Blaise

I will repeat my previous reponse, because I can't seem to find a way to combine quoting: Virtually no one using a handheld radio is in a surrounding that puts them LOS to the horizon. Handhelds happen in woods, in cities, and in buildings. What matters is that if all the clutter would only allow a 2W transmission to penetrate a mile, it would allow a 5W transmission to penetrate 1.6 miles, which is a big deal. Come on now guys, this fight won't work if you just reasonably post your (WRONG) opinions! You have to get some inappropriate emotion into it!

And no one cares about s-units, they *do* care that their handheld can be heard 60% farther away through woods or city! Sure, and I have a solution that works, but only for spherical ducks in a vacuum! Virtually no one using a handheld radio is in a surrounding that puts them LOS to the horizon. Handhelds happen in woods, in cities, and in buildings. What matters is that if all the clutter would only allow a 2W transmission to penetrate a mile, it would allow a 5W transmission to penetrate 1.6 miles, which is a big deal.

I think in modern radio-land, it's, "If it ain't broke, add more features 'til it is."

OK, my turn to start a fight: The difference between 2W and 5W is an increase in receivable transmission range of nearly 60%. That is neither minuscule nor even negligible!

It's not outside the bounds of reason. A number of consumer-electronics boards from China have been found to have stealthy modules on them that scan bluetooth and wifi around them and attempt to exploit any open access to "phone home" with geolocation info and maps of local devices. However, I feel like a niche product like a hand-held radio would be one of the *last* places they'd invest that kind of effort.

Prefaced with "I Am Not A competent Chinese speaker": I spent several months in Bejing and surrounding cities a few years ago, and had a lot of trouble with pronouncing words from their English transliterations, so I asked a lot of people to help me nail individual words down. In doing so, I acquired some slight facility at pronouncing Mandarin words from transliterations. My best take on "Wouxun" would be something like "Wuu - zhuhn" - where the "uu" is kinda part-way between "oo" and "uh". And since it's impossible to get inflections from a transliteration like that, the best bet would be to pronounce it as flatly as possible, with no difference in emphasis between the two syllables...

You can't be serious! If people read what they were responding to, 79% of the content on the internet would just disappear!

This is super-useful! Do you mind if folks distribute it? I'm trying to set up a local group too....

Good grief, you're right! Somebody better tell OffRoaderX...

Yeah, I'm less interested in the DIY aspect than the science of it. I hate just accepting specs without knowing why...

Thank you! This, and the searches it inspired, have provided *much* digestible info...

Anyone have details on this question? It's really the crux of what I was wondering...

To clarify the click-baity question a bit: I recently watched an online debate/put-down session on someone who claimed to be able to make cheap coax just as efficient and low-loss as super-expensive stuff just by doing things like running it in copper tube, wrapping in metal mesh, etc. This seems a bit naive/uninformed, but it does make me ponder questions like: *Is* it possible to decrease losses in existing cable via external means? What is actually going on internally that makes one cable less lossy than another? Is is just thickness of conductors? Geometry tricks? Shielding? Is it possible to build something equivalent to or better than "good" coax to get your signal where it's going in controlled circumstances, like a fixed installation on a roof? Does the answer to this question include the "ladder line" I keep seeing hams post about? Do DIY ideas I've seen like extra-insulated 'cheap' coax, home-made braided wire, or a pipe with insulated grounding cable inside hold water? I have some antenna resources, but they don't go into much detail on this topic beyond 'here's what you do'. Is there an in-depth but still relatively accessible primer on the science of signal propagation in cables, etc? So yeah, just a million questions. I sound really demandy. I'd like fifteen thousands words on my desk by Monday!

You rock, man. Even when I think I know, I still always learn more when I read your write-ups. You should very seriously write a book!

Got it. So we *know* you're no riot at parties...

You must not understand the topic.

From the link: "Nonionizing radiation can cause internal body heating, which can be hazardous to a developing baby." - Which doesn't affect genotype, only phenotype, and only in a developing baby...

What exactly do you think RF does to the gene pool?

And they're apparently out of business, anyway...

Welp, now my brain has exploded. I need to go read more theory...

Oh, wow, so they filter out *ALL* sounds below that line, not just the expected tone? I mean I guess that makes sense to some degree, or you'd hear everyone else's tones on an open channel, but that's a fair chunk of our hearing range missing! I wonder why they don't use higher frequencies. Anything over 28kHz would be literally unhearable, and a frequency that high can transmit a lot of data, if need be...

Doesn't that mean that any sounds in that range that we *intend* be transmitted (like "Hey Mike, listen to the sound this machine is making. Does that mean it's going to explode?) will also be filtered out of transmission, if they happen to be within whatever range the radio electronics is unable to discriminate between of the CTCSS tone?

OK, this is driving me nuts. Normal human hearing spans from 20 Hz to 20kHz (Outliers from 12 Hz to 28kHz, but those are rare). CTCSS tones are listed as ranging from approximately 6Hz to 260 Hz, all *well* within the range of the average human ear. So riddle me this, Batman(Batmen? Batfolk?): Why do we not all hear low-pitched buzzing during radio calls made with CTCSS tones in use?

OK, let's see: I've checked it on my monitor Baofeng, a Motorola Talkabout, and the Radioddity DB-20G mobile unit in my car. I pick it up around my house and in various places in my town. I've compared the frequencies to local repeaters, and only one in the MyGMRS DB corresponds to either frequency. The one that *dooes* correspond has been around forever and is actively maintained (and identifies itself when the static is gone, etc...) It's hard to know if it's always the same thing, since I'm never running two radios at once, and I haven't done a systematized survey, but they*seem* to be a real transmissions...

GMRS in my area is pretty rarely used. I scan in the car and when I'm at my desk, and pick up one or two conversations a day max. However, a few months ago, I started picking up digital transmissions on .600(17). They would last anywhere from one to thirty seconds each, and I would pick up clusters of them that would preclude any other use of the frequency for up to an hour. A few weeks ago, those stopped completely, to be replaced with what seems to be a strong signal nearly continuously transmitting nothing but some static. In the last few days, these 'nothing' transmissions have begun on .675(20) as well. They now render both frequencies completely unusable for significant chunks of every day. Any of you experienced folks have any idea what might be going on? I got a video of my monitoring unit while it was happening. Not sure if hearing the transmission is useful, but at least you can see for yourself! BadTrans.mp4