Jump to content
  • 0

Why "More Power" Isn't The Answer


Question

Posted

I have seen a few posts talking about getting more distance out of UHF gear, such as the GMRS equipment we use. It looks like the common theme is, many immediately want to go for more power, assuming they can brute-force their way through issues. I am hoping myself and some of the other people who have some training and practical experience can use this thread to help new users understand how to make life better without more power.

 

I want to start with handheld transceivers. HT antennas use your body as a counterpoise. Depending on how you are dressed, how tall you are, how you are holding the radio, the radio position, the distance of the radio from your body, what direction you are facing, all impact performance. Even how much fat, salt and water your body is retaining at the moment impacts how an HT antenna works, because those things vary the conductivity of the human body. In all seriousness, forget about more power... or even more range from a typical HT.

 

If you want more range out of your HT, your best bet is to find higher ground, figure out where the best place to stand is, and what general direction to be facing when compared to the receiving station provides the best communications path.

 

 

Mobile antennas are often several wavelengths+ in overall height and the body of the vehicle is typically a much better reflective counterpoise. There is a lot that can be done in the mobile and base antenna world that can help, but for now, lets continue to focus on why 'more power' likely isn't the right answer.

 

 

 

There is a standard in radio communications about intelligibility of radio communications. It is called the 5/9 scale. 0 to 5 for voice clarity and 0 to 9+ for signal strength in s-units. It is said that while a 2/1 signal provides partially usable comms, the lowest "reliable" communications happens at a 3/2 (or 32) and the best is a 5/9+ (often called 599, 59+20, 59+40).

 

With that in mind, you have to quadruple your power to impact a receiver 1 s-unit. So, if the other party is receiving a signal at 1/2 s-unit while you are using 4 watts, you need 16 watts to go to 1 s-unit. You then need to jump to 64 watts for 2 s-units. Finally a third jump in power of 256 watts to get to 3 s-units and possibly getting a reliable communications signal (a 2/3 or 3/3). Depending on the modulation of the carrier signal and bandwidth, you may need to jump to 4 s-units, requiring well over 1,000 watts.

 

Now, lets say the same receive condition exists, but now you are already using 20 watts for that 1/2 s-unit. Now your power jumps are 80 watts, 320 watts, 1,280 watts for 3 s-units and possibly needing 5,120 watts for 4 s-units. Well, the first bump you made already seriously violates power restrictions in GMRS.

 

AND, this is under hypothetical perfect conditions, assuming nothing else changed in the environment. Which almost never exists.

 

Chasing better performance by boosting power typically doesn't give you any truly desirable results. The top 3 items that will help improve comms in almost every band is elevation, elevation, and elevation. From there its antenna tuning (and beams) filters to reduce interference and lowering the noise floor, as some examples.

 

 

 

So, for our technically skill folks... Would anyone like to contribute some general advice for new users to benefit from?

 

General advice on what to do or not to do?

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Posted

Here it is... Madison Candelabra Tower... aka, RFI fire breathing from hell...

 

http://www.sbe24.org/Techdocs/tower/candmar2017/candel-south.asp

 

Yeah, CCRs don't hear squat near the tower... the better antenna you use, the worse the problem gets... :D

 

Nearly all LMR400 is gone from my base setup (just one patch cable left). I run heliax 1/2 only. Nearly all my connectors are trimetal too...  still a couple of UHF nickel plated, antenna and radio connector... I don't understand why Motorola went with the mini-UHF connectors... such a hassle to deal with those instead of N connectors.

 

G.

 

G.

  • 0
Posted

Doing some research on that tower shows three UHF TV transmitters up on the top (ignoring the lower-power VHF transmitters).

WMSN-TV: 440kW at 497 MHz

WHA-TV: 200kW at 509 MHz

WKOW-TV: 800kW at 545 MHz

 

No wonder you're having problems. Path loss is roughly 100dB at that distance, since there doesn't appear to be any terrain obstruction anywhere within 2 miles of that tower. With transmit power in the ballpark of 80-85dBm ERP towards your elevation, that's a LOT of leftover signal that's as close as 30 MHz to GMRS (about the distance from GMRS to 70cm).

  • 0
Posted

Good grief! That is one awesome - but rather overpopulated - tower. I'm happy to have nothing that obscene anywhere near me! :lol:

Me too. I think that would be enough to make me move to a better location.

You know how some people talk about "location, location, location?" This is what they were talking about! :blink:

  • 0
Posted

Location... lol... the location aint bad, that is why the put the darn tower here... hahaha...

 

I've considered moving out of here at some point, but since we just moved in 3 years ago, looks like I might be stuck for a couple more years at the very least... and moving will require more like moving half state away... b/c the tower is still visible line of sight from 30 miles away. I can see its red beacons 30 miles when coming from Milwaukee... 

 

Oh well.

 

G.

  • 0
Posted

Hey Gman1971,

 

If you need to clean up that RF overload issue at your site a bit, I have had great luck at my Ham club's repeater sites with Olds Communication Inc bandpass filters.  We used to have issues at our 444.475 site with overload from the local ambulance paging service (on same tower) running 500 Watts on MED-9 (462.950). An Olds Ham UHF bandpass filter solved the problem.  Likewise at one of our 2-Meter sites, 147.210, we had trouble with a NWS/NOAA station running 1KW on 162.550 that an Olds VHF filter helped out tremendously.

 

I don't have any business interest in this company, and I am not being paid to advertise.  I just use these products, and know they work as promised.

 

https://www.ocicom.com/index.php

 

Click on the "Commercial" tab, and you will get the number to talk to Ralph Olds directly, and you can tell him what bandpass and bandwidth you need.

  • 0
Posted

Wow, those look super nice. Thank you, Jones!

 

Looks like those could be the answer for a mobile environment too!!

 

G.

I don't see any reason why they wouldn't work in a mobile installation, other than size restraints.  The UHF one is about as big as a cigar box, but if you have room to stow it, it should certainly work.  Of course, you wouldn't want to use one of these on a dual-band radio, unless you have split UHF/VHF transmit ports, and split antennas.

 

I think they would really shine in a mobile installation (or base station) where you had a 70cm Ham rig, and a separate GMRS rig, with close-mounted antennas.  If you have one of these tuned filters on each radio, you should be able to transmit on GMRS without blanking out your 70cm rig, and vice-versa.

  • 0
Posted

I don't see any reason why they wouldn't work in a mobile installation, other than size restraints.  The UHF one is about as big as a cigar box, but if you have room to stow it, it should certainly work.  Of course, you wouldn't want to use one of these on a dual-band radio, unless you have split UHF/VHF transmit ports, and split antennas.

 

I think they would really shine in a mobile installation (or base station) where you had a 70cm Ham rig, and a separate GMRS rig, with close-mounted antennas.  If you have one of these tuned filters on each radio, you should be able to transmit on GMRS without blanking out your 70cm rig, and vice-versa.

 

Wow, that is small indeed. Insertion loss is rather low considering it provides 70+ dB attenuation for out of band signals.. 

 

Yeah, I will be calling tomorrow to see how much for a GMRS filter. Wondering if I should get one just for the 467 or the 462? or one for each? Since there is a whole 5 mhz of noise making RF spectrum between the GMRS frequencies.

 

G.

  • 0
Posted

Wow, that is small indeed. Insertion loss is rather low considering it provides 70+ dB attenuation for out of band signals.. 

 

Yeah, I will be calling tomorrow to see how much for a GMRS filter. Wondering if I should get one just for the 467 or the 462? or one for each? Since there is a whole 5 mhz of noise making RF spectrum between the GMRS frequencies.

 

G.

I was thinking that was too big to fit anywhere in my car, but then I drive a Nissan Juke.  I don't have room for a cigar box.

 

Also, I wasn't thinking about the noise in between the GMRS split, but you're right.  For instance, that MED-9 repeater that I had to fight with on the 444.475 tower.  That is just above GMRS, at 462.950/467.950.  I guess the only way to filter that might be with additional P/R cavity filters, and those add more loss per each can.  These Olds filters could certainly be designed to block out all of the other business and public safety stuff in the 450-460 MHz and 470-512 MHz ranges, as well as all that UHF TV stuff near you.  Once you lower that noise, the other stuff in-band around 463-465 might not bother you as much.

 

Also, the fairly wide bandwidth is a feature of these Olds filters. The ham version allows you to work the whole 430-449 range without having to worry about re-tuning anything.

  • 0
Posted

LOL, cigar box...

 

Cavities seem to work well for repeater operation, but not for general purpose b/c as you said, they require tuning... 

 

Might be worth just on the RX side for the stuff, on the 467 side, since the stuff that listens would be portables with a small portable antenna, which seems to be more forgiving than a high gain base antenna...

 

G.

 

I was thinking that was too big to fit anywhere in my car, but then I drive a Nissan Juke.  I don't have room for a cigar box.

 

Also, I wasn't thinking about the noise in between the GMRS split, but you're right.  For instance, that MED-9 repeater that I had to fight with on the 444.475 tower.  That is just above GMRS, at 462.950/467.950.  I guess the only way to filter that might be with additional P/R cavity filters, and those add more loss per each can.  These Olds filters could certainly be designed to block out all of the other business and public safety stuff in the 450-460 MHz and 470-512 MHz ranges, as well as all that UHF TV stuff near you.  Once you lower that noise, the other stuff in-band around 463-465 might not bother you as much.

 

Also, the fairly wide bandwidth is a feature of these Olds filters. The ham version allows you to work the whole 430-449 range without having to worry about re-tuning anything.

  • 0
Posted

I use similar filters for HF on Field Day and Parks on the Air events. If I'm going to work 20m I put a 20m passband filter in-line and the other guys on different bands don't swamp my 20m reception. They average -40db rejection outside of the band they are designed for.
 
They aren't inexpensive ($84/each), so the club has a single set of 1/each for every ham band.

https://www.dunestar.com/product/single-band-bandpass-filters/

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines.