Lscott

Ok. First off. I do not know how to property test Ht antennas. A calibration was done with the SMA extension for each frequency band when changed. All antennas are authentic from what I can tell. The Nagoya's are from Btech and the Abree is from Abree.
 
Nagoya 701c
 
144.000      1:1.38
146.460      1:1.15
147.999      1:1.32
 
420.000     1:2.06
450.000     1:2.21
 
462.5625    1:2.15
467.7250    1:2.13
 
Nagoya 771
 
144.000      1:1.23
147.999      1:1.50
 
420.000     1:1.55
450.000     1:1.14
 
462.5625    1:1.37
467.7250    1:1.45
 
Abree 42"
 
144.000      1:1.55
147.999      1:2.02
 
420.000     1:1.55
450.000     1:1.84
 
462.5625    1:2.24
467.7250    1:2.38
 
There was a big difference between holding the coil of the antenna(base) and the lead. Unfortunately, it isn't like an MFJ analyzer where I could screw it into. So I chose to hold them by the coil except for the Abree. Holding the Abree by the coil it would go from 1:1.55 and then jump to 1:6.63. Even laying the antennas on the table it would jump by quite a bit. Try holding a 42" antenna by the SMA lug, my fingers hurt.. Again take this with a grain of salt.
 
Should add, for GMRS the 701c is the one I would go with. The 771 works but I perfer the 701c. The Abree rocks for 2m.

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.
 
 

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.
 

You have some good points marcspaz.
 
About it being market driven, wide band verses narrow band, could get a boost by the manufactures. If they are already narrow band compliant it would be a marketing incentive for them to point it out to customers. Second any wide band equipment only, mostly used, would be eliminated from the market. Now users are pushed into buying more from the narrow band new equipment market and less from now smaller compliant used equipment market.
 
On the regulation front manufactures could point out to the FCC they have good sales of their narrow band radios and few requests for wide band equipment. The FCC could then infer the consumer has a preference for narrow band equipment, or at least don't find it a limiting factor in how they use their radios. Making a decision to go narrow band for GMRS would be an easy one I suspect for the FCC.
 
On the engineering side of things it's rather a screwy situation where you have two different radio services assigned the same spectrum but with different technical specifications for bandwidth. If the goal was really to allow the two to interoperate the FCC screwed it up. Having one station on frequency running wide band and another running narrow band results in some annoying messing around with the volume control. It's either to loud or too soft depending on who is doing the RX'ing and the TX'ing. By the way this happens with DMR when people don't get their audio levels set right. One minute i can hardly hear one station and the other station blows be out of the chair.

I would second that suggestion, Lithium battery. Specifically I would recommend a LiFePO4, LFP, battery. They have the safest chemistry out of the common Lithium battery types, light and reasonably high energy density. One other advantage to LFP batteries is the terminal voltage. At full charge they are around 13.3 or so VDC, a very good match to most mobile equipment that expects 13.8 VDC. The battery has a very flat voltage verses discharge curve so when the terminal voltage drops to 12.8 VDC the battery is almost completely discharged, like around 80 to 90 percent of the rated capacity is used. Don't try this with a lead acid battery.
 
I've also found they have a very low self discharge rate. You can charge them up and let them sit for months and the terminal voltage hardly drops. For an Ecom application this would be an advantage.
 
I've wreck enough Gel-Cell lead-acid batteries over the years I won't buy them anymore if the equipment can use the LFP type. Lead acid batteries don't like sitting around unless they have a trickle charger attached and don't let them sit around at less than full change, they will sulfate the plates. Neither of these conditions hurt LFP batteries. As a matter of fact one recommendation for long term storage of LFP batteries is to discharge them to around 50-80 percent of capacity, they can stay that way for months to a year or more this way without damage.
 
While LFP batteries are much more expensive than the common lead acid type once you ruin a few lead acid batteries you'll get sick of replacing them and the cost adds up.
 
I've had good luck with the following company for LFP batteries.
 
https://www.bioennopower.com/collections/12v-series-lifepo4-batteries
 
If you want to use a solar panel to recharge the battery a small MPPT controller designed specifically for LFP batteries is required. I have several from this company.
 
https://sunforgellc.com/genasun/
 
I have a couple of the GV5 charge controllers, a good match for a 50 watt solar panel.
 
For solar panels I got some from this company.
 
https://www.renogy.com/products/solar-panels/
 
I have a couple of their 50 watt mono and 1 of their 30 watt mono panels. The build quality is good and they do guarantee them.
 
On solar panels from my experience don't expect to get more than around 70 to 75 percent of the panel rating, which is derived under lab conditions, which you won't get in the field.

Yup. I have some friends that have either the Ham Tech or GMRS license and are looking at getting the other one. For the $70 and good or 10 years why not get the GMRS license IMHO.

Using an old computer switching power supply likely won't work. First they are electrically noisy and will kill your receiver sensitivity. Second the designs use one of the low voltage outputs for regulation, 5 VDC - 3.3 VDC - ???, while the rest float around a bit. If the regulated output isn't loaded down enough it may not even start. 
 
We use a number of off the shelf switching power supplies where I work for some industrial controls. I have one right now in my office loaded down with a fat power resistor on the 5 VDC rail just to get the thing to turn on so I can use the other outputs for testing a project.
 
About using it to charge a lead acid battery may not work well, if at all, since the high voltage outputs are a "nominal" 12 VDC on the computer power supply. You need around 13.5 VDC to 13.8 VDC to charge a "12 VDC" lead acid battery. Then there is the different charge stages to keep from damaging the battery, bulk - absorption - float, which is normally done by a smart charger. There is a bit of a difference between liquid filled, gell cell and AGM lead acid types on the charge and float voltages to content with.  

You have some good points marcspaz.
 
About it being market driven, wide band verses narrow band, could get a boost by the manufactures. If they are already narrow band compliant it would be a marketing incentive for them to point it out to customers. Second any wide band equipment only, mostly used, would be eliminated from the market. Now users are pushed into buying more from the narrow band new equipment market and less from now smaller compliant used equipment market.
 
On the regulation front manufactures could point out to the FCC they have good sales of their narrow band radios and few requests for wide band equipment. The FCC could then infer the consumer has a preference for narrow band equipment, or at least don't find it a limiting factor in how they use their radios. Making a decision to go narrow band for GMRS would be an easy one I suspect for the FCC.
 
On the engineering side of things it's rather a screwy situation where you have two different radio services assigned the same spectrum but with different technical specifications for bandwidth. If the goal was really to allow the two to interoperate the FCC screwed it up. Having one station on frequency running wide band and another running narrow band results in some annoying messing around with the volume control. It's either to loud or too soft depending on who is doing the RX'ing and the TX'ing. By the way this happens with DMR when people don't get their audio levels set right. One minute i can hardly hear one station and the other station blows be out of the chair.

My sons are 4 and 6. The older one is in kindergarten, and all the schools and parks are closed for COVID-19. They're at home all day, every day. We ride bikes and whatnot, but it's not the same as going to school and hanging with friends. I'm not paying for a phone for a 6 year old. So, why not get a few families in the neighborhood to get a GMRS license so all the kids can talk to one another any time they want? They're not close enough for FRS, but I think certainly GMRS will work. We haven't even bought devices, yet. I genuinely want to know if this is a bad idea before we move forward. To me, it seems like a great way to take advantage of the current "STAY HOME" situation to get kids interested in communications. 
 
Will other GMRS users be pissed off by a bunch of kids talking to each other all day? I plan to lock all their devices on a specific frequency, so they can't annoy anyone. How do we find a semi-private frequency no one is likely to use? If we need to use a local repeater to get across a hill, is it ok to ask, or would we get laughed at, or is it too big of an ask since they'll probably talk to each other way more than adults? 
 
We live in a small town in Alabama, about 6,500 population, all within 2 miles, and situated in a valley between mountains. One subdivision is over a hill, but the whole rest of town is probably in line-of-sight. 
 
Thanks for any advice. 

You have some good points marcspaz.
 
About it being market driven, wide band verses narrow band, could get a boost by the manufactures. If they are already narrow band compliant it would be a marketing incentive for them to point it out to customers. Second any wide band equipment only, mostly used, would be eliminated from the market. Now users are pushed into buying more from the narrow band new equipment market and less from now smaller compliant used equipment market.
 
On the regulation front manufactures could point out to the FCC they have good sales of their narrow band radios and few requests for wide band equipment. The FCC could then infer the consumer has a preference for narrow band equipment, or at least don't find it a limiting factor in how they use their radios. Making a decision to go narrow band for GMRS would be an easy one I suspect for the FCC.
 
On the engineering side of things it's rather a screwy situation where you have two different radio services assigned the same spectrum but with different technical specifications for bandwidth. If the goal was really to allow the two to interoperate the FCC screwed it up. Having one station on frequency running wide band and another running narrow band results in some annoying messing around with the volume control. It's either to loud or too soft depending on who is doing the RX'ing and the TX'ing. By the way this happens with DMR when people don't get their audio levels set right. One minute i can hardly hear one station and the other station blows be out of the chair.

I would second that suggestion, Lithium battery. Specifically I would recommend a LiFePO4, LFP, battery. They have the safest chemistry out of the common Lithium battery types, light and reasonably high energy density. One other advantage to LFP batteries is the terminal voltage. At full charge they are around 13.3 or so VDC, a very good match to most mobile equipment that expects 13.8 VDC. The battery has a very flat voltage verses discharge curve so when the terminal voltage drops to 12.8 VDC the battery is almost completely discharged, like around 80 to 90 percent of the rated capacity is used. Don't try this with a lead acid battery.
 
I've also found they have a very low self discharge rate. You can charge them up and let them sit for months and the terminal voltage hardly drops. For an Ecom application this would be an advantage.
 
I've wreck enough Gel-Cell lead-acid batteries over the years I won't buy them anymore if the equipment can use the LFP type. Lead acid batteries don't like sitting around unless they have a trickle charger attached and don't let them sit around at less than full change, they will sulfate the plates. Neither of these conditions hurt LFP batteries. As a matter of fact one recommendation for long term storage of LFP batteries is to discharge them to around 50-80 percent of capacity, they can stay that way for months to a year or more this way without damage.
 
While LFP batteries are much more expensive than the common lead acid type once you ruin a few lead acid batteries you'll get sick of replacing them and the cost adds up.
 
I've had good luck with the following company for LFP batteries.
 
https://www.bioennopower.com/collections/12v-series-lifepo4-batteries
 
If you want to use a solar panel to recharge the battery a small MPPT controller designed specifically for LFP batteries is required. I have several from this company.
 
https://sunforgellc.com/genasun/
 
I have a couple of the GV5 charge controllers, a good match for a 50 watt solar panel.
 
For solar panels I got some from this company.
 
https://www.renogy.com/products/solar-panels/
 
I have a couple of their 50 watt mono and 1 of their 30 watt mono panels. The build quality is good and they do guarantee them.
 
On solar panels from my experience don't expect to get more than around 70 to 75 percent of the panel rating, which is derived under lab conditions, which you won't get in the field.

That is a huge step in the wrong direction, IMHO. We need FRS & GMRS to stop sharing frequencies. Let FRS be low power narrow band and give GMRS operators more wideband frequencies. I'm tired of sharing the channels with 4 and 5 year old kids screaming at their cousin who is only 30 feet away, about how much they love play dough.

Plugging in the height numbers into this online calculator:
 
http://www.hamuniverse.com/lineofsightcalculator.html
 
shows the difference in range is around 0.5 miles, distance to the horizon, more at the higher elevation. If you were located in an area that was flat its not much of a change. However you're in a bit of a depression so anything you can do to get the antenna higher will be beneficial and a reasonable trade off for a bit more coax loss. At some point you'll likely go for an antenna with some gain which will make up for the extra 1db of coax loss.  

You want to look at something like the following:
 
https://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/oet/info/documents/bulletins/oet65/oet65b.pdf
 
https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/radiofrequencyradiation/evaluation.html

I was doing some searching for anybody that may have tried the idea and stumbled across this gem. Got me a bit interested in the idea.
 
https://az276019.vo.msecnd.net/valmontstaging/vsna-resources/microflect-passive-repeater-catalog.pdf?sfvrsn=6
 
While not exactly a water tower the idea is along the same direction, a passive reflector repeater.

How about some how to, or tutorials, on basic topics. GMRS is mainly aimed at non technical people who simply want a good means of communications and don't have much interest in the theory or radio as a hobby. For that there is Ham Radio.
 
For example one wants a mobile installation. Basic info on how a mobile radio should be wired up for electrical safety, battery connections, fuses etc. What type of coax cable to use, cable connectors, antenna location and antenna mounts. Recommended mobile radios, antenna manufactures and models. Some sample photos of other people's installations for ideas to go along with the written material.
 
Another would be for portable radios. Recommended manufactures and models. Issues with using a portable radio in a mobile setting, speaker microphones, heat sets, battery types, battery eliminators, cable adapters from the portable radio to mobile antenna. Again some sample photos.
 
Repeater operation. What are they used for. What specific channels are reserved for them. Explain why there are two frequencies used and in general how this is programed in to the radio. Explain what a "PL" tone is used for and why it's typically required.
 
The how to's should be kept at a low simple technical level. The idea is to help somebody setup a functional radio installation without getting mired in a lot of theory. After the system is up and running there is plenty of time and people who can provide additional info for those that have the interest.

Yup. I have some friends that have either the Ham Tech or GMRS license and are looking at getting the other one. For the $70 and good or 10 years why not get the GMRS license IMHO.

I scrolled down the page at the link above and the spec's given were:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical Specs:
 
License Free FRS Radio
462 - 467 MHz
Exceptional conditions: Approx 20 Miles range
Everyday use: Approx 3.2 Miles range
Rugged city use: 50 floor penetration
One-piece back clip
9-level noise reduction
80 decibel speaker output
16  Memory Channels
8,000 mAh internal battery
Type-C fast charging
Only 1.5CM thick (as thin as an iPhoneX)
Under 5oz weight
15 day standby
LED dot matrix display
Headphone charging interface
 
Transmitter
 
    Output Power: 2W/0.5W
    Modulation: FM (F3E)
    Max.Frequency Deviation: ≤5KHz
    Sparious Radiation: ≤7.5μW
 
Receiver
 
    Sensitivity: 0.16μV(12dB SINAD)
    Audio Power: ≥300mW
    Audio Distortion:
    80 decibel speaker output
 
 
Receiving Current: <300mA
Standby Current: <200mA
Emission Current: <1800mA
Audio Distortion: <5%
Intermodulation: >60dB
Max Frequency Deviation: <5KHz
Supply Power: DC3.7V
CTCSS/DCS: The transceiver has 50 CTCSS and 208 DCS, also non-standard subaudio can be programmed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
To me it just looks like a cheap DSP based "radio on a chip" type hand-held. This is common in the "Baofeng" type Chinese radios. They use the RDA1846, or a derivative of it.
 
You can get the datasheet and programming guide for the chip here:
 
https://github.com/phishman/RDA1846/tree/master/Datasheets
 
I would like to see the FCC ID, which it should have to be sold in the US. From the FCC web site can you see what parts the radio has certification for by looking at the grant.

I think you have two things going on here.
 
1. The connector you installed, PL-259, is not a constant impedance type like the type "N" which will contribute to the higher SWR reading. The connectors calculate out, based on some dimensions on a few I've looked at, of around 25 to 40 ohms. It also depends on what the dialectic material used happens to be as well. The length, connector, of the miss match section also matters but in this case its rather small. This results in an impedance "bump" and a cause for some reflected power. If the radio uses an SO-259 socket there isn't much you can do about that.
 
2. When you cut the cable length from 100 feet to 35 feet you reduced the losses in the cable. However that applies to not only the forward power but also the reflected power. The formula for calculating SWR based on the power reading is:
 
SWR = (1 + sqrt(Pref / Pfwd)) / (1 - sqrt(Pref / Pfwd))
 
Where:
 
sqrt() - square root function
Pfwd - Forward power
Pref - Reflected power
 
How this works to increase the SWR reading as measured at the radio end of the cable is as follows. With lower forward losses the reflected power from any antenna mismatch will be higher because the power to the antenna has increased. Additionally the reflected power is attenuated less as well. Both work to increase the ratio (Pref / Pfwd) in the above formula. Remember you're measuring the forward power at the radio end and that hasn't changed. Thus the numerator becomes larger while the denominator smaller in the above formula. The final result is the number calculated becomes larger, the SWR.
 
I suspect the cable length change has more to do with the increase in SWR than the connector in this case. So as others have pointed out most radios work OK with an SWR up to 2:1, at least that's what I've seen in the spec's for the ones I looked at, without issues. An SWR around 1.5:1 or so is fine. You won't gain much by trying to lower it.

I think you have two things going on here.
 
1. The connector you installed, PL-259, is not a constant impedance type like the type "N" which will contribute to the higher SWR reading. The connectors calculate out, based on some dimensions on a few I've looked at, of around 25 to 40 ohms. It also depends on what the dialectic material used happens to be as well. The length, connector, of the miss match section also matters but in this case its rather small. This results in an impedance "bump" and a cause for some reflected power. If the radio uses an SO-259 socket there isn't much you can do about that.
 
2. When you cut the cable length from 100 feet to 35 feet you reduced the losses in the cable. However that applies to not only the forward power but also the reflected power. The formula for calculating SWR based on the power reading is:
 
SWR = (1 + sqrt(Pref / Pfwd)) / (1 - sqrt(Pref / Pfwd))
 
Where:
 
sqrt() - square root function
Pfwd - Forward power
Pref - Reflected power
 
How this works to increase the SWR reading as measured at the radio end of the cable is as follows. With lower forward losses the reflected power from any antenna mismatch will be higher because the power to the antenna has increased. Additionally the reflected power is attenuated less as well. Both work to increase the ratio (Pref / Pfwd) in the above formula. Remember you're measuring the forward power at the radio end and that hasn't changed. Thus the numerator becomes larger while the denominator smaller in the above formula. The final result is the number calculated becomes larger, the SWR.
 
I suspect the cable length change has more to do with the increase in SWR than the connector in this case. So as others have pointed out most radios work OK with an SWR up to 2:1, at least that's what I've seen in the spec's for the ones I looked at, without issues. An SWR around 1.5:1 or so is fine. You won't gain much by trying to lower it.

I scrolled down the page at the link above and the spec's given were:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical Specs:
 
License Free FRS Radio
462 - 467 MHz
Exceptional conditions: Approx 20 Miles range
Everyday use: Approx 3.2 Miles range
Rugged city use: 50 floor penetration
One-piece back clip
9-level noise reduction
80 decibel speaker output
16  Memory Channels
8,000 mAh internal battery
Type-C fast charging
Only 1.5CM thick (as thin as an iPhoneX)
Under 5oz weight
15 day standby
LED dot matrix display
Headphone charging interface
 
Transmitter
 
    Output Power: 2W/0.5W
    Modulation: FM (F3E)
    Max.Frequency Deviation: ≤5KHz
    Sparious Radiation: ≤7.5μW
 
Receiver
 
    Sensitivity: 0.16μV(12dB SINAD)
    Audio Power: ≥300mW
    Audio Distortion:
    80 decibel speaker output
 
 
Receiving Current: <300mA
Standby Current: <200mA
Emission Current: <1800mA
Audio Distortion: <5%
Intermodulation: >60dB
Max Frequency Deviation: <5KHz
Supply Power: DC3.7V
CTCSS/DCS: The transceiver has 50 CTCSS and 208 DCS, also non-standard subaudio can be programmed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
To me it just looks like a cheap DSP based "radio on a chip" type hand-held. This is common in the "Baofeng" type Chinese radios. They use the RDA1846, or a derivative of it.
 
You can get the datasheet and programming guide for the chip here:
 
https://github.com/phishman/RDA1846/tree/master/Datasheets
 
I would like to see the FCC ID, which it should have to be sold in the US. From the FCC web site can you see what parts the radio has certification for by looking at the grant.

If you want the better coax, hard-line, its going to cost you. The site below does sell 1/2" and 7/8" hard-line. It seems they are able to install the connectors too. I'm sure there are other places you can get the cable, likely at around the same cost.
 
http://www.davisrf.com/heliax.php

Some items they do. I have actually contacted vendors in the past if they are going to offer a discount on an item I wanted. It might not be much, around 5 percent, but on a $500 radio for example it adds up. Plus you may save the shipping costs too.

I built a 1/4 wave ground plane antenna using some stiff bus wire and a PCB style BNC connector after doing some simulations with EZNEC to check the bandwidth. The elements were just soldered on. The bandwidth I achieved was 430 to 470 MHz with an SWR of 1.6 or less. The SWR dropped to around 1.1 or so around 450 MHz. I wanted a cheap antenna to use at the Dayton Hamvention good for Ham and GMRS/FRS. I mounted it on top of a baseball cap while keeping the power at 1 watt or less. The elements were only 6 inches long and held it on top using a zip tie through the fabric. Worked far better than the rubber duck antenna with the radio hanging on my belt because the antenna was up in the clear.
 
I tried several of those clip-on type antennas where you use an HT antenna on them and clipped to a hat etc. I see a lot of people using them. None were worth the effort that I tried. Really poor match when I checked them.

I built a 1/4 wave ground plane antenna using some stiff bus wire and a PCB style BNC connector after doing some simulations with EZNEC to check the bandwidth. The elements were just soldered on. The bandwidth I achieved was 430 to 470 MHz with an SWR of 1.6 or less. The SWR dropped to around 1.1 or so around 450 MHz. I wanted a cheap antenna to use at the Dayton Hamvention good for Ham and GMRS/FRS. I mounted it on top of a baseball cap while keeping the power at 1 watt or less. The elements were only 6 inches long and held it on top using a zip tie through the fabric. Worked far better than the rubber duck antenna with the radio hanging on my belt because the antenna was up in the clear.
 
I tried several of those clip-on type antennas where you use an HT antenna on them and clipped to a hat etc. I see a lot of people using them. None were worth the effort that I tried. Really poor match when I checked them.