Lscott
-
Posts
2903 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
99
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Classifieds
Posts posted by Lscott
-
-
Make that three emails ....
Makes you wonder how their customer service is like if you have a problem.
-
If you're looking for the TK-3170 K4 full keypad models - I've got 3 currently in stock. Nearly new, but not. Make me an offer.
Unless you're really desperate to get rid of them my offer would likely be too low for you. I'm really looking for super bargains when buying radio stuff.
-
My attempt to learn Sam Morse's code at an earlier period in life was a total failure. Now that my older brain isn't what it once was I wouldn't dream of attempting it. In order to take advantage of Technician privileges I'd still like to communicate in this mode whenever I get into HF. The question that concerns me however is this: Will the old boys who had to learn the code as a license requirement harbor any resentment toward an upstart that only uses software and a computer? What is the proportion of all CW mode users rely on a computer to handle the translating?
Don't worry about it. Switch to another repeater or use the VFO to find somebody else to talk to. The crappy attitude was at its height around the time the FCC dropped the CW requirement for all license classes. There were endless debates, some still going on, about the merits of dropping or not dropping the CW requirements. Some of the old timers hated that change, and likely will never get over it. I guess they though of it as a some kind of exclusive club. If that was what they valued most then they got into Ham radio for the wrong reason. Go out, make contacts and have fun.
- SeldomSeen, DOCSGMRS and WRPC505
-
3
-
Does it have the ID function available in the controller? Without that it really isn’t useful outside a single license use operation.
-
Most antennas I see are gain type and the height gets up there.
The link below has a selection of 1/4 wave types.
https://www.pctel.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Product-Datasheet-25.pdf (catalog page)
https://www.pctel.com/ (Main site)
The above is a suggestion for reference.
The model PCTCN4347 I think will work and about 6.2 inches tall. This is pre-tuned for 430 MHz to 470 MHz. You will also have to get the magnet mount which is an extra cost. It looks like they require an NMO type mount. I don't known what the cost is for the antenna and mount. You can contact the company.
This company seems to carry the antenna series but I don't see anything mentioned about selling a pre-tuned one. I think you have to cut the element to length for the frequency you need. The manufacture may have that data or the antenna comes with a chart you reference for the recommended length. Again I would contact them for details.
https://www.theantennafarm.com/catalog/pctel-maxrad-pctcnmft-5913
-
One thing you need to be sure of is the TX frequency is not harmonically related to the RX frequency. For example if the TX frequency is 146 MHz you don't want your RX frequency anywhere close to 438 MHz for example, which is the third harmonic. The tiny amount of harmonics generated, all radios have some, could be enough to break the squelch on the RX and cause interference. This is a common error most people make setting up a cross band repeater.
You could have some other unrelated problem but this issue should be addressed none the less.
-
A 1/4 wave whip maybe your best bet for the moment, and not just for technical reasons. It seems you want to put the antenna on the roof of a pickup truck at some point. A 1/4 wave antenna will only be around 6 to 8 inches tall. You'll soon discover that's an asset when you find it necessary to go through a "drive through" window at a bank, fast food joint, parking garage all with a low overhead limit. The truck, or most SUV's, roof is already taller that a typical car decreasing your head room. A higher gain antenna is going to be taller. I have a high gain dual band on my Jeep that's about 60 inches tall. I have to think all the time about where I need to drive to avoid damaging it. Sometimes I have to get out and unscrew the thing from the roof rack mount.
One other point a 1/4 whip, when tuned right, has a very wide bandwidth. I've built a few for inside and temporary use out of a male BNC PCB socket and stiff bus wire. I can get the SWR down to under 1.5:1 from 430 MHz to 470 MHz with 3 feet of small gauge coax measured using an AA-1000 antenna analyzer. That covers all of the usable Ham 70 cm band and all of the FRS/GMRS channels. You'll find that advantageous when you get your Ham license.
-
Just a note about antenna restricted areas.
I read some time back a Ham had a problem with is HOA with wanting to put up some antennas. Well he researched the bylaws and came up with the following solution. He installed a small crank up tower on a trailer and parked it in his back yard where you couldn't see the trailer part. Cranked it up when he operated. Since the bylaws didn't prohibit antennas on vehicles, which you could reasonably argue applies to trailers. He moved the trailer every once in a while so they couldn't claim it was permanently parked in one spot either to qualify as a vehicle. The HOA couldn't say much.
Another Ham did something similar by installing a telescoping mast on his truck parked in the driveway. He then snaked the coax across the ground to the truck from the house. The HOA wasn't very happy but he wasn't breaking any of the rules either. 8-))
-
I was not aware of any way of programming the TK-370G using the keypad. Do you have a link to a tutorial or something?
I you down load the TK-360G/TK-370G Service Manual from the link in my last post then look at page 11. That's section 8, Self Programming Mode. There it shows you where D17 is located, which has to be removed, and also the front panel/self programming mode enabled in the software has to be selected. The sequence for entering the various parameters through the front panel is covered in the service manual section. As you can see from the tables and flow charts it's really a pain. I've never modified my radios since it's far easier to use the programming software. 8-/
The radios don't have a real "VFO" so any programming done has to be to a particular memory slot. So field programming is not that useful IMHO.
Oh, to "simulate" a VFO I did program one memory bank in the 370G with a sequence of frequencies every 25KHz. The memory names were like 440-000, 440-025, 440-050 etc. for example. So skipping to the simplex bank and adjusting the big top side channel selector nob simulates the operation of an adjustable VFO with the frequency step size set at 25KHz. That covered most, depending on how many memory channels you have left, of the simplex section of the band outlined in the ARRL recommended layout for 70cm. Better than nothing I guess.
Another good radio that is still currently manufactured by Kenwood is the TK-3170. Also Part 95 certified. If you find them used they tend to sell for more than the TK-370G's do. I've only seen one with a full keypad however. Most just have the top row of function keys.
https://5.imimg.com/data5/LH/CE/FE/SELLER-3451103/kenwood-tk-3170-uhf-two-way-radio.pdf
You'll notice the band split is spec'd at 440 MHz to 480 MHz for the type one. No question this will cover part of the Ham 70cm band.
If you want a mono band radio for VHF look at the TK-2170's band spilt in the same brochure. It will cover the complete 2 meter band up past where the NOAA weather channels are around 162 MHz. These radios are hard to find and people want way too much for them. I think you can guess why.
I have both types and they are good radios.
73
KC8LDO
WRBZ532
-
The Kenwood TK-370s are phenomenally well built radios with the added benefit of them all being CHIRP programmable. The non-G versions are also field programmable.
I have both types. I agree the radios are great, particularly the TK-370G-1's. They are also both Part 95 certified too.
I use the official Kenwood software to program the 370G's and Chrip for the 370's. I had issues with Chirp and the 370G's. When trying to organize the frequencies using the "Memory Group" feature Chirp would fail to add frequencies in, some would get deleted and other odd things. It seems to work fine for the 370's which is good because the official software for that model is DOS based. The down side is you don't have access to all of the features in the radio.
For the 370G you want the "KPG-56Dv422.zip" file. This works with Windows 10 by the way. You will need some kind of serial number to install the software which should be included in a text file in the download. This software gives you full access to ALL of the radio's features.
http://rsws.zapto.org/RadioSoftware/Kenwood/Kenwood.htm
As far as I know both models are in fact field programmable. However two things must be done to enable that. First the option must be enabled in the programing software and second a small component must be removed from one of the circuit boards inside. Enabling the feature in software is not sufficient. Also if the radios don't have a full keyboard self programming isn't going to do you much good.
http://www.repeater-builder.com/kenwood/pdfs/tk-360g-tk-370g-svc-man.pdf
http://yo3hjv.blogspot.com/2010/05/field-programming-for-kenwood-tk-370.html
http://rsws.zapto.org/radiosoftware/kenwood/Field Programming the Kenwood Tk-270 370.pdf
https://www.manasrekha.com/pdf/TK-270G-370G.pdf
https://www.manualslib.com/products/Kenwood-Tk-370g-3058542.html
While the radio spec's don't show it you can program in frequencies outside of the official band spread for both models. I have the 370G programed for GMRS wide band and narrow band plus a number of Ham UHF repeaters and some simplex frequencies. The Ham repeater section of the band and simplex section are mostly between 440 MHz to 450 MHz which the radio will TX and RX on it seems OK. The official Kenwood programming software will throw up a warning about those frequencies being out of range but you can click OK and the software will accept it. Its just a bit annoying when building the code plug.
-
The results look pretty good for a quick test.
Some people say they get better range when they add a “rat tail”, “tiger tail” or more correctly a counterpoise to the radio.
https://hackaday.com/2014/02/08/improve-your-ht-ham-radio-by-adding-a-counterpoise-antenna-wire/
-
Good to know. I still have a valid VWare from my days at EMC.
I hope at some point these guys will get to the beta phase of development then it might be stable enough to do something with it. I've been watching this project for a while. It's an open source clone of MS Windows.
-
Did you try setting the backward compatibility in Windows 10?
I'm not sure about the software he has but I've run across some that still use 16 bit installers. Those don't work on Win 10 at all. Setting the compatibility mode is useless. The solution he used is a good one, running Win XP in a VM.
You can get a Win XP VM in Win 10 but you have to pay for the much more expensive Pro version to get the VM subsystem, "Hyper-V".
VirtualBox does about the same thing for zero cost. However you're left with finding a copy of the Win XP on your own.
Virtual Box is a good opensource VM package. I've even run Windows 3.1 in it. Even managed to find a copy of IBM's OS2 Warp 4 and got that to install and run too. If IBM and Microsoft had their act together we would all be running OS2 instead of Windows.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2
Remember "Windows is a pane in the glass".
-
I know to get accurate numbers its difficult. So I won't be doing any soon. As long as the antenna is equal to or greater then a dummy load I am good.
I should say I don't mind as much since most hts can handle the higher swr.
It's still would be an interesting experiment. Stories surface about counterfeit antennas from at least one well known manufacture are out there. I think it is Nagoya. Antenna testing showed the difference between the real one and the fake.
https://www.eham.net/reviews/view-product?id=7741
On another point I have purchased a few "cheap" magnet mount antennas mostly to get the mount from Ham Radio flea market vendors. After testing them the performance was nowhere close to the spec's on the package.
Some antenna testing results.
http://www.km4fmk.com/AntTesting.html
-
You may find this book of interest. The book is about antennas and transmission lines. I hope Firefox didn't mangle this link again.
http://www.w3pga.org/Antenna Books/Reflections III.pdf
It's a good reference to keep on hand.
If the link above doesn't work, you have to copy the whole line and past it into the browser. Then try this one.
-
You may find this book of interest. The book is about antennas and transmission lines. I hope Firefox didn't mangle this link again.
http://www.w3pga.org/Antenna Books/Reflections III.pdf
It's a good reference to keep on hand.
-
Here is a little review. Since I got the Nano VNA f I decided to test an antenna that I have had for a while. I had bought 2 for a road trip. Btech sells them for $29. They are a lot cheaper then buying a magnet NMO and nmo antenna. I have been happy with the 2m (144mhz) performance, It has ok performance with GMRS and I feel it has been meh with 70cm (444mhz) performance. So I wanted to see what the numbers were like as far as SWR. I have been mostly using it for repeater usage on 2M and GMRS. No luck on 2m simplex, FRS/GMRS works well for simplex when in range. Furthest GMRS repeater has been to Alexandria give or take 11 miles from the truck. The same antenna, is being tested on a cookie backing pan in my dining room connected to an FT991a. I have managed to connect to 2m Frederick MD repeaters which are 27+ miles away on 5 watts. Still can't make a simplex call 5 miles with the same setup running 30 watts.
The stats from BTech 's website:
https://baofengtech.com/NAGOYA-UT-72
- Frequency Range: 136-174MHz, 400-520MHz; Optimal Frequency Range: 140-170MHz, 420-470MHz
- Wave: 1/4λ (144MHz) - 5/8λ (430MHz)
- Gain: 3.5dBi
- Max power: 80 Watts
- VSWR : Less 1.5:1
- Impedance: 50 OHM
- Connector: SMA-F & PL-259
- Length: 20 inches
So the VNA is showing the following.
144.562 National 2m SWR 2.53 :1
144.000 MHz SWR 2.89:1
147.999 MHz SWR 2.21:1
159.300-163.500 lowest SWR of 1.18:1
420.000 SWR 1.92:1
450.000 SWR 1.33:1
444.900-445.800 lowest of SWR of 1.3:1
FRS/GMRS Frequencies
462.5625 SWR 1.35:1
467.7250 SWR 1.40
SWR was 1.35-1.38:1 for most of the FRS/GMRS band.
Lowest actually was at 1.27:1 at 464.575 - 465.763 MHZ well outside of Amateur radio and FRS/GMRS service allocations.
You want to really have some fun try testing some HT antennas! They're not easy since the radio, and part of your body, ends up as part of the antenna. When you see the results you'll wonder why they work at all. A few I've tested belong in a landfill somewhere.
-
-
As to what is appropriate, expected, or a FCC rule, the point of having the radio is communication, not complying to a rule. Sure, if you are an adult trying to talk to a stranger 100 miles away, by all means use your expected call sign. When it is my grand children, that is the least of my concern
As the license holder of record you're responsible to insure those operating under it follow the rules. Kids have to learn rules for everything as they grow up. GMRS shouldn't be any different.
As far as paying a fine the FCC, when they issue one, they don't screw around. Somehow getting one for $7,500 to $10,000 is sort of scary. They want to get your attention and make a point. And yes they most certainly have in other radio services for failure to ID, unlicensed operation, willful interference etc. I don't know about GMRS but it wouldn't be any different.
A number of the cases I've seen the FCC contacted the party informing them of the rule violation(s) first. The fine(s) get issued when they party continues to ignore the rules and the FCC notices. Oh, they also have a habit of taking the equipment too in some cases along with issuing the fine(s).
I remember years ago asking somebody at the local FCC field office here what they do with all of the confiscated equipment. I was told it goes to a local junk yard straight into the crusher. None of it ever gets sold or returned to the owner.
-
The URL you posted was mangled. The correct page is here.
Thanks. Sometimes the copy and past with Firefox doesn't work so good.
-
FCC
in Guest Forum
A few errors here.
- GMRS regulations were updated in 2017 and are now Part 95 Subpart E
- The full text of Part95E is available here.
- To be legal on GMRS, radios must have been type accepted or certified for: Part-95, Part-95A or Part-95E
- The icom IC-F6021 is Part-90 certified, but not certified for GMRS. However, it will operate on GMRS frequencies.
There have been several discussions about using Part-90 radios, and other "ham" or Part-15 certified radios on GMRS. Many people do this, many don't Search through the threads and you can read the various opinions.
Oops. Linked the wrong version or Part 95 rules.
-
FCC
in Guest Forum
To be strictly legal the equipment must be Part 95 certified. Older equipment might be listed as Part 95 while newer equipment would be Part 95A.
This should be a good reference for Part 95. It covers several of the radio services, specially GMRS, FRS and CB.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2009-title47-vol5/pdf/CFR-2009-title47-vol5-part95.pdf
-
To have DMR would be nice, but narrowbanding GMRS will not open new channels for digital. They are already in use by FRS analog.
Alex, unfortunately you're right. 8-( I didn't look carefully at the exact channel layout for both services. The combining of main channels with interstitial ones screwed me up. I found a document on line that shows in a nice graphical format how the two services frequencies relate to each other.
Scroll down to last page and it is obvious what is going on.
https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=biZxuanIfZOUqdjvLHdsyw%3
D%3D&desc=888861 D01 Part 95 GMRS FRS v01&tracking_number=239603
So as you pointed out the spectrum does look full.
What is interesting are the GMRS interstitial channels sandwiched between the main GMRS channels. Its bad enough the low power FRS channels can cause interference on the main GMRS channels now we have the potential of higher power GMRS main channels partially overlapping the Interstitial GMRS channels. Then there is the potential interference of the Interstitial FRS and GMRS channels 8 through 14 with repeater input channels. The requirement that GMRS and FRS must be NB with a max of 0.5 watts is obviously to minimize interference on the GMRS WB repeater inputs frequencies. This is a mess.
The interference issues could be mitigated by moving GMRS to NB. That would at least eliminate the multiple channels overlapping due to differences in bandwidth.
Since the spectrum is full my idea of of going NB to get extra channels is not going to work in the existing allocated spectrum. Its very unlikely but the FCC could allocate a few new channels specifically for DMR use.
As far as allowing DMR within the existing spectrum, well somebody will have to tolerate mix mode operation on one or more channels. Allowing DMR repeaters on several of the channels maybe worth thinking about. You get effectively two voice channels on one frequency pair. There is a lot of experience and knowledge on how to do DMR repeater linking from the Ham bands which could be applied to GMRS.
-
There would be one benefit to moving to NB operation for GMRS. Additional channels would be available in the same spectrum band. Some claim the service is under utilized now so extra channels wouldn't be needed. However the point to consider are the frequent questions I see posted about running DMR radios in the GMRS service. With newer NB channels the old ones would continue to be analog only while the newer ones would be reserved for DMR operation. This was done basically in the European PMR446 service with Digital PMR446. Originally it was analog only now they allow digital operation. DMR tier 2 uses a NB channel width of 12.5 KHz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PMR446
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_mobile_radio
https://dpmrassociation.org/dPMR-a-brief-overview.html
DMR uses TDMA, two time slots, thus two digital voice channels would occupy one NB channel effectively doubling the number of users.
The mess with FRS radios can be mitigated with this change also by restricting FRS radios to the currently assigned analog channels. Licensed GMRS users and DMR enabled GMRS radios would have access to both, analog and digital, channels. With some firmware updates existing radios could easily be made available at an affordable price. Some have mention the Anytone analog/DMR radios, D878UV for example, and with a firmware change would likely work just fine.
Mobile Antenna
in Technical Discussion
Posted
Yea, some say you're not a real radio guy until you drill holes in your ride to mount the antennas. Can't do that with company stuff, rentals or lease.