SteveShannon

And here it is. Antennas are tuned to specific frequencies. When they’re used at frequencies other than those they’re tuned for, the results are usually bad. Also, the cable used for a CB antenna is usually very lossy at GMRS frequencies. So, as Randy said, no.

It still appears in the database, but browsing the map it doesn’t appear. I don’t know why. I tried it with offline and stale both turned on.

You are the opposite of a “Sad Ham”. Great job!

Obviously you don’t ground a fiberglass mast, but your coax shield is attached to part of the antenna somewhere and it will develop a charge as air currents pass over it. Now the difference in potentials is between the metal parts of the antenna connected to the shield of the coax and the service ground, again going through your equipment and possibly you. One of the purposes of a surge suppressor (commonly called a lightning protector but nobody guarantees that) is to allow you to bond the coax shield to the grounding system.

Use one of the many coax loss calculators to see if the loss for that length is acceptable to you.

Let’s disregard lightning protection for a few minutes and just talk about bonding to your house service ground. Your tower is sort of grounded. We all agree with that I think. It’s embedded in an imperfect conductor, concrete, at the bottom. To improve the grounding a ground wire runs from each leg of the tower to a ground rod. But any two separate ground rods are almost always at different potentials. Whenever you have different potentials between two points in a circuit you will have electric currents flowing from one point to the other. So, the three or four legs of the tower are bonded together using a material that is more conductive than the tower itself. Otherwise you have current flowing between the legs of your tower. If current flows between the legs of your tower over time the metal of the tower will corrode. Bonding between the three or four legs provides an easier path for the current to flow which keeps the legs all at the same potential. In addition your antenna mount is certainly connected electrically to your tower and your coax shield is connected to your antenna mount. Your coax shield then runs to your radio. If you have a watt meter, amplifier, or any other device between your radio and your antenna, they are all connected serially via the coax shield. Their metal cases are all connected to the coax shield. So all of the devices in your shack are connected together via the coax shield. If a power surge comes through the shield (static, lightning, unicorn farts, whatever) it is going to cause current to flow through your equipment because that’s the most direct path. By bonding the chassis of all those devices to a single point, we provide a much better path that doesn’t flow through those devices. So that’s why we use a single point ground. But remember, that single point ground is connected to ground at the tower. You power your radio with a power supply that’s plugged into your house power. Its case is connected to the ground wire in the outlet which runs back to the service panel where it’s bonded to the service ground for the utility power coming into your house. It has to be because NEC says so. So let’s say you don’t have your single point ground bonded to your service ground. You reach out to touch your radio and at the same time your brush your other hand on the power supply. The potential of your tower ground, which is what your one hand is touching, is probably different than the potential of the service ground, which is what your other hand is feeling. And it’s DC. Your heart can be stopped by as little as 1/10 of an ampere. So you die. So we bond the tower ground to the utility ground to ensure they are at the same potential and save your life. Also with fewer ground currents in the shack we hear less noise.

What’s your call sign so Rich can look you up?

“That idiot’s talking to a brick!!!” is less of a chick magnet than a good belt clip handheld.

I have wanted to go to Promontory to watch some of these tests for years. I’m envious. Good for you taking your kids!!! It’s never too early to get them interested in science.

They released a press statement saying their engine failure was due to a stray radio transmission.

Terri’s post nailed it. The only thing I would add is that when asking a question like this it’s helpful to include a link to the precise item ordered. There are often several listings for each model, with listings by different vendors. Yes, you ordered “from Amazon” but it’s more important knowing who the actual vendor was. That also greatly affects the return policy. Personally I try to limit my purchases to Prime, but that’s not always possible.

No idea, but if the screw threads don’t match you’re screwed. Pun intended.

It seems to work for everyone else. The only thing I saw was the password reset requirement. The website always resolved correctly within one refresh for me.

Nothing says you have to throw BTech or yourself under the bus to make a suggestion for a rule change. Frankly, I don’t think the FCC knows when there are violations. They have neither the people nor an interest in challenging the certification atteststions submitted by manufacturers unless the problems are so egregious that someone reports them.

From time to time my browser displays something like you posted, but a quick refresh almost always results in the correct look. It usually happens when I have limited service and slow speeds. What does speedtest tell you? https://www.speedtest.net/

That would be a good thing to send to the fcc in response to their request for regulation simplification suggestions. I agree that it absolutely makes sense to look at the output of the box, but that’s not how the regulations are currently written.

I think that’s a problem on your end. Here’s how it looks in Chrome (and Safari) on my iPad:

Thanks, Marc. The test report (not performed by the FCC) doesn’t even mention the existence of a duplexer. Although the test setup photos do show that the repeater output is what’s being tested, I wonder if the FCC even realized that there’s an internal duplexer.

I’m not sure why you think regulations are different if the transmitter and duplexer are packed into an enclosure. The regulations very clearly state that the transmitter output power must be limited to 50 watts, not that the all-in-one box output power must be limited to 50 watts. You obviously understand the difference because you clearly distinguished between the transmitter output power and the duplexer output in your earlier post. But that was really the least of my concerns. The fact is that the transmitter is putting out 71 watts, which is harder on the circuits. That’s 40% higher power than designed.

The excessive RF power will take a toll on the circuitry of the transmitter as well as being non-compliant with GMRS regulations. I would suggest adjusting the RF output down to 50 watts at the transmitter output, before the input to the low side of the duplexer. Many times repeaters are run at reduced power levels to prevent early failure.

Good edit!

I agree. Fortunately, the behavior that Marc described is becoming less common, at least in my area. I don’t know of any hams in our club who look down their noses at GMRS licensees, but most of us would be very happy to help an interested GMRS licensee become a ham also. For any widespread emergencies amateur radio has an advantage, but for nearby emergency communications GMRS and FRS are much more easily accessible to more people. Ham clubs should be studying how these services can be complementary to each other.

Maybe they fixed it in the past six years…

It would probably be too difficult to send them all in and ask for updated batteries. You should label or otherwise permanently mark the good new battery. Am I correct in believing that the bad batteries work in every way except negotiating ultra-high voltages once they hit fully charged?

Your username is mdyoungblood if that helps.