tweiss3
-
Posts
969 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
17
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Classifieds
Posts posted by tweiss3
-
-
Well, for what it's worth, there may be differences between 16 & 2.0, but overall, if you can find it in 16, its the same place in 2.0. The most annoying thing is the lack of cut/past or import features, resulting in mostly building the entire codeplug from scratch. Just made me recheck everything I've used in the past.
My biggest issues is MOL taking forever to give you permissions to do anything, 3 weeks to get an account, 3 days to update account information, "72 hours" to get access to the learning center (past 72 hours, but after calling I get a "should be available tomorrow morning").
-
7 minutes ago, Radioguy7268 said:
Never say Never - but for most practical purposes, yes. Once you use CPS 2.0 to write a codeplug into a radio - you're pretty much locked into it going forward, unless you're into hacking and cracking, and using illicitly obtained software that voids your warranty.
For a hobby based user, there is no practical purpose to using CPS 2.0. If you're already using CPS 16 build 828 - stay there. Firmware R 02.09.0001 is the most recent version that will still work with CPS 16.
Most of the newer CPS 2.0 Firmware updates require you to have an active SUM (Subscriber Update Management) - which generally means if your radio is more than 3 years old - you need to purchase a SUM License just to upgrade firmware. Not really worth it IMHO.
Thanks. That's what I thought I read, but I just wanted to confirm. I just got a message back from the seller that the last codeplug write on the radio was made with 2.0. I had already considered software costs in the purchase price. I guess I'll just start in 2.0 making this codeplug.
-
If a radio was programmed on CPS2.0, can't ever use CPS16, right?
-
That's a good deal. I just need MOL to process things at this point.....
-
2 minutes ago, Lscott said:
The antennas are not super expensive, but making the connector non standard is just another way for Motorola to capture more of the accessory market. It might cost you $9.95 and they have them made in China for $1 each most likely.
That's true, however, I've come to the conclusion that any used radio I pick up is getting a new antenna, for the price and guarantee it is the right band antenna/working order, wrap that into the purchase price of the radios when I make my decision to buy.
I did pull the trigger on that 7550e, I also order the CPS last night. Lets see how long it takes for that purchase to process.
-
2 minutes ago, Lscott said:
They're nice radios. Myself I don't like the funky antenna connector. I use my radios at times with external antennas. Having a standard SMA connector is a perk in my book.
The weird antenna connector is just a move by Motorola to capture more money from customers since that's one item that gets frequently broken by careless users. You look on eBay and you can find packs of antennas for Kenwood radios for sale cheap. No so much if at all for Motorola's proprietary ones. I bet Motorola makes a good profit on them.
If you are worried about cost, a brand new antenna from Motorola is $9.95 on the MOL site. Same with the older Vertex Standard stuff, I needed to get a few covers and screws, and saw the VS/MOL antennas were 1/3 the price of ebay versions, and just straight up replaced all 5 that I was going to "live with" for the time being.
-
38 minutes ago, Lscott said:
No. I requested an account but never got the notification. I just found it last night in my junk email folder. Now it's expired.
Thats unfortunate. It took mine 3 weeks to get approved after multiple chats and an expedite ticket. Ordering from them is interesting too.
I'm debating on pulling the trigger on a 7550e, but not sure just yet.
-
@Lscott, did you ever get the CPS help you were looking for? I'm just starting to look myself, but even though I got an account, it seems they still lock you out of things.
-
4 minutes ago, MichaelLAX said:
Thanks for that suggestion, almost perfect, but I see that those are either UHF or VHF but not both.
Correct.
-
15 minutes ago, MichaelLAX said:
My Radioddity RD-5R was the least expensive DMR on the market at the time of my purchase (and used all my Baofeng accessories, including the higher limit batteries), but at a cost of requiring much detail in the way of programming my codeplug
I am told there are DMR HTs that only require programming in the Repeater frequency and Talkgroups can be just dialed up on the fly.
Can anyone tell me which of the current batch of DMR HTs have this slim programming capability?
Connect Systems CS760/761 & CS580
-
1 minute ago, bhughes said:
trying to setup Wouxun KG905 to connect to repeater. my local repeater is on Repeater channel 15. Tran/Rec ctcss are both 151.4 according to mygmrs website. permission to use was obtained via email. I get nothing when trying to communicate between my two radios. What am I doing wrong? Any help appreciated.
bob
If between the two radios you mean they in the same room, you have a desensitization problem. You need more separation, 50-100 feet likely to hear the repeated traffic.
-
18 hours ago, gdeemer said:
Pricing on the MXT 500 & MXT 575 are $399 ... I expect them to be released soon.
For that price one can buy 8+ commercial mobile radios that have Part 95 certification and better audio.
-
AntennaFarm lists the 1480 at 8'4", which seems about right.
If you are working with 3' right now, you could use the Larsen 2/70 (not SH) https://www.theantennafarm.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=191_192_200_450_453&products_id=1712 and put it on a mobile to base adapter (https://www.theantennafarm.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1289_1243&products_id=1649). On the plus, it would be a small black whip and very difficult to see.
-
-
Are you looking for base station antenna or mobile?
Mobile: Larsen 2/70SH works well in both ham 2m&70cm as well as GMRS, of course being slightly out of band for GMRS, but quite workable. Larsen 150/450/758 works well in ham 2m&70cm as well as GMRS, but is better for GMRS, and a bit out of band for the ham stuff. I have both, but use the 2/70SH since I talk more on ham than GMRS.
Base: I have a Tram two piece on my roof designed for ham. Once again, you will have to choose a compromise of one service over the other. It works well for GMRS, though it's not listed for GMRS.
Typically, when you go HF or VHF low band (6m), you use an entirely separate antenna than your UHF/VHF antenna.
-
-
@WRKC935 This is also the argument (both GMRS/HAM/LMR) when one claims they want to put up a "high power repeater" or "add more power" to their repeater. The question is why? Thinking logically, at the same antenna elevation, 99.99% of your users are going to be 50W or less. It doesn't help if the repeater can get out 1000 miles your users can't use it. Most repeaters utilize good antennas (9-12db gain), and after you figure your cable losses, fittings, jumpers, duplexer, etc. you end up at a break even point, or a small amount of gain. Anything between 100W and 50W to the feedline ends up with a nearly identical in/out range and decent coverage, provided the antenna placement is decent.
For GMRS, your primary concern is build something that the duty cycle won't burn up.
-
1 hour ago, DownEastNC said:
Thanks! As far as weather proofing, do they make any sort of boot that covers the connector or do I have to home brew a solution?
There are a couple of ways to do it. The most expensive is cold shrink wrap, which is used in about 50% of the "professionals/commercial" installs at cell sites: https://www.theantennafarm.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=627_656_660. At $50/each connection, its pricy.
The LMR guys like to wrap the connection in multi-layers. First tape, then a waterproofing tape/butyl layer. This is less expensive, and many LMR guys like it because after 20 years, you can still take it off and the connectors look new.
Good Luck! This is just 1 of the many things that Nickle and dime your installs, but its important.
- wayoverthere and DownEastNC
-
2
-
Antenna farm is a good place to purchase. You will be sure its actually Times Microwave cable. Don't forget, you will need to weather proof the connection at the antenna after you hook up the coax.
-
-
Yea, you aren't going to find one new. One of them to track down is the Vertex Standard HX470s, you might get lucky and find one used. It did FRS (0.5W), MURS (2W) and VHF Marine.
-
2 hours ago, Lscott said:
I have an FT-817 and the included 6M antenna sucks. You realize for a 1/4 wave 6M antenna the required ground plane radials need to be about 60 inches long. The body of the radio is nowhere even close to that. Now holding the radio, well now your whole body might function as a sort of ground plane but the vertical element is still a crappy very short loaded helical design with high losses. Does the antenna radiate, yeah, but poorly.
There is a reason why you don't see a bunch of HT's with the 6M band included. Most 6M activity is during band openings and then it's typically on sideband anyway, not FM. I just check "repeaterbook.com" and there are a total of just 15 6M repeaters listed for the entire state of Michigan for example, it's not that popular for FM, at least around here.
While it is a compromise antenna, it is still the best one available (that carries 4 bands, I use 220 a lot), and is enough for the 6m repeaters in the area (I use 2 regularly) and have been successful with simplex contacts while hiking the local parks network. It doesn't nearly meet my vertical dipole 19' above ground that is powered by my 7300, but it works well overall.
-
9 hours ago, Lscott said:
The antenna efficiency of an rubber duck 6M antenna on an HT is going to be really poor. Unless you plan on using an external 1/4 wave antenna with a ground plane it’s more of a marketing gimmick. The 2M VHF rubber duck antennas I’ve seen where it was stated as a negative 5 db gain in some cases too.
Actually, it works quite well with the rubber duck on 6m, exactly like the 818/817 does.
8 hours ago, axorlov said:I'd go with Alinco DJ-MD5, that was mentioned above. Being legit (almost, it's Part 90) worth something, no?
This is a good option, will work in GMRS/MURS frequencies without a modification, but it is a DMR radio, and I can't find anything on the water resistant rating.
-
Look used. QRZ has tons of decent deals. There are 3 FT3DRs for sale a day with the new FT5DR on sale. I will amend my previous statement, you can get coordinates displayed, but it's not as nice as the D74 for GPS usage at all.
To be honest, if you are just looking for coordinates, and not for using it within the radio (APRS) then you are better off with a standalone (hiking GPS or activity watch).
Unless you are completely set on new with warranty, I do suggest looking used. Make your list of radios, check eHam and QRZ a few times a day, and grab the one you find the best deal on. I stopped hiking with the D74, while it may be water resistant, the antenna I have in it is huge and it's doesn't seem near as resilient as others. I do hike with my FT3DR and my VX7R, my current favorite being the VX7R for the inclusion of 220 and 6meters.
Honestly, you list of possible radios is pretty large if you remove the GPS requirement, and many have full submersible ratings instead of just resistant.
Motorola CPS training materials?
in Miscellaneous Topics
Posted
To be fair, 90% of their business comes from government contracts in public safety, and those radio techs have accounts complete years ago. The new "business" radios they are pushing is DTRs, and 99.99% of that they want to push you through a dealer anyways.