WROZ250

Love It! That was one of the statements radio sales people used to suggest coverage expectations back in the 1960-1980s, in the days before coverage prediction software, "100W , 100ft, 100 miles"! And as you say, (depending on terrain) that was generally a true statement for VHF (high and low).

I'll start by saying the military has a lot of technology not accessible to the average American. LOL! That said, today there are software applications used in Amateur radio made specifically for bouncing signals off of the ionized trails given off of meteors, usually data bursts (which is probably what your ferries example were using) because it's not like these sort of paths last very long, at least not long enough for a typical voice transmission. A fractional second data burst can convey more information than a 3 minute voice message, especially when you factor in forward error correction and automatic retries. Technology is pretty cool, but sometimes it is just nice to sit back and actually talk to someone!

Not saying it wasn't tropo, but it sounds more like normal/typical path margins. I routinely monitor a GMRS repeater in the Las Vegas area which is about 90-95 miles away from me. Most days the signal is pretty decent, other days it has a lot of 'popcorn' on it. I also have a few mountains between me and Las Vegas and the overall terrain is desert with a lot of temperature variations throughout the day, all of which get reflected up into the atmosphere (RF path). There are a lot of things that can make or break a path, especially at UHF. Don't know where in Florida you are, but as childhood memory serves me, it's pretty humid there. One thing known to eat (attenuate) UHF signals is water vapor (not sure if salt in that vapor contributes). So it is possible that there are 'weather related events' that might be altering the moisture content along the path between you and the repeater. Weather is not the only factor either. Again, when stretching the proverbial rubber-band (long distance paths), a lot of things come into play. Finally, flat is a relative term. That 330ft tower at 130 miles away isn't actually 330ft anymore where that path is concerned. More like 86ft relative to you at 130 miles away. That probably allows for more path obstructions to come into play. Again, there are a lot of variables involved. So, forget all that mumbo jumbo and just have fun on the air!

The 1970's event? That was primarily 2 meters, but there were a couple of UHF guys saying they experienced some ducting as well. I personally, didn't have any UHF equipment at the time, so I cannot say for certain that UHF was enhanced by the event. You gotta remember that back in the 1970s, operating UHF was just getting popular in amateur radio, at least in the Midwest. Most of the people I knew who were on UHF were doing SSB and CW (and then usually with transverters) so if there was any tropo ducting going on at UHF, they would probably know it. As I recall, there were only like 20 UHF repeaters in the Chicago area back then. Today, you can't find an unassigned pair. A lot changes in 50 years! Tropo can and does happen at UHF, but I think it far more rare than at VHF. That said, that mid 1970's event was extraordinary by anyone's measure.

Tropo ducting is also a weather generated phenomena. When I lived in the Midwest, it happened more often than it does down here in the Southwest (if it happens at all here). It typically impacts VHF and UHF communications. It is not unheard of to have contacts in the hundreds, even 1000+ miles under the right conditions. Pretty cool when it happens, but despite the prediction tools, nobody really knows for sure where or when it is going to happen. It's kinda like predicting tornadoes... you know the 'conditions' are present, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen. Back in the 1970s, there was a repeating pattern in the weather every morning for about a week. It was so strong, it was causing ham repeaters in Chicago area to lock up with repeaters in the Detroit area (Michigan used repeater input and output frequencies inverse to what Illinois used. Normally not a problem). In any event, despite being somewhat disruptive to local communications, it was fun because for about 3 hours every morning, you could hear (and QSO) guys in Detroit during their morning commute and vise-versa. The police had issues with it because many departments (on shared frequencies), that would normally be far out of their respective communications range, now had to deal with and sort out traffic from multiple agencies. I've not seen a Tropo incident of that magnitude or duration since. Indeed, typically Tropo ducting is a very short in duration, but that too depends on the weather!

Log into your CORS account, and check under 'APPLICATIONS'. You should see some kind of status. Also, by the time you read this your license probably has already been granted. They (FCC) don't process on the weekends (or at least provide any status) and there will not be any email until it is granted. If they are on typical schedule, you'll have your license by Wednesday or Thursday. - "We're from the government, we're here to help" LMAO ROTF!!!

The thing is, you can have either type, ROC or SuperHet and either can be a poor design or superb. ROC isn't a lesser radio by default. Ultimately it is the overall design that makes or breaks radio performance. The problem, IMHO, is that we find ROC in many of the cheaper radios which suggests that perhaps the supporting design isn't very good. Nevertheless, it would not be impossible to design a very high performing radio around a ROC core. A poorly designed SuperHet can have horrible performance as well, so again, it's the overall design of a given radio, not necessarily the core technology in use. There are many factors that determine how well or poorly a radio will perform. Just an opinion...

My 'go to' radio is a KG-935G, so I can change the bandwidth. That said, you originally stated that you were interested in channels 15-22 which, as a GMRS operator, you can select wide or narrow (depending on your radio) Some let you change stuff and/or have the ability to put custom channels into memory. That however, is not universal with the current crop of radios that are Part 95e radios.

Personally, I think starting at the ground and using the side of the house would be a good move. However again, the second issue is securely attaching an extension (assuming you want height) to the first. Not sure what that pipe is made of (Galvanized Steel?), so maybe some sort of fitting and perhaps welding would be in order. You still need a proper guy wire system even with the attachment to the side of the house. All that said, and since you cannot get away without a guy wire system, it's probably best to start by purchasing a proper mast. 60ft may not sound high, but when talking about a mast, that's pretty high, especially when you attach something other than a wire antenna and, the last thing you want is that mast collapse and fall and perhaps damage your roof ($$$). It's a tough call and I do feel you pain so to say. As I noted previously, I'm going with a 25ft free standing tower once the weather improves and, unfortunately where I live, the permits get filed (I need a farm! LOL!). Just one opinion. Good Luck in any event!

Unfortunately, I am not intimately familiar with chain link fencing hardware, although it looks like it would do the job... That said, I've experimented with a lot of DIY masts using off the shelf hardware and many of these items will work. However, as strong as some material/pipe appears, once it is vertical with an antenna on it, you find out very quickly that it isn't what you expected. If you do this, guy wires are definitely going to be a 'must have' and, I think what you have planned may very well be sufficient, unless you live in an area with frequent high winds. As PACNWComms noted, you may be better off with a mast intended for this purpose. FWIW, my current DIY mast is only 25Ft (AGL) made from 2 inch, off the shelf 'conduit' (Home Depot), and it absolutely requires guy wires. It's predecessor of the same design, without guys, looked like it was perfect for the job, but eventually flexed so much under the load, that it snapped at the base. What is out there now still gives me concerns and ultimately it is going to be replaced with a a 25ft, free standing, Rohn tower. It's easy and financially attractive to go with other materials from the local hardware store but, in the end, it may be cheaper to just bite the bullet so to speak, spend the money and use something designed for the job. For example, ask yourself, how much did you spend on your antenna? I watched $110 of antenna drop and get shattered. That alone was aggravation, not to mention the cost of a new (DIY) mast and the time to re-erect it. I was lucky still, as my hardline was undamaged. Just one person's opinion (experience)...

It is also interesting to note that some of the newer GMRS radios come with 'compander' technology which, if enabled, increases/improves the audio quality/readability when operating in narrow mode. That said, if the receiving radio is not compatible/equipped with the said technology, the alleged performance improvement from compander technology, probably doesn't offer any improvement in reception/audio quality.

FWIW... It would appear, based on what I found with a couple of searches, that all FRS frequencies are 12.5 KHz (narrow) for FRS radios. GMRS radios are restricted to 12.5 KHz on channels 8-14, which are the 467 MHz splinter frequencies between the 467 MHz repeater inputs. Otherwise, GMRS radios are 20/25 KHz (Wide), but there is nothing forcing that, so GMRS radios can be narrow-band if desired.

Be Warned - UPDATE! Hey all, just wanted to throw out an additional warning on this mod, especially after hearing some of the Las Vegas guys this morning talking about it on a GT5R. The original mod as depicted on YouTube is using a UV5R. However, like the Vegas guys were discussing, I did the mod on a GT5R, which is the 'legal' ham version in the GT5nn series radio. So after unwittingly doing the mod on said GT5R, I noticed some unstable behavior. BTW, Chirp now supports the GT5R under Baofeng (as appose to Radioddity where it once was. Anyway... I would best describe the current behavior as unpredictable. On GMRS, it works fine on Simplex, but when you try and put in a repeater split (which BTW does not seem to actually program even when set), upon key-up, the radio displays 999.9999 and locks up on TX. You have to cycle power to get it to stop. On the upside... if you are a ham, the radio now transmits on 220 band and, it is (very much) to my surprise, clean on the second and third harmonics as measured on my spectrum analyzer. Likewise, it still works at VHF in general and receives fine on UHF. That said, (only) above ~465 MHz transmitting is hit or miss. While I have no doubt the mod is fine on the UV5R, I would advise one not to do this on the GT5R. Just an observation...

Very Nice!!! There is just something about the old tube radios (Real Radios Glow In The Dark?). Never been big on CB, but I do love the old classics that had tubes!

As has been said, with an open load (no antenna), most radios will be fine. However as OldRadioGuy noted, having the line unterminated (no Antenna/Load) at the magical 1/4 wave (or odd multiples thereof) it is 'more likely' to damage the radio, as the end of an open 1/4 wave of coax appears as a short to RF. Also, I keep seeing people say things about tube radios and the no or bad antenna scenario. However, the vast majority of old tube rigs could tolerate some pretty bad loads. Sure, some could fail, but most just turned funny colors and got hot. That said, doing that repeatedly or for long periods of time did tend to weaken a tube, and eventually cause it to fail prematurely. Tubes in general, were very forgiving.

All of the radios I've seen and/or used that are part95 GMRS, are no more easier or difficult to program than any other radio. Even some of the $30 specials (think UV5G) will let you name a preset channel and CTCSS tone, but you can't add custom transmit channels. Unfortunately, it seems one needs to have a mid-high tier radio to program in custom channels. The limitations you speak of have nothing to do with Part 95, and everything to do with the manufacturer. You didn't actually say what radio you have? I started with the a UV5G and quickly became annoyed with its limitations. Therefore, I recently obtained a KG-935G and the difference is extremely obvious. However, so is the price, at $150. That said, it's a great deal (with none of the limitations you described) and well worth the expense as others here will tell you. With the KG-935G, I can erase the default channels and replace them with whatever I want, same frequency, different CTCSS (or DCS) or, just add them to any free memory. I can choose the power, pretty much anything except transmitting on a non-GMRS frequency. Bottom line, like anything, you need to 'invest' in a better product. Alternatively, there are non Part 95 radios (business, part 90) that offer a lot of flexibility but not necessarily changes on the fly (from keypad, etc..) Some of these radios can be found for under $100 (if you don't care about the part 95 certification). I will say it pays to educate yourself and read/watch the reviews on different radios. Where possible, download and read the user manual for a radio you think you might be interested in. Many times that will give you a better perspective on what it is capable of. Good Luck! 73

Not really but...

There are reasons using the cigarette light socket for radio power is not recommended, especially higher power radios. 1.) A lighter socket connection is pretty poor under the best conditions. 2.) In many late model vehicles, the lighter socket may (may) not have enough current capacity to operate that radio at full power. There are a lot of quick disconnect solutions that would allow you to remove the radio quickly. Anderson 'Power Poles" come to mind and a lot of power supplies these days now come with them by default. Ironically, crimping a connector (assuming it's done properly), is supposedly now the preferred method over soldering, especially on connectors that are going to be routinely connected and disconnected and, they are (in theory) idiot proof. The explanations for crimping I have seen suggest that, where a wire and connector are soldered, the wire loses flexibility and will eventually break, So again, the (apparent) suggested method is to crimp. There is no method cast in stone, any of what has already been suggested should work. Just be aware that on high power that radio is going to want some current. Nice choice of radio BTW, enjoy!

Yeah, I wish I had seen that video (with the warning). FWIW, it wasn't your video I watched before doing the mod. In fact, I watched your video (after I found it) hoping maybe you knew how. Either way, the failure is ultimately on me for not considering the possibility of a one way mod. Could be worse, could have been an expensive radio! Thanks for the response in any event.

Well, after watching a couple of videos on the subject, it turns out the 'hack' for the UV-5R (actually any of the UV-5nn series) actually works and unlocks the frequency restriction on the radio. Now granted, it's only a $30 radio, so no huge loss, but it would be nice to be able to re-lock/restrict/undo the frequency hack. My personal dilemma is the radio belongs to my other half and was purchased specifically to avoid their operating out of band, especially when their primary use of the radio is as a scanner. Worse case scenario I sell it to somebody who wants a hacked radio and I buy another to replace it (FWIW, I'm not big on hacks, just curious). It would be nice to be able to, as noted above, put it back the way it was. It would also be nice if people putting up the unlock videos might also tell you how to revert the radio back, or at least provide a warning that the hack is a one way trip (If that is the case). That said, this was my fault for not asking myself that question before I decided to see if the hack actually worked (stupid stupid stupid). ? Live and learn!

I loved the video, but it had me cringing at the same time. Kind of an expensive way to prove a point (but you absolutely proved it). Kudos Oh and thanks, now I'll have no inclination to drop mine onto concrete... at least intentionally!

Thank You TOM47! I'd not seen this video from Randy and it made my day! LOL! Also proved my point (IMHO). ?

OK, close enough... I kinda figured it was something like that, just had never seen that before. Thanks! I will admit that I was never fond of the Chinese radios and am still not fond of many of them. That said, it does seem like Wouxun is at least trying to make a decent radio these days and for the money. I kinda have to laugh, because as a former Motorola employee (retired now) I can say with some authority that, these days many, if not all of their radios, are at least assembled in places like Mexico and the far east, even China. Yes, the design is, in the majority of cases, American and, lets be real, the radios do tend to be of a much higher quality than the import radios. Still, the price differential is substantial and beyond the budget of the average radio enthusiast. Compound that with, in the case of the commercial product line (not sure about their GMRS specific radios), you either have to pay a service shop to make programming changes and/or spend something around $250 (USD) per year to legally possess the software (not own). FWIW, Motorola legal has a pretty good track record of making examples (legally speaking) out of those found to have and/or using the software without a license. Yeah, I know there are those who do kinda don't care (what are the odds anyway.?) As a former Motorolan, I can attest to the the quality of the design and the radios and indeed, I am absolutely a fan of these radios as well. Sadly, I actually chose to get rid of my Motorola radios shortly after I retired because I did not have access to the software anymore. I also had too much to lose (still do) were I to be caught without a software license (the odds of being caught be damned). As noted, Motorola legal was well known (at least within the company) for being ruthless with those who were caught and, many would be surprised at who 'dropped a dime' on those who were prosecuted. All that said, some (not all) of the Chinese radios are, as previously noted, pretty decent radios for the money, even if they don't match for example, a Motorola radio in overall quality. So to say that the performance is less (speaking strictly in reference to range and overall communication capability), just because it came from China is, IMHO, an unfair statement. Would I own a Motorola radio again? Absolutely, if I could do it and afford to keep it legal (so to say). However, like many, and especially being retired, my radio budget kinda forces me to choose something more affordable and practical. The KG-935G I recently obtained is, IMHO, a really decent radio, even if it would not survive the proverbial 4ft drop to concrete (actually I don't know if it would or would not and, I'm not about to intentionally try). Conversely, I also have a pair of 'legal' GMRS portables (not going to name the manufacturer) that cost $50 for the pair (new), that even I would classify as 'CCR'. You do 'get what you pay for'. Do they work, sure. But they are also somewhat disappointing overall, even at $50 a pair. I just don't feel it is fair to condemn all Chinese radios. Like people, judge them individually (if at all). Ultimately, everybody has their personal preferences (and opinions) and as 'they' say, "To Each Their Own". Yet another 'opinion' 73, WROZ250

I'm sorry but I have to ask... CCR? "Chinese Crap Radio"? (Guessing) What???