SteveShannon

@kirk5056 I enjoyed reading your post. It was well written and you did a nice job of summarizing the issues. Unfortunately, I agree with @WRUU653 that it probably won’t make any difference.

I’m not sure it matters. See the bold portion of the preceding quote. It says “or any other network…“ That seems pretty clear but I’d like to point out that the actual wording in the regulations are not phrased that way.

Here’s what the fcc site says: “You can expect a communications range of one to twenty-five miles depending on station class, terrain and repeater use. You cannot directly interconnect a GMRS station with the telephone network or any other network for the purpose of carrying GMRS communications, but these networks can be used for remote control of repeater stations.” https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-divisions/mobility-division/general-mobile-radio-service-gmrs

I think that would result in more torque on the mount than it’s intended to withstand. An additional brace would probably help with that. Here’s what I would suggest: https://www.solidsignal.com/easy-up-heavy-duty-y-type-antenna-mast-wall-mount-12in-standoff-ez30-12?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cse&utm_term=EZ30-12&gclid=CjwKCAiA3pugBhAwEiwAWFzwdY3qda-oqw_61X7TGKwQCM9Jm1N6tpqQHhbTkktLu-QhkUMi76GtphoCZO4QAvD_BwE but that’s a lightweight mount. DXEngineering has similar mounting brackets for heavy masts. I order cables from DXEngineering, Gigaparts, or Ham Radio Outlet. DXEngineering will build to suit.

I have a friend with a 400 who’s disappointed because it has had some problems. I don’t know exactly what they are. If a person doesn’t need C4FM, the ftm6000 looks like a decent radio.

Or the FTM300. Is there anything the 400 or 500 do that the 300 doesn’t?

And because those “CCRs” work well enough for most people at a much lower price. Perfect? Not even close. Best in class? Absolutely not. Good enough. For most purposes, yes.

This makes me want to check out the Wouxun. The Yaesu radios work well, but their front panel programming is not definitely intuitive.

Way more than once and as a PE I was responsible for regulatory compliance matters (interpretation and implementation) for over twenty years, working very closely with lawyers and our compliance department, so I would like to think I’m pretty good at reading and interpreting regulations. But the regulations I worked with were strictly enforced with huge fines and very costly periodic (every three years) audits. The FCC doesn’t act that way. That’s a good thing.

First, I don’t know, but here are the regulatory concerns I would have: This places GMRS communications onto the cellular data network. I suspect this is the item the FCC would be most concerned about, if they care at all. If nobody complains then you can probably get away with it. It’s entirely possible that some of the nodes on the MyGMRS network leverage a cellular data hotspot already. Hotspot radio (meaning the transceiver chip built into the hotspot) is not type certified. But really, what’s the point? If you have two people using gmrs radios to talk to cellular hotspots in order to talk to each other, why not just talk on the phone? Is the allure of talking on a handheld radio so great that you intentionally convert to half duplex and push to talk in a larger box? I have a similar lack of understanding for people in the ham world who record QSOs between their handheld radios using hotspots on both ends. Where’s the challenge?

In my opinion, yes. Establishing a shorthand to keep communications shorter does not intentionally hide the meaning, even though a portion of the population doesn’t understand the meaning. You probably wouldn’t even have to place a 10 in front of it. Of course I am not a lawyer.

But there doesn’t need to be an FCC approved version. Publicly used 10 codes are not intended to hide their meanings. Although intent is usually difficult to prove, the posts within this thread could easily be used to show that WRVG593 intended to provide a hidden meaning.

I bought two last week. A pi 3 a+ for $25 from Adafruit and a Pi Zero W in a starter kit from PiShop.us. I posted about the availability.

You’re absolutely right. With wire antennas it’s easy enough to leave a pulley and rope attachment on the pole for lowering and raising the antenna periodically, but that’s difficult to do with a mast or beam type antenna.

I haven’t looked at the specs of either. Nor does my accident prove that the SMA connector is strong. But I do feel that if I dropped a radio on a BNC connector the thin wall would be much easier to dent, which could make it unusable without some work. Dropping this radio on its male SMA has almost zero chance of damaging the recessed threaded portion or the recessed pin. Dropping one of my other antennas on its female SMA could conceivably damage the male threads on the connector, making it unusable without some work. I know folks have criticized the fact that the male pin of the SMA connector could be bent or sheared, which couldn’t be repaired in the field if that connector half is installed on the radio. It’s possible, but I suspect the likelihood of that is less than damaging the protruding male threaded portion of the female SMA connector.

I suspect you’re absolutely correct about our antennas coming from the same antenna mill. It’s a relatively easy design to build; the element is connected to the SMA adapter with a loading coil. A capacitor bridges the shield to the coil. I can count the coils and read the cap value if anyone wants, but it’s obviously nothing that revolutionizes handheld antennas. Nor does it have to be. Also like you say, silkscreen the 771 number on it to take advantage of a recognized product. Comet and Diamond make similar antennas as well. I’ll probably pick up one or two of them, but I have no intention of opening them up to see how they look. Of course I had no intention of popping this open. ?

Yeah, I didn’t see any damage on it. The antenna gave its life to protect the radio. The male SMA that’s on the radio showed no sign of damage either. The female SMA on the antenna unscrewed easily and I put the original rubber duck antenna on. Taking things apart (and learning to put them together again) led me to a satisfying career as an engineer.

I dropped my Alinco radio tonight and it landed on the Tidradio 771 antenna. The antenna was a copy of the Nagoya 771, which produced surprisingly good results. Compared to the standard rubber duck antenna, I get two whole s-units registered on the local DMR repeater; my signal report goes from S6 to S8, with no other changes. Not bad for an antenna that came free with my first UV5R. Anyway, I could see that it was at minimum bent, but when I picked it up it became obvious that a nylon stud that connects the antenna element to the SMA connector was sheared. I guess that means I need to go antenna shopping. ? Here is a picture of the innards:

There are literally thousands of hams who attach antennas to trees, but most of them are wire antennas. How you attach the antenna to the tree will determine whether it damages the tree. There are straps to minimize damage to the tree. Here's a link to a forum thread in another forum talking about this. One person said that TV reception suffered, but it's important to understand that TV signals are much wider band and more susceptible to problems than our analog voice signals. https://www.arboristsite.com/threads/antenna-mast-in-tree.198967/ I wouldn't hesitate to do it. If it doesn't work, then you look at your second choice.

They're inexpensive, but they seem to work to introduce folks to radio use. I would expect all of the negative characteristics you listed, but sometimes they work surprisingly well. I have no problem with folks who buy and use them and I have a couple UV5Rs myself that I bought to see what all the ruckus was. I also have some Yaesu handheld amateur radios and a Garmin GMRS radio that are better radios, but for the price difference they should be. The Baofengs desense when placed next to a transmitting radio. The Yaesus do not. I haven't tested power output on any of them.

I agree. I don’t want to be geocoded for any of my hobbies. However, a map showing GMRS clubs might be helpful.

Welcome to MyGMRS! Unfortunately I don’t know the answer to your question. Have you looked at the repeater directory here: https://www.mygmrs.com/repeaters I had to look up Spencerport to find out where it is. So then I searched for Rochester. There are two repeaters near Rochester. This one is in Ogden: https://www.mygmrs.com/repeater/6218

Welcome to MyGMRS! Unfortunately I don’t know the answer to your question. Have you looked at the repeater directory here: https://www.mygmrs.com/repeaters

Probably. Similarly, I have a good GMRS specific mobile antenna (Midland MXTA26) that is completely deaf on the 2 meter band. With it I cannot hear my friend down the street on 2 meter, even though he can hear me transmit, and even though my handheld, with a dual band antenna, can hear him. Edit: 3/24/23 - At 2meters the SWR for the MXTA26 is around 7:1 No wonder it doesn’t work ? That’s certainly not a knock against the Midland antenna. I bought it for GMRS.

Going back to your original question, the range of frequencies the Crane Skywave covers are those which allow you to listen to transmissions from around the world, given a good antenna system. They are the frequencies used by shortwave radio stations and ham radio operators which are best at long distances. They propagate worldwide, bouncing or skipping off layers within the atmosphere and the earth itself and when conditions are just right you should be able to listen to radio stations from around the world without any networking or repeaters. That specific range of frequencies is also called HF which stands for High Frequency. In the Amateur Radio world HF extends from 3 MHz to 30 MHz (3000 kHz to 30,000 kHz). VHF is 30 MHz to 300 MHz and UHF is 300 MHz to 3000 MHz (3 GHz). As frequencies get higher, they no longer bounce as well. They travel more in a straight line. This makes radios in the VHF and UHF ranges better for local communications, such as fire, police, and utility services. It also makes them better for communicating via satellites. If you wish to listen to those services, a true scanner, with the capability of listening to trunked and digital transmissions would be appropriate.