SkylinesSuck

A clearer and more strictly enforced line drawn between the "general" and "technical" forums might serve that purpose.  It seems kinda scatter shot sometimes with where people post what.  Not a reflection on the forum though, just the posters.

I had similar symptoms due to interference from my reverse camera signal wire.  I found the delayed transmit especially strange.  Almost like a BCL but not.

A clearer and more strictly enforced line drawn between the "general" and "technical" forums might serve that purpose.  It seems kinda scatter shot sometimes with where people post what.  Not a reflection on the forum though, just the posters.

I am just learning that the FCC has given serious consideration to allowing location positioning information to be included in GMRS communications on all channels, and allowing FM modulation on existing CB channels.
 
Here is a fresh-off-the-press YouTube video that provides an overview:
 
741 Channel -
 
And here is the FCC rules amendment that that covers the proposed changes:
 
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-374114A1.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3GQrL1LL_zjxMRzjiNi4Kxf8VqgojRP4bKAKCsrOxSskyFMxfceV-umjE
 
Looks like Motorola is is behind the petition for location positioning capability and Cobra is behind the petition for FM on CB frequencies.
 
The FCC document should be a good read. I have not read the whole thing yet. I hope to find something in there too that officially legalizes part 90 radios for GMRS.
 
 
Michael
WRHS965
KE8PLM

He does indeed sound like him.  Even sounds like he is in to off-road vehicles as well. Weird ?

I thought I would do a report out of some testing I conducted this weekend.

One of my original curiosities has been how much signal actually finds itself being picked up by the offset antenna when the other is used to transmit in the same band. To settle this I separately transmitted using my GMRS and amateur radios (70cm) and measured the signal level present on the non-transmitting antenna. While transmitting at 50w, the offset antenna showed about -15dBm (about 25 uW or .04V ) of signal present. This was nearly the same regardless of direction.

This tells me a couple of things:
1) The power levels being picked up by the opposing antenna is well with the safe range of the receiver connected to the opposing antenna.
2) Expect serious desense of the opposing receiver during those periods when transmitting on the other radio within the same band as the receiving radio.

In addition, I did do some operational tests to see if there was any material desense of the opposing radio when operating in different bands. So far, no desense of concern. This was checked while listening to weak VHF signals on the amateur radio while transmitting on GMRS, and transmitting VHF while listening to weak signals on the GMRS radio. This was purely a subjective test under conditions in which I know the desired incoming signal to both radios was -110dBm or less. So, not bad.


Michael
WRHS965
KE8PLM

Not trying to be snipey here, but it's because there is no generally agreed upon channel. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against 20.  I'm hoping it becomes the undisputed calling king of what turns out to be very busy GMRS airways.  I'm just saying, by virtue of the fact so many people don't "know" and we are discussing it, don't you think it's still a bit of an unknown?  Saying "I declare it so" or seeing it on some other forum from some guy who says so doesn't make it so.  
I was joking about 19, but I now officially support 20 for a "road" channel.  I hope it succeeds.

Pilots occasionally do that with us. Rest assured, if you ever hear a pilot say that on frequency to a controller, all the controllers are making fun of them off frequency  ?
Conversely, we used that phraseology all the time in Civil Air Patrol when I was younger.  Over (ksshhhhk).

There is much to be discussed on this topic. Its good that the dialogue starts so that one day , we can agree on GMRS road channel best practice. 

Agreed. Bonus points for using moot.....and correctly! Seeing that screwed up bugs me.

I've thought of doing this but don't have any LTR capable radios.  It would be set up as a single channel LTR system and with the pulse turned off.  I have heard of exactly this being done to thwart repeater jammers and unauthorized users.
I've thwarted a well known jammer in the past by using DCS/DPL instead of CTCSS/PL.  The jammer in this case had antiquated radios that only had CTCSS/PL capability and no DCS/DPL capability.  He also didn't have a clue about DCS/DPL.  I've heard him screaming on the air about being unable to get into my repeater.  He was continually p!$$ed about not being able to get into the repeater after trying almost every CTCSS/PL tone.  I've heard  of DPL also being referred to as "Definitely Prevents Losers" LOL.  This won't work today with most modern radios having DCS/DPL in addition to CTCSS/PL.
 

One thing to note, you mentioned putting an antenna on top of the trailer. If you don't get a good antenna on a mast significantly up in the air, you aren't going to get a lot more range than you would simplex to simplex.  If you were just thinking a magnetic antenna stuck to the roof, it's not worth it.  

So, I posted earlier in this thread, with my Jeep set up.
But thought I'd update.
This weekend we did some radio testing.  Truck to Truck,
both trucks running Midland MX115 radios,
one with the small antenna supplied with
the radio and the other with a 5db gain antenna.
both are roof mounted with mag bases. One truck parked as a base and
the other driving in our direction starting at 35 mi away.
With 15w, Clear comms. over 35mi all across our valley,
the only place we lost contact was passing through a small
town on the valley floor 22 miles out, with buildings blocking our signal.
Next time  we will test with the mobile driving away from the base.
So, overall I am pleased with out set up. and now will start collecting
items for a set up in the house.
 
 

That is more restrictive than I thought. Good info, thanks.

Me and the UV5R aren't speaking at the moment.. I got busted talking to the Wouxun-radio-voice lady...

Configuring scan groups is a function of the factory software. You have 10 scan groups available. Each group can have a single contiguous range of memories associated with it (e.g Channels 1-20, 20-100, 5-20, etc.). Each group has a group number. From the radio you can pick which group you want to scan. That is what the scan group menu allows you to do, select which of those groups you want to scan. You also have the ‘All’ option, which allows you to scan all channels programmed into the radio.

Note that you can designate each channel memory to be scan-able or not scan-able. That setting you can change on the radio.

The manual for the KG-1000G is light years above every other Wouxun manual, but it still falls short of the ideal. In fact, the distributor had to write it themselves since the manufacturer is not qualified to write an english manual for one of their products.

Hope that helps.


Michael
WRHS965
KE8PLM

Here is some added insight into behavior of the Wouxun KG-1000G when the priory channel scan is enabled.

First, the radio does not scan the priority channel at all when the radio is in scan mode. Undesirable IMO.

Second, the radio does check the priority channel when the radio is sitting idle, even when the radio is tuned to a different channel. This is desirable IMO. The radio will reproduce audio from the priority channel which is a good thing, however…

Third, when the radio detects a signal on the priority channel there is no friendly way (I can find) to cause the radio to stay on (or switch to) that channel so you communicate back. One has to manually tune to the priority channel (which can be a time consuming effort). It would be more desirable (IMO) if pressing the PTT briefly button would briefly cause the radio to pause on that channel so as to allow immediate talk-back communications.

Fourth, when priority scan mode is active and you are actively receiving a signal on a different channel, the channel you are listening too will be interrupted for 1 second every 4 seconds, while the radio scans the priority channel. This will cause you to miss portions of the conversation you are engaged in, even when no activity on priority channel is present.

Fifth, there is no way to establish what the priority channel is on the radio without a computer. Undesirable IMO, as in my case, my priority channel is probable to change depending upon where I am and how I am using the radio.

Thought I would shed some more light on the subject. Perhaps BTWR is listening and can take action with Wouxun to resolve the issues.


Michael
WRHS965
KE8PLM

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.

I think its grey. But with that said I have limited my users with RAS and other features that my repeaters have. I have one that sits and waits until it hears the proper DTMF/RAS code then when I'm done I send a  repeater  disable. It wont stop a true radio guy from digging out the code and doing it them selves but 99% of the people who cause issues have a CCR and aren't smart enough to understand that stuff. 
 
I think the big issue is alot of us pay to put stuff on the air. If you abuse a privilege's you should be disciplined. Apparently we can't do that anymore so doing other things to make it harder is all we can do. In the end I'll just remove my repeater (and have in some locations). 
 I also recommend not listing it all over the world if you don't want folks on it. jmho

Daystar sells this little console. 
Also sell a TYT TH-8600 as a GMRS, not sure its a legal conversion, mine is Ham, dual band.  I didn't wire anything to the switches, as I don't have any extra anything to wire up.  Don't even have fog lights.  The TH-8600 was my choice because its advertised at IP68 waterproof, and I spend all summer in Bikini top so I do get wet on our random thunderstorms.  Antenna sits on a bracket I made attached to the third brake light, Tram dual band. It has a flat SWR on 2m, Murs, 70cm and GMRS. 
 

We were able to try the 805G a couple days ago locally and hitting the local repeater at 40 miles from 1k-2k AGL...also got a pretty good simplex contact from about the same distance. It appears not too surprisingly the 805G had a  drop off in signal directly to the aircraft 6 o'clock. Obviously a permanent underside antenna would be best or better yet a more capable a/g radio. We're still planning on trying tomorrow from a considerably higher altitude.

I keep my Roger Beep on - when someone complains about it, I remind them that its my radio and nobody is forcing them to listen to me.

That could be another thread all together. I did a lot of research into the native android head units, and on the xda developers forums, the ATOTO A6 pro got the best reviews and recommendations. I’ve only used this in several installs now. And I’ll keep with the recommendation on it. There are front, rear, and subwoofer amplifier outputs, so if you need it loud, it’s very easy to get carried away. The internal amp is 30 watts RMS, so it’s more than enough to add volume and clarity to a factory speaker system. Sound quality specifically is absolutely improved over factory sound. The dual Bluetooth, WiFi, and GPS antennas make it seriously capable. Typically, I turn on my phones WiFi hotspot, and run pandora, Waze, google maps, etc... right on my dash. But having access to the google play store, I run an app called Torque pro ($5) that talks to a $12 Bluetooth OBDII adapter, and allows me to generate custom gauges on things the vehicles computer sees. Also scan, and clear check engine lights. I’ve got a dash cam, and a backup camera connected directly to it, and still have 3 available USB ports. I’m a little tempted to try a SWR app and usb dongle on it. But it has given my 1999 Chevrolet more modernization than anything else I could have done.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I leave mine on for my younger son's FRS HT just so I know it's him.  My older son I trust with a GMRS HT and don't use it.  They are 6 & 8 so their voices sound very similar, plus it's not going to upset many people only being in FRS toy with very limited range.  It doesn't really bother me when people use it though.

Just remember that higher cable loss results in BETTER SWR.... (but not better radio performance).  I do not necessarily think this is what's going on in this particular situation though.... unless something is really wrong with the cable itself or a connector is defective. 
Minimum return loss is twice the cable loss.  So if your cable loss was 3dB your min return loss would be 6dB which means the worst SWR you could ever see is 3:1 even with no antenna at all.  (Of course, no mobile install would have such a high coax loss with only 20' of cable.)
You can see this if you just install a 3dB attenuator on the SWR meter with nothing at all attached after it.  
Ham guys are often puzzled when they upgrade (a 75' run or whatever) to low loss coax then end up with a worse SWR.  The antenna was always a poor match but it was masked by the lossy coax.  Of course their radio will actually radiate more power than before with the better coax even with the worse looking SWR.  More power reaches the antenna and therefore  more power is reflected back.... with the same antenna as before.
Length of coax does not affect SWR at all except for the difference in loss associated with it.  It can however affect forward radiated power if your radio output is not a true 50 ohms... and most are not.  They are designed to "work into 50 ohms."  This does not mean that they "look like 50 ohms"  when looking back into the output port.   There may be impedances other than 50 ohms which result in better (or worse) power output.  I've seen this on my KG805G with a ham radio 70cm antenna and a certain length of coax.  The radio will actually put out more than the typical 4-5W with some lengths of coax. 
Of course the "wrong" impedance can also cause instability or excess dissipation so you want to operate your radio into something reasonably close to 50 ohms.  Any SWR better than 3:1 should be safe though.  Many low power hand held or mobile radios would be "safe" into just about any impedance. 
Vince