Jump to content

JeepCrawler98

Premium Members
  • Posts

    61
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

JeepCrawler98 last won the day on June 14

JeepCrawler98 had the most liked content!

About JeepCrawler98

  • Birthday 06/17/1985

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://tucsongmrs.org

Licenses

Profile Information

  • Location
    Tucson, AZ

Recent Profile Visitors

152 profile views

JeepCrawler98's Achievements

  1. Would hooking up a computer with some audio spectrum analyzer software work? You could set it to 'peak hold'; and I'd suspect you'd see a bunch of audio peaks held in the sub-audible range of the passband where the PL's rolled in. Probably wouldn't work on DPL I suppose, but CTCSS should be fine.
  2. Using another repeater falls under the cooperative use clause and restrictions by the owner fall under 'individual licensee duties' of 47 CFR §95.1705: Repeaters are still classified as 'stations.' This section is why many repeater owners require permission, as they're technically required to keep a list of control stations. Key takeaways: "Shall determine specifically which individuals, including family members, are allowed to operate (i.e., exercise operational control over) its GMRS station(s)" (2) May allow any person to use (i.e., benefit from the operation of) its GMRS repeater, or alternatively, may limit the use of its GMRS repeater to specific persons; (3) May disallow the use of its GMRS repeater by specific persons as may be necessary to carry out its responsibilities under this section. "Specifically" in that first paragraph implies that a repeater's licensee must specify who you allow to act as a control station (which is any station using a repeater) over your GMRS station (in this case a repeater). This pretty much means that you have a duty as a repeater owner to keep a list of users to be compliant with this rule. This is aside from helping to tune out the noise caused by people who take others' hard work for granted and cause trouble. I don't think anyone stumbling onto a GMRS repeater is breaking the rules as a control station since it's hard to post a repeater as locked down in a matter fitting public notice; but the repeater owner does have a legal burden to keep track of you as a permitted user which users need to be aware of and thus should notify repeater owners of their intent. Of course, per the above, they can tell you to get off their equipment too and it's entirely within their rights to do so. In practice; is this ever enforced and does the FCC care? I doubt it - but it is in the rules.
  3. There's a windows version too that runs fine on Windows 10 64-bit if you wanted something more modern. Bite the bullet on a good USB Kenwood programming cable - it'll work on any of their 8-pin mic LMR radios and repeaters; you'll find yourself using it all the time. If you need to use Linux I recommend loading up a VM in virtualbox; works fine as well on this end.
  4. When modifying my signature on the forum; I get a "signature spans too many lines" error - even though it fits on one line. Can I have more than 0 lines? I promise to keep it less than 3,000!
  5. Fair enough for simplex; but you have to remember that if you're using a repeater you don't own yourself you're actually actively using someone else's radio in addition to your own. This is why repeater owners may have their own rules and practices they want followed when using their hardware; sometimes these rules include not having roger beeps. Since on repeaters you have people monitoring for traffic from others and are often dependent on them for communications, aside from the fact that they tend to be watering holes for radio traffic - you are forcing other operators to listen to you. Simplex, not so much a problem because you can tune out and not miss anything as you mentioned.
  6. Typically in this case the repeater operator turns on the courtesy tone if it's deemed necessary; if the repeater has one already and people run their own roger beeps it quickly gets old. In either case I wish manufacturers would default to them off - the Baofeng and Wouxun roger beeps are just awful to listen to; unharmonious and overmodulated. Some of the commercial units have the roger beeps which are just very brief and short 'blips' - these are much more tolerable.
  7. Did not know about the RA25 - it's probably on par with CCR performance but that's the cheapest 'new' mobile I've seen for GMRS yet. Not a huge fan of the cheap stuff, they have their use for sure, but especially with mobile antennas where you're getting a bit more gain receiver overload becomes pretty apparent and can make it almost unusable in a crowded environment. Receiver is more important than your transmit - and it's the first thing manufacturers cheap out on. I am glad to see more consumer end radios entering the market on a daily basis though. FYI those B-tech/Baofeng mobile amps are not legal for GMRS since they lack Part 95 certification. Have you looked into getting a commercial radio, programming cable and software? If you hunt eBay you can pick up a Kenwood TK-880 for almost nothing and they're pretty easy to program with the KPG-49D software. Maybe a bit more than you want to chew off right off the bat; but it'd get you some excellent quality hardware for a cheap price, even if it is used.
  8. Unless it's a repeater itself making the beep where it's being used to pace a conversation, there's no need for it; just turn it off - the person listening knows when you have released the PTT just fine without it. The only use case I think that could be valid is if a recording is being kept for record purposes that could be referred to later, but again, that's not really something you're likely to encounter on GMRS, moreso the public safety side. MDC1200 or FleetSync bursts have a purpose; but its real-life usefulness is pretty limited for GMRS and I see it as more of a novelty. If you consider these as data burst transmissions they're also technically not allowed on the 467 Main Channels (repeaters intputs) per the rules - but that's splitting hairs. I believe most consumer radios that come with the roger beep turned on just have it so that they "sound like the cool radios with the data bursts" but that's just my guess.
  9. I've looked into this in the past; I still believe it's technically legal on GMRS if you want to argue it. I took this up with the FCC and below is what I received back from them. I think there's grounds to argue against their response, but it settled the issue for me (for now) anyways. Justified or not, and while APRS as a protocol is allowed, their stance is that they don't want it unless limited to a certified low-power handheld radio with fixed antenna, which severely limits its application as it eliminates the ability to develop a solid digipeating/gateway infrastructure (which I had planned to start developing at the time on one of the 462 interstitial 'FRS' channels) My original request to them: Their response:
  10. You gotta put the magic bacon grease in the machines to keep them running! Never had one of ours burn up...
  11. Ok; so ran into another interesting development on this today: I ordered a Retevis RT29 last week; seemed like a durable radio, although I expect the internals to be less than great. The IP67 rating, 2-year warranty, and 3200mah battery appealed to me - for $50, again, a cheap beater radio to throw around the woods that supposedly lasts almost a week on a single charge per some of the reviews (curious to verify that) and is supposedly submersible (also curious to verify that) This model is listed on FCC ID 2ASNRT76, which uses the RT76 as the primary radio, declaring the RT1, RT26, and RT29 as identical models. Retevis didn't answer my email I sent them before I ordered to see what the FCC ID's were on this radio (they stated they forwarded it onto engineering but never heard back). This showed up in the mail today; this radio is indeed badged compliant with the 2ASNRT76 FCC ID... so a legal Part 95E radio??? First impressions on the RT29: Again I don't expect great things from this radio performance wise and I literally got this in my hands with the sole intent of finding out what the manufacturer would send me, so take it with a pound of salt; the build quality feels excellent from a mechanical standpoint - very solid, not a creak to be heard, and feels similar to my TK380s and TK390s in terms of dead weight and general physical solidness. Feels a lot more sturdy than the KG805G which I'll say comes across as lightweight, although the bonus on that one is more so the memory channels and the receiver. I'm pretty sure you could knock someone out with it and still carry on a QSO. Perhaps a good radio for family use while you keep the high end gear for yourself... Firmware wise the RT29 is not locked to GMRS, and will do 400-480Mhz and will also do wideband and high power on the 467Mhz interstitial channels (I should note that dual part 90/95A surplus can do this too so that's probably not an actual deal-breaker and its up to the programmer to get it right). The radio I received is only listed for Part 95E, you could use it on the ham radio service but of course that's also not allowed per the FCC rules if you use it on GMRS as well.... so really just a legal GMRS or ham radio (not both), and even then you probably can only use it on medium power (5 watts) since that's what the 95E cert is limited to. First Impressions on the KG805G: now that i've had it for a few days with real-world use; it's indeed not a very selective receiver and does pick up and suffer from adjacent noise and interference fairly readily, it does do better than my UV82 (consider that a GMRS-V1 analogue) overall which is its competing market, but I will say that in low noise environments the receiver is very sensitive even with the stock antenna. In a clean environment, it seems to have a slightly easier time picking out signals than my Kenwood TK380, 390 and 3180 so its not without merit for a starter radio I'd say, and not a bad deal at all for a new radio with part 95 cert. Audio is generally very clear although lacking lows, but I'm also spoiled by Kenwood on this, transmit audio sounds excellent. The UV82 provided a richer sound due to the larger speaker, but it's also not as clear and easy to understand. Programming the channels beyond channel 30 works as advertised and is a big advantage over other panel-programmable GMRS radios in the current consumer market. I wish the radio felt more solid and had some more 'oomph' to it but honestly it's probably fine for most users. Havent thrown either of these on the spectrum analyser and power meter to see what they put out; but will get to that in time. If causing interference is indicative of transmitter cleanliness and used as an unscientific benchmark, the KG805G does readily knock my computer monitors offline, causes Lucifer himself to type random incantations on my keyboard, and also puts my computer in sleep mode as does the UV82. The RT29 also does, but less easily and only at 10W high power. The Kenwood commercial radios do not do this at all even though they put out the same amount of power as the 805 and 82.... things that make you go hmmmmmmm....
  12. Agreed - and that’s why we’re having discussion in the first place; there’s some really odd listings in that approval - especially the liberties taken in what they proclaim to be electrically identical radios, but the FCC has accepted this application regardless. Question is: *should* Wouxun start shipping these model with the WVTWOUXUN16 ID - are there any ramifications for licensees using any of these radios if they crack down at some point in the future?
  13. Truth; but what's your point for this thread? The reason superhet came up in terms of the 805G was to discuss electrical conformity with some of the liberties taken in the WVTWOUXUN16 application in the sense that we at least know it's not fully a radio on chip design; do any of the other listed models use RoC DS designs? If so we can at least say they're not the same radio even when looking at what makes a radio circuit identical in the abstract sense.
  14. I had someone here in town look into renewing their expired license but the waiver fee was hundreds of dollars; I'd call it a loss and just apply for a new one.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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