Is 50 watts a waste?

[WRYZ926]

Yeah soldering connectors on is not for everyone. One won't go wrong with a quality prebuilt coax cable. And it never hurts to coil the excess cable right below the antenna.

[WRWP250]

Being an American, I guess I follow the "bigger is always better" mantra, so I must have a V8 for my daily commute in the city just in case I ever get invited to a track day and, you know, need that power. Neurologists say this is the cognitive area of the brain finding a logical rationalization/justification for what the limbic (emotional) area of the brain is making us want. But in the military (where efficiency of systems is an even bigger mantra!) my limbic system trained me to get an even bigger emotional dopamine hit from impressing my military/engineer friends with an efficient system.

Technically I guess the applicable formula is [TX power] / [antenna] x [budget]. Personally, I'm happy with whatever setup makes you happy. Just as long as you're getting out and enjoying it. Whether you want to use gold-plated coax to connect a 5w oscillator to a yagi antenna and hit satellites, or put a 50w blower on an omni, I say enjoy! But if you go with the 50w, you def should put one of these on your rig :

[WSAA254]

From what little experience I have had, I do think that 50 watts is probably a waste in most circumstances.  As you mention at these gmrs frequencies, line of site and antenna height/ quality coax means a lot.  50 watts may be of some help if your in a lot of trees which may attenuate the signal.  I can it a repeater 50 miles away at 5 watts, but its all elevation that lets me do this.  I am sure for a repeater setup, you would want 50 watts, but for most base station or mobile 20 watts should cover 90% of what your after.  Just my 2 cents.   Best of luck

[WRYZ926]

50 watts can be overkill if one has a good clear line of sight to a local repeater. But 50 watts comes in handy when trying to reach others on simplex. I can get into the local GMRS repeater that is 21.5 miles away with 10 watts. I need all 50 watts to talk to guys on simplex that are at the same distance. One guy lives about 2 miles west of the repeater tower. His antenna is at 40 feet while mine is at 18 feet. The repeater antennas are at 400 feet.

[SvenMarbles]

Well this topic sprung back to life...

Here's another thing to consider. IDK about anyone else here, but sort of married to my interest in having domestic radio is a concept of preparedness.

A 50 watt station needs quite an amperage draw. If you're not about "what happens when things go dark" and you're just a comfy radio desk plugged into mains power type guy. sure. Blow out 50 watts. Even if 70% of it is a waste.  But is your station operable when that's not the case? When that supply needs to be plugged into something to give you 12 amps stable?

I like a station that can run on batteries. With gain and directional antennas, I can be every bit as loud as anyone with 10 watts. And that can be fueled by the sun.

 

 

 

 

[marcspaz]

@WSAK691 I want to touch on the EmComm stuff a bit. 

 

I have a 50w UHF station, a 110w UHF station, 50w VHF station, three 50w VHF/UHF repeaters, a 300w VHF station, and a 100w HF station. I have solar and batteries delivering enough power to run at 100w with a 50% duty cycle, 24 hours a day for the life of the batteries (translate to many years). And the reality is, in a real emergency, which I have worked many, I promise you are not going to be anywhere near 50% duty cycle. 

 

All of my stations drop to 5w, except my HF radio which will go to 0.4w. Even with no batteries, I can run any one of my radios on low power and pure solar for peak direct light hours. That can be 5 to 7 hours a day, depending on the time of year, weather, etc.

 

I mention all this to highlight the fact that just because a radio can produce 50w, 100w or more, that doesn't mean you have to run them that high all the time. In fact, the FCC rules and generally good practice for not causing interference, is to use the least amount of power required for reliable communications. I would rather have the power in case I need it, rather than not having the option. 

 

If you're going to spend the effort and money, there is very little cost or time difference when building a 40w power source and a 1,500w power source.

[SvenMarbles]

11 hours ago, marcspaz said:

@WSAK691 I want to touch on the EmComm stuff a bit. 

 

I have a 50w UHF station, a 110w UHF station, 50w VHF station, three 50w VHF/UHF repeaters, a 300w VHF station, and a 100w HF station. I have solar and batteries delivering enough power to run at 100w with a 50% duty cycle, 24 hours a day for the life of the batteries (translate to many years). And the reality is, in a real emergency, which I have worked many, I promise you are not going to be anywhere near 50% duty cycle. 

 

All of my stations drop to 5w, except my HF radio which will go to 0.4w. Even with no batteries, I can run any one of my radios on low power and pure solar for peak direct light hours. That can be 5 to 7 hours a day, depending on the time of year, weather, etc.

 

I mention all this to highlight the fact that just because a radio can produce 50w, 100w or more, that doesn't mean you have to run them that high all the time. In fact, the FCC rules and generally good practice for not causing interference, is to use the least amount of power required for reliable communications. I would rather have the power in case I need it, rather than not having the option. 

 

If you're going to spend the effort and money, there is very little cost or time difference when building a 40w power source and a 1,500w power source.

I completely understand the logic of “it can do 50 watts, and it can do lower power as well” so why not?

My question though, even with that being said, when would 50 watts on 462-467 be appropriate? When does 50 watts do a thing that 25 watts (or even less) didn’t? I’m not saying that there aren’t such circumstances, but speaking strictly anecdotally, I’ve never found an instance of it. The the limiting variables of the 4xx UHF band properties are going to be your barriers well before needing more power will. 
 

So when you’re setup with one of those 50 watt installs, I’m assuming you’re also going to have the supporting accoutrement to be able to supply that radio at maximum power level, even if you may opt to mainly run it lower.. But you’re geared up to be able to. So that was a cost.. 

Also, I’m just going to be straightforward. As far as what you said about using only the power needed to accomplish what you’re doing. I really don’t believe that’s standard practice. I’d bet everything that most people are just going full bore on high all day. 
 

All that the point of this post was attempting to get across is that I believe that there’s a great deal of GMRSers that are all about that 50 watt model. And I believe they run them that way, all day. And I don’t think very many people realize how much power draw they’re using all the time, for no practical benefit.. 

[WRYZ926]

3 minutes ago, WSAK691 said:

My question though, even with that being said, when would 50 watts on 462-467 be appropriate? When does 50 watts do a thing that 25 watts (or even less) didn’t? I’m not saying that there aren’t such circumstances, but speaking strictly anecdotally, I’ve never found an instance of it. The the limiting variables of the 4xx UHF band properties are going to be your barriers well before needing more power will. 

As I have stated several times, there is a place for using 50 watts. I need to use 50 watts to talk to two guys that are 18 miles away and 23 miles away when on a simple channel. My antenna is the lowest at 18 feet above ground while the other guys' antennas are at 40 feet and 60 feet. Yes we have a clear line of sight over the terrain and trees, but just barely. We would not be able to talk to each other on low or medium power.

The repeater is a different story. It is 21.5 miles from me and in between the other two guys. The big difference is that the repeater antennas are at 400 feet above ground.

[SvenMarbles]

24 minutes ago, WRYZ926 said:

As I have stated several times, there is a place for using 50 watts. I need to use 50 watts to talk to two guys that are 18 miles away and 23 miles away when on a simple channel. My antenna is the lowest at 18 feet above ground while the other guys' antennas are at 40 feet and 60 feet. Yes we have a clear line of sight over the terrain and trees, but just barely. We would not be able to talk to each other on low or medium power.

The repeater is a different story. It is 21.5 miles from me and in between the other two guys. The big difference is that the repeater antennas are at 400 feet above ground.

Interesting. Well if that’s the case, and I’m in no position to tell you that your empirical experience is incorrect, I’ll concede on that.

I’ve done my share of tooling around and doing all sorts of field testing and have never experienced the thing of 25 watts falling short (through a relatively open terrain path as you describe) and then 50 watts having another result. It just kind of seems to me like the elevations of the parties involved and the terrain in-between is what it is and is either going to allow readable contact, or not. It’s not been my experience that you can just plow through anything with a few more watts. 50 or 5,000. The hillside always wins.

Again. For 4xx UHF. I recognize that other bands have other nuances..

[WRYZ926]

A clear line of sight free of any obstructions makes a difference as does using a quality antenna and coax.

Where higher power helps push through say trees is if people are fairly close ( a few miles). But it is not a guarantee either. Cedar and pine trees are the worse for blocking UHF signals.

And in my case, while talking on simplex, the extra power does in fact make a difference. I can talk on the repeater with 10 or 20 watts reliably.. I can sometimes talk on the repeater with my 5 watt KG-935G if standing outside my house. But 5 watt HT's are not reliable enough. The same goes for when we talk on 70cm simplex too. It is the nature of UHF.

[marcspaz]

1 hour ago, WSAK691 said:

My question though, even with that being said, when would 50 watts on 462-467 be appropriate?

Eh... that is kinda of hard to say.  It's situation contingent.  It's mostly going to be when your need to penetrate trees or buildings are part of your range challenges.  In an emergency, having the ability to turn up power to get through woods or building, or increasing scatter and refraction density beyond the RFH can make the difference between communicating or not.

 

1 hour ago, WSAK691 said:

So when you’re setup with one of those 50 watt installs, I’m assuming you’re also going to have the supporting accoutrement to be able to supply that radio at maximum power level, even if you may opt to mainly run it lower.. But you’re geared up to be able to. So that was a cost.. 

 

My 1,500w setup (solar, batteries, cabling, etc.) not including any actual comms gear, just power, was about $2,400.  It's all portable and can bet setup from a "storage" state in under an hour.  Though developing the initial design took a few days.

  

1 hour ago, WSAK691 said:

Also, I’m just going to be straightforward. As far as what you said about using only the power needed to accomplish what you’re doing. I really don’t believe that’s standard practice. I’d bet everything that most people are just going full bore on high all day.

 

I 100% agree.  Though, I do try to coach operators into better practices. 

  

1 hour ago, WSAK691 said:

All that the point of this post was attempting to get across is that I believe that there’s a great deal of GMRSers that are all about that 50 watt model. And I believe they run them that way, all day. And I don’t think very many people realize how much power draw they’re using all the time, for no practical benefit.. 

 

Also, completely agree.  You made some excellent points.  I didn't mean to seem I was debating that point.  If it did seem that way, my apologies.  I was more sharing some thoughts for the practical thinker.  I feel like you have a good grasp on things and just tried to reflect my opinion that people (presumably like the both of us) both understand and are on the opposite side of "all the power all the time" mentality, but rather see the benefits and practical application on both sides of the conversation.

 

[WSAW350]

2 hours ago, marcspaz said:

Eh... that is kinda of hard to say.  It's situation contingent.  It's mostly going to be when your need to penetrate trees or buildings are part of your range challenges.  In an emergency, having the ability to turn up power to get through woods or building, or increasing scatter and refraction density beyond the RFH can make the difference between communicating or not.

I still kinda new at this GMRS thing, but the reason I eventually got a 50 watt base station (KG1000G+) along with a base antenna 20' up in the air is because I don't live in a desert or a mountain top with only a few dozen houses/buildings in a ten mile radius giving me an unfettered line of sight.  My impression is that the extra power can push the signal past the hundreds of houses, buildings and trees in my area to hit a repeater or simplex comms beyond a few miles. And I'm sure the guys with a clear, unobstructed line of sight can do this with just a pair of handhelds. But I can't in my area.

[SvenMarbles]

2 hours ago, WSAW350 said:

I still kinda new at this GMRS thing, but the reason I eventually got a 50 watt base station (KG1000G+) along with a base antenna 20' up in the air is because I don't live in a desert or a mountain top with only a few dozen houses/buildings in a ten mile radius giving me an unfettered line of sight.  My impression is that the extra power can push the signal past the hundreds of houses, buildings and trees in my area to hit a repeater or simplex comms beyond a few miles. And I'm sure the guys with a clear, unobstructed line of sight can do this with just a pair of handhelds. But I can't in my area.

As an exercise. Try turning down to medium and low and see if there's a difference to what you can do with your static station.

I've found that the only variable that can be managed is antenna height. You can change what you can do by moving your antenna higher. But the result of each height increment between 20 and 50 watts will be exactly the same. If you can find time to test that, I'd be very appreciative.

 

[WRYZ926]

I think it is safe to say that we all agree that having a good antenna as high as one can get it along with a good quality coax designed for UHF will make more of a difference compared to using a 25 watt radio vs a 50 watt radio.

Agin location, terrain, foliage, structures, etc will absolutely have an effect on how far one can talk to people.

I took some screen shots to share showing line of sight from me to two friends and from me to our repeater. The repeater is easy to get into on 10 watts but we have to all use high power (50 watts) to talk on simplex. 

home to tower - 21.5 miles

Friend at 18 miles away

Friend that is 23-24 miles away

[WRHS218]

I don't NEED a HT(I know the discussion is about mobiles) with 999 memory slots, or IP-66 rating, or dual receive capabilities, or probably even 5W, or blah blah blah. But that is what I wanted. Get what you want. On the other hand I haven't "needed" a spare tire on my vehicles for over 20 years, but I carry one...

[WRWE456]

At least you don't seem to have any terrain in the way. Just dealing with vegetation and buildings mainly. I can see why the extra power helps.

[WRQW589]

An experience last summer was useful to my understanding with respect to power.

 

Camping east of Zion, a group took a nine mile hike, and a group stayed at camp. The hikers with handhelds kept in touch with each other quite well. Those who stayed at camp radioed to the hikers to check on them, as a storm whipped up. The hikers, later, mentioned that from a few miles out (varied, mountainous terrain) they could hear the campers calling them from 3-4 miles away. But the campers couldn't hear the hikers responding until they were within two miles.

 

The campers were using an MXT-275 (15w) with an MXTA56 (6db antenna). The hikers were on handhelds that transmitted at a little less than 5w, with rubber duck antennas.

 

So, sure, the extra power helped punch through the terrain a *little*. But without the hikers getting up above the terrain, it didn't matter, as they couldn't get a response back to the campers.

 

If you're contemplating a 50w setup vs 15w, just consider whom you'll be communicating with, and in what kind of terrain. I could have had a 50w radio in camp, and it wouldn't have mattered at all; the hikers would have heard the campers from a very slightly greater range, and the campers still wouldn't have heard the hikers responding.

[marcspaz]

37 minutes ago, WRQW589 said:

An experience last summer was useful to my understanding with respect to power.

 

Camping east of Zion, a group took a nine mile hike, and a group stayed at camp. The hikers with handhelds kept in touch with each other quite well. Those who stayed at camp radioed to the hikers to check on them, as a storm whipped up. The hikers, later, mentioned that from a few miles out (varied, mountainous terrain) they could hear the campers calling them from 3-4 miles away. But the campers couldn't hear the hikers responding until they were within two miles.

 

The campers were using an MXT-275 (15w) with an MXTA56 (6db antenna). The hikers were on handhelds that transmitted at a little less than 5w, with rubber duck antennas.

 

So, sure, the extra power helped punch through the terrain a *little*. But without the hikers getting up above the terrain, it didn't matter, as they couldn't get a response back to the campers.

 

If you're contemplating a 50w setup vs 15w, just consider whom you'll be communicating with, and in what kind of terrain. I could have had a 50w radio in camp, and it wouldn't have mattered at all; the hikers would have heard the campers from a very slightly greater range, and the campers still wouldn't have heard the hikers responding.

 

 

On occasion, I have dropped remote repeater at much higher elevation then where our group was spending time for this very reason. As long as the HTs are repeater ready, it makes all the difference in the world. 

[WRQW589]

18 hours ago, marcspaz said:

 

 

On occasion, I have dropped remote repeater at much higher elevation then where our group was spending time for this very reason. As long as the HTs are repeater ready, it makes all the difference in the world. 

That's a really good point. And it wouldn't take a very high powered one. Just good antenna placement, really. I end up going to this spot a couple of times a year, most years, and I can think of a great place for a repeater there, where it would be (1) line of sight over a great distance and (2) permitted on a temporary basis without any problem. Perhaps next time I'm out there I'll consider it.