Jump to content

JeepCrawler98

Premium Members
  • Posts

    90
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

JeepCrawler98 last won the day on August 8

JeepCrawler98 had the most liked content!

About JeepCrawler98

  • Birthday 06/17/1985

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://tucsongmrs.org

Profile Information

  • Location
    Tucson, AZ

Recent Profile Visitors

739 profile views

JeepCrawler98's Achievements

  1. It's a bit more convoluted than that: https://scotthelme.co.uk/lets-encrypt-old-root-expiration/
  2. Stick with they PolyPhaser, there's a reason they're the industry standard. Check out the IS-50NX-C2; however there's other configurations available as well.
  3. See: I interpret "it retransmits only communications from GMRS stations operating under authority of the individual licensed under which it operates" as individuals authorized to use the repeater owner's license only (ie. authorized family members). Then for bullet number two, you can't guarantee that everyone using your repeater will identify properly especially if you turn it open to the licensed public, so it's best practice to have the machine ID on that merit alone. The only time you're in the clear if the repeater doesn't identify is if it's a private, family-use-only repeater and everyone ID's. Sauce: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-95#95.1751 There was a comment a ways up about intentionally not having repeaters ID to keep them unknown - while I understand the sentiment, it's a bad idea in the sense that GMRS doesn't have a frequency coordination body. Since we're all supposed to play nice and not cause interference, self-coordination becomes more difficult if your machine is undetectable; I can't avoid a repeater if I have no way of knowing it's there. List it on myGMRS and have it beacon if you want to discourage other users from parking others on the same frequency, then use split tones or other mechanisms to lock it down to your use only, otherwise don't be surprised if someone shows up with their own repeater on the same frequency one day. The beacon can be less frequent than the 'active traffic' identifying requirement; even if you do it on the hour or every few hours it's enough to be noticed by someone monitoring for a free frequency pair.
  4. Just a heads up, and this should only affect older or nodes running self configured software (such as Debian 9, or modified HamVoIP or ASL builds). It appears the issuing authority for the myGMRS TLS certificates (LetsEncrypt) is no longer playing nicely with certain older systems, so certain nodes are no longer pulling in the node list or posting statistics to the mygmrs network map. If your node is no longer showing up on the mygmrs.network map or able to connect to other nodes otherwise on the network; the easiest workaround I know of is to not have it check for certificates, by modifying as follows: rpt.conf: your statpost_program should be as follows: statpost_program=/usr/bin/wget,-q,--timeout=5,--tries=1,--no-check-certificate,--output-document=/dev/null If you do not have this string, add it - the main change is the addition of --no-check-certificate, the other stuff is to keep you from spamming the mygmrs server in case there's network issues. Node list: depending on your mechanisms for pulling in the nodes list (https://mygmrs.network/nodes) If you're using usr/local/bin/rc.updatenodelist - you'll need to add "--no-check-certificate" to the calls to wget in that file. I don't use this mechanism, so if someone wants to take a stab at modifying that one and posting it here I'm sure it'd be appreciated. If you're using wget in a cron job - add "--no-check-certificate" to the line you have for that
  5. I guess that depends on what 935 was initially alluding to, but I'll leave that to you two to figure out.
  6. Running a GMRS station (a repeater is considered a station) with the intent of selling subscriber access for-profit isn't legal per 97.1705: Charging for using the repeater itself isn't against the rules, but costs collected should only go towards running, purchasing, and maintaining the equipment; it can't be padding someone's pocketbook. source: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-95/subpart-E/section-95.1705
  7. RG8x is better than RG58 but is still terrible for UHF - spring for the LMR400; it'll give you a noticeable boost in performance. It's worth the cost: https://abrind.com/product-category/abr400-solid-ultraflex-assemblies/ I can't comment first hand on the antenna; but the Browing BR-6353 works well at GMRS for what it is, it's only slightly more than the TWAYRADIO brand: https://www.theantennafarm.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=3580&gclid=Cj0KCQjwkbuKBhDRARIsAALysV7PYMkBxYiCxyoQ5dSVENW9I2CnZc0eMgrFmNlvt_oP7ufbQQW9qdYaAiPhEALw_wcB. It's fully welded and pre-tuned, it's surprisingly tough for how cheap it is. I recommend getting away from Amazon when shopping for radio stuff. Bonus points for the type N connectors too - while PL259's are also called "UHF" connectors it's because when they were designed UHF was anything above 30mhz; Type N is mechanically a better and lower loss connector, and are better for weatherproofing too. edit: Back on the coax; you're putting up a 7.1dBi yagi antenna, with 50' RG-8x you will lose 4.246db of that gain for a net system gain of 2.9db. In contrast; with the LMR400 - you're 'only losing' 1.371dB for a net system gain of 5.7dB For the hell of it - using RG-58 results in a net system gain of 0.2dB; it'd almost completely negate the benefit of your antenna to an isotropic radiator (which is below the performance of a basic dipole as it is already). For reference; a basic dipole 'unity gain' antenna is 2.15dBi (aka 0.0dBd) see: https://www.qsl.net/co8tw/Coax_Calculator.htm
  8. What's this? Anyways - we had a repeater start hearing itself (Pecos 550) after we adjusted a few other things including shooting microwave internet over to the site to get rid of a link radio that had started acting up with the 4 hours of burn time we get almost daily now. It's been unlinked until we fix it - it's not a ping pong between different repeaters or a link radio/repeater, but an antenna noise issues with lack of adequate isolation on the filters after an antenna change. There's a return trip involved with that one unfortunately; nothing we can fix remotely.
  9. If you have a spare PC you can use Zello in gateway mode and have it handle COR/PTT signalling via the com port - this is cheaper than the Solidtronic approach but arguably also a bulkier piece of equipment: https://support.zello.com/hc/en-us/articles/230749207-Enabling-radio-gateway-mode-in-Zello-for-Windows-free-app You just need to add some +5V pull up resistors to the com port signaling and it'll work just fine. You might want to get a hold of Cory or Buddy with the Midwest GMRS group - I know they're using the SolidTronic for their Zello gateway.
  10. So for reference; I just got done tuning up our portable repeater's duplexer for a campout next week with the local GMRS crew - this is a Celwave 633-6A-2N mobile duplexer, measurement device is an Anritsu MT8212B. This is measured through a couple extra fittings that are part of the normal install; so this adds a few tenths of a dB for insertion loss. For 462.700 Mhz (TX side) - insertion loss is -1.52dB, with a high notch (nothing RX) at -81.72dB For 467.700 Mhz (RX side) - insertion loss is -1.25dB, with a low notch (notching TX) at -87.97dB Below are comparative measurements I took a while ago of a similar Celwave unit (left) vs. the chinesium Jesai/Fumei unit (right); you can see the difference - the cheap stuff is unfortunately garbage at the 5mhz split:
  11. @WRNA236 - yup here it is: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-126A1.pdf At first glance Pages 12 and 23 or of interest; with the limits imposed by the table on Page 23 you're probably okay but it's not a blanket exemption to automatically put everyone in the clear unfortunately (except for handhelds). Awkward.
  12. @WRNA236 - so I've heard that 50 watt stations and less are exempt, along with mobile and portable stations; but I'll need to do some digging to confirm or deny that. GMRS may be exempt if that actually exists.
  13. Which as I pointed out in an earlier post is another flaw in the certification - they measured ERP alone because it was tested with an integral antenna so that's the right unit of measure and is appropriate in that configuration. But that's not what they're selling. This radio is shipped to the consumer with a removable antenna, meaning we can hook up the gains to it. The radio should be tested also based on transmitter output, not just ERP, if they want to sell it with removable antennas. See product as tested: https://fccid.io/2AJGM-P52UV/Internal-Photos/Internal-photos-5110431 edit: For example; here's a report on a Kenwood TK3180 where it's done right. https://fccid.io/ALH37333110/RF-Exposure-Info/SAR-test-report-424905.pdf (SAR - exposure safety) and https://fccid.io/ALH37333110/Test-Report/test-report-424900.pdf (for emissions masks, based on conducted power, appropriate because of the removable antenna) Multiple antennas tested, multiple batteries tested, and a max conducted power rating is given based on actual measurement. In contrast, the UV9G also gives a maximum rated transmitter power (not tested, based on manufacturer's claims) of 3.5W. 3.5W is not 5.0W and Baofeng knows this because they stated that - see https://fcc.report/FCC-ID/2AJGM-P52UV/5110426 Yeah the consumers buying these don't and shouldn't care about stuff this far down the paper trail, nor should they be expected to, in fact it would appear the FCC doesn't really scrutinize this enough since they're obviously letting this through the cracks until it hits the "rugged radios" kind of scale, but this is exactly why it's important for manufacturers to get it right and actually sell what they claim and what is legal.
  14. Not finding the review or Q&A on the narrowband statement; but this was along the same lines: No, Baofeng; this means the radio is legal to emit 3.08W and meet its spectral and safety requirements - not 5W. They need to find a better testing agency if they keep making 'mistakes' like this. I don't rag on CCR's more than I need to; aside from their dead-horse-beating receiver problems I like them because they make radio accessible and absolutely should have a market share for the consumer crowd so long as they're legal to spectral requirements, and I'm excited to see a growing number of compliant CCR's in our midst, but this is absolute crap.
  15. The one on the bottom is. What's 611 for? Hadn't heard of that one.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines.