marcspaz

There is a pretty decent amount of p25 in the DC metro area. Some local Ham clubs have VHF digital repeaters up and running. The radios I have are both digital and analog, but only the VHF radio has the encryption module to support DES and AES. I'm not to interested in digital encryption... I'm more looking to use these in conventional as high power Amateur radios and for GMRS. I have low set to 25 and high set to 110. I had my choice of compatible heads when I got them, but I love the old-school look of the w7, and they fit perfectly in the space above my radio bar, between the bar and roof.

Well, the install isn't done yet, but I am pretty excited. I figured I would share as I make some progress. I am at about 35%-40% complete after about 8.5-9 hours of labor. I guess over the next few weeks, I'll try to finish up, but it's going to be a lot of labor to finish running wires and to do some custom interior work.

My opinion, if you don't want to run the risk of finding trash or a gem on any given purchase, try Kemp Wireless. I got luck with friends in the industry, so I haven't purchased anything directly from them. However, I have several people in my life who have done a lot of business with Kemp Wireless who are very, very happy. Me personally, I got two XTL5000 radios, one UHF and one VHF. Both radios are rock stars, making over 110w and great audio. I have been using them at home for a couple of months, and I'm about to install them in my Jeep, today.

Some folks don't understand that there is a very good reason that an external power supply that is 20 years old cost $250... until they waste about $1,000 and a year of their life. Same idea applies to repeaters.

The short answer is, yes... you can use two antennas instead of a duplexer. The long answer, you can, but you need a separate transmitter and receiver that are directly coupled (linked) with some type of cable to manage keying, audio transfer, etc. (See KG-1000G, for a less than perfect example). Transmitter power levels, antenna types, cable types, etc., will dictate how far apart the antennas need to be, what the elevation differences need to be, and what the gain/sensitivity of the transmit and receive sides should be. If the antennas are not spaced properly, the transmitter can make it so the receiver doesn't hear well, it could cause a transmit loop, and could also damage the receiver. If you make the antennas to far apart, now you're dealing with transmission line losses causing issues instead. There is some art to it, as well as the science. If you are at a stage in learning where you have to ask this question, chances are you don't want to try setting up a repeater right now. This is not ment as an insult, either. If you don't know what you're doing, you can waste a lot of time and money before you learn enough to get a good system stood up. I would recommend finding someone local to you who has a good working repeater and is willing to spend some time teaching you about the details and why things are the way they are.

Geek Alert: Sorry... LOL So, your total distance is just about 100 yards past 1 statute mile and the ridge line is creating about 650-660 foot barrier. That is not really an unusual experience and should be repeatable. The explanation can get a little complicated, as to why. Misconceptions about the Line of Sight coverage reflect the thoughts that UHF waves travel only in straight lines. This is not true. First and foremost, radio signals do follow the curve of the earth (to a degree, literally). Second, RF photons diffract more strongly than optical photons because it has a longer wavelength than the optical photon. This is expected and predicted within classical electromagnetic theory and by quantum theory and why RF LoS is further that visual LoS. If you have an antenna that has a pattern with takeoff angles between 5 degrees and 20 degrees, you are going to have great success with talking longer distance and talking around objects. This is because a huge amount of radio signal is reflecting off of stuff in the atmosphere, as well as being refracted by the atmosphere. However, the further you go, the wider the photons grouping gets and the more diluted the signal gets (fewer parts per million) and the harder it is for a receiver to do anything useful with it. Using 15w as an example, the usable energy is going to be cut to 3.75w (1/4) within the first mile and 0.9w (1/16th) within the 3rd and 4th miles. So, at a mile... its likely that it would work with that type of obstacle. At 4 miles, ehh... not so much.

If the number is just 3 digits, like 023 or 412, it will be digital (DCS). If it's 4 digits, 3 numbers, a decimal and then a 4th number (141.3 or 146.2), it's analog tone (CTCSS).

I agree with the aforementioned... I used MXTA26 with a variety of radios on GRMS, including mobile and handheld. So far, it's been the best performing mobile 'gain' antenna I have used on the service.

Welcome!!! I totally get the whole "my family/friends don't get it" situation. My wife and son were/are Hams and lately neither of them think I'm sane. LOL I'm a bit south from you, down in Prince William County, but there are a bunch of GMRS repeaters and users around the DC/B'more area. There are countless amateur repeaters, too. Ask questions if you have any. There are some very, very smart people here with tons of experience and willing to help. Have fun and hopefully I'll catch you on the air in my travels!

In the Jeep, I'm running two 110w XTL5000 radios (one for VHF and one for UHF). I also have some customized Yaesu FMT-300DRs for same band/crossband VHF/UHF repeater systems and an FT-891 HF radio. I have entirely too many radios at home to bore people with... but the flavor is a variety of Icoms such as an IC-745, IC-746 Pro, IC-7000 and IC-7300. I have a bunch of HTs; mostly Baofeng and Yaesu. Also a 300w VHF Amp (FM and SSB) for when tropo ducts are the place to be or if I want to mess around during a VHF contest. I really want 991a. I need to stop making excuses and just buy one.

^^^ True story!

That model is from 2017-2018. I don't know if it adjusts the same as the current version. Beyond the auto timeout for power and lights, yours doesn't have the menu options mine does. The current models, the +/-99 is a reference to adjusting a percentage of the read value. Also, if you want to do it affordable and it's something you're going to do once in a blue moon, you need a known good/calibrated meter to compare it to, and a dummy load, both good for a few hundred watts to give you long enough working times. Unfortunately, I don't think its something we can help with remotely.

I have an XDRS dummy load and an attenuator. They are cheap, but not bad. Without seeing anything first hand... I would say that the transmission line on the antenna is balancing the load. Additionally, I would never use a 50w dummy load to test a 50w radio. I would use a minimum of 100w, but 300w would be better. This is because of the duty cycle. My 100w XRDS-RF directions say that at 100w, the dummy load can only be used for 10 seconds, and then it needs to be allowed to cool for an additional 600 seconds. That said, if you used it for more that 10 second in a 10 minute time period, you probably cooked the resistor enough that the resistive value changed. Also, Surecom SWR meters tend to be pretty close out of the box, but they are user configurable. Sometimes, they do need to be calibrated. In any case, if the meter is "close enough", chances are the SWR on the dummy load is low enough that its safe for the test you want to run. Though, me personally, I would be more prone to use a real and calibrated field strength meter and compare that to a custom tuned dipole, since that is the benchmark that gain is typically measured against. A few $$$ and some wire, you can make a dipole for under $3, but the meter may cost $100 or more for a decent one that is "close enough".

I agree with the others. The lip mount should give you a decent ground plane. At these frequencies, electro-magnetic coupling is fine. Just make sure the screws are tight enough to provide support that the antenna doesn't wave around, fall off or bend the sheet metal, but you don't have to worry about puncturing the paint/etc. to get a good ground.

No need to apologize at all. I didn't take it that way. I phrased my response the way I did to give context to why I believe it is necessary to take an exam to participate in Amateur Radio. I think I could have framed my response with a bit more concise background. While the people who participate in groups like this forum are either more technically inclined or want to be, most people I know who use GMRS treat it like FRS, MURS and CB radio... its a toy to many of them. Best case, it enables them to enjoy outdoor activities and its mostly an afterthought. Sorry for the confusion.

Because Amateur Radio isn't just a toy to BS on. RF related experimentation is a huge part of amateur radio, with a lot of new experimental technology coming out every year. There needs to be some kind of verification that people are aware of the laws, rules and regulations surrounding the abilities allowed through the licensing and use of amateur radio.

Great to hear! Glad it's working out. This is good info for others thinking of going that route, for sure.

Welcome! Hope you all have fun. I'm in VA, these days.

I just want to know if you guys are making it do dinner on the 25th. All this other stuff is a silly distraction. LoL

I have sent him PMs that have never been viewed. Hope he's okay. Have you communicated with WRWI949 or are they in the wind? They are pulling a Richard move.

Tees are okay for sampling. I personally use a 50ohm 40 dB or 60 dB attenuator, depending on what transmitter and PA I'm testing. Any brand would be fine as long as the correct resistance and rated wattage are there. For example, when testing radios that are 5w or less, I just use a 10w attenuator. For 100W radios, I use a 200w attenuator, etc. Just so you (and others) understand, I am not upset/mad/whatever with you or PE's in general. I also hope you don't get offended by what I am typing... my goal is just a conversation. If we end up disagreeing, it is what it is... That said, @tweiss3and @Sshannon seem to get it, which is awesome to see. @WQWX838 based on what you wrote, I think you (like many others I speak to) may believe that a PE is the only real engineer in the US, and that is incorrect. For example, in my field, there are engineering programs accredited under the ANSI ISO/IEC Standard 17024:2003. They are the ONLY formally approved programs recognized by the U.S. Department of Defense in their Information Assurance Technical (IAT), Managerial (IAM), and System Architect and Engineer (IASAE) categories. So, if someone wants to be an Engineer or Architect in my field, a PE accreditation is worthless. Candidates MUST be a certified Information Assurance System Architect and Engineer (IASAE) or employees aren't going to be allowed to work as an Engineer for the DoD, like... not at all. To become a certified IA engineer or architect, not only are there training requirements, there is a minimum amount of time potential candidates have to spend in the industry before they are even allowed to signup for the test. Also, even if their resume meets the time, training and relevant experience requirements, they still can't just signup for the test. Candidates must have a currently certified IASAE vouch for you, by being your sponsor for taking the test. I'm not taking anything away from PEs. I believe 100% that certified and licensed titles should be protected from fraudulent declarations by people. I guess my point is I just think some PEs need to dial the arrogance back a bit and realize there are other types of engineering programs, certifications and licenses. Its not "you're either a PE or your not an engineer." Obviously, not all PEs think this way, but enough do that it has caused me some heartburn in the past.

10-4 on the 10-100. QRX 0415 UTC. QSL

First, you have to understand the history of the restriction. This type of rule is what is commonly referred to as a Sentence Enhancer. Meaning, if you are committing crimes... you are going to be charged with violating the law. If you use a radio to commit the crime, you now have violated another law and will be charged with another crime. If you used codded messages, concealment or some means to hide the fact that you are breaking the law while using a radio to do it, this Rule becomes a sentence enhancer for the Law you violated and you are now charged with 2 counts of violating the law restricting the use of the personal radio service to commit a crime. If you are very obviously talking in some type of code, are caught and are suspected of committing a crime because you are violating this rule, even if you are found not to be committing a crime, you risk getting anything from a No-No letter from the FCC to jail time. So, since I am pretty sure you already know the answer to your own question, just don't be a dumb-dumb about it and you will be fine. Don't attempt to define the undefinable. If what you are saying is public knowledge, generally published, or generally excepted as not a cipher, code or some form of concealment, everyone listing will know. Context is everything.

No doubt. 100% agree. What we do is way too important. That's good to hear. I stopped doing coordinations years ago. Too much work for too little money. Sounds like things have changed for the better. Good luck and keep us up to date!

I'm sure it can be coordinated if there is an available national frequency. It's not the norm, though. Hopefully you will get something worked out. SA is definitely not forum lingo. I think, maybe, people like me have introduced it to this forum, though. SA has been being used by every EE I personally know (grandfather, father and friends alike) for decades, to quickly describe System Analyzers, Spectrum Analyzers, Service Monitors, etc.. In fact, it's so prolific in the industry, that manufactures of the novice / entry level equipment are literally using the SA acronym as part of the device name. TinySA being the most well known. That's a nice collection of gear. Signal generators, tone generator, O-scopes, service monitors, power supplies, etc. I miss the days of having a work bench that looked like that. I still spend good money on Weller equipment. Especially the adjustable temp soldering stations. Yeah, when I saw your post, I figured that was the case. That's why I clarified. I have to say, I understand the whole PE thing and it makes sence. If you are not College of Engineering accredited Professional Engineer (PE), don't tell people you are. No issue with that, whatsoever. My problem is with many of the members, more so than the process. My opinion is, if you engineer stuff for a living, you are an engineer... I have and continue to engineer RF and computer networking solutions for DOD, federal law enforcement, etc., with my professional title issued by those government agencies as either Engineer or Sr. Engineer. However, I have had numerous PE's (that I am not acquainted with) tell me I am lying, there is no way I am an engineer. They say I am nothing more than a talented technician working under a 'real engineer' (them implying a PE) and there is no way a government agency would hire an Independent Consultant to be a lead, senior or the only engineer on a contract if they are not a PE. Considering I spent 26 years of my near 39 year long career doing exactly what they say would never happen, I find the entire group snobbish, arrogant and ignorant, as they struggle to justify what they accomplish. The sad part is, they don't have to justify anything. From a skills and education prospective, PE's have accomplished amazing things in life. They just need to stop tearing down other people who do the exact same work, but without the same certifications.