Lscott
-
Posts
2903 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
99
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Classifieds
Posts posted by Lscott
-
-
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.
-
1 hour ago, WRUE951 said:
i know folks with Ford Trucks are using this and apparently it works. https://www.amazon.com/Buyers-Products-8895404-Magnetic-Mount/dp/B0781XXBCY?th=1
Interesting product. Didn't know anything like it existed.
-
-
8 hours ago, WSAA635 said:
It's odd though that the 805g has an FM Radio but the 905g doesn't and neither have NOAA Weather Radio.
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/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.
-
12 hours ago, gortex2 said:
If it says GMRS its probably certified....not always but mostly.
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.
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.
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.
-
1 hour ago, fremont said:
I was troubleshooting a 25' length of RG58 today that had continuity where it should (hot to hot; ground to ground; no shorts) but wasn't receiving RF. I put on a 50 ohm dummy load and connect to my analyzer and SWR was off-the-charts so into the garbage it went.
As a control, I hooked up a 2' RG58 jumper (with dummy load) and saw the expected 1:1 at the lower bands; however, when I tried at GMRS frequencies, it was 1.9:1 with 25 ohms. Helped visualize the coax loss we often attribute to antennas in the UHF band.
Are you sure your dummy load is spec’ed for GMRS frequencies? Some aren’t and give really crappy readings.
-
4 minutes ago, wrci350 said:
An SOC radio with good filtering will far outperform a superhet radio with poor filtering. Don't put too much emphasis on "SOC".
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.
-
48 minutes ago, WRUU653 said:
This has always had me perplexed. I see no reason for it being excluded in the list. It has the same power output limit as a mobile.
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.
-
29 minutes ago, WRXY699 said:
It seems that it requires manual research to determine if a given radio is GMRS Type accepted (legal for GMRS use). I think it would be nice if myGMRS.com had a "Radios" tab that contained a list of radios that are type accepted. It could have a link back to the FCC for more information, and maybe comments about requiring proprietary software to program or not. I understand this is a pretty large undertaking, but think if it was opened up for community contributions with a moderation review step, then it could turn out quite well and attract even more traffic to the website.
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.
-
2 hours ago, Radioguy7268 said:
I think state-wide or regional systems with 5, 10, or more repeaters being keyed simultaneously is a waste of spectrum.
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."
-
18 minutes ago, Webslinger said:
So, is GMRS not a practical solution in a grid down scenario? Are there any options with GMRS to make communications more reliable, ex: setting up my own private repeater? Would Ham radio be more practical in that there are many more frequencies to choose from thereby limiting the chances that somebody else would interfere with communications? Is there a more reliable and secure way to communicate using options found in amateur radio that aren't too involved and complicated?
Any publicly accessible radio service will have some degree of interference issue. The real question is just how much. Also remember not everyone is going to be on the air at the same time.
If you're looking for a more robust plan then looking at several different radio services would be the route. Part 95 services would be GMRS.FRS, MURS and finally CB Radio. With the exception of GMRS you can buy radios for FRS, MURS and CB, use them with no license requirements.
Then the final option is Ham radio Part 97. The later you need a license, each person, and have to pass an exam to get one. The Tech Class is fairly easy, however some people just don't want to be bothered. It does give you much more spectrum to operate in with and will greatly reduce the likely hood of interference.
None of the two, Part 95 and 97, allow encryption. So, if you need to exchange sensitive information you'll have to either do so illegally with encryption, that's going to be a personal choice and nobody here will publicly recommend it, or find some other method to exchange the information, prearranged codes etc.
I also would NOT depend on a repeater either, Ham or GMRS. Most are simply grid powered and will fail immediately on a grid-down condition. Some do have backup emergency power but may not last that long. Your best bet is assuming you're on your own using direct radio to radio, simplex, communications.
-
22 minutes ago, Webslinger said:
If all GMRS operators within range are using channel 17 and transmitting at the same time, what happens?
A lot of mutual interference and signal jamming. That of course depends on the length of the transmissions and power levels. Long winded communications using 50 watt mobiles would be the worse case.
- Webslinger and WRHS218
-
2
-
On 3/5/2024 at 12:25 AM, WRKC935 said:
Well, they are indicating that they welcome reporting. But the reporting they want isn't of the specific violation, rather the act of the violation causing interference to another user. So it basically reads they don't care unless you are specifically interfering with the operations of another on the frequency.
Mind you I am not trying to say it's legal through a lack of enforcement, nor will this cause me to put my repeater back on line.
I just banned from my equipment an entire group that owns and manages a repeater to the east of me due to the actions of another operator. He decided to send me this long text about an operator that was using their repeater without permission, then causing issues on a ham repeater. Problem was that I have been friends with the guy he was accusing for over 30 years. He expected me to get enraged about the situation, so I did. I banned him, and his group of repeater owner / managers from using my equipment. And I am about to the point I will be putting up a repeater on a different frequency that will have double the coverage of theirs and try to make daily contacts with the individual that he was complaining to me about, hell I may put HIS call sign on it and turn it over to him once it's operational, just to drive the point home. And I can do that as long as it doesn't interfere with the operation of their repeater and there isn't ANYTHING they can do about it. Of course I will not have he laundry list of demands to belong to their group and have access to their repeater either. Because, yes, I am that guy.
Problem with banning all those folks is they / he (no names given on purpose) are the type that will turn me in for interference even when none exists. I have the GMRS repeater with arguably the greatest coverage in the Central Ohio area. And I am not going to risk, at this time getting a report of causing interference placed on me because I wasn't fair when I banned them from my gear. And the person that started all this, well it isn't the first time that he's caused issues. I am pretty certain that he's the one that got all bent a couple years ago when the operator up in the Northwest got drunk and was on the radio. I believe it was that same individual that contacted me then and ask what I was going to do about an operator that was 3 states away from me operating a radio while drunk. When my reply wasn't to his liking, he then got mad at ME for not doing anything about the actions of another operator. So I banned him then and forgot about it. Since I forgot about it, he got back on and I just let it go. Then he pulled the latest thing and I banned him and his group from my repeater. So he got to explain why his entire group got banned from the repeater. Because, again, I am that guy at times.
I’m glad I don’t own and operate a functioning repeater system. I don’t need this kind of headache.
-
You can look at the attached data sheets. The down tilt is spec’ed at zero I believe.
DB408-B Product specifications.pdf DB404-B Product Specifications.pdf
-
2 hours ago, tcp2525 said:
I have the same data sheet. What's the difference between "beam", which I assume is mechanical and electrical, which I am assuming is done with phasing. Did I misread the title on the data sheet?
Just to add, a zero degree tilt would be optimal in this situation.
I think it means about the same thing.
Yup, the tilt is done by altering the phasing of the elements a bit. I think it could be done by changing the length of the cable between the elements, or the element spacing, which likely will affect the match to some degree. Myself I wouldn't try messing with it. You need really good equipment to measure the field pattern and or simulation software to see the effects.
-
29 minutes ago, tcp2525 said:
A question for all you gurus out here. I'm dealing with the antenna in the title that is up about 100' that performs perfectly in the northerly direction, but sucks going south. The hill I have to go over really isn't overly high, but high enough to attenuate an antenna with electrical down tilt. My question is do you guys have any ideas or a source of literature that can point me in the right direction? Thanks.
The antenna you mention in the title shows a "beam" tilt of zero degrees in the attached datasheet. I think you'll have to find another solution.
-
4 hours ago, Usmc1968 said:
ERO glue, came right off.
I'll bet it did.
- TheLastBoyScout, WRUU653 and Usmc1968
-
2
-
1
-
1 minute ago, WRXB215 said:
I hope it doesn't mutate in another cell phone store. At the end the local Microcenter computer store had more electronics parts for robot builders in one section than Radio Shack had in the whole store.
-
2 hours ago, Sshannon said:
Used to be able to go to Radio Shack.
Then turned in to "cell phone shack." Then went bankrupt. I did hear they might be coming back in a few areas.
I also remember going to Lafayette and Olson Electronics as a kid. They're gone too.
Heath Kit is kaput. Lots of kids, and adults, got their first exposure to electronics building their stuff.
-
3 minutes ago, Sshannon said:
HRO carries 300 ohm ladder line:
Use to be able to go to Radio Shack, Best Buy etc and they had rolls hanging on the display pegs in the TV accessories area. I think If one wanted to build a Slim-Jim I would try the 450 ohm ladder line. That's what the N9TAX ones use.
-
The RigExpert antenna analyzers are nice. The main attraction I have for them is the scan function. As a Ham you don't operate on just one fixed frequency. It's important to know what your antenna tuning looks like of the range you are going to use.
I built one of the cheap 300 ohm TV twin line J-Pole antennas just for fun to see how well they work. These are the type recommended to have newbies build because they are simple to make and usually work well enough for an HT indoors or out on a field trip. The SWR is also reasonable.
You ABSOLUTELY need the RF choke at the base of the antenna. I just used about 10 to 15 turns, single layer, of RG-58 rolled up on a 1 inch wood dowel pin.
Good luck trying to find 300 ohm TV twin lead now days. Oh well.
-
8 hours ago, SpeedSpeak2Me said:
Interesting... I'm glad someone else analyzed the N9TAX Labs antennas. I also have both the 2m/70cm and MRUS/GMRS versions, both with 16' of RG58U. For the MURS/GMRS (on GMRS) using a RigExpert Stick Pro, with the antennas hanging about 12' AGL (away from vegetation), I got slightly better results:
2m/70cm (UHF)
I also found that the Surecom SW-102's (mine is the "S" model)l are wildly inaccurate. I know they are popular, but the readings they give can be very misleading. As an example, it told me my Browning BR-6155 (fed with 50' of LMR400UF) has an SWR of 1.01:1 at 467.6000 MHz. My RigExpert Stick Pro, and my friend's AA-1400 both show 1.37:1 at that frequency.
I used the Rigexpert AA-1000 to make my measurements.
The antennas are a bit sensitive to the environment where you make the measurements so I’m not a bit surprised by slightly different results. Also the antennas are all hand built and tuned. That can result in differences too.
I haven’t heard good comments about the Surecom meter. Most are about the same as yours, inaccurate results. But people like them and they keep selling.
- WRXB215, Sshannon and SpeedSpeak2Me
-
3
-
I did a test on the N9TAX antenna a while ago. It’s similar to a simple Slim-Jim. The SWR isn’t outrageous on the GMRS frequencies.
There are two versions. One tuned for MURS/GMRS. The other for 2M/70cm.
N9TAX-MURS-GMRS-VHF Scan.pdf N9TAX-MURS-GMRS-UHF Scan.pdf N9TAX-2M-70CM-VHF Scan.pdf N9TAX-2M-70CM-UHF Scan.pdf
-
27 minutes ago, WRKX466 said:
Can a Kenwood TK-3400 be programmed or cloned to uses GMRS channels , including repeaters?
Is it the ProTalk version?
GMRS Type Accepted Radio List
in myGMRS.com
Posted
You're entitled to your opinion, but public disregard for the FCC rules is discouraged on this forum.