rdunajewski

The hubs don't have repeater interfaces because they are only hubs -- not directly connected to a radio or repeater. Think of them as a reflector or chat room. Multiple repeater nodes can join the hub and cross-communicate while connected.

PM me with your new email address and I'll update the account so you can reset the password.

Alive and well, just incredibly busy! I didn't get a text, but I did see your email a while back and replied to that. I think it was about switching out your SD card for your node. You can send me a PM on here and I'll get to it as soon as possible.

The only issue I had with this is that they declined to enforce a Busy Channel Lockout for automatic data/location bursts. You could set up your radio to transmit every 30 seconds, for example, and it'll beacon regardless of whether the channel is busy with voice traffic. Add in multiple radios in the same range, and I fear the GMRS channels will start to sound like APRS with data bursts all over the place. I had proposed the busy channel lockout feature but they specifically rejected it, claiming it was up to the licensee to ensure their radio is not causing interference. But once you enable an automatic location report, the licensee is relinquishing control to the radio for some period of time. It only seems like common sense for the radio to hold off the transmission until the channel is clear again. I'd also think the manufacturers would voluntarily add this feature as it would increase the reliability of their messages in the presence of co-channel interference. As far as FM on CB, I think it's great. It throws a lifeline to the CB radio manufacturers who can now introduce new FM-capable radios and revitalize the service a little bit. Seems GMRS has been taking over for quite a while, which is why some companies like Midland have all but given up on CB and moved onto making mobile GMRS products. For me, the interesting thing is that the reasons the FCC rejected digital voice on GMRS are the same reasons they initially denied Cobra's request to allow FM on CB. It fundamentally changes the nature of the service, it creates a compatibility issue between existing users and FM users, etc. They chose to mandate that AM is required on any FM-capable radios to ensure backwards compatibility. Using the same workaround, we could petition for digital voice on GMRS as long as digital radios are backwards compatible with analog on these channels so you can always talk to the analog people and hear the traffic on the channel. So for that, I'm very excited for the next round of interest in digital voice on GMRS. Seems a no-brainer now, we just need to file a well-organized petition for it with support from users and manufacturers.

It's a 10W transmitter but by the time the signal is passed through the notch duplexer inside, the output is 5W. Because of this, we market these as 5W repeaters and that's the power the FCC has certified them at. If the transmit and receive frequencies were further apart than 5 MHz, the duplexer would not have as much loss and you'd see something closer to 10W.

If you're in support of the integration, we need your help to post on the bug linked above on the Chirp website. If there's not enough interest on that website, the author won't add the support. Posting here is nice but that won't bump up the priority at all.

Will, your callsign was just issued today. The FCC won't publish this callsign in their Public Access File for another day or two. Please check back after 12pm ET tomorrow to see if your callsign has been added.

As of right now, it's working fine. What browser are you using?

The username associated with your callsign is daughertydev. Try entering that in the "Forgot Password" form. You probably had a different email address on file so it's not recognizing your new one.

Frank, your callsign showed up in our database today. You should be able to register now.

I just checked and I don't see any evidence of that happening. If you have more information to share I can look deeper into it, but the last update was today so I presume that was you correcting it. It's possible the frequency defaulted to 550 or something if you made an edit for some other purpose and when the listing was updated it changed the frequency. Do you think that may be what happened?

Exactly, myGMRS would be another option in Chirp for pulling in frequencies. You'd log in just like RadioReference and select the repeaters you want.

Hey everyone, we've been trying to get Chirp integrated with myGMRS for a while but the problem has been a lack of interest, according to the creator of Chirp. There's now a request for integration but we could use your help to prove there's interest out there. Please post a comment in support of the feature: https://chirp.danplanet.com/issues/9169 Thanks!

What is the username you're trying to create?

Try now!

Cost is TBD, but a notch duplexer is included with the RT97. It'll be everything you need to get a 5W repeater on the myGMRS network with the audio levels already set.

That's not us who replied, that's a different network that we have zero affiliation with. I think that's a pretty funny response! We can provide support but it's not a 100% plug-n-play operation. Since it's a Linux system, you'll need to know how to edit the configuration files to customize the node and set the audio levels. Generally speaking, once you set it up it's a hands-off thing. We just can't customize it to each and every repeater combination out there. We're going to offer a new version of the Retevis RT97 repeater with the linking bundle preconfigured for that in the near future, we're just waiting on the FCC certification and we'll begin placing orders for them. However, this is only a 5W repeater so it may not be for everyone's use case.

I'm not sure who told you that, but it's incorrect. We sell linking bundles that include almost everything you need to get onto our network: https://shop.mygmrs.com/collections/repeaters-and-accessories/products/repeater-linking-bundle The network is alive and well, growing every day: https://network.mygmrs.com/map

I have already looked into it, but there are no PTT signals anywhere inside. They use serial communications like I2C to command the radio IC to transmit, rather than use a logic signal. Without some serious, serious hacking, there's no way to add an ID board or external controller to these. However, I approached Retevis about this and they are making a version with an external connector on it. I have received the engineering samples and they work, although we may ask for some tweaks. Hoping to sell these on the store soon. We'll be able to sell an all-in-one linking bundle that is completely plug-n-play for the myGMRS Network.

You're right, but in the case of these small duplexers you can't just worry about the notch or you'll end up with a dummy load. The insertion loss is SO bad at 5 MHz split that you need to consider it, or you're burning 15W to get maybe 1W out of the transmitter (and your loss is also on the receive side, which isn't doing you any favors). So, it's really a balancing act between both of them. Filter the bad, but try to keep the good. Filter both, and what's the point?

No, I think there's no real reason to get vanity callsigns on GMRS. We'd probably all change our callsigns if we could, but it's just going to be chaos. Plus, don't forget, we share our callsign system with the Part 90 licenses (maybe others?). Just because it's vacant in GMRS doesn't mean you can pick it if it's assigned to a Part 90 station. I'm not sure if they are interleaved together by the FCC or if there's some "safe" ranges for GMRS use only, but I doubt that. We have a lot higher priorities that could use a Petition for Rulemaking like sorting out the Part 90 vs. Part 95 type certification and allowing digital voice emissions, in my opinion.

You do, but the insertion loss is caused by the fact that the "V" notch trough isn't the only factor. The insertion loss comes from what the filter is doing to the pass frequency, which on these small units is going to be much higher at a 5 MHz split than a 10 MHz split. So while you're filtering out 462.xxx MHz in the notch, you're also losing power on 467.xxx MHz due to the curve to the right. Basically you're too close to the notch, and you're losing some power there. This is also why the duplexers are marked with a high and low side, as the configuration of that curve to the left or right depends on which side you're on. Normally the insertion loss is small, like 1 to 1.5 dB on a good duplexer, but you don't have that low of curve to contend with in those cases. So to avoid this, you can either tune the V lower in frequency (which isn't great, as you're losing isolation) or you can try to make it a little shallower as long as you're still getting adequate isolation. Since it's a low power transmitter, you don't need -90 dB but the more isolation, of course, the better. It's just a balancing act to notch as much as you can without negatively impacting the frequency you want to pass. I had to retune the duplexers that came in an engineering sample I received of these repeaters, as they were tuned for 453 and 463 MHz. For one, I had to swap the high and low sides since they were set up with RX on 453 and TX and 463, which was an issue with the short SMA jumpers they included. Then, I had to retune the duplexers to the GMRS band and be careful to not impact the pass side too much. Keep in mind I'm no expert, my background is software not RF design or Electrical Engineering. I know just enough to be dangerous and convince myself I'm right most of the time. ?

Be careful with the fine tuning of the duplexer, you'll get it more accurate on the notch but you'll also end up increasing the insertion loss and the RT97 will put out less than 5W. Seems it's a 15W transmitter but the duplexer loss is folding back to 10W if you have the frequencies far enough apart or 5W if you're in the 5 MHz split range. If you get obsessive about the notch you might find out you're putting out 1-2W because of the insertion loss (that lower curved line).

Hi Walter, The callsign you posted is not a valid one. The format for newer callsigns is 4 letters and 3 digits, so it looks like that may be your issue.

I have fixed the issues with the license importing script. I never heard back from the FCC, so I had to put in a hack to pre-process the files looking for a certain case. WRMM237 and WRMN710 are both in the system now.