Regs don't list an actual power limit for HTs on the 462/467 main channels

[Photoman5k]

While it limits the TX power on the interstitial channels it does not specifically list HT portables in the 50w limit on the 462 and 467 main channels or specify a limit on the main channels for HTs at all.

So that being the case, why can't a manufacturer make an HT that is capable of transmitting more then 5w on 15-22 and the repeater inputs?

Thoughts?

Quote

§ 95.1767 GMRS transmitting power limits.

This section contains transmitting power limits for GMRS stations. The maximum transmitting power depends on which channels are being used and the type of station.

(a) 462/467 MHz main channels. The limits in this paragraph apply to stations transmitting on any of the 462 MHz main channels or any of the 467 MHz main channels. Each GMRS transmitter type must be capable of operating within the allowable power range. GMRS licensees are responsible for ensuring that their GMRS stations operate in compliance with these limits.

(1) The transmitter output power of mobile, repeater and base stations must not exceed 50 Watts.

(2) The transmitter output power of fixed stations must not exceed 15 Watts.

(b) 462 MHz interstitial channels. The effective radiated power (ERP) of mobile, hand-held portable and base stations transmitting on the 462 MHz interstitial channels must not exceed 5 Watts.

(c) 467 MHz interstitial channels. The effective radiated power (ERP) of hand-held portable units transmitting on the 467 MHz interstitial channels must not exceed 0.5 Watt. Each GMRS transmitter type capable of transmitting on these channels must be designed such that the ERP does not exceed 0.5 Watt.

 

[WRUU653]

34 minutes ago, Lscott said:

Not angry. It wasn't clear to me which video he was referencing. I went back and looked at the one I mentioned to see if I had somehow missed something.

Perhaps I read too much into it. Sorry. 

[axorlov]

On 11/27/2022 at 9:05 AM, Blaise said:

I was just trying to ensure that I wasn't missing something about the actual physics

You are not missing anything about the actual physics. But perhaps some context might help.

In good old days of radio people listened to signals (detected and demodulated CW) with ear, which is logarithmic in response. Meaning that we can clearly distinguish the difference in strength (amplitude) between two sounds if strengths (amplitude) is different about 4 times. If the difference in strength is less, they would sound about the same loud to us, humans. This is how RST-scale was invented in 1930s, and we are talking about S (strength) component here. S-scale is from 0 to 9 were one S unit is 6dB, i.e. 4x the strength, and zero S is calibrated to some value which I don't remember and I'm too lazy to look up. I think 50 microvolts (uV) at the antenna terminal, or maybe it's 5uV, it does not matter now really.

So, if you hear the signal (say, detected and demodulated CW, like in good old times), then the difference in 3dB may not be even noticed. But in the same time, in fringe area, these 3dB may mean a difference between being barely heard and not being heard at all. So, your example about walking in the forest with the range of 1 mile and 1.21 miles (2x the power and 3dB difference) is perfectly valid. I had a spat before on this very forum about this very topic with a few respected members here, on the same very premise.

And off tangent: I had a chance to read the full post of WROZ250, now deleted, and I don't think she attacked you. I interpreted it as a rant about people who have no clue (clearly not you), but built their youtube personalities on being dicks to others who actually have a clue or three about them.

[MichaelLAX]

On 11/28/2022 at 8:48 PM, axorlov said:

And off tangent: I had a chance to read the full post of WROZ250, now deleted, and I don't think she attacked you. I interpreted it as a rant about people who have no clue (clearly not you), but built their youtube personalities on being dicks to others who actually have a clue or three about them.

Wait, someone decided to delete their post and you are rehashing it now?!?

Wouldn't the best person to describe their intentions be the poster of that message and perhaps she did by PM after she deleted it?

Does she need your clarification?

Or are you just using this occasion to attack the "YouTube personalit(y)" at @WROZ250's expense???

[WROZ250]

On 11/28/2022 at 9:48 PM, axorlov said:

And off tangent: I had a chance to read the full post of WROZ250, now deleted, and I don't think she attacked you. I interpreted it as a rant about people who have no clue (clearly not you), but built their youtube personalities on being dicks to others who actually have a clue or three about them.

Thank You!