WRKC935
-
Posts
916 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
17
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Classifieds
Posts posted by WRKC935
-
-
On 8/25/2023 at 2:43 PM, Sshannon said:
Because of the general restrictions on antenna structure heights (which by definition includes the antenna itself) no additional restrictions are needed for GMRS. That’s completely different from your original comment:
“Most fail to realize that while we are limited to 50 watts ofoutput at the transmitter there is zero height limitation on a GMRS base station or repeater antenna. You can go as high as you want and can afford to.”
I see how if you want to split hairs here that it applies.
What I am saying is that if I go down to the local TV station that has two UHF MSF5000's repeaters sitting on a deck at 750 feet. Yes, they are there I have worked on them. If I get permission from them to go up there and reprogram one for a GMRS frequency, lower the power to 50 watts (100 watt stations) then I am completely legal as far as the FCC is concerned. Now that's not going to happen since they use those repeaters. But, the FCC regulations regarding GMRS don't have any restriction on me doing it. That's the point I was trying to make.
-
5 hours ago, UncleYoda said:
You're still stating both of those wrong. Putting up a tower is subject to the height restrictions. And the ERP applies to the 462 MHz interstitial frequencies at 5.0 W too.
So me in the part 95 regulations where it says you can't place an antenna above X height. It's NOT there... anywhere. What you can build for a tower is going to be limited by your location with regard to airports, flight paths and other factors. And yes, getting the proper permitting for a 1000 foot tower may not may not be possible in a specific location. You may be limited to 20 feet and be required to have obstruction lighting on it even at that height if you are right off the end of a runway. But that is still not a GMRS SPECIFIC height restriction. It's a general restriction that would apply to any tower including one for a TV antenna.
-
7 hours ago, Sshannon said:
Well, all antennas in the Personal Radio Services, which includes GMRS, are subject to the following:
95.317. Registration of antenna structures that may constitute a menace to air navigation.
(a) Each antenna structure used for a Personal Radio Service station is subject to the antenna structure rules set forth in part 17 of this chapter. In particular, the owner of an antenna structure that is more than 60.96 m (200 ft) in height above ground level (see § 17.7 of this chapter for specific criteria) may be required to notify the FAA and register the antenna structure with the FCC.
(b) Further, stations located on or near a military or public-use airport with an antenna structure that is more than 6.10 meters (20 feet) high may have to obey additional restrictions. The highest point of the antenna must not exceed one meter above the airport elevation for every hundred meters of distance from the nearest point of the nearest airport runway. Differences in ground elevation between the antenna and the airport runway may complicate this formula. For stations near an airport, see http://appsint.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/towairSearch.jsp to figure the maximum allowable height of the antenna. Consult part 17 of the FCC's Rules for more information (47 CFR part 17).
Yes, this is correct. But if you either have the structure already, permission to install on a tower owned by others, or have deep enough pockets to stand up a tower there is no limit to the height of a GMRS antenna. On LMR, the coordination body / FCC limits ERP, power out and height to maintain coverage only extends to your licensed operating area. Yes, we are limited to 50 watts out on power. But we have no ERP restriction outside the 467Mhz channels that are limited to .5 watt ERP.
And while the FCC has the requirements in place for obstruction marking (tower lights) in their regulations, it's the FAA that sets these standards.
-
The only place in the rules where ERP is even mentioned is specifically posted above regarding the 467Mhz iinterstitial channels.
So a GAIN antenna can NOT be used with a .5 watt radio on those specific frequencies.
And since you grasp the concept of gain and such. Most fail to realize that while we are limited to 50 watts of output at the transmitter there is zero height limitation on a GMRS base station or repeater antenna. You can go as high as you want and can afford to. Here is the reason this fact is significant. Broadcast and LMR (commercial) radio are in fact height limited. And the reason is a realized gain due to height. That gain is about 6dB for every time you double your antenna height. So if you have a repeater at your home and it's on a 20 foot roof peak. You stand up a 320 foot tower next to your house and park the antenna up there. Cable loss not considered. You have a perceived gain of 24dB. Putting that into perspective. To put out the same signal at 20 feet would require feeding the antenna 12800 watts. Again, not considering cable loss.
Go from a 3dBi gain antenna on the roof to a 6dBi gain antenna on the tower in the process and it's now 25600 watts.
Antenna height, to a point is the most important thing to have with a radio system of any type if you want it to have good coverage.
And antenna gain, both from design and height equally effect both your receive and transmit, where increasing power output only increases the distance you can be heard. It does nothing for your ability to hear others.
-
OK, explain your current setup. You said you can put an antenna up on your house. But you make no mention of current antenna system, placement, height or anything else.
No idea here what you are working with so it's hard to point you in a direction.
-
-
Yeah,
add repeaters are EXPENSIVE, hard to support, and will either bring you constant complaints that the coverage doesn't go someplace specific they want it to or that no one will ever use the thing. But it's usually both issues that arise.
Obviously need to cover radio operations, passing a conversation. Waiting on others to break in. Not trying to talk over the reset tone. Roger beeps are for CB and not GMRS.
- marcspaz and SteveShannon
-
2
-
On 8/9/2023 at 5:26 AM, Lscott said:
That didn’t stop the idiot. He complained about a high frequency current transformer that we custom designed and build internally. He said it was unnecessary what we did. I explained carefully why it was done that way. Nope. Talked to the head of our standard products group to let him show us how it’s done just to prove his point. Spent a week on it. Installed it. Just like I told him it didn’t work for the exact reason I told him before why it won’t.
Resistance of the heating element when cold too low for the FET's to drive without going nuclear? Transformer acts as sort of an impedance match so the elements can heat up? Purely guessing here.
-
5 hours ago, Lscott said:
That attitude isn’t just confined to forums. Years ago our company had a service engineer who thought he knew more about the high power inverters we use on the heat treat systems the company sells. Got into an argument with me more than once. Didn’t matter I was the main R and D engineer that designed it.
Yeah, but at least in that case, you can go in the archives and grab the original design documents and put them in from of the guy and ask him how he's more familiar with the equipment than you are?
Outside of one guy at work, we don't have that problem. We work together. The one boob.. I taught to tune a specific duplexer, and did it wrong. I went to him, applogized for the mistake and tried to retrain him. He was having none of that. The method that I taught him, mind you I am standing there telling this clown I had told him incorrectly, was fine and that was the way he was gonna do it.
But that's the way this guy is. And he's scared of me. Like a LOT. Never really gave him a specific reason, he just is. And the other employee's can't figure it out. This clown will fart, burp, make noises, laugh in a loud and obnoxious way around anyone, except ME. Our boss included. I walk in the tech room and he pulls himself up to his desk, shuts his mouth and works. Minute I leave, he's right back at it.
He did one day after I got on him for screwing off and not doing his job and butting into mine finally decided to muster the courage to tell me th 'go to hell' and called me an asshole.
I IMMEDIATELY replied that my reservations for Hell were confirmed the prior week and as far as being an asshole, I appreciated the recognition of my continuing efforts.
And it wasn't that he said it that was so funny.... It was the way he said it. Like he knew I was gonna pound him for it. So his voice was cracking and he was almost timid about it. When I fired back, the whole room got up and left. But of course as soon as they cleared the door they all busted out laughing.
Gotta love co-workers
-
16 hours ago, marcspaz said:
I'm of 2 mindsets... either you have to stay off the internet (you, generally.. not you specifically) or you need to stir the pot and embrace the suck.
Very little of my job is RF related; mostly computers. I haven't been on an IT forum or group in more than a decade. I gave up after someone with no standing in the industry was trying to tell me how wrong I was after answering a question and telling someone how to correctly configure a product I designed, built and took to market. It was like a high school freshman with a 3.0 GPA telling Jeff Snover he was using PowerShell wrong.
Yeah, I got involved with a forum that started as outdoor warning siren techs and manufactures. We would exchange info on different things we had seen, odd issues that we couldn't figure out and crap like that.
Then the 13 year olds took it over. And they wanted to discuss leaning poles and what specific frequencies the sirens operated at and all sort of nonsense that had no bearing on keeping them running. Then of course they started disagreeing with people. Once case the guy that dude was arguing with was the guy that designed the equipment in question. He was the designer for that manufacture. And this clown is arguing with him about what he's saying about the equipment is incorrect.
That was the beginning of the end. All of use that were in the industry left. And it was a shame, because at one point it was a very helpful took to reference. Now, not so much.
But I actually am tired of stirring the pot. And any more, there is no need to stir it. It just happens on its own. And again, it just gets boring to see a horse beat to pink slime.
-
On 8/6/2023 at 12:34 PM, buttholejim said:
Trying to keep users of illegal radios from interfering with public safety systems was not the reason for the adoption of trunked systems. I've been a scanner listener for many, many years. In the 1980's before any major metropolitan areas switched to trunked systems, I would listen to District 4 Police in Denver. I would listen for hours and hours. The radio channels were always busy. The switch to trunked systems was for greater efficiency and improved cross agency communications. Not once had I ever heard an interloper on a police channel. For that matter, I can't even recall ever reading a news story in the last 40 years where someone has used an "illegal" radio to interfere with public safety. No to say that it hasn't happened, but whatever incidents that may have happened are so low profile they probably aren't even news worthy.
If someone honestly wanted to interfere with public safety channels for criminal reasons, they would probably resort to jamming and not try to engage in a conversation.
First off, I never said that keeping unauthorized users off a radio system was the only reason for trunking. But it WAS a sales point.
Never heard of people using 'illegal radios to access a trunked system' Maybe not in your state... Ohio has had several instances of people being busted for selling radios that were programmed for the state wide system.
Never heard of it prior to trunking? I have worked with the FCC and in one case the FCC and FBI tracking someone that was interfering with repeater systems that were County EMA equipment. All EMA's fall under Homeland Security. And due to that screwing with them can be considered a terrorist activity. And that's not some guess or interpretation, that was directly from the agents I was working with.
We also figured out that the radio that was being used was indeed a cheap import. The 'roger beeps' on those radios are distinctive and the logging recorder that we had running did hear that specific set of tones multiple times in the case where the FBI was involved. The other times were fire and police repeaters that the FCC came out and tried to hunt the person or persons down but had no luck, other than whoever it was stopped doing it. But it was made public in the radio communities that the FCC was in town and that is what seemed to make it stop.
Back to the trunking thing.. Yes, the primary reasons for trunking systems is frequency management and sharing. But interoperability, access control and radio resource management are also big parts of it too. And wide area coverage beyond the county level is a big piece of it was well. You simply couldn't use a single frequency across three or more counties that contained any significant population.
- tweiss3, SteveShannon, WRXB215 and 1 other
-
4
-
And this thread ladies and gentlemen is why some of us that actually work or have worked in the communications industry and might know a bit more about these topics than the casual user tend to steer clear of posts like this and giving technical answers to questions. There is always somebody that thinks that someone told them something else that they have ZERO first hand knowledge of will argue with guys that do this crap for a living. It gets old. And is one of the reasons that guys like me no longer bother with these forums like we did.
But here's the sad part of all of this. There are some on here that DO know. And when they get driven off of here due to the BS, you loose that knowledge base.
-
3 minutes ago, WRXD372 said:
Thank you for this sag-way into the odds and ends of fixed radio IDs and some interesting tinkering around that topic.
Please allow me a follow-up question as I am somewhat lost regarding your aim:
Are you proposing "microstamping" radio communication ? -- or -- Is this just a review of exciting technology with a hint of nostalgia ?!?
(Yes, I do remember 3.1 and 3.11 for workgroups and tinkering with DR-DOs and trying OS/2 and ...
)
Not really looking to 'microstamp' radios. Point I was making was back in the day the idea of fingerprinting was a thing. Now with the digital radios and assigned ID's it's really not needed. P25 standard has an additional feature called 'radio inhibit'. This fully disables the radio rendering it a brick. This can be reversed by the system admin that sends it out, but outside of that, the newest radios have to go back to the factory to be turned back on.
And the factories require a pretty reasonable explanation of why the radio got that way to begin with before they will turn them back on and return them to you. In other words, it will be returned fully disabled, but only after the original owner according to their records and the system administrator of the system that inhibited the radio to begin with is notified.
To that end. Technology has gotten us past the need of needing to 'control via regulation' radios abilities to transmit where ever. So even getting the regulations reviewed and changed pertaining to using a radio for multiple services is not gonna happen.
And you need to remember that testing is done at the request of the manufacture by the FCC for a fee. If a radio is designed for LMR service, sure it could be used for GMRS if UHF or MURS / Marine if VHF. But those are additional tests that would need to be paid for at the time of testing. The manufactures are NOT going to build a radio for multiple services because there is simply no need. And if you think about the cost of a MURS or marine radio VS a commercial LMR radio, there is a huge difference. No one is going to spend the money for a commercial LMR radio when new to use on MURS when the LMR radio is hundreds of dollars more. And the manufacture see's no profit when the radio is sold used later on and the new owner wants to use it for something outside the original purpose.
-
Gonna expand on what I said a bit.
There were / are technical reasons that the regulations were put into place that simply continue to exist even though the technical reason no longer does.
I sort of spelled out the HAM VS everything else reason. And the real truth to that is if you had a radio that was full TX/RX from 400 to 500Mhz (UHF) and you started showing up on commercial and public safety parts of the band. The argument could reasonably be that the radio came that way and I just used it. Hence the TX block for the ham radios and of course the no end user programming for commercial and GMRS radios. It keeps people from doing dumb stuff and minimizes the calls about interference to the FCC.
We as radio operators know that only goes so far. There will always be those people that will interfere with communications on any repeater they decide to. And that's part of the draw for public safety to switch their operations to 700/800 digital trunked radio systems that require a system key and assigned ID to communicate on the system. It's a more effective (not 100% effective) way of keeping purposeful interference to a minimum and offers ways of stopping it by disabling the radio ID from accessing the system. Some of this functionality has existed in analog for years in the signalling systems like DTMF and QC2 where the radio ID could be sent a stun command and the radio would disable transmit. That was effective for radios that were stolen or misplaced that were programmed to accept the command and be stunned. With the newer digital trunked systems, the ID can be disabled in the radio system. Since the radio ID is transmitted every time the radio is keyed, the system can ignore the radio and block it's access to the system regardless of the programming in the radio. This happens at a system / repeater level.
This was looked at a number of years ago by some ham buddies of mine that were fingerprinting radios. Every radio as it goes into transmit 'rings up' as the transmit oscillator comes online and the modulation circuit becomes active. This 'ring up' is typically unique to every radio and can be used to identify a specific radio. That part they had down. The next steps were to compare that to a set of files that were banned radios and disable the repeater if a banned radio was attempting to transmit. The computers we had at the time were simply not fast enough for all that to occur before the person started talking. Of course this was all done in the days of 8 and 16 bit computers running DOS ( think Windows 3.1 time frame) and the first generation of SoundBlaster sound cards) Software was called XMITid. Written by Richard Rager.
-
OK lets look at the rules and start to tear this apart.
First is HAM and anything else.
Ham is the ONLY service that allows VFO access to any frequency that the radio is able to access. This applies to both transmit and receive. No other transmitting radio in non-government hands has this ability other than SOME Maritime and Avionics radios.
They either need to be preprogrammed (CB, MURS, GMRS, Marine) Or they need to require programming with in their operating range in some fashion that doesn't give the end user direct access to program the radio without some key, or software (part 90 LMR radios). So that's reason one.
As pointed out, ham radios don't need to be type accepted, but do need to meet certain criteria to be manufactured and sold by vendors. You can build anything you want for your own use. But radios from the manufacture have to ship with the ability to transmit outside of the allocated frequencies blocked. Of course, removing that block is simple enough usually, but it has to be there when it ships. So that's strike two.
The third one, is the biggest and it exists in all services EXCEPT ham radio. No radio can operate outside the service it was designed for. So a commercial LMR radio can't be used for Maritime communications. It can of course be used for ham radio since no restriction exists but a radio designed for the ham radio service can't be used for any other service either. This is both regulated in the design criteria for ham radios that are manufactured and exists in the part 90 rules that a radio.
This again is becoming a dead horse topic. It gets brought up and rehashed over and over again.
So here's a better question,,,, why do you care?
Are you gonna get a part 90 LMR license for VHF and want to use your Baofeng to talk on both VHF and UHF GMRS?
Do you figure on running your modified ham radio on your boat?
Or are you just complaining via a question that you don't understand the reasoning for what the regulations are and figured it would sound better if others were to complain about it so you didn't have to?
Simple way to deal with it. Follow the rules. You obviously know them, or you wouldn't be asking why they exist to begin with.
-
I would be looking at drilling the rock and then using epoxy anchors to fasten plates to the rock face and then bolting the tower to that.
We aren't talking about 'JB Weld' here either. THere are high performance epoxy products on the market for doing this sort of thing and they work well.
But closely following the directions for the use of the chemical anchors is very important. But remember that light poles next to the highway may well be using this method for connecting to the concrete wall they are sitting on.
- SteveShannon and WRXB215
-
1
-
1
-
What frequency? Where at?
You seriously can't come on here and ask that general of a question and expect an accurate answer.
Could be ducting like Marc said. But it could be any number of different linked repeater systems.
I was hunting around and just recently found a group that is using ham radio RF MMDVM hotspots on GMRS frequencies that are all linked together. If someone reasonably close has something like that you could be hearing it.
Remember that there are other repeater systems out there besides this one.
-
On 7/19/2023 at 2:42 PM, RayP said:
I don't believe I mentioned simulcasted repeaters but it did cross my mind. I am fully aware of how expensive they are and how tight tolerances have to be, therefore I did not mention it. It just gets aggravating that most people I hear talking about putting up a repeater seem heck bent on either linking to other repeaters in their area or linking to a network, apparently just to keep noise going across the frequency, and not caring that they hinder people trying to use GMRS for its original intended use of local area communication.
Oh I am fully aware of how simulcast works. I am the specialist for design and implementation of such systems for the company I work for. I have built out, reworked and do ongoing support on several of them for public safety. I have designed several more systems that were implemented by our other shops or were too expensive for the client and weren't built out. But yeah, I am fully aware of the requirements.
And I doubt that we are ever going to see a large (greater than 3 site) simulcast GMRS system. The cost is too great to pull it off. And 'free' site locations are never going to be in the needed location for the system to operate correctly and have the correct overlap of coverage. So you're gonna need to go on paid sites if they exist in the window they need to be in, or erect towers in those location windows which is gonna be a minimum of 75K per site before you start looking at the cost of equipment.
My stuff all used channel banks that had T-1 interface between the sites and microwave links that provided that.
I have looked at it at length. Considered POSSIBLY doing a two site system... but I seriously doubt it. And I have the channel banks and microwave gear to do it. Hell I have the repeaters, duplexers and GPS reference gear for two sites and possibly three. But I do all this out of pocket. No membership fee's or dues. So it would all fall on me and I lack the motivation.
-
Has anyone bothered to ask if the PL tones were listed in the posting for the repeater here on the site. If the tones are posted,,, chances are it's OPEN.
I answer one or two requests per week and the repeater is listed as being OPEN. I would rather that people just use my repeater as they need to and NOT ask for permission.
And yes, my tones are posted. No need to scan anything.
Have you monitored the channel and even verified there is an active repeater on the frequency any more? Might verify it's still active before asking about getting access to it.
But again, if the tones are posted, use the repeater. For those of you that don't want other people on your repeater either post the repeater as being CLOSED or don't post your tones. Better yet, don't post the repeater at all. But don't blow a gasket when someone comes in and parks an OPEN repeater on your pair. One of my favorite things to do.
-
On 7/17/2023 at 9:51 AM, RayP said:
Never mind that other users in a local area of a linked repeater might want to try and communicate using 50W simplex or via a repater but multiple or all (of the eight available) 50W/repeater channels are clogged up with the same people, having the same conversation about raising chickens, fishing, cooking beans, or whatever. This is a waste of scarce available spectrum and terrible stewardship of the available channels for GMRS.
OK, and where is that happening exactly? Certainly not on the MidWest system, or the MYGMRS system for that matter since that is specifically watched for and not condoned. Now, true simulcast would be nice on GMRS. Where the same frequency pair is used at multiple overlapping sites to provide coverage to a larger area without taking up additional frequency pairs. It's also quite expensive, requiring voters, simulcast audio controls that are GPS disciplined to enable the ability for it to work. Not to mention that EVERY repeater on the system would need to match exactly, same model and even firmware so the delay internally to the repeater would all match.
Yes, that's possible, yes it works, and I have personally done it with public safety radio system on VHF / UHF and 800 Mhz. But again, it ain't even close to being cheap.
I run two repeaters. One is linked and the other is NOT linked. Reason for the second repeater is simple. It allows locals to chat without tying up repeaters in 4 to 6 states for a conversation that is happening in the coverage area of my single repeater. The repeaters are all on the same antenna system and run the same power levels so the coverage is a dead on match. These three antenna's (one receive and two transmit) have a total of 3 GMRS repeaters and a UHF ham repeater currently. There will be an amateur radio packet data repeater added later this year. But since I have a large coverage footprint, I of course run all my GMRS repeaters as OPEN repeaters for all to use that have a license to access them. This keeps folks from needing to spend time and a lot of money to put up a repeater, but also leaves open pairs if they want to do so.
- SteveShannon and kc9pke
-
2
-
Yeah, as Shannon said there are specific regulations forbidding this.
The other issue that comes up with doing this is the entire repeater allocated frequency range exists in a 200Khz bandwidth. Meaning that if you are trying to 'listen' to another repeater signal and then transmit to the next 'hop' you have a transmitter and a receiver in the same 200Khz bandwidth. The transmitter will swamp the receiver and you will either go deaf, or the receiver will lock on to the transmitter thinking it's the desired signal and the thing will loop up and not stop transmitting.
If you are dead set on doing this. It needs to be engineered correctly and linked via some other means. This would typically be some sort of IP linking using either the internet or microwave links between the sites.
The equipment and methods that are used for the MYGMRS repeater system are not some super secret proprietary technology. It's a reuse of a ham linking system called AllStar Link or ASL. This runs on a software add-on that runs on a IP PBX called Asterisk. In other words an IP based phone system. That technology could easily be used to link multiple repeaters together and be fully closed so that your repeaters were the only equipment on that specific system. And that would probably be the best option for this.
Now I will also say that linking a bunch of repeaters together and taking up a number of the 8 repeater pairs we have available isn't going to make you real popular if there are others that are wanting to put up repeaters. So be aware of that as well. If you are going to do it make sure that it is going to fill a need.
-
On 7/7/2023 at 3:59 AM, WRXE944 said:
When I built my Hallicrafters HT-40 kit 80 - 6 meter transmitter at 11 years old; I don't remember having to drag it down to the FCC for any Part 15 testing!
Yeah, but YOU built it, not Hallicrafters. And I bet that they needed to send completed units to the FCC to test them before they could sell the kits. I don't know that for certain, but it could have been.
-
I do love how GMRS operators seem to argue the rules, where the hams flip the hell out if someone even comes close to bending one pertaining to ham. Well, outside of the whole cutting the MARS block so they can talk to the Po Po.
And the continued argument of testing requirements. Part 15 testing IS TESTING for compliance. So if HAM radios have to meet PART 15, then they have to be tested. I never said it was specifically for part 97. Only that there was SOME form of required testing done by the FCC for MANUFACTURED radios for the ham bands.
-
I keep reading over and over that the FCC doesn't require any sort of testing or type acceptance for ham radio gear.
Yet I have the July QST magazine in my hand with the new Kenwood TH-75A on the back cover and down at the bottom of the page it clearly says:
THIS DEVICE HAS NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED AS REQUIRED BY THE RULES OF THE FCC THIS DEVICE IS AND AND MAY NOT BE OFFERED FOR SALE UNTIL AUTHORIZATION IS OBTAINED.
I think that the second most misunderstood regulation in ham radio is the type acceptance, manufacture authorization rules.
As a ham operator you can build your OWN gear. You can sell that gear to others. No testing or type acceptance required.
Manufactures don't have that. They have to meet certain requirements. Type acceptance, or some level of testing to be approved for sale in the US.
Yes, there are requirements for MANUFACTURED ham equipment to be sold in the US. While that might not be 'type acceptance" testing, there is indeed testing that has to be done for manufactured equipment.
So, not only is the idea that runs around some circles in the ham community that they can cut the TX block out of their ham radio to talk to the police "just in case" but the lack of a requirement for testing of manufactured ham gear is also not technically correct.
ERP or actual transmitter power?
in FCC Rules Discussion
Posted
You know they make a tool for that.