SteveShannon

As has been mentioned, the ARRL has a book on the subject of Ground and bonding. Information can be found here: http://www.arrl.org/grounding-and-bonding-for-the-amateur. If you are in the mode of learning, purchase and read it.

The ARRL also has links to a lot of other references for those that care to dig in deeper. But be aware that there are competing theories amongst true experts about the ‘Best’ way.

From a pure safety standpoint, the National Electric Code describes the minimum requirements. This means, in part, that the NEC does not concern itself with RF grounding in any way that may help or hinder radio performance. Anything you may choose to do special for RF is over and above. So, at a minimum, follow the national electric code. At least if when you do, should you have a lose from lighting, your insurance company should have no leg to stand-on in denying your claim.


Now, let’s consider a common installation and a common and appropriate method of grounding. Here is the scenario.

You have a 30 foot metal antenna mast mounted outside, next to and attached to your home. A vertical antenna is mounted to the top of the mast. Your radio will be located in a first floor room or in the basement. The coaxial cable will enter the home within a few feet of the mast.

Hear are the steps involved.

A ground rod would be driven into the ground within a couple feet of the base of the mast. A heavy copper wire (#6 AWG) or larger would be used to interconnect the mast to this ground rod. Clamps made for this purpose would be used to secure the wire at both ends.

A coax of appropriate type and length is attached to your antenna. The coax runs down and is secured to the mast periodically so it does not flail in the wind. A coaxial cable lighting arrestor gets attached directly to the ground rod. The antenna coax attaches to the appropriate port on the arrestor.

A 2nd coax connects to the remaining port on the arrestor and is runs into your home and connects to your radio. The penetration into the home is sealed well against moisture ingress.

A #6AWG copper bonding conduction is then run below ground between your new ground rod to your home’s main/primary electrical ground rod. This bonding conductor is then securely connected to both ground rods. Clamps made for exactly this purpose are used. This step ensures both ground rods are now at the same voltage potential.

If your conditions are different, then some additions to, or modifications of this basic scenario will be warranted. In the end however, the basic principles will still be applied, just perhaps in a more complex configuration.

In summary, the mast gets connected to its own dedicated ground rod(s). A ground rod exists exists within feet of where the coaxial cable enters the home. The coaxial cable from the antenna gets connected to a lighting arrestor just before it enters the home. The lighting arrestor is either attached directly to the ground rod or interconnected to it with heavy copper cable (if it cannot be conductively mounted directly to it for some reason). All ground rods are bonded together with heavy copper cable per the NEC.

And there you have it, the basics.

If you pursue knowledge on this topic you will learn that none of these precautions will prevent damage to and perhaps total loss of your equipment in the event of a direct hit. Direct hits do happen to home antennas, but are relatively rare. What is far more common is lighting strikes nearby that induce voltage on your antenna system, and the static build up on the antenna system that can shock you or damage your equipment. It is these later two more common conditions that these steps ultimately help you with.

Good luck on your project.


Michael
WRHS965
KE8PLM

The part 90 rules don't just apply to equipment certified under part 90, but also regulate the use of any equipment in "the Public Safety, Industrial/Business Radio Pool, and Radiolocation Radio Services."

You'll always be liable for Federal tax on SS, most states exempt it from state tax.

The charge controllers I linked to claim little to no RFI generated.
 
Any type of switching power converter has the potential to generate huge levels of RFI unless it’s well shielded and proper filters on all of the wires going in and out of the box are used.
 
Many radio operators have experienced RFI just from using their table top DC power supply plugged into a wall outlet. Those aren’t the only sources either. You can search for and read the horror stories where people spent weeks or longer only to find it was the LED night light, malfunctioning power supply in a TV, computer was sitting to close to the radio, noise only present when the USB printer cable was plugged in etc.

@gortex2  I have a meter that I spent about $700 for that measures line loss.  It's been pretty good to me so far.  LOL

Updating, as I noticed I attached NIFOG version 1.6.1A in my previous post. Attaching NIFOG (National Interoperability Field Operations Guide) version 2.0 from August 2021. The first portion still describes when interop frequencies can be used by different types of users. Page 5 shows that Title 47 applies to Part: 80,87,90,95, and 97.
1937188711_NIFOGVer2.0_508version_FINAL_9_23_2021_(signed).pdf

Section 90.427(b) specifically prohibits programming unauthorized frequencies into a transmitter:
(b) Except for frequencies used in accordance with § 90.417, no person shall program into a transmitter frequencies for which the licensee using the transmitter is not authorized.
So, how does that fit into this conversation?  I’ll try to answer with some scenarios that I hope will explain my understanding.
1. Ms. Sierra Citizen, while out for a walk, finds a sheriff’s deputy slumped over in the front seat of his cruiser.  She has no cellphone service or any other communication device with her.  She picks up the microphone in the cruiser and asks for help. I believe the various exceptions which allow emergency communications would protect her from prosecution. 
2. Mr. Joe Prepper has every frequency programmed into his portable radio.  He finds a person slumped over in the front seat of their car.  He picks up his portable radio and calls on an EMS dispatch frequency for which he is not authorized.  I believe that even though he potentially saves the life of the person, he has clearly violated 90.427(b) by having his transmitter preprogrammed with unauthorized frequencies.  I’d be surprised if he wasn’t prosecuted.
The bottom line is this, the emergency provisions allow great latitude in radio usage in true emergencies, but they don’t serve to waive the rules that establish and protect communications systems simply to be prepared.

Section 90.427(b) specifically prohibits programming unauthorized frequencies into a transmitter:
(b) Except for frequencies used in accordance with § 90.417, no person shall program into a transmitter frequencies for which the licensee using the transmitter is not authorized.
So, how does that fit into this conversation?  I’ll try to answer with some scenarios that I hope will explain my understanding.
1. Ms. Sierra Citizen, while out for a walk, finds a sheriff’s deputy slumped over in the front seat of his cruiser.  She has no cellphone service or any other communication device with her.  She picks up the microphone in the cruiser and asks for help. I believe the various exceptions which allow emergency communications would protect her from prosecution. 
2. Mr. Joe Prepper has every frequency programmed into his portable radio.  He finds a person slumped over in the front seat of their car.  He picks up his portable radio and calls on an EMS dispatch frequency for which he is not authorized.  I believe that even though he potentially saves the life of the person, he has clearly violated 90.427(b) by having his transmitter preprogrammed with unauthorized frequencies.  I’d be surprised if he wasn’t prosecuted.
The bottom line is this, the emergency provisions allow great latitude in radio usage in true emergencies, but they don’t serve to waive the rules that establish and protect communications systems simply to be prepared.

This is a great video of physicist, Dr. Greg Latta, explaining what exactly SWR is and how it impacts your radio.  At an hour, it is a little slow, but very much worth the watch if you want to learn exactly what is happening. 
 
 
 

You could not make up a story like this...  I sign up for USPS Informed Delivery a free service if available in your area: https://informeddelivery.usps.com/box/pages/intro/start.action
 

Fixed Stations by definition cannot communicate through a repeater. Fixed Stations communicate with other Fixed Stations.

I think that’s probably correct, telemetry stations with grandfathered licenses for the fixed stations rather than the individual licenses that are issued for GMRS users.

Yes, if your radio's CPS software allows for input by say, comma-separated values (csv); for example: CHIRP, do this:
1) Filter the repeaters on myGMRS as needed for your area (Advanced Search);
2) Slide your mouse across the first repeater selected and down to the last repeater selected (with the button pushed down) to Select All the filtered repeaters; 
3) Do a Control-C copy (Windows or Command-C for Mac);
4) Open a text editor or word processor and in a new-blank document, do a Control-V paste (Windows or Command-V for Mac);
5) Save this document as something like "MyRepeaters.csv"
6) Follow the directions in How to use CSV files in CHIRP
This is not exactly "plug and play" but once you get the hang of it, you can save you some time vs. manually typing them in, especially if there are many filtered repeaters:
 
 

The rule for Line A is required of the FCC by a treaty between the USA and Canada, not by lack of motivation by the FCC.  Until Canada and the USA amend the treaty the FCC cannot change the rule. 

Hi Scott,
 
Welcome! Once you get your GMRS license it will take another 24-48 hours for our website to see it (unfortunately a delay caused by the FCC). So be sure to come back and register as soon as you're able!
 
GMRS repeater linking traditionally has been a contentious issue because the Part 95 rules were not clear on it. The rules were written before linking via the Internet was even a thing, so there were old rules which covered interconnection to the PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network) to prevent autopatch use on GMRS. Rules referenced other rule parts that no longer existed, for example, it was a real mess. Everyone had been confused for many years and the FCC did not provide any clarification until the recent rule changes in 2017.
 
Now, network connection (but still not via the PSTN) is permissible. There are blanket restrictions in Part 95 against linking, but there are overriding rules in Part 95 Subpart E which covers GMRS. This is much clearer than what we had in the past, and opens up repeater linking. There are still other rules to be mindful of, like not causing interference, making sure unlicensed users cannot transmit, cooperative channel use, etc.
 
I have started the myGMRS Network, which uses a customized version of AllstarLink software running on Raspberry Pi computers (although you can also use 32-bit or 64-bit x86 computers as well). These run Linux and use a radio interface to connect to the repeater itself. Right now we have over 50 repeaters on the system across the US, and it's the system we use to run the National GMRS Net every Sunday.
 
Anyone with a real repeater (no simplex nodes running at someone's house) are allowed to join the network. We sell linking bundle kits which give you everything you need except an interface cable to your repeater (and we may even be able to build a custom cable for you, depending on the repeater model). 
 
Currently there is no membership cost to join the network. Your repeaters would not need to be connected to any of our other repeaters, it's up to each owner to decide who they connect to and when. You'll see on our linking map that most repeaters are linked regionally most of the time but on Sundays they all link to our National Hub (Node 100) for the weekly net, and then disconnect to go back to being regional systems. The idea here was to have one unified system that is interoperable, but we're not forcing people to link. It's better than every group having their own setup and no common technology.
 
myGMRS Network Map (red lines show which nodes are currently connected, red dots are currently receiving RF traffic, blue dots are offline)
myGMRS Repeater Linking Bundle

You will probably find that just getting a Wouxun 805G for $80 is a lot cheaper than trying to find some special triple band radio.
Many commercial radios (I think) can only be programmed with a computer. 
 
I'm also a long time ham and bought a pair of 805G's so I can use with the wife and fishing friends etc.
It just worked out best that way.
 
You will find that your 440/70cm antennas work well though.
Also, Wouxun works with some Kenwood accessories like speaker mics.
 
Vince

Well, not knowing the gear I own (and didn't mention) I can understand the skepticism.  The spectrum analyzers on my bench were calibrated about three months ago, and I have a 10MHz Rubidium standard driving all three of them. My favorite is my IFR/Aeroflex 1200S Super. The other two are a CT Systems 3000B and a Shenzhen AT-5011. All three have tracking generators.
I used my XPR5550 and XPR7550 as "benchmarks" and any of my Chinese/Malaysian/Japanese made radios that generated spurs were taken out of service. The only ones that failed were several early release UV-5Rs, and a TYT MD-2017.

A little history on CB, the reason truckers picked 19 as their channel is 100% technology driven.  CB radios go from channel 1 on 26.965 MHz, to channel 40 on 27.405 MHz.  CB radio's and antennas are covering 440 KHz, which is actually a very large swath of spectrum. 
 
Because the frequency range is so large, its not affordable to make a CB perform equally on all frequencies.  So, the radio and antenna is tuned for maximum performance in the frequency range center, which is 27.185 MHz... aka channel 19.
 
A common issue with the CB is, you can get close to full legal power limit (4 watts am, 12.5 watts SSB) on the center frequency, but on channel 1 and channel 40, your power will be low and SWR will tend to be higher, causing more losses.  Also, over the many decades of servicing CB's, I have seen as little as 1.5 watts on AM and 2.5 watts on SSB with a 2.5:1 SWR.
 
Well, no such thing as repeaters for CB and if you wanted to get the maximum mobile to mobile range, you would pick the center frequency for the full 4w/12.5w and 1:1 SWR.  That is literally the only reason why 19 became so popular for truckers.

Cool!

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/

So you asked a question about something unsettled.  You didn't know.  I don't think its a big deal.
I also don't think everyone has to agree in order to be considered playing well with others.  In fact, I think society in general has come to believe that disagreement is hostile.  That's the real sad state of affairs.  I think we can all disagree and still enjoy discussion.  A forum is for discussion.  I've never read anywhere that there was a requirement for agreement.  In fact, I think there is far less growth when there is no disagreement.  I think it is healthy, on the whole.
I don't think anyone has crossed the lines and gotten intentionally personal or nasty.   But that's just my opinion, (which I'm sure many around here would agree is worth 2 cents.  A few seem very scared it is worth much more than that, though.  Lol.)
This is one thread in a forum full of many topics. Folks who disagree on this topic probably agree on many others.  And most threads don't really involve any disagreement.
I'd just advise not taking any of it too seriously.  If someone gets feelings hurt around here, they probably need to take a break and regain perspective.  I know some disagree with me a great deal right here in this thread, and with some good support for it.  I'm fine with that and still would consider each of them friends with more in common than not.  Some might be surprised to know that my opinion can be changed sometimes, too.  It might take some work to get me there, though. ?

gman1971 we are all very aware of your opinion of any radio other than some professional part 90 radio. The problem with your opinion, is that if we all took that route, companies would stop manufacturing new Part 95 radios. Yes, I am very aware of what Superheterodyne is. I grew up in a radio shop, it was my dad's business. The point is though, the radio in question is not a radio on chip radio. That is all I said. 
 
The attitude of some on this site is getting to be as bad as the other radio site. It is a shame. All that is accomplished by this type of attitude is to drive new users off. Some people's needs can be very easily met using some of the radios you deem junk. Use what you want, and I am not saying you are wrong when you use a Part 90 radio from Motorola, or Kenwood, they are great radios, I know. Some people however want and nice off the shelf solution, and Midland, Wouxun, and others will fit their needs nicely. The Wouxun radio in question would be great for me, due to its detachable faceplate, which would make mounting in my car possible. I don't have room for a Motorola in my car, there is no good way to mount it. If I can take the largest part and mount it under the seat, then that would work nicely. 
 
Too many people here spout off about a radio without ever actually using it, seeing it, or even reading its specs. It's ridiculous and counterproductive. Not everyone needs, or desires, a Part 90 professional radio. 

The Wouxun KG 1000g uses a superheterodyne receiver. It is not a radio on a chip design. People need to actually learn about the radios they dismiss. If people keep maligning new GMRS radios online, without actually understanding the specs, manufacturers will stop producing new GMRS radios. I, for one, am happy to see companies actually producing GMRS radios. Sorry, but if we are relegated to only buying old radios that are not Part 95 certified, but Part 90 certified, eventually we will have no radios available for use, and no new GMRS radios. 

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?  ?

And again, you missed it.  He was being funny.  Watch the video.  Did you not see the crown?  He's a funny dude and does not take himself or the subject too seriously, except for helping others.  He works very hard at that and does a great job of it.