SteveShannon

Talk around sets the radio to transmit on 462 and receive on 467. You could use a radio on talk around to talk to a radio set to the appropriate repeater channel. Testing on 467 is allowed.

Either the frequency is wrong or you set the receive tone wrong. Or you have a bad antenna or coax. Or you have a bad receiver. You can eliminate the tone question by clearing out the receive tone. Connecting the Baofeng to the coax and antenna will tell you whether there’s a problem there.

So are you trying to do simplex on 467? That’s not allowed except for Fixed Stations (don’t ask; there’s an entire thread on the topic.) According to the regulations, transmitting on 467 main frequencies by a mobile station is only permitted when transmitting through a repeater, which would require receiving on 462 MHz. Maybe the baked in rules don’t allow trying to communicate on 467 simplex. I’d be surprised, but not shocked.

Transmit on 467.xxx? Correct tone for transmit? Receive on 462.xxx? Same xxx as transmit. You must have the transmit frequency 5 MHz higher than the receive frequency. Correct tone or no tone for receive?

I doubt that it’s a coincidence. I suspect you don’t have the correct CTCSS tone set. Some repeaters have different transmit tones than receive tones. The pre-programmed Repeater channels have the 5 MHz offset programmed in. I would always start with one of those and then just set the transmit tones. You can even leave the receiver tones blank. You’ll hear everything then.

Are you transmitting on the repeater frequencies? They’re 5 MHz (467 MHz range) above the 462 MHz frequency that you receive from the repeater.

You can measure it in at least two different ways. The easiest is to place a wattmeter at each end of the cable and transmit. Then compare the readings on the two meters. (Or take two measurements with a single meter at each end of the cable). If using this method you must have the cable terminated when measuring before the cable, ideally with a 50 ohm dummy load. When measuring at the far end of the cable you would have a dummy load attached to the antenna output on the wattmeter. The other way is with a two port RF network/antenna analyzer. Connect the cable between the two ports and measure the insertion loss. In YouTube search for measuring coax loss. Here’s one video: https://youtu.be/YnT1MA1wbSQ?si=ehBaLDnNKwg62xJ1

Here’s a guide to losses expressed in dB: Losses: -1.5 dB = 25% loss of power -3 dB = 50% loss of power -6 dB = 75% loss of power -9 dB = 87.5% loss of power -10 dB = 90% loss of power -20 dB = 99% loss of power -30 dB = 99.9% loss of power.

It could go either way. If it’s much too long I would cut it off. If it’s just a few feet I would live with it, which is what I do with the few extra feet of cable on the floor behind the passenger seat now.

It’s great to have thin, flexible cable, but it’s sure lossy. We’re only saved by having very short runs. Now imagine the poor person who decides to reuse an existing 50 foot piece of coax for their cell phone booster!

Everything you say is true, but I’ve never seen an NMO mount (that comes with a cable) that only has 3.8 dB loss at 467 MHz. Most come with much lossier cable. For instance, the following Laird magnetic NMO mount comes with a cable that would have 12.5 dB loss if it were 100 feet. It’s only a 12 foot cable so it loses about 1.5 dB for that distance. https://www.arcantenna.com/products/laird-antenex-gb8t-magnetic-nmo-mount-vehicular-nmo-antenna-roof-mount-12-ft-rg-58a-u-cable-tnc-male-connector-included?variant=32297030811779&currency=USD&utm_medium=product_sync&utm_source=google&utm_content=sag_organic&utm_campaign=sag_organic&gad=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwjOunBhB4EiwA94JWsNBrxPjgMgjWlB56LSL_hmzYUfMLDg2FMcehTYdnfrryxVeyNCFQOhoCk0EQAvD_BwE

DPL is a digital code rather than the analog tone used in CTCSS. On many radios it’s called DTCSS or DCS. Almost every radio supports it but some companies have included some non-standard codes. The Motorola version of CTCSS is simply called PL, not DPL.

Good to know. I’m surprised. I wonder if the addition of metal tape around the lid would help.

First he/she needs a channel.

I agree for smaller cans, but I don’t buy much (any) 30mm.

No

I don’t know for sure, but I would be optimistic. But for God’s sake don’t pay $100 for one just because a preppier supply company sells it. Find a local surplus store. I think I paid $10 for a 30 mm ammo can a few years back. If you absolutely cannot find something locally at least shop around: https://www.cleanammocans.com/50-cal-ammo-cans.html

That would surprise me, but I have no actual knowledge. My gut tells me it was more likely just for electronic surveillance, slowly passing over the US collecting signals while passing intelligence to Chinese satellites to be relayed back to China.

I spent the last 13 years of my career in the control center for an electric transmission system. I supervised the team that maintained the Energy Management System (SCADA) software and hardware that controlled the electric transmission system. We spent nearly all our time making sure the Energy Management System worked well with hot swap redundancy at every level in the control center. Every electric transmission system has such a control system which controls energy transmission substations across huge sections of our three national grids. Loss of a single control center or our largest substations has significant effects on the grid. Fortunately, such losses happen very infrequently and our systems are built to be restored quickly. But, those EMP weapons, tiny as you say, would be sufficient to completely destroy the controls for our largest electric substations and control centers. Or any other cyber or communications infrastructure. I think an atmospheric nuke, causing an EMP as a side effect, is a highly unlikely occurrence. There are only a few countries which have the capability and for the most part there are checks and balances. But, it’s just a matter of time before a suitcase sized EMP only device is deployed by some small political or religious extremist group. It’s the ideal weapon for group that might wish to “bring our evil society to its knees” but that might also have a fundamental aversion to taking lives.

That’s how all of the letters from the FCC seem to work. FCC sends a letter, a notice of wrongdoing, asking the accused to explain why they’re innocent or how they’re going to avoid future transgressions. If they give a satisfactory answer that’s often the end of the matter. It’s as if the assumption is that most people don’t intentionally violate the regulations and with some remedial measures they will do better. Personally, I like that. Based strictly on observation I would agree that most people don’t understand the regulations. Why not give folks a chance to do better instead of crushing them after one mistake.

The briefcase “EMP weapon” was given as an example of a non-nuclear weapon that could be used against sensitive targets without directly causing loss of life.

Here’s the DB25 pinout for the intercom:

So are you saying ham radio is like Grindr for people who just want to talk??

Welcome to the forums!

@WRKC935 I really appreciate everything you said about lightning protection, but EMP is different. The fact that we haven’t been damaged by EMPs when the North Koreans tested their nukes really isn’t very indicative of anything. If those tests had been done in the upper atmosphere it might be different, but they were done in tunnels within mountains.