Lscott

That might work for a large site. However if one wanted to install a private repeater for family use it doesn't look practical. Also as far as I know there is no open standard for FHSS radios so any implementation would be proprietary and the manufacture likely wouldn't be all that interested in opening it up or licensing the technology. So further along that line if another manufacture sold FHSS radios they probability they would work with another manufacture is nearly zero. That's why an open public standard or one that is open to licensing is much preferred.

The goal of trunking systems is far different than for a FHSS radio. Trunking systems are used to increase the utilization of very limited spectrum, frequencies, while FHSS radios consume a lot of spectrum while minimizing interference.

That was exactly why I asked the question. I've read some archived posts talking about various digital modes where people are singing about how great they are, except they forget about the practical aspects. So if FHSS radios are so great what if one wanted to expand the range beyond a mile or so they would need a repeater. Oops, not going to happen. Looks like they might not be a great recommendation after all. I just wish people would think a little bit more about the practical ramifications and implementation requirements more. When that's done you just might discover the digital mode you thought was the greatest thing since sliced bread, and better than anything else out there, just isn't a good fit while another mode would be better suited for the application.

There is likely one area you haven't checked. Your typical cigarette lighter plug has a spring loaded center contact pin on the tip. The contact area with the pad inside of the socket is really small. At moderate to high currents this area will get really hot depending on the current draw.

Here is a real question. Who makes a practical and affordable FHSS repeater? I did a search and didn't really find much of anything. If the radios are only usable for short range communications because there is no infrastructure to expand the range sort of takes the shine off the attraction to FHSS radios as a general communication tool.

If the button was defective then nothing you assign to it would work either so I don't think that's your problem. At this point I can't think of any other reason why it won't work from a setup stand point. I do know you have to have at least two channels selected to scan otherwise it doesn't do anything. I would recommend you look through the help file for the options in the SCAN panel and make sure you understand what each option does and if it makes sense for what you want the radio to do.

I would recommend the following setting in the SCAN option panel. Make this setting FIRST. If it's set to anything else the radio will only scan the selected channels in the current group. Using the "MULTI" option any channel in any group can be scanned regardless of the current group the radio is set for. After the above then you need to edit each GROUP to enable scanning the channels in that group as well. You need to do both of the above.

OK. My misunderstanding.

This is what he wrote on a follow up post showing the radio's display. It seems he figured out the tone issue but some how mucked up the display settings. That's what I responded too in my reply. "I somehow got it working, but no idea what setting I changed but now rather than a channel name showing up,like it was, it is just numbers." "Now I have no idea how to get it back into showing the channel name. Is it capable of showing the channel and name and channel number?"

His last post was asking how to get the channel names to display. He said he wasn't sure what he changed to screw it up.

Change this setting.

Analog radios for 220 are around. Since the band is typically only for ITU region 2, North America, most major manufacturers don’t bother making radios for it or including it on multi-band radios. When looking at digital voice the choices are very limited. As you guessed the antennas are an issue too. Most Ham bands are harmonically related. For example 432MHz, 70cm band, is exactly 3 times 144MHz, 2 meter band etc. The 220 band isn’t so making a multi band antenna is really hard to do. Some of the radios ship with 2 antennas, a combo for 70cm/2M and a separate one just for 220 for that reason.

Then it seems you are one of the few lucky ones. When you get the whole thing reassembled do one more scan using the radio the battery replacer is installed on. If nothing is noticed you should be good to go.

Did you mean to say powered up? If it wasn't powered up you wouldn't expect to hear anything.

It’s also a band where you’re unlikely to find much if any digital voice operation. I only know of two Ham grade radios that can do digital voice on 220. One is the now discontinued Kenwood TH-D74A with D-Star and the other is the Anytone D578UV with DMR. There might be others, maybe System Fussion, but I haven’t heard of them if they exist. Both of the above radios are rated at just 5 watts on the band. I think if one wanted to run DMR on 220 then the D578UV is the only game in town, even if it’s a Chinese radio. I think BTECH sells a 220 amp that works for FM and all the usual digital voice modes. It’s not that expensive. https://baofengtech.com/product/amp-220/

That would be one way. The second radio would need to be right next to the power supply. If the switching frequency is around 150KHz you would expect to see problems at 150KHz intervals. I’ve had small circuit board DC to DC converters on the bench generate enough noise to break the squelch on a hand held radio on the other side of my office stopping it from scanning. Most of the time it was on VHF I had the issue. Ferrite cores might help if you do see problems. However having the power supply in a tightly sealed metal case would improve things too. No guarantees that you can eliminate the interference, if found, completely or to a level where it doesn’t impact operation to the point where communication is unreliable.

So how much RF trash is generated by the cheap unshielded switching supply? You should run the VFO over a wide range and see if there are any noticeable increases in noise level or mysterious “carriers” that repeat at regular frequency intervals.

I reference the attached file for cable losses. 1/2 inch LDF has almost half the loss of your typical LMR-400 cable. It will cost more but you get more signal to the antenna. One other point the losses also work on receive too. Lower loss cable you can work weaker stations.Coaxial Cable Attenuation Chart.pdf

I keep renewing my membership every year. The ARRL is the only lobbying group representing Ham Radio Operators. It does help when an ARRL rep wants to talk to the FCC, or a Congress critter, when they understand they influence a few hundred thousand voters. And the ARRL, I believe, has a seat at the WRC, World Radio Administrative Conferences, held every few years. One might argue about their effectiveness but one thing is for sure if you don't have a seat at the table nobody will hear or care about your view point.

Yup, I get the second point there. They can push off the support cost on to their dealer networks for the commercial stuff whereas a direct customer sale they are on the hook for support.

That's an interesting point. I have noticed that for a particular radio model the 400 to 470 band split will have the Part 90 certification only and the 450 to 470/490 will have both Part 90 and 95 certifications. Otherwise there is no difference between them.

The above is true. However they need to get the certification just once for a design. So long as they don't make any significant changes the certification applies to other models. I've seen that with some of the commercial Kenwood radios. The FCC ID for their P25 and NXDN radios, TK-5220/5320 and the NX-200/300 for example, are the same. https://comms.kenwood.com/common/pdf/download/TK-5220_5320_Specsheet.pdf https://comms.kenwood.com/common/pdf/download/02_NX-200G&300GBrochure.pdf I am going to guess the cost of the certification amortized over a large fleet is rather small. The testing done for Part 90 the results likely could be just dropped into the submission for Part 95 except where there are specific differences between the services. The additional tests, if any, I can't see being that huge of a burden. I suspect the real reason has to due with the rule changes in 2017/18 that disallowed businesses from applying for a GMRS license. With the rule changes the FCC effectively killed the business market for GMRS. In that case I can see why the main stream manufactures walked away. The paperwork and testing changes IMHO was a flimsy excuse.

IMHO I don't think they cornered the market as much as the main stream manufactures simply abandoned it. The main stream manufactures likely have higher profit margins on their commercial gear and don't want to get involved in the cut throat consumer market where the prices do nothing but drop. Government agencies and business have a lot more money to spend than the average Joe-six-pack. That's where they do the bulk of their business.

The attached file has more info on the proposed switch to digital on the marine band. It looks like they are leaning towards dPMR, and possibly NXDN. dPMR isn't really used in North America. However if the marine band does switch to dPMR it's very likely other services may start using it as well. If NXDN is modified to increase it's address range and can overcome the licensing questions it might be select as well. 1467189228_ImplementationofdigitalvoiceradiotelephonyintheVHFmaritimemobileband.pdf

I’ve been picking up some commercial Kenwood NXDN radios, several different models. They seem to be cheaper than the DMR ones. They are also far cheaper than any P25 radios I’ve seen. I have radios for D-Star, DMR, P25 and NXDN. Nothing yet for YSF. Around my area D-Star, DMR and YSF seem to be popular. There are a few P25 and one NXDN repeater near me. There is a fairly large NXDN linked system in west central Florida. I think there are a few other areas where NXDN is seeing some activity around the country. I heard there are some pockets of P25 use in California. For Ham radio I think DMR works better. I don’t think it’s a great fit when considered for other services. For example the ITU is looking at moving towards digital voice for VHF marine radio. The paper I read mentions DMR likely won’t work well. They seem to be leaning more towards FDMA modes like NXDN or dPMR. NXDN by the way is already used by the railroads in the US. https://cirm.org/documents/position-papers/CIRM Position Paper - Digital voice over VHF - November 2021.pdf You can search for who is licensed for which of the big three, DMR, P25 or NXDN at this site. https://digitalfrequencysearch.com/index.php