecfr page and made a chart from there in a spreadsheet & printed it as a pdf.
I found the wording vague though when it came to Part E and power.
In §95.1763-"GMRS channels" under (a, b, & c) they all start with "Only mobile, hand-held portable, ... may transmit .." and under (d) it says "Only hand-held portable units may transmit on these 7 channels", so it looks like handhelds can use all of the channels.
But, (of course there's a 'but') in §95.1767- "GMRS transmitting power limits" under (a) (1) they mention mobile as 50 watts but not specifically handhelds. Then their §95.303 Definitions say "Hand-held portable unit. A physically small mobile station ...". So between 1763 and the defs calling them a small mobile I think I'm going to interpret that a "small" mobile can go up to 50W on the 462 & 467 "Main Channels" (not that I'd want to hold that near my head!), unless I've missed something.
Anyway, thanks again for your help (and patience). I'll attach my chart with the rules & defs in it. If anyone sees that it's bad logic, bad info, I'll remove it. FCC FRS & GMRS Freqs, Use, and Power.pdf
That's a nice chart you did.
Anyway what you pointed out you'll see elsewhere with the FCC rules where the language isn't clear. There is another area on the forums for FCC rule discussions. If you have further questions that area that would be the place to get answers and a lot of opinions.
-
Thanks so much for he quick reply @Lscott.
So (by all means correct me if I understand this wrong, which is likely, lol), the Upper 550 (467.5500 MHz) to Upper 725 (467.7250 MHz) which are typically GMRS Repeater Input channels are not considered either "Main" or "Interstitial". Is that correct?
<Edited for clarity, succinctness?>
I believe that is correct. The FCC has them reserved exclusively for repeater inputs.
This link is a nice summary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Mobile_Radio_Service
The link below is the most current version of the Part 95 sections. For GMRS you want subpart E.
I have stuff like this printed out as PDF files, stored on the computer and smart phone along with all my radio operating manuals for easy reference.
-
If you can go 50W on these channels, is that only for the actual repeater (ie. non-handheld unit) or can the handheld go above 5W?
This is what the FCC has to say about it when the rules were last changed:
§ 95.1767 GMRS transmitting power limits. This section contains transmitting power limits for GMRS stations. The
maximum transmitting power depends on which channels are being used and the type of station.
(a) 462/467 MHz main channels. The limits in this paragraph apply to stations transmitting on any of the 462 MHz
main channels or any of the 467 MHz main channels. Each GMRS transmitter type must be capable of operating
within the allowable power range. GMRS licensees are responsible for ensuring that their GMRS stations
operate in compliance with these limits.
(1) The transmitter output power of mobile, repeater and base stations must not exceed 50 Watts.
(2) The transmitter output power of fixed stations must not exceed 15 Watts.
(
462 MHz interstitial channels. The effective radiated power (ERP) of mobile, hand-held portable and basestations transmitting on the 462 MHz interstitial channels must not exceed 5 Watts.
© 467 MHz interstitial channels. The effective radiated power (ERP) of handheld portable units transmitting on the
467 MHz interstitial channels must not exceed 0.5 Watt. Each GMRS transmitter type capable of transmitting on these
channels must be designed such that the ERP does not exceed 0.5 Watt.
-
Trying to hit a local repeater in my area. I set my radio in my jeep to the input frequency of the repeater and set my handheld to the output frequency, the handheld receives only static. Is something wrong with the repeater or I am doing something wrong?
Sort of a silly question but did you check to see if the repeater requires a PL tone to access? If it does and you don't have one set, or the correct one, the repeater won't do anything.
-
No problem at all. TK-370G is a nice rig. Enjoy. What antenna are you using?
I have 4 of the TK-370G-1’s and 2 of the TK-370-1’s. The later are just 32 channel regular FM only. Both are Part 95 certified I believe. The TK-3170-1 are nice, Part 95 certified, if you can find any at a reasonable price.
The antennas are either the ones they came with, eBay or local Ham swap, the rest are from a cheap 5 pack I purchased from an eBay seller. I did do an SWR scan of the cheap 5 pack ones and was surprised the SWR was comfortably below 2:1. I was hoping I didn’t get a “50 ohm resister in a rubber stick”. Yea there are a few like that around.
When mobile I use a high gain dual band antenna. It has low enough SWR across the Ham bands and the GMRS frequencies. The antenna is almost 60 inches tall. Comet no longer makes this model. I wish they did. I’ve had two for nearly 20 years. One is on the Jeep’s roof rack the other is used inside when I lived in an apartment. That one has never been out doors. Still looks new.
CA-2x4MB, 4.5 dBi on VHF, and 7.4 dBi on UHF
-
You are right that part 90 radios are technically not listed specifically approved for GMRS. I was talking about a Part 90 certified radio, not an off the shelf ham that isn't certified.
Your's is Part 95, and 100% acceptable for GMRS: https://fccid.io/ALH29473110
There is not a restriction, that im aware of, on using Part 90/95 equipment in the ham bands.
Thanks for the info. I was fairly sure there wasn't a problem. I was interested in tweiss's opinion since he seems to think it's an issue based on a rather broad comment in his post. I used myself as an example where I was sure it wasn't doing exactly what he said likely was. Maybe there is something that he's seen, read or whatever where it could be. The FCC's rules are not always that clear cut about what's permitted and prohibited. No harm in trying to find out.
-
Not a radio cop but if you "do" ham and GMRS in one radio, You are asking for trouble. Good luck with your setup.
Were would the problem be for example in my case out of curiosity since I’m doing exactly the above? I’m licensed for both services and use a Kenwood TK-370G-1 which is Part 95 certified, unmodified and has a full front panel keypad. The radio is not enabled, through hardware and software, for front panel programming. However it is programed for both GMRS simplex channels, a couple of GMRS repeaters and various local UHF Ham repeaters.
-
As for digital/DMR, the AT-D578UVPRO is part 90 certified. It's brother, the AT-D578UVIIIPRO is Part 15 certified and has 220 capabilities in it. From what I have read, the hardware is identical just a different sticker and firmware. Any say on 220? Would it be used often?
I have the D878UV HT. The radio itself seems to be mostly OK and not a bad value for an analog - DMR HT. The main issue I have is with the darn programming software. One version they fix a number of outright bugs. It's good for a version or so then they bugger it up again. It's really frustrating. It's like there is no quality control and no version control. You would figure once they fix a bug it would stay that way, nope. I reamed their tech support out over this issue several times by email. Of course it's all in China so how much do you think they are going to care.
I haven't even bothered to load the latest firmware release. I did try the radio programming software. Some stuff they fixed the other things that I noticed they didn't bother with fixing. 8-/
Normally when they do an update they issue both a new firmware file for the radio and a new version of the programming software. They likely need to do this because the memory layout changes from one version to the next for the code plug. The notes say to save the code plug using the old version then reload it using the new one. The last update was so bad they had to issue an update just for the radio programming software. Right now the radio sits around and I'm not actively using it. I'm waiting to see if they finally get their act together. I'm just about done with the bugfest.
Now about the 220 band. The activity seems to be hit or miss depending on the area. Where I'm at, Detroit metro location, I haven't noticed much use. Other places I hear it's popular. If you can get a radio that includes it without a significant cost premium I would say go for it. The reason why it's not more common is the band is not a world wide armature allocation like 2 meters or 70cm bands. Most manufactures don't want to include it because it is pretty specific to ITU region 2 which is where the US is located. That leaves out about 2/3'rd of the world wide market.
One other thing. You can find amplifiers easy enough for 2 meters and 70cm. Good 220 amps are hard to find. I've looked for used ones at Hamfests and haven't had much luck. The ones I have seen are beat to crap and or the seller thinks it made of gold with a price to match. The only cheap FM one I have seen is from Btech. I've read some mixed reviews on them. Basically it's just to boost the power from an HT. I've thought about getting one for my Kenwood tri-bander, TH-D74A, the price is cheap enough considering.
https://baofengtech.com/amp-v25
Dual band antennas for 2 meters and 70cm are also easy to find. The two bands are harmonically related, 70cm frequencies are approximately 3 times 2 meter frequencies. That makes designing dual band antennas reasonably easy to do. However 220 is not. So finding a tri-band antenna for 2 meters - 220 and 70cm are not that common. One example is the SBB-224/SBB-224NMO.
http://www.cometantenna.com/amateur-radio/mobile-antennas/ma-tri-band/
Most likely you will get a good dual band 2 meter and 70cm antenna and a separate one for 220. Then you use triplexers and patch cables to split out the 220, or just use a coax switch to flip between the antennas.
https://mfjenterprises.com/products/mfj-4936s?_pos=2&_sid=060a07025&_ss=r
-
So I ordered a MXTA12 antenna mag mount and the MXTA26 antenna for my MXT275. Hope I see a noticeable boost in performance.
If you want something smaller and likely cheaper look at this one. This one is a bit over 6 inches tall.
https://www.pctel.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Product-Datasheet-25.pdf
Check out the model PCTCN4347. This is pre-cut, tuned, so you don't need to do anything.
A generic one where you have to cut the whip to tune it is here.
https://www.theantennafarm.com/catalog/pctel-maxrad-pctcnmft-5913
-
Now I just have to find time to study for my technician exam, because I definitely want to get that taken and put behind me soon. I don't do well with tests.
I'm not sure about the exact model radio you installed. Many of the Kenwood's will program down into the Ham Band even if the software pops up a warning about the frequency being out of range. Most of the simplex and repeater operations on the 70cm Ham band are between 440 MHz and 450 MHz. I have a collection of HT's, 4 watt radios TK-370G-1's, that work down to a bit above 440 MHz I use for both Ham and GMRS.
With a 1/4 wave antenna the bandwidth can be rather large. I built a small one out of some stiff bus wire and a BNC connector. The SWR was below 2:1 from 430 MHz to 470 MHz covering the usable section of the Ham 70cm band and all of the GMRS frequencies. If you can do that with the antenna you installed, and the radio will program down low enough, you can have access to both services on UHF with just one antenna and radio. Most radios work fine as long as the SWR is 2:1 or less. Not a bad deal if it tunes right.
You can do a frequency sweep and see where you're at. If the low SWR point is a bit too high you can get a replacement whip and cut it a bit longer to try to cover the GMRS frequencies and as much of the Ham 70cm band as practical.
Good luck on trying to get your Ham Tech Class license. The test is pretty easy. I went to a Ham swap once many years ago with my brother, who was already a Ham, just to look at some test gear, and he offered to pay the fee if I sat for the Tech Class test. I had no idea he was going to ask me try try it. I said OK it's your money. Surprised, I passed with no studying!
-
That does look like a neat install. How easy is it to get up on top to remove the antenna when necessary? I assume you have a cap to screw on the mounting base when the antenna is removed to keep out the elements.
-
The problem with a virtual machine is only the Pro versions of Windows 7 has the necessary features. Same with Windows 10.
If you have the Home versions then you need to install a 3’rd party virtual machine manager. There is an excellent open source, free, you can down load called VirtualBox. I’ve run Windows 3.11 on DOS, Win98SE, Win NT4, Win2000, WinXP, Win7 Pro and Win10 Pro in it. I’ve also ran several versions of Linux too and one of the last releases of IBM’s Warp4 OS. All worked.
-
Here is another post.
"The last release of 1225 for conventional and 1225LS for trunking available on MOL both work with Windows XP but will NOT work with XP 64bit or any flavor of Windows 7 (and probably Vista if anyone is foolish enough to own that OS). You can, and I do, run every legacy version of Motorola software except DOS versions in an XP virtual machine on Windows 7 and they work just fine.
You need the last release of both LS and regular, earlier versions won't do it. I do this for a living where time is money and radios have to work every time. Trust me.
If you need to retain DOS compatibility there are literally hundreds of very nice laptops, including Toughbooks on broken-stolen-radios.com (ebay) that will do what you need for under $100. Dedicate a laptop, format it for DOS 6.22 and be done with it. This is why when local hams need their Syntor X9000s programmed they know where to come, I have the correct gear, and it works." -
I found the following posts elsewhere that might help you.
"f this is still of interest to anyone, I just used a full day in trying to program one of these. Finally, W7 or its XP mode did not work in any guise or compatibility mode. The only way I got this Ver. 3 program to work was to install a virtual Windows 95. Even then, only the serial port -based Chinese RIB worked, my RIBless USB-to-RJ45 did not work even if Win95 recognized it. This took a day to learn on my own cost. Microsoft changed their understanding of RS232 communication in DOS 4.1 and again in abandoning the DOS kernel in XP, this is how I try to comfort myself.
My lament is that when my Dell 5100 laptop wears out, programming of many 'legacy' telephone exchanges and radios etc. that only accept DOS operating system -based programming software becomes challenging.""Get version 4.0. Although I havent tried it with Windows 7, it works just fine on Windows 98 and XP."
-
Think carefully about drilling a hole for an antenna mount. Most recent manufactured vehicles the sheet metal is rather thin. A through hole mount such as an NMO has a small diameter hole to support it. If the antenna gets whacked by a tree limb or from a low overhanging obstruction etc., the torque from the antenna exerted on the base and thus the surrounding sheet metal can be huge. There are stories where the mount ripped through the sheet metal or severely warped it. There has been damage reported just from the torque due to wind resistance driving at highway speeds when large really stiff antennas were used.
If you do drill a hole I would first research for a good way to reinforce the area around the mount location to eliminate damage to mount and or vehicle sheet metal from driving and minor antenna strikes.
I'd like to use my Yaesu FT-60 for GMRS repeater
in Amateur Radio (Ham)
Posted
That's very true. I have a couple of friends with GMRS licenses, also looking to get their Ham license when the local clubs open up again for testing, that are using non Part 95 certified equipment on GMRS. I had to advise them the use of those radios is not per the FCC rules. They had asked for some advise about equipment and operating. I felt I needed to do that as being a responsible Ham and GMRS operator and not miss lead them. They are adults and can make their own decisions. I just wanted them to be fully aware of what they are doing.
Some have pointed out that a number of non Part 95 certified radios are being used for GMRS that most likely meet or exceed the frequency stability, bandwidth and can be adjusted to comply with the power output requirements for GMRS. The opinion that some people just don't care if that's the case as long as the major technical requirements are met is understandable.
I think sooner or later the FCC will just throw in the towel on using Part 90 radios on GMRS and make it legal. It likely will be just like the FRS/GMRS combo radio mess. They knew people were not getting the licenses but used the radios on the then GMRS only channels. Rather than waste resources busting people using the radios illegally, or ignoring those people and making excuses for not doing anything, they took the easy way out and just made the already wide spread practice legal by changing the rules. Problem solved, and they don't have to make excuses anymore for not enforcing the rules. Same thing with CB radios years ago. So many people quit getting licenses, or failed to ID per the rules, and the FCC had a hard time keeping up with the volume of license applications they did get, the FCC finally dumped the requirement and made it "license by rule". Again they simply made legal what people were already doing and got rid of a administration headache at the same time, again they took the easy way out.