GMRS HT Round Up

[MichaelLAX]

3 minutes ago, KAF6045 said:

Though low power exceeds the regulations 2W for MURS.

That is correct for license free MURS usage.

Actually I personally have no need for MURS, at the current time.  I have it programmed into my scan with full power (20 watts) capability in the unlikely event I monitor an emergency situation, so that I can communicate with the best possible reception on both ends.

[MichaelLAX]

13 hours ago, NC654 said:

I remember reading a post somewhere on another site that they measured about 4.82 watts output on high power.

Please post a link if you find it!

[NC654]

8 hours ago, KAF6045 said:

Though low power exceeds the regulations 2W for MURS.

These T-11 radios are not capable of transmitting on the VHF MURS frequencies, they are designed for UHF.

[NC654]

26 minutes ago, MichaelLAX said:

Please post a link if you find it!

I could have sworn I bookmarked the discussion where they were putting this radio through tests and pushing it's limits, but I may have to go through my never ending sea of bookmarks to find it.

There is the possibility I bookmarked it on my other computer which I will have to look at today. My Linux machine might be a better option if I dissect the programming software and mess with it in there since I have a Windows shell installed on it.

[MichaelLAX]

5 hours ago, NC654 said:

These T-11 radios are not capable of transmitting on the VHF MURS frequencies, they are designed for UHF.

Yes, @KAF6045's comment to me was in response to my comment to @wrtq652's comment about the Radioddity DB-20G (a palm sized mini-mobile), which does cover both VHF and UHF.

[NC654]

4 hours ago, MichaelLAX said:

Yes, @KAF6045's comment to me was in response to my comment to @wrtq652's comment about the Radioddity DB-20G (a palm sized mini-mobile), which does cover both VHF and UHF.

I somehow confused that post, probably low on coffee at that moment.

You managed to get the TX separated from the RX but there is no way that I can see to do it in the hex editor since there is only one set of frequencies that I can find. Maybe there is an offset that is set to Zero you inadvertently bypassed? Looking at both the FRS and EU versions only turns up one frequency for all 22 channels that automatically occupy the TX and RX fields with no way to edit independently. Any ideas?

[MichaelLAX]

Look back to my screenshots posted on September 10th for Channel 19. 

The Hex Editor shows both the Receive frequency and the Transmit frequency which I modified by uping it 5 MHz. 

Then you can see the change in the CPS software - both shown in a red box. 

[Lscott]

4 hours ago, NC654 said:

I somehow confused that post, probably low on coffee at that moment.

You managed to get the TX separated from the RX but there is no way that I can see to do it in the hex editor since there is only one set of frequencies that I can find. Maybe there is an offset that is set to Zero you inadvertently bypassed? Looking at both the FRS and EU versions only turns up one frequency for all 22 channels that automatically occupy the TX and RX fields with no way to edit independently. Any ideas?

Yeah, if you look closely at his screen shot of the editor you will see several pairs of frequencies, one pair for each programmed channel. All he did was pick the second of the two in a pair, the one he wanted to alter, and changed it from 462.xxxxx to 467.xxxxx to get the repeater input frequency.

The only down side to hacking code plugs like this is when you need to make a change to the frequency. If it's one of the hacked custom frequencies you're back using the editor again. Not real convenient but it works.

Not all radio's code plugs are this simple to hack. A few use various types of encryption to try and prevent this sort of thing. I figured that out on some of the Kenwood radios I have. After decrypting the code plugs a few interesting items were found like model numbers, embedded radio serial numbers, programming software license install keys etc. I was also able to see the normally hidden radio write protect password, if used in the software, in the clear.

[NC654]

9 hours ago, Lscott said:

Yeah, if you look closely at his screen shot of the editor you will see several pairs of frequencies, one pair for each programmed channel. All he did was pick the second of the two in a pair, the one he wanted to alter, and changed it from 462.xxxxx to 467.xxxxx to get the repeater input frequency.

Evidently the frequency pair only shows in the software he has, just opening it in a Hex editor only shows a single frequency per channel - it has no separation for TX and RX. I am able to edit the frequencies without a problem as both the software and the radio will accept the new values and will TX / RX without issue.

Since that is the case, I doubt the effort to do a split on these radios is even worth it for the time and effort involved since there are tons of other options out there that program much more easily in CHIRP. Actually, I am a bit surprised that CHIRP has not included these radios in their software as of yet.

On the upside the T-11's would make good cheap radios on the UHF business bands or any other situation where simplex is all that's needed.

[Lscott]

1 hour ago, NC654 said:

Evidently the frequency pair only shows in the software he has, just opening it in a Hex editor only shows a single frequency per channel - it has no separation for TX and RX.

If you look at the screen shot he provided, copied here, you'll see three pairs of frequencies, for three different channels in the editor. He boxed one of the two frequencies, in red, for a pair which he determined was the TX frequency for that particular memory channel. Since initially both RX and TX were set the same that's why they look like a duplicate of  single frequency, but in reality they are the discrete RX and TX settings.

This radio does not use a firmware that assumes a single frequency with an offset model, typical for some Ham Radio gear. It REQUIRES two distinct frequencies, one RX, and one TX, for each memory channel. This is common for many many radios, particularly for commercial models and their derivatives. Having hack a number of Kenwood radio specific codes plugs myself I've seen the same thing using a hex editor.

[NC654]

12 minutes ago, Lscott said:

If you look at the screen shot he provided, copied here, you'll see three pairs of frequencies, for three different channels in the editor. He boxed one of the two frequencies, in red, for a pair which he determined was the TX frequency for that particular memory channel. Since initially both RX and TX were set the same that's why they look like a duplicate of  single frequency, but in reality they are the discrete RX and TX settings.

This radio does not use a firmware that assumes a single frequency with an offset model, typical for some Ham Radio gear. It REQUIRES two distinct frequencies, one RX, and one TX, for each memory channel. This is common for many many radios, particularly for commercial models and their derivatives. Having hack a number of Kenwood radio specific codes plugs myself I've seen the same thing using a hex editor.

Mine does not display like that at all, maybe I am doing something wrong. If you look at my screenshot, on the right side there are the 22 frequencies, and this is the one and only time I see a set of frequencies like that at all in the entire program - both in the FRS and EU programming software. Am I opening up the wrong file maybe? I am looking at the EXE file in the T-11 folder.

[MichaelLAX]

Wrong file.  That is probably the CPS software for your BF-T11.

You want to look at a code plug (XML); maybe you have not downloaded it from your HT yet.

Try this one:

 

BF-T11 09092250 Mod.xml

[NC654]

1 hour ago, MichaelLAX said:

Wrong file.  That is probably the CPS software for your BF-T11.

You want to look at a code plug (XML); maybe you have not downloaded it from your HT yet.

Try this one:

 

BF-T11 09092250 Mod.xml 6.39 kB · 0 downloads

Aha, that's the problem. Don't you just love getting brain farts?

[Lscott]

1 hour ago, NC654 said:

Aha, that's the problem. How do I get that from the HT? I don't believe I have ever had to do that before.

The software should give you the option to save the radio's setup/memory programming file to disk. That's the file you want to open with the editor.

[KAF6045]

1 hour ago, NC654 said:

Aha, that's the problem. How do I get that from the HT? I don't believe I have ever had to do that before.

The programming software should have a "download from radio" [otherwise you are always starting from scratch] and a "save file" function (not the "upload to radio").

[NC654]

Now this is more like it. A big THANK YOU to MichaelLAX, Lscott, Backformore70, and KAF6045 for all your help and input!

Screen shot is attached where I could change the TX / RX frequencies for the GMRS split independently, along with the power settings functions.

I am still looking for the thread where somebody was getting 4.82 watts output, still no luck.

[MichaelLAX]

Nicely done!

You probably want to keep the Power Setting on LOW for Channels 8-14.

[NC654]

1 minute ago, MichaelLAX said:

Nicely done!

You probably want to keep the Power Setting on LOW for Channels 8-14.

I will put the power settings on those back to low for close communication. I just wanted to see if they would work, and apparently they do.

I managed to raise two repeaters with only the 2 watts.

[MichaelLAX]

Yes: I also had success with the local 650 Repeater when I used them outside.

Inside, I could "hit" the repeater, but the report back was that I was all noise.

[Lscott]

26 minutes ago, NC654 said:

I will put the power settings on those back to low for close communication. I just wanted to see if they would work, and apparently they do.

I managed to raise two repeaters with only the 2 watts.

Good practice suggests using no more power than necessary to establish good communications.

If you can get in to the repeater with only a watt or two I would do that. It keeps the hand held radio cooler and the battery pack will of course last longer.

[NC654]

58 minutes ago, Lscott said:

Good practice suggests using no more power than necessary to establish good communications.

If you can get in to the repeater with only a watt or two I would do that. It keeps the hand held radio cooler and the battery pack will of course last longer.

That is exactly what I was told when I got into Ham radio back in 1995. There was not a whole lot of the computer aspect going on back then, it was mostly soldering irons, making PC boards from scratch, and linking equipment together. Back in 2000 I had a fist full of Microsoft certifications, but I was absolutely awful with programming which is probably why I was having a bit of a time with this one.

[WRVE893]

On 4/19/2022 at 11:47 AM, WRPCinci said:

Good point about power output. I don't need much range for this scenario; up to 1/2 mile is plenty. The kids need to go over the hill and around the bend and be able to call in a "bear report" and that's about it.

 

 

Wait… you’re sending your 5 & 8 year old (bear snack sized) kids out to scout for bears? Guess you and your wife don’t have to be faster than the bear… just faster than your kids…lol