Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Baofeng spectral purity (or lack thereof)  (Read 25140 times)
KE5RGX
Member

Posts: 1




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: October 23, 2015, 03:04:06 PM »

Is this a design defect or out of adjustment?
Logged
KA1VF
Member

Posts: 176




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: October 23, 2015, 05:39:55 PM »

   I'm the proud owner of a Baofeng UV-5R, and I've always used the CHIRP software
to program it. I'm aware that the Baofeng firmware can't be updated, but I'm also
aware that the CHIRP developers can improve some functional deficiencies. They
(the CHIRP folks) have improved Squelch and a few other design issues. With that
said, I'm curious if the CHIRP developers could do any coding that would improve
the FCC compliance issues?


        73, and good luck

              Bob
Logged
KJ7WC
Member

Posts: 81




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: October 23, 2015, 07:18:49 PM »

Unfortunately, this isn't something that can be fixed with software changes, Bob. On a bright note, there's an off-side chance that your Baofeng is compliant.

Is this a design defect or out of adjustment?

I'm not aware of any claim from the manufacturer of this transceiver's suitability for amateur radio use, and at least some models have Part 90 certification. Since the FCC has authority to take a more holistic evaluation for suitability under Part 90, there may be neither defect nor adjustment for remediation. This raises question about the intent of all of the non-certified Baofeng transceivers imported into the US.
Logged
W8LGX
Member

Posts: 2




Ignore
« Reply #18 on: October 24, 2015, 08:11:57 AM »

What I'd really like to know is how they got the Baofengs type accepted for Part 90 Land Mobile use, when direct keypad entry of the transmitting frequency by the user is forbidden on Part 90 radios?  But yet a search on the FCC web site shows that they do indeed have type acceptance.

On the receive filtering side, I have tested a Baofeng UV-5R Plus against a Kenwood THF6A handheld in a large intermod and adjacent channel generator (Dayton Hamvention), and the THF6A wins hands down.  The Baofeng's receiver was blocked about a third of the time on 2 meters.

73, Bill, W8LGX
Logged
KT0DD
Member

Posts: 451




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: November 01, 2015, 04:54:56 AM »

What I'd really like to know is how they got the Baofengs type accepted for Part 90 Land Mobile use, when direct keypad entry of the transmitting frequency by the user is forbidden on Part 90 radios?  But yet a search on the FCC web site shows that they do indeed have type acceptance.

73, Bill, W8LGX

They get accepted for Part 90 by allowing the keypad to be locked out by programming software settings. However the software is not controlled and anyone can get their hands on it so it's really a moot point.
Logged
KC2MMI
Member

Posts: 831




Ignore
« Reply #20 on: November 10, 2015, 08:51:23 PM »

The Part90 radios are sold with no programming cable and programming is not enabled. There is, however, nothing to prohibit an operator or operating agency from purchasing the cable and software and doing their own programming, is there?

On the other hand, it is illegal to advertise or sell all the radios that are being sold "for ham, frs, gprs use" without Part97 (etc.) certification, which none o them have. Now that the ARRL has documented the poor conformance of these radios...the legal burden falls both on the sellers (for illegal advertising and sales) AND ON THE OPERATORS since any ham who bought one of these many radios for ham use, is personally responsible for making sure their equipment conforms to specifications.

So a ham operating one of these radios but lacking test gear, should consider throwing it out. Odds are the FCC won't hit you with the $10k fine, but odds haven't been reliable since Jimmy the Greek died. If the FCC bothered to do their pesky job and filed against every seller on the web who was illegally selling these...that would be a bigger help.

But unless they get some big complaints about interference, there are larger issues they can make more money attending to.

Could be a nice business opportunity at hamfests or something. You know, gimme ten bucks and I'll test your radio, you take it from there.
Logged
KE2KB
Member

Posts: 1085




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: November 29, 2015, 01:20:59 PM »

Wait until someone (Ham operator or not) with one of those radios causes interference to the public safety band (police, fire, etc). They the FCC will get cracking.
Logged
W2NAP
Member

Posts: 290




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: November 29, 2015, 10:41:18 PM »

Wait until someone (Ham operator or not) with one of those radios causes interference to the public safety band (police, fire, etc). They the FCC will get cracking.

its already happened. somewhere out east (NJ I think) kids with baofengs were on a EMS freq. A year or so back Anderson,IN Police (UHF system) had someone whirligiging (using the baofeng siren alarm noise toy) I also believe Madison County EMA had the same problem. and I remember reading a few other PD/FD across the US getting problems with baofengs as well.
Logged

I AM THE VOICE OF THE VOICELESS!
AA4HA
Member

Posts: 2630




Ignore
« Reply #23 on: December 30, 2015, 05:06:49 PM »

While I admire your zeal in raising the flag on what appears to be a lack of compliance by the Baofeng products I doubt you will get very many hams to do anything about it. They will rationalize it away as "it is such a cheap radio I can keep them in the kitchen drawer for the SHTF or zombie apocalypse".

In other words, "they have been bought"... Lots of people have their price; they do not like to admit it but there is a number where they are willing to compromise on their principals and the ideas of following the law. When confronted with that truth they get quite defensive and angry and lead with comments like "WHO CARES!". The reality is that their ethics are worth exactly what the dollar difference is between a cheap radio and a compliant radio... or about $400.

There, all of you Baofeng apologists; your ethics have been sold for $400.

I bet that there was some point in your life where maybe you said "I would not do that for a million dollars (or insert some other number in here)". Well, now you know what your honor is worth.

Proud of so many of you for holding out. Does your generations proud.

Tisha, AA4HA
Logged

Ms. Tisha Hayes, AA4HA
Lookout Mountain, Alabama
KC2MMI
Member

Posts: 831




Ignore
« Reply #24 on: December 31, 2015, 05:18:32 PM »

Just wondering, speaking of Part 90. I think the UV-82C (?) is their newer Part90 certified radio. Is it possible that the radios which have been given certification are tuned or tweaked or somehow a bit different from the bulk of the radios they sell?

has anyone actually done the compliance testing on the newer Part90 certified radios? The ARRL article didn't mention them at all.
Logged
AD1ET
Member

Posts: 16




Ignore
« Reply #25 on: January 27, 2016, 04:30:41 PM »

I have been following this in a number of forums for some time.  I have no arguments with the quality of the measurements.  I do, however, think a field evaluation is of interest to owners of these Chinese non complying radios.  To this end I have employed my mobile Yaesu 7900r in my truck as the test platform.  Setting that very sensitive receiver to a multiple of 145 Mhz and putting my wife in the vehicle to hit the brakes as a signal, I broadcast from my Baofeng UV5Ra.  The harmonics go below the noise at 400 feet from the truck.  Next, I fired up the Icom T70a on 145 Mhz.  The harmonics from that fell into the noise at 350 feet from the truck.  So, the practical lesson from this test of the harmonic emissions from my $20 Baofeng vs my $200 Icom is  50 feet larger interference sphere for the Baofeng.  This is the reason the FCC does not really care about the non compliance issue for spurious emission.  While these radios do not meet the technical spec they are still pretty good.  Good enough for virtually all practical purposes.
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!