SteveShannon

Welcome! What are you trying to set it up to do? I don’t have one but others do and will need to know more about your goals.

The ad on Crutchfield says it’s RG-58A/U which is definitely a high loss cable at UHF frequencies. The power loss difference between being six feet long and 19.5 feet long is 26%. At six feet you lose 15% of the power and at 19.5 you lose 41%. So, I have to give @tcp2525 credit that it makes sense to shorten it.

Best wishes for your treatment! Never give up on yourself!

For some people GMRS is a hobby. Maybe instead of ham radio for some and that’s perfectly okay. I use GMRS in pursuit of my rocketry hobby, but GMRS reawakened my interest in radio which led me to get my ham radio license. Yes, GMRS can be used for a business.

You can’t go wrong with that.

As I said, calculate the difference between six feet and nineteen feet to see whether there’s any real difference. I doubt that it will ever make a difference in range, especially if he has no experience with terminating cables.

It’s probably not worth it to shorten that cable. Calculate the losses and you’ll see that they’re very low, but if you want make sure you buy a good quality pl-259 connector for that exact cable. If the one that’s already on it is removable you might be able to use it.

Here’s a Notarubicon video comparing the uv9gx to the 935:

I’m pretty sure the Notarubicon YouTube channel has a review of it. It’s a decent one. It’s not waterproof though. In the ad it says IP55, which is water resistant, but not suitable for full immersion. Only you can predict if it has to withstand immersion. Also consider the KG935 or the KG905. Here’s the review:

If you leave the tone off your receiver it will receive everything, whether there’s an output tone or not.

This!!! Forums are always full of people who just can’t believe that rules and laws mean nothing more or less than what is actually written in the rule or law, not what is written elsewhere. They always attempt to explain the intent, but the fact is that intent is worthless. The only thing that ever matters in a courtroom is the letter of the law. But the reality is that the road to the courthouse can be very expensive and most of us know that we can’t afford to fight as long as it might take to get to the letter of the law. That’s where risk aversion comes from.

I agree with much of what you said. Ham radio clubs or ham radio repeaters owners definitely can be charged for tower space. They can be charged for power usage. They can be rented space for the rack. They’re subject to all the same charges any other tenant is. But exactly as you say ham radio clubs can’t charge for access to repeaters by amateur radio operators. In some cases the landlord/tower owner might donate their power/tower/facility space to a charity, like a 501c3 ham club. The club I’m secretary of isn’t charged for tower rent, but we have our own meter and pay monthly for energy usage. Our landlord could change that if they wanted and we’re painfully aware of that.

Unfortunately that’s true. Every group inevitably gains embittered members. Fortunately for me the hams in my area are very helpful.

Yeah, it’s just not true. It would be great if it were. In fact I think radio manufacturers should be required to give their radios to hams.

Oh, hell. No implications were intended but it’s amusing to see how you reacted.

That big spool of coax might have a use, but you’ll need to figure out what kind it is. I suspect it’s cable tv coax which is 75 ohm. It has its uses, but probably not much for GMRS. When communicating through a repeater you’ll be transmitting on a different frequency than you receive. By definition the simplex repeater would not do that.

If it’s one with both a gas tube and a blocking cap then yes it might be directional. Here’s a datasheet for a polyphasor with just a gas tube. Note that it says bidirectional: https://www.polyphaser.com/Images/Downloadables/Datasheets/103-0324A-A_datasheets_US.pdf Here’s a datasheet for one with the gas tube and cap. It’s also bi-directional. https://www.polyphaser.com/Images/Downloadables/Datasheets/098-1013G-A_datasheets_US.pdf Here’s a link to a directional one: https://www.polyphaser.com/Images/Downloadables/Datasheets/RRX4025A_datasheets_US.pdf

No, but welcome! The mag base antenna may help, but see if it requires a ground plane. If it does then use a steel cookie sheet. A better antenna would definitely help.

If you take it apart you’ll see that electrically it doesn’t matter. It’s really just a gas tube perpendicular to the center conductor of the feed line. Mechanically, having the long side towards the antenna makes it easier to mount in a bracket with the antenna connector convenient to unscrew.

If you look at the regulations they specifically prohibit operating as a commercial carrier but they say that companies who are licensed may operate nonprofitably. I’ve never seen anything that says a repeater owner can’t recuperate costs. Ham radio is completely different. There it’s specifically prohibited to charge.

The OP logged in at 6:40 am yesterday and left at 6:43 am. He didn’t explicitly ask a question and he hasn’t been back. I responded by anticipating that he might be asking what to do with the information he had. I think most others did too.

More plentiful also.

You’re really not good at reading comprehension are you?

No

What happened in New York appears to have been a cautious reaction to an unofficial warning. That did not establish any kind of legal precedent. The FCC has a website that clearly says “any other network” in a way that appears to conflict with the written rules. What people fail to understand is that only the written rules have legal status and even the written rules can be challenged. If the FCC attempted to cite someone based on their “any other network” website interpretation they would have to show that their interpretation is supported by the written rules. That would be expensive for all parties but stranger things have happened. With the recent SCOTUS decision regarding Chevron Deference it may be even easier to defend against the FCC interpretation, but until someone is cited and fights the citation we won’t have anything other than our opinions to argue about. An organization I serve joined another similar organization to sue ATF in federal court over their classification of rocket propellant as an explosive (it isn’t). We fought for nine years. We prevailed and ATF had to reimburse us for our legal costs. Our two organizations had less than 15,000 members at the time. ATF was relying on their claimed expertise but we were able to demonstrate that they were technically incorrect.