Lscott

As mentioned the answer is no. However there are various commercial radios that have Part 90 and 95 certifications. Some of those can be programmed to operate out of their official band split down into the Amateur band. There are some models where the software will prevent you from entering out of band frequencies, the one notable manufacture is Motorola, others like Kenwood don't strictly enforce this. With Kenwood entering an out of band frequency will generate a warning message, after which when you click to acknowledge it will accept the entry. For GMRS you're looking at UHF only radios. I have experience with just the Kenwood HT's, and not with any of their mobile radios, but suspect they can be programmed for out of band operation as well. Some examples, not a complete list, of the Kenwood HT models where you can program both GMRS and Ham band frequencies, and have Part 95 certification are: TK-370G http://rsws.zapto.org/radiosoftware/kenwood/tk-270g-370g.pdf TK-3170 https://pdfs.kenwoodproducts.com/9/TK-2170&3170Brochure.pdf TK-3173 http://www.swscomm.com/kenwood/TK-3173.pdf TK-3140 http://rsws.zapto.org/radiosoftware/kenwood/tk-2140-3140.pdf TK-3180 https://pdfs.kenwoodproducts.com/10/TK-2180&3180Brochure.pdf NX-300 and NX-300G https://www.kenwood.eu/files/file/comms/uk/brochures/nx/NX200G_300G_Brochure_V2.1.pdf TK-5320 https://comms.kenwood.com/common/pdf/download/TK-5220_5320_Specsheet.pdf Note: Some of the above radios also include digital voice modes. However you can ONLY use the FM functions on those radios for GMRS. However you're free to use digital voice modes on the Ham band. Most Ham digital voice operations are on UHF anyway. Also the UHF radios may cover more that one UHF frequency range. Only the models where the lower "official" limit is 450 MHz will have the Part 95 certification. The 400MHz to 470MHz band split versions will also work, but are NOT Part 95 certified. The radio I typically carry around is the TK-3170. The other radios are larger and noticeable heavier.

Well it seems the original topic of this thread got lost. Oh well, I'll just add to the confusion. There is the story about how Bill Gates saw an office suit called Visi On and that's what pushed him to develop the first version of Windows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visi_On Where I worked we had a number of Wang Computer 8086 desktops running MSDOS. They were NOT IBM PC compatible but did run the Visi On system. They got them because at the time the company had a small Wang minicomputer they used for payroll, accounting and inventory. https://www.seasip.info/VintagePC/wangpc.html After a few years they junked them and went with the IBM PC's and compatibles. For engineering use, before the PC's arrived years later, we had a single Wang 2200 for doing various calculations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_2200

No digital voice modes are currently legal on GMRS. However exploring the idea of pushing the FCC in the direction to allow it with future rule changes, and what would be the likely rules, is a worth while discussion. One of the reasons they haven't is they feel there isn't enough debate and consensus to date on the topic. As noted in past posts there is at least one GMRS repeater which was granted an experimental license, expired in 2017, to use DMR to test the feasibility or the idea. The group asked for another waver which was denied. https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsEntry/attachments/attachmentViewRD.jsp;ATTACHMENTS=n9p7jGfBzPvTQZDnhxgNPVMfDMRPMp19Th2TTvhK05h5QSwbHvbq!-414398754!990034342?applType=search&fileKey=37400551&attachmentKey=20621169&attachmentInd=licAttach Note in the waver request denial the FCC mentioned some users were concerned about the effect on analog communications. It appears that ANY idea proposed to use digital voice modes on GMRS must take the points mentioned in the waver denial in consideration plus several more. As an example have a look at the attached file with some comments and ideas I have on the topic. GMRS Digital Voice - 20221011.pdf

Maybe some day for one night. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0LLaybEuzA

Not angry. It wasn't clear to me which video he was referencing. I went back and looked at the one I mentioned to see if I had somehow missed something.

I have the same feeling when I see those license plate frames with the dealer's name on it. They were going to stick one on the new 2023 Mazda CX-5 I just got and told them no. Worse is when they "brand" your ride with a dealer's name decal stuck on the paint of the shinny new car you just paid a ridiculous amount of money to buy.

Time mark 8:17 shows the two test frequencies as 146.520MHz on VHF and 441.000MHz on UHF. The highest power the guy measured was 4.5 watts on 441.000MHz at time mark 9:05. I don't know where in that video you saw the test being done at 421MHz with a power output of 24.5 watts.

It seems that way. Look at a Baofeng that "claims" 18 watts of output. Skip to time mark 8:00 for the power test. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPM7PsO2McI

I looked at the video and I failed to notice an FCC ID number on the back. That should be a requirement to legally import the radio to the US. By any chance do you know if there is an FCC ID and what it is? The reason for asking is the FCC grant will show what power level the radio was tested at and issued the grant for what service(s). I wanted to see if it actually tested at 25 watts (Chinese) and what that ends up in US watts.

So did I. Also had the matching printer that used the aluminum coated paper.

The few XPR6550’s I got used were missing the side port covers. I was at a Ham radio flea market a while back and spotted a bag with 4 or 5 of them inside on a table. The guy was selling mostly Motorola gear. Unbelievable he just gave me the bag for free after I inquired about what he wanted for them. He said he had no use for them. Who says there aren’t any nice people around anymore, there are!

Many, if not most, use the Kenwood "K" type side connector for programming and other accessories. My guess is when the Chinese needed to "copy" something and wanted a standard to follow they picked Kenwood, which BTW also used the reverse SMA antenna connectors, long before the CCR's did. I'm guessing that's how it all got started. The number of Kenwood radios for commercial use far outstrips their Ham portfolio. I guess if you're going to copy something as a standard pick one with a large market presence. For me it's really convenient since I can pickup the cheap accessories used for the CCR's and use those on most of my Kenwood radios. If you leave the port cover off they can get water and dirt/dust inside of the radio. That's the main disadvantage. Not all of the Kenwood radios use that "K" type side port. A surprising number use a multi-pin side port like you see on Motorola radios, but of course they won't use the same accessories. These ports are more environment proof since there are no openings into the radio. Unfortunately one of those pins has a live +5VDC supply on it, used by some of the GPS and noise canceling microphones. Shorting that pin out isn't healthy for the radio. If the port is not being use the cover should be installed. Now about the reverse SMA connector. Some of the older Motorola radios use them. However they are not "exactly" standard. If you look at a real Motorola antenna verses the one used on the CCR's and Kenwoods you'll notice the tip of the screw connector for the center pin is flush with the end. On the other antennas it's typically recessed a tiny bit. If you try to screw it into the Motorola radio the center pin in the socket won't slip into the connector on the antenna because the threaded barrel section bottoms out too soon. I'm sure that was done to get the aftermarket parts business for antennas. The four areas on a radio that frequently seems to get broken, or lost, are belt clips, antennas, the knobs and side port covers. People like to use the antenna or top side knobs to yank the radio out of the pocket or off the belt, particularly the antenna. The belt clips break when twisting the radio while trying to take it off the belt, or the radio will catch on something, cloths etc. and rip the radio off. Side port covers, well I guess that's the first thing that's lost after programming the radio, or attaching that external speaker mic.

This is what a Michigan Ham call sign plate looks like.

Never thought they would beef up the IRS with so many people, but surprise, they did. Am I "giddy" at the prospect of a clamp down by the FCC? No. Remember when Hams were begging the FCC to start enforcing Part 97 reg's? Nobody thought "anything" would happen, it did, not much, but there was some action taken. The way things are now I wouldn't dismiss anything, however, we're living in the Twilight Zone at the moment.

The FCC doesn't have the man power, but they did spend $80Billion on 87,000 more IRS agents. Things could change.

Good practice suggests using no more power than necessary to establish good communications. If you can get in to the repeater with only a watt or two I would do that. It keeps the hand held radio cooler and the battery pack will of course last longer.

The software should give you the option to save the radio's setup/memory programming file to disk. That's the file you want to open with the editor.

If you look at the screen shot he provided, copied here, you'll see three pairs of frequencies, for three different channels in the editor. He boxed one of the two frequencies, in red, for a pair which he determined was the TX frequency for that particular memory channel. Since initially both RX and TX were set the same that's why they look like a duplicate of single frequency, but in reality they are the discrete RX and TX settings. This radio does not use a firmware that assumes a single frequency with an offset model, typical for some Ham Radio gear. It REQUIRES two distinct frequencies, one RX, and one TX, for each memory channel. This is common for many many radios, particularly for commercial models and their derivatives. Having hack a number of Kenwood radio specific codes plugs myself I've seen the same thing using a hex editor.

I guess that’s possible. You don’t have access to the firmware code so you can’t be sure exactly what they did. Maybe some more experimentation might help to figure it out.

Yeah, if you look closely at his screen shot of the editor you will see several pairs of frequencies, one pair for each programmed channel. All he did was pick the second of the two in a pair, the one he wanted to alter, and changed it from 462.xxxxx to 467.xxxxx to get the repeater input frequency. The only down side to hacking code plugs like this is when you need to make a change to the frequency. If it's one of the hacked custom frequencies you're back using the editor again. Not real convenient but it works. Not all radio's code plugs are this simple to hack. A few use various types of encryption to try and prevent this sort of thing. I figured that out on some of the Kenwood radios I have. After decrypting the code plugs a few interesting items were found like model numbers, embedded radio serial numbers, programming software license install keys etc. I was also able to see the normally hidden radio write protect password, if used in the software, in the clear.

In an automotive application vibration might be a factor that could fatigue a solid conductor if it's allowed to move around a bit and not adequately secured. Also consider that the cable running from the pole to your house for cable TV is a solid conductor. Those cables hang up there for years with few problems.

About the signal strength difference there shouldn't be any between wide or narrow band. Many modern radios are now software calibrated, no more popping the cover and turning screws. What I suspect is something in the firmware was changed that affects the signal strength reading itself. Some calibration/scaling factor got tweaked besides the wide band narrow band setting. There might be other "tweaks" in the firmware as well to fix other issues you might not have noticed. Your comment about the audio is that your experience or just a "hypothetical" case? It sounds like the later. If so if the repeater is programmed for wide band TX and RX and you use narrow band to TX to the repeater the RX audio level signal will be low and TX on the output as such. Now a narrow band radio monitoring the repeater's output, which now has a low deviation due to the RX audio level being low, will look like a narrow band signal to a narrow band radio. The user will hear the audio at what they are accustomed to as being "normal", no real mystery.

Are you asking about the center conductor or the shield over the dielectric? If it's the center conductor it doesn't make much difference unless the cable is being flexed frequently. This could be an issue with a trunk or engine hood mounted antenna, especially the trunk mount, in which case the stranded center conductor might hold up better. If the antenna is mounted on the roof IMHO either one is OK.

I did about the same thing with 3 nearly useless Kenwood TK-3200 2-channel ProTalk radios a buddy gave me for free. He had no use for them. These radios "officially" have 56 per-configured frequencies you can choose from in the programming software or in the radio's firmware when field programing the radio. Non of the frequencies are for GMRS. Further there didn't appear to be anyway to set the TX frequency different from the RX frequency in the software either, so repeater operation was impossible. Using a hex editor, and some lucky guesses, I figured out where and how the RX and TX frequencies were stored in the code plug. Now I have them programmed for the local wide area GMRS repeater and a simplex channel. Now they are usable for something practical. TK-2200_3200 Brochure.pdf