Jump to content


Photo

Using UV-82C for Part 95E


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 RickW

RickW

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
  • Locationwestern wisconsin

Posted 30 April 2019 - 12:56 PM

A number of forum members have mentioned that they use Part 90 certified equipment for Part 95.

 

Is my understanding correct that the Baofeng UV-82C is Part 90 certified?

 

If that is the case, what is the view of programming this radio for legal Part 95E GMRS operation?

 

Do those of you who program Part 90 equipment for use on Part 95, also use the same equipment for Part 97 and any other Part 95 frequencies, such as Part 95J MURS? 

 

The only recent radio for both GMRS and MURS seems to be the TERA 505, but is it legal to have both programmed at the same time?



#2 Corey

Corey

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 305 posts
  • LocationWisconsin
  • GMRS Callsign:WQVA593
  • Ham Callsign:KD9HCW

Posted 30 April 2019 - 02:13 PM

Rick,

 

Don't expect to many people to admit to breaking the law on an internet forum. Here is my thoughts, the Baofeng and its many knock offs are junk. The radios sound like crap, cause adjacent channel interference and preform poorly in the real world. Now I know all the Baofeng fans will come in out in full force to defend this junk and I will never know why. Even the beloved Btec GMRSV1 fails to maintain its frequency stability if you TX long enough to exceed the 5% duty cycle. You get what you pay for with radio gear, if you buy a 20 dollar radio its going to work like a 20 dollar radio. I have several users on my repeaters that use them and to be honest I plan to start revoking permission because of the poor audio and signal quality.

 

Corey


  • SteveC7010, Elkhunter521 and marcspaz like this

Just My $.02

 

Corey

 

Midwest GMRS

https://mwgmrs.com


#3 marcspaz

marcspaz

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • LocationLocation Location

Posted 30 April 2019 - 03:25 PM

I owned 2 Baofeng ham radios for a combined total of 2 weeks. I wouldn't give one to someone I don't like, because its too cruel.

Do yourself a favor and forget they exist.

Just my opinion.
  • Corey likes this

#4 Elkhunter521

Elkhunter521

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 170 posts
  • LocationWashougal Washington
  • GMRS Callsign:Ask

Posted 30 April 2019 - 04:23 PM

Corey, yur just mean.

Some of the Chinese junk is good junk, and some of it is bad junk.

Hmmm, I have some of the good junk and some of the bad (American labeled , you know who I mean) junk.

Yup, yur just mean.

Thank you for being honest and politically incorrect. !!,

Keith T
  • Corey likes this
Be vewy vewy quiet.
I'm listening to my wadio!

#5 Downs

Downs

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts
  • LocationHunt County Texas
  • GMRS Callsign:WQYH678
  • Ham Callsign:KK6RBI

Posted 01 May 2019 - 12:25 PM

Ignore the Baofeng hate.  Instead of trying to get the 82C to do what you want legally you can always get the BTECH GMRSV1 (a UV82 certified for GMRS use) and do what you are seeking. 

 

[offtopic]Some folks have large amounts of money to dump into their hobbies others do not.  I have to balance a limited income across multiple things I like to do including Jeeps, Shooting competitively, radios, motorcycles, ect and without the Baofengs on the market I probably wouldn't even be in the radio hobby because there's no way I was going to dump 150 dollars into a handheld radio to come to find out it didn't do what I wanted to do with radio spectrum, or be something I would enjoy to mess with.  My initial UV-5R got my foot in the door to take the test and that one radio turned into a pile of radios including some Japanese radios that I don't even use regularly anymore and now live on my workbench[/offtopic]


A pile of "cheap Chinese radios", BF888s, UV5Rs, UV82s, KGUV8Ds, BFF8HP, UV50X2, and a few "good" radios, Yeasu FT310 (airband/nav), Yeasu FT90R (no longer in mobile service used as a base radio)


#6 marcspaz

marcspaz

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • LocationLocation Location

Posted 01 May 2019 - 02:46 PM

I have to disagree that BTech is some kind of saving grace.

First... I have purchased several BTech / Baofeng radios and all failed within weeks. The extra time and money spent trying to get them to work was ridiculous.

Second, Motorola, Midland, and several other companies are selling much better quality radios for literally the same price as the BTechs.

Last... and this is just my opinion... if a one-time investment of an $150 vs. $60 is a deal-breaker on a hobby (and again, you don't have to spend $150)... I think you have bigger things to consider in life than which radio you're wanting to buy.

#7 Downs

Downs

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts
  • LocationHunt County Texas
  • GMRS Callsign:WQYH678
  • Ham Callsign:KK6RBI

Posted 01 May 2019 - 03:26 PM

More like 24 vs 150. While that may not be a big deal for you to drop 150 dollars to test out a new hobby others may not be in the same financial position.

I must have the best luck ever when it comes to cheap radios then. Ive got a pile of their HTs and a couple of their mobiles. No radio failures. I have had 2 batteries fail out of probably 15 or so batteries.

One of my original UV5Rs has been riding around on my motorcycle handlebars for about 5 years now, exposed to off highway use, vibrations, rain, sun, ice, its been completely ejected a few times taking spills on dirt roads at 30 or 40 mph after being a little airborne on the bike. Looks awful with faded buttons and rusted wrist strap attachment and screws but still functions and gets good audio reports.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

A pile of "cheap Chinese radios", BF888s, UV5Rs, UV82s, KGUV8Ds, BFF8HP, UV50X2, and a few "good" radios, Yeasu FT310 (airband/nav), Yeasu FT90R (no longer in mobile service used as a base radio)


#8 Corey

Corey

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 305 posts
  • LocationWisconsin
  • GMRS Callsign:WQVA593
  • Ham Callsign:KD9HCW

Posted 01 May 2019 - 03:51 PM

One visit from a FCC field officer and your $24 dollar radio may end up costing you $2400... 


  • marcspaz likes this

Just My $.02

 

Corey

 

Midwest GMRS

https://mwgmrs.com


#9 Downs

Downs

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts
  • LocationHunt County Texas
  • GMRS Callsign:WQYH678
  • Ham Callsign:KK6RBI

Posted 01 May 2019 - 07:00 PM

One visit from a FCC field officer and your $24 dollar radio may end up costing you $2400...

For using it for amatuer use? Yeah sure. Im not advocating freebanding here. The GMRS btech will run you 55 dollars.

When the FCC starts to care about other things let me know. If they truly cared they could roll out to the california desert and write enough citations to fund the FCC for a year, in one day.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

A pile of "cheap Chinese radios", BF888s, UV5Rs, UV82s, KGUV8Ds, BFF8HP, UV50X2, and a few "good" radios, Yeasu FT310 (airband/nav), Yeasu FT90R (no longer in mobile service used as a base radio)


#10 RickW

RickW

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
  • Locationwestern wisconsin

Posted 01 May 2019 - 07:04 PM

As I mentioned in my OP, I am only asking about LEGAL use of Part 90 equipment. I have several of the B-Tech GMRS V1 transceivers and they seem surprisingly well made. I don't have a service monitor to fully test them but just listening to the transmissions on our ICOM IC-7000's and the MXT400's, the audio quality seems about the same as any other FM transceivers that I have tested. In fact, both wide and narrow FM seem reasonable to my ears.

 

Consider that back in the 1990's I think that we spent $330 EACH for Kenwood  TH27A 2 meter only ham transceivers. I shudder to think how much that would be in inflation adjusted dollars but you sure get a lot more for your money these days. It helped to have a wife who is also a ham and needed an HT for being an active bicyclist who frequently was on the local state trails. More than one accident/emergency situation occurred over the years before cell phones. 

 

There does seem to be somewhat conflicting statements about the use of Part 90 equipment for Part 95, but it does appear that the FCC says this is a violation of the rules at this time. It sure would have been great if the rules allowed MURS and FRS to be on the same licensed by rule equipment. I am sure that if this was possible, BTech would have done this rather than have two separate radios based off the UV-82 series. 

 

I wonder if the BTech GMRS V1 and MURS V1 radios are improved from earlier ones? They did drop the power level to only 2 watts on the GMRS model so perhaps they no longer exhibit loss of frequency stability? 

 

As far as audio quality though, the ones I have seem quite good. At least so far.


  • Downs likes this

#11 marcspaz

marcspaz

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • LocationLocation Location

Posted 01 May 2019 - 10:38 PM

If you have two radios, you can do some informal testing. Get far enough away that you are 2x5 to 3x5, high power, wide-band, and talk for a little while. 20 minutes or so. Try to keep about 50% duty cycle. As long as no one changes location/position, you will be able to hear frequency shift if its bad. You will start to hear some distortion and the signal strength will weaken. Word clipping is more noticeable than the signal strength.

Two of my mobile ham radios shifted permanently and became unusable. The first one after 4 days. The second in less than 4 hours. Both of my handhelds worked great for about a month, and then they would drift after 10-15 minutes, but would recenter after being off for 20-30 minutes.

#12 Corey

Corey

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 305 posts
  • LocationWisconsin
  • GMRS Callsign:WQVA593
  • Ham Callsign:KD9HCW

Posted 02 May 2019 - 06:27 AM

For using it for amatuer use?

 

I was mistaken, I thought you mentioned using the $24 dollar radio on GMRS.

 

https://docs.fcc.gov...DA-18-980A1.pdf


Just My $.02

 

Corey

 

Midwest GMRS

https://mwgmrs.com


#13 WRCY896

WRCY896

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts
  • GMRS Callsign:WRCY896

Posted 02 May 2019 - 08:29 AM

If you have two radios, you can do some informal testing. Get far enough away that you are 2x5 to 3x5, high power, wide-band, and talk for a little while. 20 minutes or so. Try to keep about 50% duty cycle. As long as no one changes location/position, you will be able to hear frequency shift if its bad. You will start to hear some distortion and the signal strength will weaken. Word clipping is more noticeable than the signal strength.
Two of my mobile ham radios shifted permanently and became unusable. The first one after 4 days. The second in less than 4 hours. Both of my handhelds worked great for about a month, and then they would drift after 10-15 minutes, but would recenter after being off for 20-30 minutes.


Using a radio beyond it's stated duty cycle, and expecting it to maintain tolerance, then saying it's a junk radio, because the user used the radio beyond what it was designed to be used for, is not a valid argument.

I do my best not to exceed the duty cycle on my radios, and certainly don't hit 50%. I know what the limitations are for those radios, and as long as I stay inside those limitations, then they work just fine.

As far as part 90 radios - there are several, such as the Kenwood tk880, that is 90/95 certified.

#14 marcspaz

marcspaz

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • LocationLocation Location

Posted 02 May 2019 - 10:18 AM

Using a radio beyond it's stated duty cycle, and expecting it to maintain tolerance, then saying it's a junk radio, because the user used the radio beyond what it was designed to be used for, is not a valid argument.

 

I'm sorry... where did I say that?  I must be missing something.  Can you show me where I wrote that?



#15 WRCY896

WRCY896

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts
  • GMRS Callsign:WRCY896

Posted 02 May 2019 - 10:29 AM

I'm sorry... where did I say that? I must be missing something. Can you show me where I wrote that?

In your statement that I quoted just above this post. You are telling someone to run a radio to 50% duty cycle, that is only rated and certified for 5%. And then you are using that argument to say that the radio is junk because it falls out of compliance when pushed beyond it's design limitations. And you have stated they are junk, that they have failed you, etc, and then made it clear you pushed them beyond what they are designed for.

Anything that is pushed beyond it's design limitations is going to fail at some point.

#16 marcspaz

marcspaz

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • LocationLocation Location

Posted 02 May 2019 - 11:07 AM

In your statement that I quoted just above this post. You are telling someone to run a radio to 50% duty cycle, that is only rated and certified for 5%. And then you are using that argument to say that the radio is junk because it falls out of compliance when pushed beyond it's design limitations. And you have stated they are junk, that they have failed you, etc, and then made it clear you pushed them beyond what they are designed for.

Anything that is pushed beyond it's design limitations is going to fail at some point.

 

You are obviously making an assumption based on a collection of multiple posts I have made... and your assumption is wrong.

 

Actually, the radio in question is rated for a 10% duty cycle; 6 minutes transmit, 54 minutes receive.  And I mentioned using the radio in extreme use conditions as a cheap/easy means of detecting if the radio will stay within its maximum deviation.  If they can have a 20 minute conversation and not hear any deviation, the radios are performing very well.  If they don't get the full 6 minutes of transmit before hearing a deviation, then there is a problem.

 

I said that BTechs are junk because I have owned several mobile radios that failed within days/hours of ownership.  I never mentioned the models, how I used them or what their duty cycle is rated for.

 

Just to be sure there is no confusion....

 

I had two UV-50x2's which are rated for 100% duty cycle to build poor man repeaters (also has all remote control features built into it for remote management).  I was only using them as mobile ham radios with light-duty use.  They both broke extremely quickly while used, literally, for initial testing and configuration.  Both radios had less than 20 minutes of total transmit time.

 

The reason I think the handhelds are junk is because they are built with cheap plastic that has basically zero impact resistance.  Also the transmit audio quality is terrible.  For the same price as the BTech, I can buy something like an iCom or another mainstream, amazing performer that is also durable.  The fact that the BTech units drifted a bit after the duty cycle was exceeded was never a consideration in my opinion of the handhelds.

 

If you had good luck... God bless you.  I haven't.  I think after using radio's for work, recreation, and working in Electronics and IT for 27+ years, I'm pretty well experienced enough to develop a opinion on what is junk.  You are welcome to disagree and have your own opinions based on your experiences, but please don't put words in my mouth.


  • Corey likes this

#17 Downs

Downs

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts
  • LocationHunt County Texas
  • GMRS Callsign:WQYH678
  • Ham Callsign:KK6RBI

Posted 02 May 2019 - 11:17 AM

I was mistaken, I thought you mentioned using the $24 dollar radio on GMRS.

https://docs.fcc.gov...DA-18-980A1.pdf

Thats my bad for not clarifying since this is a.thread about GMRS operation

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

A pile of "cheap Chinese radios", BF888s, UV5Rs, UV82s, KGUV8Ds, BFF8HP, UV50X2, and a few "good" radios, Yeasu FT310 (airband/nav), Yeasu FT90R (no longer in mobile service used as a base radio)





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users