Lscott

I see several company's in that area: Flex-N-Gate (large comlex) Thierry Corp Dixon and Ryan Corp United Resin Corp ArborOakland Group Bowlero Lanes and Lounge (almost on the NW corner)

I would be interested in knowing what you find out. My work office is by 14 Mile and John-R. That's only about a half dozen miles or so from where you're looking.

To get back on track for the thread's topic there is a series of posts on radioreference.com on this exact topic. A few helpful posts shows how to look up Part 95A radios the FCC has certified. I would also imagine changing to Part 95E would also find newly certified radios as well. https://forums.radioreference.com/threads/part-95-gmrs-radio-list.275040/#post-2046099 Then the same person posted an updated procedure: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TThis may be slightly better than what I posted back in 2013. FCC OET Authorization Search Under Application Information: Application Status: select All Granted Statuses Under Equipment Information: Frequency Range in MHz: select 462.55 to 467.725 and uncheck Exact Match Rule Parts (up to three): select 95 and uncheck Exact Match Under Formatting Options: Show results in You can select HTML to view it on the web site or select Microsoft Excel or XML to generate a spread sheet. I just tried the Microsoft Excel format and it generates a file that your browser will want to download. I don't know how that works on a smart phone or Windows. On a Linux PC with Firefox it opens a download dialog box. If you use part 95 instead of part 95A the results could be different. It might include FRS radios too. 95A should include only GMRS radios but some of them (and FRS and CB and MURS) might have only 95 without the letter. I need to check that. Specifying the frequency range 462.55 to 467.725 should exclude MURS, CB, RC and other PRS devices. Today that returned 3969 lines. Some radios have multiple grants or permissive changes so the actual number of devices is way less.

Yes that could also work. Excellent suggestion.

The expected voltage depends on the cell chemistry. Some Lithium cells have a terminal voltage around 4+ volts at full charge.

Good guess! Boost converters can be designed and built in a very small volume these days if only a few watts are required. And as you assumed it's built into the battery pack.

That's the usual offset, however the rules don't require it. Note the FCC rules simply state what frequencies can be used for communications through a repeater, sections A and C, but don't mention a required offset. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-95/subpart-E/section-95.1763 Some have used a non-standard offset, still using the official frequencies, as a means to keep many users off a repeater since many radios "assume" a fixed 5MHz offset with no option for changing it. That leaves just those people with commercial grade radios that allow programming in separate TX and RX frequencies.

There are some companies that make solar panels specifically for USB charging that would be a better choice in that case since they have done the "engineering" already. Again don't take this as a recommendation but as an example of what is available. https://www.renogy.com/e-flex-21-portable-solar-panel/

Your USB charger is a fixed 5 VDC at either 1 or 2 amps of current. You will need something to provide that. If it's 2 amps then you'll need at least a 10+ watt solar panel for power, more like 15 watts. The DC to DC converter would need to supply 5 volts DC at the required current. The input voltage range would be about the same as in the Baofeng case.

You need more than just a solar panel. The battery pack they use is a Lithium Ion type and has very specific charge requirements. That is satisfied by the charger base. You need a solar panel and some type of regulator to keep the input to the charger base within specifications. DO NOT try to charge the battery pack directly off the solar panel! Most solar panels for low to medium power applications output up to 20 to 22 volts DC, likely way to high for the charger base. You can use a DC to DC converter with a wide input voltage range and a fixed output voltage to feed the charger base. The Baofeng charger base has an input of 10 VDC, 12 VDC would likely work OK. Then you need DC to DC converter that would take a wide input voltage range from the solar panel and output a fixed 12 VDC. One example, don't take this as a recommendation, is at the following link. https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/mean-well-usa-inc/SPBW06F-12/7707012 Datasheet specifications. https://mm.digikey.com/Volume0/opasdata/d220001/medias/docus/2289/SPBW06%2CDPBW06_Ds.pdf The input voltage range is 9 to 36 VDC so this should cover a 5 watt solar panel. You can find some 5 watt solar panels on line. I've attached some photos of a few I have. You'll likely pay around $20 to $30 for one. You'll also need some cable and connectors to wire in the DC to DC converter and connect to the charger base. Solarverter.pdf Solarland SLP005-12.pdf 5 Watt No Name Light Aluminum Frame Solar Panel.pdf

I don't know. I think there are some reviews on YouTube on the topic. I would also do some research on-line to see if there is anything. As popular as they seem to be somebody likely has done some recent testing. One other place to check is the FCC site. If the radio is legally sold in the US it should, required, to have an FCC ID. Using that you can look up the grant and test reports. The grant by the way will likely just show just a certification for Part 15, not 97. The FCC's main concern is the radio is blocked from receiving cell phone frequencies. You can do an informal, crude, test using another radio. TX on 146.0MHz on the test radio. Then using a second radio some short distance away tuned for 438.0MHz, that's the third harmonic, and see if you can pick up a signal. If you can you likely have a problem. If not the radio "might" be acceptably clean, at least on VHF. It's no guarantee it's OK on UHF however. Dual band radios typically have two transmit "chains", power amp stages and filters, for each band. Both need to be checked. You can try the same kind of test on UHF but you'll likely will need a scanner that can tune up around 1.2GHz to 1.5GHz to catch the third harmonic. Your final option is try at a local Ham Radio club. Somebody there might have a spectrum analyzer, I have a model in mind on my wish list to get sooner or later, or access to one. You can see if a test of your radio can be arranged. I'm sure you won't be the first person in a club who wants to know if their cheap radio meets FCC emission limits.

Yup, it's a multi-multi-band radio. You can transmit on a half dozen VHF and UHF frequencies all at the same time. I had a buddy at work who got one of those super cheap BF-888's UHF radios to experiment with it. There is a hack to program in some VHF frequencies. He tried it. It worked all right. Then I tuned my radio for the third harmonic. Oh-oh... I could hear him even better on the third harmonic spur! Well that ended that experiment. Never used that radio again.

I was at the Ham swap a while back in Fort Wayne Indiana. Part of the free test bench, used for checking used radios people buy before leaving, had a Rigol spectrum analyzer setup. The link below is the model I believe they were using at the time, DSA-815. https://www.rigolna.com/products/spectrum-analyzers/dsa800/ Some people were solicited specifically so they could test their radios as an informal survey. The results were socking for some people when they saw the results. The original classic UV-5R was well known for poor filtering of harmonics on the output. I found the attached VHF spectrum tests for one on-line and a copy of the schematic, likely the first generation design, for the radio. UV-5R VHF Harmonics Test.pdf SCHEMATIC Baofeng UV-5R.pdf

You're entitled to your opinion, but public disregard for the FCC rules is discouraged on this forum.

Well, that depends on your current, future plans and interests. 1. Do you have or want to get your Ham license too? A significant number of GMRS users also have their Ham license. For example I am dual licensed. 2. If answer to #1 is yes, then do you plan on using the radio for both services? There are used commercial grade radios with Part 95 certification so they are legal to use on GMRS, and can be programmed for Ham 70cm band frequencies. I have a number of those and they each have their place and uses. When you say cost isn’t important there are some radios that run up to the high 3 figures and low to mid 4 figures, so you might want to quantify that a bit more. Those radios typically are the commercial grade types, tend to work better and have a lot of features the usual CCR’s, Cheap Chinese Radio, don’t offer.

Interesting product. Didn't know anything like it existed.

There is definitely capacitive coupling. It's not magnetic so the mount won't hold, but electrical it will work just fine.

Yeah, having NOAA is useful if you spend a lot of time out doors. However that requires the radio to likely be based on a dual band design, a derivative of a VHF/UHF Ham type radio with GMRS specific firmware. Some of the GMRS radios are based on a single band design so that's why they don't have VHF and thus no NOAA station reception. I would just go for a good quality GMRS radio and then spend a bit extra and get a cheap Baofeng UV-5R type radio for about $25 or so and program in the NOAA weather channels in it. You're not really going to be transmitting on it, just using it as a monitor. I typically carry a TK-3170 for GMRS and UHF ham. For VHF Ham and NOAA I have the VHF version of the radio, TK-2170. https://pdfs.kenwoodproducts.com/9/TK-2170&3170Brochure.pdf Of course you have to be within range of a NOAA station. Some places aren't covered, or not very well. https://www.weather.gov/nwr/ https://www.weather.gov/nwr/Maps Another advantage of a separate radio is you might have an active "Skywarn" group in your area. During extreme weather events this maybe a better source of timely weather updates. https://www.weather.gov/skywarn/ https://www.weather.gov/sew/spotter

It’s easy enough to find out once a person does the lookup the first time. The radio is required to have an FCC ID tag on the back to be legally imported/sold in the US. Then look up the ID on this site. https://fccid.io Type in the FCC ID and click the search button. Example for my TK-3170 HT Type-1 with ID ALH34713110. Then look at what’s under the Rule Parts in the grant. https://fccid.io/ALH34713110 Anything that shows Part 95 is certified for GMRS. In the example it’s Part 95A which is the pre 2017 rules, but still legal. The new rule part post 2017 in Part 95E. I do this for ALL my radios and keep PDF copies of the grants on file as part of the documentation set for that radio. That’s it.

Are you sure your dummy load is spec’ed for GMRS frequencies? Some aren’t and give really crappy readings.

It would be prudent to do some research first. Try to find user reviews online for the radio. Also if one has the technical background locating the service manual for the radio would be a good option. It would likely have the schematics. Looking those over would reveal how much frontend filtering is being done. For example I believe the Motorola XPR-7550e is one such example. Users swear by them and have very good frontend filtering and high sensitivity too.

A mobile doesn't have the antenna height advantage a base does. I'm thinking the FCC's goal is to limit the operational area by removing the antenna height advantage a base station has since they likely assume the communication would be between the base station and hand-held or other mobile stations belonging to the same licensee. They didn't want GMRS to turn into a "Ham Lite" type of service, which it seems to be doing.

Of course somebody will have to "volunteer" their time to maintain the list and weed out bad listings. This is were ideas like this usually fail nobody wants to put in the effort. Also some just don't care if their radio is Part 95 certified or not. A lot of users are operating older, and new, Part 90 only gear. So far the FCC doesn't seem to be interested in busting them. I'm not recommending the practice, but so far that seems to be the case.

That's a valid point. I think a fair number of GMRS users would agree given the limited number of repeater frequency pairs available. IMHO one should look at what the original purpose of GMRS was targeted at. You get a feeling for that based on the licensing rules, basically a family with parents and siblings. The typical communication would be limited to a small area. I don't think the intended operational vision was communication over large geographical areas, such as state wide or multi-state systems. A city wide or county wide system might be more reasonable. I'm neutral on the topic. I don't have a dog in the fight, not a repeater owner/operator. I'll let others do the heavy lifting. Advice given to new attorneys by the old experienced ones : "If the law is against you, pound on the law. If the facts are against you pound on the facts. If both are against you pound on the table."