SteveShannon
-
Posts
6790 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
478
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Classifieds
Posts posted by SteveShannon
-
-
8 minutes ago, n4gix said:
Well I'll be darned, that Wikipedia article lists "Chanel 20" as:
(7) National GMRS calling channel (CTCSS tone 141.3 Hz).
How about that?
Cool!
-
1 hour ago, n4gix said:
Well, I happen to be one of the "old fossils" and have no idea what frequency "Channel 19" (Midland's scheme) is, so I have to look it up? How is that any more convenient than the obverse?
Aside from the fact that not all manufacturer's of GMRS equipment have a common channel number scheme, it remains true that the vast majority of GMRS operators are using re-purposed, non-channelized equipment, and that will likely remain true for the next decade or thereabouts.
I’ve seen you complain about this multiple times, but it seems silly. Does any manufacturer of type 95e GMRS equipment assign Channel 19 to a frequency other than 462.6500 MHz? Motorola didn’t. Garmin didn’t. Midland didn’t. I suspect every radio that comes with pre-labeled channels follows the same list that appears in Wikipedia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Mobile_Radio_Service#Frequency_table
-
7 minutes ago, DownEastNC said:
I hear you loud and clear and appreciate your perspective. My concern is that outside of this forum and a YouTube channel, no one else will have the foggiest idea that there is a travel channel much less which one it is. That's why I'm suggesting some sort of outreach. Yes, it will be hard work and frustrating, no doubt. And I can imagine some would take exception to an outsider coming in and even making the suggestion. Even here in this forum there are some that believe GMRS is only for talking to family.
I don't know the history of how channel 19 on the CB became the truckers channel but I would wager a guess that it propagated from the truck stops and informal agreements that would be the channel they would hang out on. That was their social network of that period. For us, we have the internet to get the word out.
It’s more organic to spread the word via GMRS.
I really think that by the time any outreach and consensus process is completed (and who’s to say when it’s complete without first formally recognizing the validity of such a process?) the decision will have been made by people simply tuning to the unofficial official royally decreed travel channel. By that time anything the formal group says or does had better simply ratify whatever has become the de facto travel channel.
- DanW and DownEastNC
-
2
-
9 minutes ago, WROZ437 said:
Eh, I am a bit of an oddball and use duck duck go as my search engine.
Google serves notarubicon’s video as the top video result and this forum as the top web result.
Reddit is a mixed bag, just like this thread.
————-
Seems like notarubicon gets scoffed a little around here. I guess I can see why as a lot of what he says “calls out” radio enthusiasts. I just want to point out that I am exactly the metaphorical “regular guy” that he alludes to in his videos. Everything he says makes logical sense to me. My guess is there are lot more people like me out there than there are HAM lights (did I get that right?).
Consider this: When vetting search results one of the first things I check is the date of a publication, especially with emerging tech, which I would include GMRS in (I know it’s been around for decades). Notarubicon has not only the most definitive answer, but he also has the most current stance on the issue. Posts on reddit are a year or more old. Most of the post on this website regarding the issue are a year, or several years old. See where I’m going with this?
Well said. Plus, nobody should take notarubicon so seriously that they become upset. I might prefer channel 20, but I love his deadpan. People need to take life a little less seriously.
Also, I cannot hear the turn signal as it is; it’s doubtful I’ll ever listen to GMRS while driving.
-
On 1/7/2022 at 7:49 AM, DownEastNC said:
Proclaiming something on a YouTube channel is adoring. If you were truly interested in the travel channel initiative then you would form a nationwide commission and reach out to the thousands of GMRS operators for a consensus. That's a lot of work and effort. Are you willing to do that? I'm afraid that no one has heard you outside of your YouTube fiefdom. So crow about it all you want. It accomplishes nothing. Oh by the way, take a minute to use your favorite web browser to look up the term "GMRS Travel Channel". Outside this discussion, the preponderance of results will point you towards this --->
Ignore it all you want, I'm sure you will.
In theory consensus is great, but takes a long time and frequently results in frustration. Having someone simply say out-loud something that makes sense to a lot of people is just fine.
Personally, I would have preferred channel 20. It’s next in order, denoting an incremental progression over CB’s channel 19; it’s unaffected by Line A (some of us do travel along the high line, where that’s a concern); and it reflects the notion the GMRS is CB 2.0.
But the simple fact is that a lot of people already think of channel 19 as “The Travel Channel”. It just works.
Sometimes it just takes one person to make a decision instead of a bunch of people milling around expecting someone else to do something. I can live with it.
- DownEastNC, WROZ437 and WRNX238
-
3
-
Garmin also has a monochrome model without the touch screen. It displays a map, but doesn’t have the full top mapping of their top end. The Rino 700 is only $349 MSRP and can sometimes be found for less at Cabelas or places like it.
-
On 11/23/2021 at 5:21 PM, PACNWComms said:
I have been watching both of these potential changes for a while now on another website. Administering a large radio network with semi tractors equipped with both Motorola commercial radios, FM and 40-50 Watts, and 5 Watt Cobra CB radios that are built as cheaply as possible, the FM CB idea may help with voice clarity and overall usability. AM has forced technicians to make a clean and efficient install, and users to bring them in for a watt-meter test when they suspect a problem.
As for location on GMRS, I have wanted this ever since taking a Garmin Rino 120 to Afghanistan in 2004. Many of us bought them for augmenting the Rockwell PSN-11, being careful about the location sending feature. Garmin's first series of Rino radio/GPS receivers were in many people's pockets, as they had a map, and were even olive drab green in the 120 model. That location feature helped a lot as well in certain situations......adding this to a higher power GMRS and mobile radio would be great. Hope it happens.
Garmin still has position reporting and text messaging in their GMRS Rino lineup. The top of the line is the 755T https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/534007/pn/010-01958-15
i have a model that’s a couple years older and I like it fine. Repeater support is built in, although disabled by default and there’s no way to memorize CTCSS codes or split tones for multiple repeaters on a single frequency, as far as I can tell on mine. I haven’t looked at the manual for this newest iteration.
-
On 8/17/2021 at 9:48 AM, rdunajewski said:
For anyone who was interested in the new RT97 repeater that can work with the myGMRS Network, we have a limited number in stock right now (9 left as of my last count).
The new model is the RT97S and it features a new metal case and a DB-9 port on the side for connecting an external repeater interface. These are FCC certified with the ID 2ASNSRT97.
We're going to offer plug-and-play linking bundles with this repeater so the audio levels should be preset and ready to go very soon.
https://shop.mygmrs.com/collections/featured-products/products/retevis-rt97s-portable-gmrs-repeater
Also, as of right now we're only stocking this new model instead of the original RT97. It doesn't make sense to stock both versions since they are so expensive, so we're just carrying the new one now.
Rich,
Would the external repeater interface allow an automatic ID to be added?
-
@WRFP399 That’s pretty slick. Because I only need it once a month and during that time to listen for 7-8 hours at a time and possibly transmit for a total of (much) less than an hour, I probably wouldn’t even add the solar charger, at least initially. I’ll look into the antenna (N9TAX) and I’ll gladly pore over your posts on battery life. Nothing beats empirical data!
Thanks!
-
5 hours ago, MichaelLAX said:
I wonder what frequency their Baofengs were programmed to on January 6th?
My guess: FRS or MURS; but I pick MURS with better VHS propagation!
477.985
https://forums.radioreference.com/threads/details-of-proud-boy-baofeng-usage-on-january-6.423763/
-
18 hours ago, PACNWComms said:
Welcome to the site. Current engineer here, and also worked on ICBM's for a while. Still use Garmin Rino 120's and 530's for various outdoor activities. However, my first use of the Garmin Rino 120 was in Afghanistan, in a sort of intra-team radio role, and to double check the AN/PSN-11 Rockwell GPS receiver, that did not have a map installed (or capable of showing one). What kind of range are you getting from the Rino's in rocketry recovery use?
It really depends on the terrain, of course. When we’re in the Black Rock desert or some other dry lake bed we get miles of coverage. In the hills of our Montana launch site we lose contact when we’re half a mile away on opposite sides of a hill. I’m thinking about trying an inexpensive Retevis RT-97 based man portable temporary repeater on a hill to the east, the crest of which I believe is visible from most of the gullies to our north. I’m curious to see if the location information will be passed through the repeater.
That’s interesting about your use of the Rino in Afghanistan. Did you have to load special maps or did Garmin have ones that were sufficient?
-
I’m WROM258 from Butte, Montana. I’m a retired engineer. My name is Steve. I’m into high power rocketry. We use Garmin Rino GMRS radios to communicate when we’re out on the range recovering rockets. I’m working on getting my ham license as well.
Thanks for letting me learn!
-
-
27 minutes ago, wayoverthere said:
As an alternative to a post sticking up, what about driving a larger piece of pipe into the ground, so your "mast" can slide down into it rather than over it, while not leaving something sticking up that could be a hazard when it isn't being used. That might be a little easier sell than something sticking up, though then it's how to mark it in a non-hazardous way...flexible flag of some kind?
That’s an idea. An in-ground socket. Maybe a flange at the top to make it easy to find. I’d probably plug it so it doesn’t fill with dirt between launches. Thanks for the idea.
-
43 minutes ago, Lscott said:
I’ve given up on SLA batteries. Switched over to using LFP, lithium iron phosphate, types. A good source is at the link below.
For solar charging in the field you need LFP specific charge controllers. I have several of the GV-5’s from this company.
https://sunforgellc.com/genasun/
Thanks for the info. I’ll look at those, but based on my anticipated usage, I doubt we’ll deplete the battery charge during a typical launch as it is.
We’ve used SLA 12v x 7000 mAh batteries for 19 years for the launch system and I can count on one hand the number of times we’ve had a battery fail. I recycled ten or so last year that were 18 years old, but continued working. If I ever get through the big pile of batteries that’s in my shop I’ll be very eager to try whatever new technology is available.
-
5 hours ago, BoxCar said:
Noob Steve,
Your proposed installation is sound and definitly workable. Probably the key item to your proposed install will be the antenna. No matter which antenna you use, the key will be antenna heighth. I would look into finding a metal fence post or long spike that could be driven into the hilltop and a PVC pipe slipped over it. Attach the antenna to the PVC for added height and you would be good to go. The spike or post could be left in place as there would be no damage to the environment (and unnoticeable unless you knew where to look). A ground rod or piece of rebar driven at least a foot nto the ground would be sufficient for your purposes and a 10 foot piece of 3/4 inch PVC serve as the mast. As you wouldn't launch in windy condition conditions, you don't need to worry about wind loading for the antenna.
I probably could get away with driving a post, but we share it with a rancher who grazes his cattle there. If something happened and he complained to the BLM we might lose access. I’d rather not chance it. Instead I thought I’d use the weight of the batteries to stabilize the antenna base. As I learn more about antennas I might be forced to admit you’re right. If so I’ll contact the rancher and the BLM before driving a post. We use aluminum 1010 rail for our launch rails and we have some tripod or quad pod bases for launch pads that I thought I might be able to repurpose as an antenna base, weighted down with the SLA batteries.
-
6 hours ago, Radioguy7268 said:
It sounds like a good use case for a small portable repeater. Not sure how far away the "hill to the east" would be, but if your max range is 5 miles, you probably don't need to get too carried away with picking out the exact perfect spot. Something closer to the center of your operations might work just as well and be less of a hike.
Not sure of the size of your rockets, but have you ever messed around with a LoRaWAN tracker? They are relatively small & light weight (two AA batteries).
Our rockets are anywhere from model rockets to 30 pounds or so.
I haven’t gotten my hands on a LoRa gadget yet. So far I’ve used rf beepers (raptor xmitters were the most common 10 years ago) and 915 MHz gps and telemetry devices, but a pair of GPS LoRa T-Beams is actually on my Amazon wishlist. My kids are always wanting to know what to get me for Christmas, so I didn’t buy them for myself yet. There is a rocket tracker manufacturer that I think uses LoRa. He advertises that his trackers will form a mesh network.
The hill is 1500 feet away and maybe 30-50 feet higher (swag) than where we’re permitted to launch. The hill blocks transmissions to the other side of itself as it is, so I thought maybe I could use it.
-
12 hours ago, MichaelLAX said:
Welcome to GMRS and myGMRS!
Although more expensive, rechargeable lithium batteries are much lighter to carry.
_________________________
Wagon Boss: It’s a butte!Wagon Boss: And right purdy, too!
— Firesign Theater, Temporarily Humbolt County, 1968
Thank you for the welcome. I probably looked right past the forum where I should introduce myself.
I absolutely agree that lipos would be lighter. However, I have a hundred or so SLA batteries and I thought that I could use them as ballast for the antenna base as well. I might end up switching to lipos after lugging them to the top of the hill a couple times. Or maybe I’ll get one of the younger rocketeers to carry them...
-
Very new guy here, but what I first noticed is the notion that a cheap repeater won’t do what a person wants, but that’s entirely based on an assumption of what that person wants, without ever asking.
So, here’s my use case:
I’m in an amateur rocketry club, launching from hilly land. The hills make simplex communications impossible when we’re retrieving rockets, even though the range is always under five miles and usually within one mile. However, there’s a tall hill to the east which is visible from most places. I suspect that hill would make a good spot for a temporary repeater in a man portable can. Because it’s BLM property, nothing permanent can be erected.
The repeater is only needed one day per month for about 8 hours and total air time is probably under a half hour. There are no GMRS repeaters within maybe 100 miles.
This seems like something that the Retevis RT-97 might do well. Because I would have to carry it to the top of the hill, it has to be something lightweight. We may not drive off-road and no roads go to the top of that hill.
This would probably be paid for out of my own pocket.
Why wouldn’t something like the Retevis, a whip antenna, and a couple SLA batteries in a five gallon bucket be appropriate for my purposes?
Thanks for your help,
Noob Steve
WROM258
Un-official GMRS travel channel?
in General Discussion
Posted
This doesn’t directly answer how it was chosen, but it gives some of the history:
Originally, there were only 23 CB channels in the U.S.; 40-channel radios did not come along until 1977. In the 1960s, channels 1-8 and 15-22 were reserved for "intrastation" communications among units under the same license, while the other channels (9-14 and 23) could be used for "interstation" calls to other licenses.
In the early 1970s, channel 9 became reserved for emergency use. Channel 10 was used for highway communications, and channel 11 was used as a general calling channel. Later, channel 19 became the preferred highway channel in most areas as it did not have the adjacent-channel interference problems with channel 9.
https://www.thetruckersreport.com/truckingindustryforum/threads/history-of-channel-19.82602/