axorlov

I thought it's a bit cheaper nowadays. Like $400/year to keep account active + whatever you use (the cheapest plan). But does not change a big picture. Some of my former riding buddies who ride dirt bikes alone in the mountains (crazy a-holes) carry inReach. I do not, I do not do motorcycling in boondocks, just MTB-ing, but I'm sure that $15 a month is all you need to pay, without any additional payment to the Iridium.

I use hammer drill and 4' of 1/2" rebar flattened at the end and sharpened to a spear point. After 4' hole is drilled, the rest of the rod goes much easier, with sledgehammer.

Michael (mburn) explained it in the detail. OP also may search this forum for "antenna grounding", since this topic is being brought up every 6 months.

Channels 1-22 are High powered, channels 1-7 and 15-22 are Very High powered, channels 15-22 are Blow-your-head-off High powered. The total number of channels is an exercise for the reader. Not sure if you are serious. If you are serious, then I guess originally it was something like: "15 GMRS channels with the power level higher than FRS", which than was reduced to what you see by marketing department.

More power will help you to "burn" through the forest, from your base to HT, but not the other way, from HT to base. And not through the horizon. And I'm not fong of Fond antenna. Or wait, that should be other way around, fond - Fong. You can search this forum about Ed Fong antennas, was discussed in lengths.

It's 22 High power channels, 15 Very High power channels, and 8 Ultra High power channels. And a brazillion private codes! For a modest price of $400. And wait, there is more!

Agreements... Yawn. NotaRoundhead should just declare Canadian border abolished.

Look, Gman I do not argue with the importance of the height, ok? Do you understand that? Never I said, that your glorious beautiful 120' mast has no effect or has little effect. Can we, sort of, seal that? Because you keep bringing that back all the time. Yes, you have a long, tall, fat, strong mast. OK! Can we put it aside now? With the note, that it was you, my friend, who totally invented the argument about the mast just to brag about it. You keep accusing me of magic bro-formulas, but do not seem to understand how electromagnetic field works and throw terms like "Fresnel clearing" without any clue, because it absolutely not applicable to what we are talking about. Just stop using words that you do not understand. I stand behind my claim that in the forest, on UHF, quadrupling the power from 5W to 20W doubles the distance from 0.5 mile to 1 mile. This is proven and tested by yours truly many times. In European plains and in California coastal forest. I did not have notaries, or Guiness book recorders to fix it officially, sorry. But talk to any hunter here, and they will confirm to you that moving from 1W FRS to 4W GMRS radio doubles the distance in the forest. Keep Marc out of our small tiny scuffle here. He is a good guy. With that said, I stand behind my claim that 0.8W -> 42W will increase distance from around the corner to 8 blocks. The number "2000%" is an educated guess. Want to show how wrong I am? Go measure the average city block and the "around corner" distance, have 2 witnesses to sign the affidavit, and if I'm off by more than 1dB, I will send you a pair of used earplugs as a symbolic token of me being wrong on that point.

And where did I said that? Get to bed, darling

I underlined important part. We are still in the forest. You need to have some sleep.

And I disagree. Should you repeat your test 800mW -> 42W in the center of the city, you would likely experience 2000% increase of the distance: from around the corner to 8 blocks.

The the power density is proportional to the inverse square of the distance. In open space. On earth it is often not because other factors at play. What's so hard to understand. You're dense tonight.

Care to quote me? Edit: Re-reading the post carefully I now have a question. Why 20dB pre-amp is not like adding 20dB of power to the signal from the remote transmitter? You seem to imply it's better, the pre-amp. Why? I'm seriously, genuinely curious.

Where did I claim that? Stop the BS

Gman, either I can't formulate it's clear enough, or you choose not to understand what I'm saying. You are comparing apples with bulldozers here, but ok. Try same with 5W and 50W on UHF. You will get same increase of the distance. Why same, you may ask? The VHF has 10db advantage in free space? Because we are not in free space, that's why. When we will be talking to colony on Mars we can get back to this tidbit. And I'm not changing goalposts it's you who do. Where did I say that? Care to quote me? In space it will. On earth it won't. In the forest, on UHF, quadrupling 5W to 20W will double the distance from 0.5 mile to 1 mile. It it clear now? In the mountains quadrupling 5W to 20W may (may! not guaranteed!) increase distance from 0.5 mile to 2 miles. Is it clear? Although, I routinely experience more. And where did I say that? Care to quote me? Stop the BS

I just re-read the conversation and want to add something. The quoted above is about improving the reception of your base (repeater?) station. You could have saved a ton and a half by quadrupling the power of your remote nodes (HTs) from 5W to 20W. That's a joke, of course, 20W HT is not practical and not safe for RF exposure. However, I bet that your remote nodes (HTs) did not feel any of these improvements when they are receiving, except for the heliax and connectors. And this is what the thread was originally about: the loss in the feeder line.

This is not cool with FCC. I'm not a cop or anything, everybody chooses what they want to do. But for some people it might be important to stay legit from the letter of the law point of view. Such suggestions should be accompanied by disclaimers. Another consideration is that Part 90 and 95 equipment could be programmed in a way that it is hard to screw up, and safe to give to 5-yo kid. Amateur stuff is not fool-proof, in general.

In his example, at 10 miles with 800mW no signal, with 42W is a signal. The difference between no communication and communication is very significant. This is how he proves my point. What?? The height reduces the attenuation??? The radiation pattern reduces the attenuation??? Dude... With UHF frequencies anything higher than 1.5m off the surface is close to a free space. It's a roof of the SUV or just tippy-toe with your HT. You guys do not get one thing here: you are already in the field with top of the line non-hammy garbage. You have your mast in place with antenna made of pure gold and coax is 33" hardline. You cannot get more god-beloved non-hammy stuff here (Amazon trucks do not go where you're hiking and you're broke from the hardline), you have to roll with what you have. Now you have a choice: transmit at 20W or transmit at 40W. Which will reach farther? In real life most of this talk about LOS and Frensel cleaning does not make much sense because other factors are in play. In dense forest it's attenuation by the greenery. In urban canyons it is reflection, refraction and scattering. In mountain setting it is also reflection, refraction and scattering. The only place when LOS and antenna pattern is an absolute king is a flat field (marcspaz's Florida?) and even there there are some imperfections of our sinful world that allow for reflection and scattering and increase of the distance when power is bumped up. He told it himself. In dense forest, where attenuation of UHF by the leaves is the biggest problem, quadrupling the power always (always!) doubles the distance. It is repeatable. Go try yourself with your Motorola gear. In mountain canyon quadrupling the power will easy quadruple the distance, at very least. No LOS here. And now, what's going to happen when you quadruple the power? Nothing?

I don't want to beat this horse into pulp, but marcspaz proves my point. When you in the fringe, you can't afford loss and can't reduce power. I'm always dumbfounded when people say "it's only one step on S-meter", because in reality it's the "whole whopping 400%" of tension of electromagnetic field.

1. With antenna pattern and height is not changing, station transmits with power P, then it makes second transmission with power 4 x P? Which transmission going to be heard farther? 2. You are in the fringe zone of my station. Your S-meter (if you have one and you trust one) shows 0 bars. You still can hear me under current conditions with the specific noise floor and specific sensitivity. Now I reduce power 4 times. Will you still hear me? Loss of 6dB is a waste. I would ignore loss under 1dB.

That's often repeated, and often misunderstood. To overcome what you listed (storms, weather, etc), you need power. When antenna design and placement is not changing, power is what helps you to have [more] reliable communications.

I just told you what I think. Stay with your queen On chan nineteen!

I'd hazard to guess, it'll be close to zero. Only these in a simplex range will be affected.

Great! The audience of NotaBubblegum will keep with their queen at chan 19, the rest will do whatever they want. Some will stick to .675. Win for the community from every angle.

It not only seems like a lot, it is a lot. It's 4x reduction in power. In space, it would mean reduction of communication distance in half. On the surface of this miserable planet it may be a difference between reliable comms and no comms at all. I do not care what [poorly calibrated other dude's] S-meter says. I do not want to waste the power to warm up the atmosphere if this power can be put into signal.