No one is going to stop robocalls because telephone corporations make billions on robocalls and no republican administration is even going to consider taking profits like that out of the hands of billion dollar corporations, because, as the republican majority Supreme Court has told us, corporations have every right to express their Constitutionally protected "speech" donating millions to influence elections and governments.
FYI- The FCC in an Unconstitutional agency(No Authorization for Congress to create, Need amendment. Think alcohol prohibition and the 18th Amendment). All of its self created "laws" are illegal. Anyone promoting the tyranny is GUILTY of treason. Or at a minimum aiding and abetting. The penalty for treason is DEATH.
Congress passed a Bill to end Robocals on Landline and Smartphones.
5 лет назад
@@Cryptonymicus how do they make billions? Nobody I ever heard of has ever got excited and busted out their wallet. NOBODY uses them of gives money to them
Robocalls are a problem because of how Anonymous it is and having 10,000,000,000 different combinations of phone numbers that can be generated from an VOIP. They can also be sent as an unknown caller which makes it impossible to block...
In fairness to baofeng, you should show a test using a compliant transmitter while using an auxiliary power amplifier. Most of the time, the legal spurious noise will be boosted to many times what the beofeng puts out. This is a common problem with amps, which most hams regularly use.
This is a little weird. I have tested several UV-5R on my Siglent 3.2GHz spectrum analyzer via a 30dB attenuator. And at full power out (4.5 ish W for most of them, at 145.000MHz and 435.000MHz), none of the harmonics was above -60dBc at full 3.2GHz sweep. It did not look at all as in your video. Probably there is a new generation of UV-5R, as I have not seen those spurious emissions in my test. 73 de Einar - LA7YKA.
If it was not for cheap Beofeng radios and your videos I would not have my General as I have today. I have since purchased a 2m mobile and a HF radio. I’m migrating to expensive radios but you got me hooked with a cheap HT and the $15 video you did. You are doing good work getting people on board with the cheap HTs. Let the FCC be the police and keep rolling. Thanks again.
Wow, that is cool. I hope you get as much out of the hobby as I do. I really, really wanted my 5R to pass, but I'm on the lookout for an inexpensive radio with better filtering.
Ham Radio In Action I am not going to have all my radios lab tested. I can’t say I’m surprised at the outcome. It is the operators choice once they get their license and we have a bunch of repeater uv5 traffic and the world has not come to a stop. Yes I support that radios should be to spec. and comply with standards. I’m not tossing my 2 BF8s 8w HT because Im not aware of a problem with them. Thanks
This testing was thought provoking, recalling some of the questions from the Extra Class exam. In the video, harmonics and spurious emissions seemed to be used interchangeability. But they represent different effects--Harmonics are the integer multiples of the fundamental frequency; spurious emissions are non-integer effects compared to the fundamental www.rfwireless-world.com/Terminology/spurious-vs-harmonics.html. It seems this was a test of only the harmonics. It happens that I have both radios too and decided to look at the harmonics of the BF-F8HP and TH-D74 on the air in low power mode with their stock antennas. Rationale: A complete RF transmission system includes all resonant circuits: the oscillator, modulator, rf amplifier as well as the antenna. My "spectrum analyzer" was an SDR, commparing signal strength when both radios were keyed at 146.52 MHz. The surprising result: Both radios had comparable 3rd harmonics levels at 439.56, both about 60 db lower than the fundamental (as per each radio's published spec). Both radios showed what appeared to be spurious emissions at 500 KHz intervals around the fundamental, but those may be an artifact of the SDR. One of the issues with the rubber duckie antennas is the tradeoff that is made to obtain multiband performance and whether the tradeoff contributes to the harmonic levels observed. (next test: a reference dipole?) We know antennas can make a difference. For example, ERP is used for power levels which includes the antenna gain. So maybe it's important to consider including the antenna with the radio when examining suppression of harmonics and spurious emissions. This doesn't negate Brian and Don's test but adds another data point and POV. At any rate, exploring issues like this is why ham radio is fun and is why I got a new license after many years away.
For a transmitter having a mean power of 25 W or less, the mean power of any spurious emission supplied to the antenna transmission line must not exceed 25 µW and must be at least 40 dB below the mean power of the fundamental emission,
I did some research on this earlier and found multiple tests with various compliance and non-compliant results, as well as slightly different testing parameters. I wonder if it is just a quality control issues, especially since these seem to come from multiple vendors under the same “brand name”.
@@HarryHamsterChannel While what you said is true, this particular gentleman did perform valid tests and his results were valid. I have a few BTech radios that fail the same way at 2-meters and pass at 1.25 and 70cm, with the harmonic patterns looking the same as his results.
Unless your on that radio transmitting for hours at the time, this radio can still be used when you use it to transmit as long as you use it for short transmittions.
@@HamRadioInAction Yeah, I'll guess you have a point there. By the way I found this Baofeng spectrum analyser test video. ruclips.net/video/fs8twTaO62Y/видео.html
It's unlikely you'd step on transmissions or trigger repeaters unless you're close and have LOS. It's still somewhat irresponsible on a social level -- fcc has these rules about pollution for a reason. Also, it's wasted power. One of the reasons Baofengs don't meet their advertised tx specs. But the scenario where $25 radios shine is two tech class hams in the wilderness using simplex, and in this case you are polluting in areas that probably don't matter. By the numbers in video: H1: 350mW pollution ~300MHz. Sort of a junkyard for RF pollution. H2: 1.1W ~440MHz! A lot of wasted power and this one is sketchy. H3: 150mW ~590MHz. Not a problem.
@@ExtremeSquared Hi D P. Unfortunately, your H1, H2 and H3 values are grossly incorrect. The correct values are (all values are in milliwatts (mW): H1: 0.064 mW (that’s less than 1/10 of a milliwatt) H2: 0.2 mW (that’s 2/10 of a milliwatt) H3: 0.03 mW (that’s 3/100 of a milliwatt) So ALL the Harmonics are miniscule. To the untrained eye, spectrum analyser results appear horrific. Yes, the results do not comply with FCC Regs, but the harmonics are so miniscule they will have no effect on other users (yes - maybe if you are stood right next to a sensitive radio astronomy dish and the likes). SPOILER: The scale used on spectrum analysers is dBm (dB milliwatts, NOT dBW). Baofeng Bashers - stop bashing Baofengs until you know what you are talking about! Agreed - they don’t comply, but it’s certainly not the end of the world as we know it. Hams need to stop being their own enemies (discussing what they CAN'T do) and spend their time more productively discussing what they CAN. Jeez - less than 1/10 of a milliwatt Harmonic and everyone is jumping up and down! For info, your standard Bluetooth emits 2.5 milliwatts - that’s 25x more powerful - and your typical router wifi emits 50 milliwatts - that’s 500x more powerful than the typical Baofeng’s harmonic, and neither the Bluetooth or wifi get you very far! Calm down!
I appreciate the video, but am I getting this right? FCC regs state that for a transmit power of less than 25W, (i) any spurious emission must be 40dB below the fundamental emission and (ii) not exceed 25µW (microwatts). The Baofeng power shows as 37.28dBm (a little over 5W). 40dB below that fundamental of 37.28dBm is -2.72dBm, so does that mean the three harmonics of -11.85dBm, -6.94dBm and -15.48dBm are (i) all in spec regarding the 40 dB down, but (ii) out of spec regarding the 25µW? I take it (as declared in the video) that the green 16dBm line on the oscilloscope represents the 25µW spec. Any help out there from any oscilloscope gurus would be most appreciated.
Okay I have the UV-5R V2+, the second generation of the UV-5R. and it is Part 90 certified. I have used it since 2016 and I've never had any complaints. Although I've never had it checked.
Mark Plott I was pointing out that particular one as one example - it would be perfect for 70cm. You can also build a similar filter at whatever frequency you like or search for one at anther frequency. There are simple fixes for this kind of issue.
Dan Butorovich He doesn't want to apply an effective, simple fix to his problem. He was told a couple times, by a source he promotes as knowledgeable and equipped, that a filter would work and acted like he didn't hear it. Instead, he said he could keep buying them until he found one that worked, knowing that he'd probably never find one that would. It's not about legitimate testing. It's about pushing a narrative to feel morally superior. Pretending not to see the elephant in the room is the same "fake news" we see all the time from people who would rather "appear" right than accept "being" wrong. I've seen his other videos praising the radio. I've even kinda liked watching. He seems like a good Joe. But, this kind of "matter of factly" trying to ruin things for everyone else because he thinks he has a "gotcha", just ruins the hobby for newcomers who want to do the right thing. Why not do the extra work of applying a filter and encourage them in the hobby. That way, he doesn't have to write off all his previous effort to encourage people to buy Baofeng as a good introduction to HAM. If there isn't a follow up video that shows the success or failure of a legitimate filter then, well, it speaks to yet another example of biased reporting. I do hope he does the extra work. If he can prove there's no salvation for the Baofeng, I agree they should no longer be used...unless, of course, the s does htf. Then, the whole show is moot.
Shouldn't you be using a load, not just an attenuator? II saw you neither indicate nor (correctly) interpret any specific results. Called out a comparison when there was apparently none photographed. Dis you say there are no regulations at these frequencies? Compare any indicated results with standards? Conclusion described as "I assume". Kindly clarify. I'd use it. Because, conflicting results can be found elsewhere on the net. I don't need a spectrum analyzer, but thanks.
No load was needed and the tests were performed properly. You can get yourself a TinySA for $60 and perform the same tests and almost certainly see the same results. While there are no specs explicitly detailed for the 70cm band, it is good practice to follow the same rules for 2meter and 1.25meter. I have two of these radios and get the same results, which is that they fail at 2meters and do okay at 70cm.
Seconding the suggestion to explore installation of a middle pass filter, maybe a reasonable project to tackle... even without testing mine, which are several years old. Good segment, love the channel! Thanks and keep 'em coming! KM6KLV
This video means zip. Use your radio for shtf all you want! Hell use it for everything. Just stay off emergency/police frequencies. Don't worry about pissing off a ham. We stay pissed off.
@@kevinroberts781 Hi Aaron. Good advice. There's far too much unwarranted Baofeng Bashing going on by some who clearly do not know what they are talking about! Stay safe.
I’d suggest getting your license if you haven’t already, and get yourself a decent radio like a Yaesu FT-60R as a starter. They are not that expensive and are excellent radios, with a great front-end for receiving. If you can’t afford that and your top dollar amount is $50, perhaps check out the Tidradio H3. It is proving to be fairly clean and receives pretty well too. It’s not as good as a Yaesu, but it’s not bad for the price.
The high tension power lines running a few miles from my house put out just massive disturbance yet I don't see the FCC giving the power company hell lol. I think part of the reason for the issues is that it is dual band, can you run this test again with the Baofeng set to only one band? Or test another device that has dual band? Just curious.
We tested both just got cut on editing. They both failed. I have another video when I test a newer model Baofeng. VHF failed, UHF passed, I gave that radio away to a subscriber.
Gov't has a spec for everything. What does this actually hurt? I mean, are u talking about running 57 in a 55, or 80 in a 55? One is technically against the law, the other is a real problem.
@@ronwatson3654 I actually found a BF-888s that, when keyed on 462.700 MHz had a -10 dBm spur at 812.912 MHz. What was really interesting about that, 851.9125 MHz happened to be the active control channel for a local P25 system (meaning it received at 812.9125 MHz). Played around with the idea a bit more (working with one of the system techs at the time) and we discovered that a subscriber attenuated to have an output of -10 dBm would still register and affiliate with the system. What we knew from experience, if the control channel was to receive a signal from a conflicting source, dubbed an illegal carrier, it would roll to an alternate control channel. When there are no more alternate control channels available due to illegal carrier detection on all control channels...the site goes into failsoft (i.e. it breaks trunking function). Has this sequence of events ever happened on that system? Not that we can prove as the system has only gone into failsoft on occasion and it has almost always been traceable to technicians at the site shutting stuff down incorrectly when prepping for PM work or the odd hardware failure. We've logged illegal carriers causing control channel rolls on many occasions but I've only ever seen failsoft due to illegal carriers happen on VHF systems due to tropo-ducting. Can it be a problem, yes. Is it likely to become a problem, about as likely as a 100 year flood...but those do occasionally happen.
How about I buy the house next to yours and light up my bag of trash on fire every night because I am too lazy to dispose of it. Yea, it's illegal but in your mindset that's ok. Oh ? The smoke from my trash burning is making it's way into your house. Meh, it won't hurt anything right ?
Excellent video once again! This brings some kind of challenges to fix a filter between the radio and antenna for preventing such spurious emissions from the much loved-and-criticised pocket friendly Baofeng UV5R handheld transceiver across the world. Cheers & 73!
Did you find any filters to bring it into spec? What about a small bandpass filter to keep the front end from overloading? Sure, I can use a better radio, but this seems like a cool project to learn about how radios work.
We looked into it, but they either cost as much as the radio, or added bulk. For now I'm switching to TYT TH-UV88, same price point, better filtering from TYT.
You should test the new batches that are approved for sale and transmit locked. Also, the GT-5R as that one is specifically modified to get rid of these emissions. I have a GT-5R and it's essentially the same and can be unlocked to transmit on all frequencies (still not legal to do so, however). So Id be curious to see if both that and the UV-5R are the same just rebadged for the same of marketing.
Not really the Boafeng UV5-R is an amazing radio a $30 radio that's been able to contact someone 2,000 Miles away. The Peoples Liberation Army of China used it before it was brought to the Civillan Market and the Ukraine Army is useing it. The National Guard is starting to use them.
Actually, he compared a $30 radio to an absolute standard. Yes, he compared both radios against the same standard, and the better radio passed the test. Sadly, I have 3 working radios similar to the one that failed and no current capability to perform the same test. It would be unfair to compare the radios to each other and expect the less expensive radio to do as well. It is completely fair to compare every radio to the absolute standard for legal use by a licensed amateur and determine whether the radio is legal to use for broadcast. Wish I'd seen this video before buying the second set (one of which isn't working anyway). Live and learn. So, to find the radio to use for transmitting...
The Boafeng UV5-R is a pretty damn good Radio if the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army, Kurdish Army, Liberian Army, Romanian Army, Serbian Army, Turkish Army & Ukraine Army are useing it not to mention Milita's around the world and Emergency Services. Even the National Guard is starting to use them.
@Hakan Koseoglu Hi Hakan - I am interested - can you give me a video time-stamp regarding your comment relating to -14dBm being 40 microwatts (which is 0.040 milliwatts). This video is very interesting in that, aside from confirming the Baofeng does not comply with FCC Regs, nevertheless all the harmonics were less than 2/10 of a milliwatt which, for practical intents and purposes, is inconsequential. Trouble is, most Hams just don’t understand spectrum analyser readings, don't understand these miniscule milliwatt and microwatt readings, and go on to bash the Baofeng out of ignorance. Regards, Iain.
I’d like to add to Nik’s question if you know if the BF-F8HP has the same issue. I’m wondering if this issue is Baofeng-wide or radio-specific. Thanks for posting too.
Would the antenna itself on the Baofeng have any impact on reducing the spurious harmonic emissions? I believe that was mentioned on another test analysis I came across - however how would one validate that with the antenna on?
Yes. However, that's not how specifications are written for devices operated under Part 97. For example, Part 90 (commercial two-way) actually requires the testing be performed by measuring radiated spurs off the OE supplied antenna. This is how the UV-5R initially made it past Part 90 type acceptance only to be found to not always pass Part 97 specifications.
I have a few from BTech that all fail on 2meters. It’s doubtful yours would pass. That being said, they are tri-band and squeak by on the other two bands.
Okay, if your going to be that critical of a 5 watt radio pushing out a tiny amount of noise than you must give up ever hitting another repeater. Because even a passing radio at that level will blow the crap out of that feng after amplified and rebroadcasted. So you should say I’ll never use the feng on a tower but for radio to radio it’s fine.
Great test, but now test it beyond this range, this literally affects no one beyond the user's own vicinity and is not a valid justification for anything. I have a feeling that at any normal talking distance this drops to nothing.
Ok, now go set up this radio with an antenna and put a rcv'r/spectrum analyzer at 50 or 100 feet. Find any spurious emissions... you won't. Certainly nothing that interferes with anyone else. This is like the persistent nonsense that the FCC (correction: FAA!) swore up and down that any electronic device used on a plane would make it flip over and crash... (yes, being absurdly melodramatic here...). But now we can use computers, tablets, & cell phones with no issues! To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a documented case where a Baofeng; operating by a ham & with a ham band; interfered with any other (public) service, repeater, etc. In fact, think about it... the 3rd harmonic for 2M freqs. fall into our own 70cm band. The only legit issue are those knuckleheads who deliberately operate on those police/fire/other unauthorized freqs. By the way, I have operated my Baofeng while monitoring the harmonic freqs. with my quite sensitive SDR radio; again, have seen nothing on the waterfall.
Good day, I bought my uv5r last spring when my buddy and I started thinking of the prepping mindset. In a SHTF scenario, is this still a good radio for comms? I'm by no means knowledgeable of HAM, but I want to have ability to communicate in dire scenarios.
If you are serious about emergency communications you should get your license and practice using your radio(s). There are volunteer ham groups like ARES who specialize in this and coordinate with the community. Without knowledge and practice your emergency radio will be useful for listening to commercial radio stations and that’s about it.
has anyone actually been caught using a radio which is over the power limit? (but still in the correct frequency ranges). UK us 0.5W without a licence. Could i get away with using a 5W UV5r without getting caught. (asking for a friend, of course)
The dislikes are a result of the Un-American boot lickery expressed in this video. Message to the viewer: Bow and Lick the boots of your self appointed master - these laws concerning insignificant spurious emissions that harm NO ONE MUST be followed...Why? because WE say so. *Law does not equàte to morality.* Not to mention the fact that this entire agency and all of its "laws" are illegal. There has never been a Constitutional Amendment authorizing it's existence, much less it's law making abilities. --> To support an illegal agency and it's illegal dictates is tantamount to treason. We have the tenth Amendment for a reason. If you folks want to support lawful organization of the radio frequency spectrum I suggest that you follow the law. This is a state issue. Period. Tip: How did they pass alcohol prohibition?
Well you know where the fcc can go.? It's a 4 letter word. fcc also engages in market manipulation which is far more egregious than your spurious emissions. Think for yourself and question authority.
These laws are dumb. I knew a nerd that one time had to ride his bicycle up a sidewalk and on to someone's lawn to avoid something. And he told the story like this was the most exciting thing and how he broke the law by not riding in the street. I was standing there like ok whats your point. Hams are the same nerds that have to follow the rules to the T that anything else is unacceptable. The fcc rules state if you have device manufactured before 1977 you are exempt from the transmitting rule. So if it's so deadly and dangerous then why have that exemption at all.
Cheep? Mine fell ten feet. To the pavement fearing the worst. I snached it up. Surprise it works fine. Tough little dog. Keeps on barking. I'm all by my selfe. No neighbors. Mostly mine is for the FM radio.and wx. The neighbor hood repeaters are locked. I can call my xxx off. So it dosen't matter me much. It's not for DX any how. Tks. Ps chirp program beats the issue with out of range issue's.
You are incorrect. The except means amateurs may use radios that can transmit out of ham bands, whereas non amateurs may not. This advisory and exemption has NOTHING to with part 97 emission standards. In other words, I could use my UV-5r to transmit despite it being able to transmit out of band, but since it does not comply with emission standards it still violates FCC rule 97.307(e).
@@j.curtissims1510 Hi J. Curtis, I just read the FCC Advisory you mentioned, and the Baofeng radios are not exempt from certification because they can transmit on frequencies outside of the ham band. Per the FCC Advisory you mentioned: "Amateur Radio Exception. There is one exception to this certification requirement: if a device is capable of operating only on frequencies that the FCC has allocated for use by Amateur Radio Service licensees, it does not require FCC equipment authorization, and an amateur licensee may use his or her license to operate such radios. However, many two-way radios that purport to operate on amateur frequencies also operate on frequencies that extend beyond the designated amateur frequency bands." And even if they did not require certification, most of them still violate the spurious emission limits which Ham radio operators must comply with.
5 лет назад
The bawfang is a good radio for what it is. I'm a pro ham radio operator been using ham for decades and the bawfang is better then they say. Never had a issue other than hardware voice which isnt important in the first place
The coax is a"pipe" even with a filter. Am I right? Let's be fair. Give your scope a antenna, just like the radio. Has and stand 6' away. Then let's see if those spikes are so visible. I never see a "clear air test". ever! Please don't get me wrong. I am picky how I spend my money. And my baofange are for my ESC bag. They have Fm radio, wx, and monitor capacity. I want. Please be fair. Even I can see a corvair situation. Here. I dare you to test with out the pipe. In the mean time rember we as consumers can vote with our feet /wallets. Make complaints visible to the mfg. Tell him to tighten up or we walk! it's that simple. Thanks. ps I got the chirp program and tying down the rig so when i pass into officer space. The radio" now declines" to go"" there with a Curt denial."Denied". That is a plus. Thanks .
@@HamRadioInAction then to follow the logic. I would have to throw out all the single conversion, direct conversion. And homodyne receivers out the door. They emit local oscillator back to there antennas.
Great video! I started with a Baofeng UV-5R, because of the price, but the mod was horrible. No wonder, when the power is dissipated into the harmonics. As I am a CEPT 1 licensed ham, I have the responsibility to avoid such crap. Hence I work with a Yaesu VX-8DR, which cost me approx. 350$. Despite of the many additional functions, it is worth that. I think, most users tx via a relay, and thus do not disturb each other. So, in the community this seems not to be a major problem. But the rest is not silence, but QRM. And as hams, we should keep our bands clean, I think. And with 25$-gadgets, we are vulnerable to non-licensed jokers. Thank you and vy 73, oe1llc.
I just got my Tech cert 6/12/21. I have purposed in my mind I will never use my hard earned money to buy one of these illegal pieces of crap. First radio? An Icom IC-V86.
Walker talkie on chip radios lack proper filtering on both TX, thus spurious emissions and wide open front ends (no real filtering) on the receiver front ends which is why they overload from anything and everything. At the end of the day, there is no comparison between a quality transceiver with good engineering versus crap designed to a bottom end price point. As hams, we should be mindful of what we transmit- the rules require it.
Probably not me. And honestly, I'd rather have an affordable way for people to get into the hobby, rather than worry about some fairly minor signal issues
At this point I only use mine for UHF receivers on my homebrew amsat yagi lol. If I need to transmit on UHF I may use my UV-5R+ just because I'm at 2.0SWR from my shoddy craftsmanship and don't want that on my VX-6R.
You should encourage people not to buy this piece of shit radio. I bought the UV-5R when I first got my tech license and it took me a few months to realize how crappy the build quality is on them. The volume pot is super scratchy and it doesn't transmit at the 4W advertised. Great receiver but the transmit side on my is garbage.
@@stacyadiaz All of the videos on this channel are encouraging to new hams or people interested in ham radio. Even this video is informative to new hams. I think you may have misunderstood the point of this video.
Amazing the FCC can go crazy over this radio and issue all types of warnings, but they can't end robocalls
No one is going to stop robocalls because telephone corporations make billions on robocalls and no republican administration is even going to consider taking profits like that out of the hands of billion dollar corporations, because, as the republican majority Supreme Court has told us, corporations have every right to express their Constitutionally protected "speech" donating millions to influence elections and governments.
FYI- The FCC in an Unconstitutional agency(No Authorization for Congress to create, Need amendment. Think alcohol prohibition and the 18th Amendment). All of its self created "laws" are illegal. Anyone promoting the tyranny is GUILTY of treason. Or at a minimum aiding and abetting. The penalty for treason is DEATH.
Congress passed a Bill to end Robocals on Landline and Smartphones.
@@Cryptonymicus how do they make billions? Nobody I ever heard of has ever got excited and busted out their wallet. NOBODY uses them of gives money to them
Robocalls are a problem because of how Anonymous it is and having 10,000,000,000 different combinations of phone numbers that can be generated from an VOIP. They can also be sent as an unknown caller which makes it impossible to block...
In fairness to baofeng, you should show a test using a compliant transmitter while using an auxiliary power amplifier. Most of the time, the legal spurious noise will be boosted to many times what the beofeng puts out. This is a common problem with amps, which most hams regularly use.
I love my uv5r it rules ! I’ll keep using mine
This is why we learn about electronics. We can put a filter between the radio and antenna.
This is a little weird. I have tested several UV-5R on my Siglent 3.2GHz spectrum analyzer via a 30dB attenuator. And at full power out (4.5 ish W for most of them, at 145.000MHz and 435.000MHz), none of the harmonics was above -60dBc at full 3.2GHz sweep. It did not look at all as in your video. Probably there is a new generation of UV-5R, as I have not seen those spurious emissions in my test. 73 de Einar - LA7YKA.
If it was not for cheap Beofeng radios and your videos I would not have my General as I have today. I have since purchased a 2m mobile and a HF radio. I’m migrating to expensive radios but you got me hooked with a cheap HT and the $15 video you did. You are doing good work getting people on board with the cheap HTs. Let the FCC be the police and keep rolling. Thanks again.
Wow, that is cool. I hope you get as much out of the hobby as I do. I really, really wanted my 5R to pass, but I'm on the lookout for an inexpensive radio with better filtering.
Ham Radio In Action I am not going to have all my radios lab tested. I can’t say I’m surprised at the outcome. It is the operators choice once they get their license and we have a bunch of repeater uv5 traffic and the world has not come to a stop. Yes I support that radios should be to spec. and comply with standards. I’m not tossing my 2 BF8s 8w HT because Im not aware of a problem with them. Thanks
He's promoting security through obscurity, but doesn't know it.
@@dannyjensen4954 You have no problem with them Seem happy. Good for you!
I have 4 different models and I’m going to wipe all knowledge of this video from my memory. Before I wipe my memory........great video!
This testing was thought provoking, recalling some of the questions from the Extra Class exam. In the video, harmonics and spurious emissions seemed to be used interchangeability. But they represent different effects--Harmonics are the integer multiples of the fundamental frequency; spurious emissions are non-integer effects compared to the fundamental www.rfwireless-world.com/Terminology/spurious-vs-harmonics.html. It seems this was a test of only the harmonics. It happens that I have both radios too and decided to look at the harmonics of the BF-F8HP and TH-D74 on the air in low power mode with their stock antennas. Rationale: A complete RF transmission system includes all resonant circuits: the oscillator, modulator, rf amplifier as well as the antenna. My "spectrum analyzer" was an SDR, commparing signal strength when both radios were keyed at 146.52 MHz. The surprising result: Both radios had comparable 3rd harmonics levels at 439.56, both about 60 db lower than the fundamental (as per each radio's published spec). Both radios showed what appeared to be spurious emissions at 500 KHz intervals around the fundamental, but those may be an artifact of the SDR. One of the issues with the rubber duckie antennas is the tradeoff that is made to obtain multiband performance and whether the tradeoff contributes to the harmonic levels observed. (next test: a reference dipole?) We know antennas can make a difference. For example, ERP is used for power levels which includes the antenna gain. So maybe it's important to consider including the antenna with the radio when examining suppression of harmonics and spurious emissions. This doesn't negate Brian and Don's test but adds another data point and POV. At any rate, exploring issues like this is why ham radio is fun and is why I got a new license after many years away.
For a transmitter having a mean power of 25 W or less, the mean power of any spurious emission supplied to the antenna transmission line must not exceed 25 µW and must be at least 40 dB below the mean power of the fundamental emission,
@David W3GZS Hi David. Interesting post from yourself. Thanks for the info. Iain.
Great video, making actual observations with a piece of test equipment beats speculation any day!
I did some research on this earlier and found multiple tests with various compliance and non-compliant results, as well as slightly different testing parameters. I wonder if it is just a quality control issues, especially since these seem to come from multiple vendors under the same “brand name”.
RF is becoming a lost art. A spectrum analyzer and a call sign do not make someone an expert.
@@HarryHamsterChannel While what you said is true, this particular gentleman did perform valid tests and his results were valid. I have a few BTech radios that fail the same way at 2-meters and pass at 1.25 and 70cm, with the harmonic patterns looking the same as his results.
Nice video!
I have a UV5R coming, no license so it will be listen only. I am working on getting 1. my license and 2. an FT-60R for actual use.
@Emmanuel Goldstein I agree. Anyone asks say your on an old kenwood or something. No ones gonna chase you down if your behaving yourself.
The FT-60R is a fantastic radio. It’s an absolute workhorse at a great price.
Very interesting. That's for posting this, and thanks for doing it, Don.
Great video and great channel! I've read conflicting reports on Baofengs and it was nice to watch the test performed. KD9MKO
Even though I'm in the UK, and the situation is different, this is a very interesting video.
You we're talking about filters ? Is it easy to do or not ? Maybe you could do a video on how to put in a filter ? Thanks !
you stick the Filter up your ass for BEST Reception.
Unless your on that radio transmitting for hours at the time, this radio can still be used when you use it to transmit as long as you use it for short transmittions.
I won't be. It transmits on other frequencies than the one I have selected regardless of how long you transmit.
@@HamRadioInAction Yeah, I'll guess you have a point there. By the way I found this Baofeng spectrum analyser test video. ruclips.net/video/fs8twTaO62Y/видео.html
How close would you have to be to the UV5R to actually pick up these spurious emissions...
the spurious emmisions occur over the entire 2m band and can be detected form MILES away.
It's unlikely you'd step on transmissions or trigger repeaters unless you're close and have LOS. It's still somewhat irresponsible on a social level -- fcc has these rules about pollution for a reason. Also, it's wasted power. One of the reasons Baofengs don't meet their advertised tx specs.
But the scenario where $25 radios shine is two tech class hams in the wilderness using simplex, and in this case you are polluting in areas that probably don't matter.
By the numbers in video:
H1: 350mW pollution ~300MHz. Sort of a junkyard for RF pollution.
H2: 1.1W ~440MHz! A lot of wasted power and this one is sketchy.
H3: 150mW ~590MHz. Not a problem.
@@markplott4820 Nope !
@@ExtremeSquared Hi D P. Unfortunately, your H1, H2 and H3 values are grossly incorrect. The correct values are (all values are in milliwatts (mW):
H1: 0.064 mW (that’s less than 1/10 of a milliwatt)
H2: 0.2 mW (that’s 2/10 of a milliwatt)
H3: 0.03 mW (that’s 3/100 of a milliwatt)
So ALL the Harmonics are miniscule. To the untrained eye, spectrum analyser results appear horrific. Yes, the results do not comply with FCC Regs, but the harmonics are so miniscule they will have no effect on other users (yes - maybe if you are stood right next to a sensitive radio astronomy dish and the likes).
SPOILER: The scale used on spectrum analysers is dBm (dB milliwatts, NOT dBW). Baofeng Bashers - stop bashing Baofengs until you know what you are talking about! Agreed - they don’t comply, but it’s certainly not the end of the world as we know it. Hams need to stop being their own enemies (discussing what they CAN'T do) and spend their time more productively discussing what they CAN. Jeez - less than 1/10 of a milliwatt Harmonic and everyone is jumping up and down! For info, your standard Bluetooth emits 2.5 milliwatts - that’s 25x more powerful - and your typical router wifi emits 50 milliwatts - that’s 500x more powerful than the typical Baofeng’s harmonic, and neither the Bluetooth or wifi get you very far! Calm down!
@@vidasvv Hi N8AUM. I like your reply to Mark Plott - a little knowledge is dangerours, I think you'll agree!
I appreciate the video, but am I getting this right? FCC regs state that for a transmit power of less than 25W, (i) any spurious emission must be 40dB below the fundamental emission and (ii) not exceed 25µW (microwatts).
The Baofeng power shows as 37.28dBm (a little over 5W). 40dB below that fundamental of 37.28dBm is -2.72dBm, so does that mean the three harmonics of -11.85dBm, -6.94dBm and -15.48dBm are (i) all in spec regarding the 40 dB down, but (ii) out of spec regarding the 25µW?
I take it (as declared in the video) that the green 16dBm line on the oscilloscope represents the 25µW spec. Any help out there from any oscilloscope gurus would be most appreciated.
Okay I have the UV-5R V2+, the second generation of the UV-5R. and it is Part 90 certified. I have used it since 2016 and I've never had any complaints. Although I've never had it checked.
This video explains the situation so clearly. Much appreciated! Thank you
There is a low pass filter available on Amazon that would work to prevent emissions above 800 MHz. You could also build a simple RC filter.
but these are Spurious emissions occurring WETHIN the 2m Band , that filter is useless.
Mark Plott I was pointing out that particular one as one example - it would be perfect for 70cm. You can also build a similar filter at whatever frequency you like or search for one at anther frequency. There are simple fixes for this kind of issue.
Dan Butorovich He doesn't want to apply an effective, simple fix to his problem. He was told a couple times, by a source he promotes as knowledgeable and equipped, that a filter would work and acted like he didn't hear it. Instead, he said he could keep buying them until he found one that worked, knowing that he'd probably never find one that would. It's not about legitimate testing. It's about pushing a narrative to feel morally superior. Pretending not to see the elephant in the room is the same "fake news" we see all the time from people who would rather "appear" right than accept "being" wrong. I've seen his other videos praising the radio. I've even kinda liked watching. He seems like a good Joe. But, this kind of "matter of factly" trying to ruin things for everyone else because he thinks he has a "gotcha", just ruins the hobby for newcomers who want to do the right thing. Why not do the extra work of applying a filter and encourage them in the hobby. That way, he doesn't have to write off all his previous effort to encourage people to buy Baofeng as a good introduction to HAM. If there isn't a follow up video that shows the success or failure of a legitimate filter then, well, it speaks to yet another example of biased reporting. I do hope he does the extra work. If he can prove there's no salvation for the Baofeng, I agree they should no longer be used...unless, of course, the s does htf. Then, the whole show is moot.
Shouldn't you be using a load, not just an attenuator? II saw you neither indicate nor (correctly) interpret any specific results. Called out a comparison when there was apparently none photographed. Dis you say there are no regulations at these frequencies? Compare any indicated results with standards? Conclusion described as "I assume". Kindly clarify.
I'd use it. Because, conflicting results can be found elsewhere on the net. I don't need a spectrum analyzer, but thanks.
No load was needed and the tests were performed properly. You can get yourself a TinySA for $60 and perform the same tests and almost certainly see the same results. While there are no specs explicitly detailed for the 70cm band, it is good practice to follow the same rules for 2meter and 1.25meter. I have two of these radios and get the same results, which is that they fail at 2meters and do okay at 70cm.
It be nice to test some other baofeng models like the GT3TP etc.
GT-5TP is
Seconding the suggestion to explore installation of a middle pass filter, maybe a reasonable project to tackle... even without testing mine, which are several years old. Good segment, love the channel! Thanks and keep 'em coming! KM6KLV
simple Solution, buy a Quality radio to begin with.
Great video. Sorry for the results.
So what does this all mean. I'm new to this stuff just got my baofeng for shtf and I just want to get into the ham radio scene
This video means zip. Use your radio for shtf all you want! Hell use it for everything. Just stay off emergency/police frequencies.
Don't worry about pissing off a ham. We stay pissed off.
@@kevinroberts781 Hi Aaron. Good advice. There's far too much unwarranted Baofeng Bashing going on by some who clearly do not know what they are talking about! Stay safe.
I’d suggest getting your license if you haven’t already, and get yourself a decent radio like a Yaesu FT-60R as a starter. They are not that expensive and are excellent radios, with a great front-end for receiving. If you can’t afford that and your top dollar amount is $50, perhaps check out the Tidradio H3. It is proving to be fairly clean and receives pretty well too. It’s not as good as a Yaesu, but it’s not bad for the price.
The antenna has an built-in filter . It has no harmonics .
The high tension power lines running a few miles from my house put out just massive disturbance yet I don't see the FCC giving the power company hell lol. I think part of the reason for the issues is that it is dual band, can you run this test again with the Baofeng set to only one band? Or test another device that has dual band? Just curious.
We tested both just got cut on editing. They both failed. I have another video when I test a newer model Baofeng. VHF failed, UHF passed, I gave that radio away to a subscriber.
@@HamRadioInAction Very interesting, good to know. Thanks.
Gov't has a spec for everything. What does this actually hurt?
I mean, are u talking about running 57 in a 55, or 80 in a 55? One is technically against the law, the other is a real problem.
I agree, it doesn't hurt anything. Especially since these radios only use channels that generally need line of sight, why would this be a problem?
Ham radio operators spent thousands on their setups....so of course they are envious of those who found a $25 radio and get the same capabilities.
@@ronwatson3654 I actually found a BF-888s that, when keyed on 462.700 MHz had a -10 dBm spur at 812.912 MHz. What was really interesting about that, 851.9125 MHz happened to be the active control channel for a local P25 system (meaning it received at 812.9125 MHz). Played around with the idea a bit more (working with one of the system techs at the time) and we discovered that a subscriber attenuated to have an output of -10 dBm would still register and affiliate with the system. What we knew from experience, if the control channel was to receive a signal from a conflicting source, dubbed an illegal carrier, it would roll to an alternate control channel. When there are no more alternate control channels available due to illegal carrier detection on all control channels...the site goes into failsoft (i.e. it breaks trunking function).
Has this sequence of events ever happened on that system? Not that we can prove as the system has only gone into failsoft on occasion and it has almost always been traceable to technicians at the site shutting stuff down incorrectly when prepping for PM work or the odd hardware failure. We've logged illegal carriers causing control channel rolls on many occasions but I've only ever seen failsoft due to illegal carriers happen on VHF systems due to tropo-ducting. Can it be a problem, yes. Is it likely to become a problem, about as likely as a 100 year flood...but those do occasionally happen.
How about I buy the house next to yours and light up my bag of trash on fire every night because I am too lazy to dispose of it. Yea, it's illegal but in your mindset that's ok. Oh ? The smoke from my trash burning is making it's way into your house. Meh, it won't hurt anything right ?
@@elliotcarver8691 You can give it a shot, but my home sits in the middle of 35 acres.
Nice test here could you guys please test for Baefang GT-5R by radiodity.?
Excellent video once again! This brings some kind of challenges to fix a filter between the radio and antenna for preventing such spurious emissions from the much loved-and-criticised pocket friendly Baofeng UV5R handheld transceiver across the world.
Cheers & 73!
Would be interesting if you could put the TYT TH-UV88 on the spectrum analyzer and see if it is any cleaner.
Don did test my tyt uv-88 and it did pass just fine. That's why I recommend Brian get one of those.
how big of an attenuator (in dB) did you use on this test? Was that a 50?
Did you find any filters to bring it into spec? What about a small bandpass filter to keep the front end from overloading?
Sure, I can use a better radio, but this seems like a cool project to learn about how radios work.
We looked into it, but they either cost as much as the radio, or added bulk. For now I'm switching to TYT TH-UV88, same price point, better filtering from TYT.
Filters knock down your signal. Not needed for these cool little radios.
@@HamRadioInAction I'm willing to bet otherwise 🙂
You should test the new batches that are approved for sale and transmit locked. Also, the GT-5R as that one is specifically modified to get rid of these emissions. I have a GT-5R and it's essentially the same and can be unlocked to transmit on all frequencies (still not legal to do so, however). So Id be curious to see if both that and the UV-5R are the same just rebadged for the same of marketing.
I understand the premise behind this test, but you are comparing a $30 radio to a $500 unit. It is an unfair comparison.
Not really the Boafeng UV5-R is an amazing radio a $30 radio that's been able to contact someone 2,000 Miles away. The Peoples Liberation Army of China used it before it was brought to the Civillan Market and the Ukraine Army is useing it. The National Guard is starting to use them.
Actually, he compared a $30 radio to an absolute standard. Yes, he compared both radios against the same standard, and the better radio passed the test. Sadly, I have 3 working radios similar to the one that failed and no current capability to perform the same test. It would be unfair to compare the radios to each other and expect the less expensive radio to do as well. It is completely fair to compare every radio to the absolute standard for legal use by a licensed amateur and determine whether the radio is legal to use for broadcast. Wish I'd seen this video before buying the second set (one of which isn't working anyway). Live and learn. So, to find the radio to use for transmitting...
The Boafeng UV5-R is a pretty damn good Radio if the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army, Kurdish Army, Liberian Army, Romanian Army, Serbian Army, Turkish Army & Ukraine Army are useing it not to mention Milita's around the world and Emergency Services. Even the National Guard is starting to use them.
-14dBm is 40 microwatts. Did I hear the unit incorrectly?
@Hakan Koseoglu Hi Hakan - I am interested - can you give me a video time-stamp regarding your comment relating to -14dBm being 40 microwatts (which is 0.040 milliwatts). This video is very interesting in that, aside from confirming the Baofeng does not comply with FCC Regs, nevertheless all the harmonics were less than 2/10 of a milliwatt which, for practical intents and purposes, is inconsequential. Trouble is, most Hams just don’t understand spectrum analyser readings, don't understand these miniscule milliwatt and microwatt readings, and go on to bash the Baofeng out of ignorance. Regards, Iain.
Very nice video! Do you happen to know how the BF-F8HP does with harmonics? It's more expensive but then it is higher power.
I’d like to add to Nik’s question if you know if the BF-F8HP has the same issue. I’m wondering if this issue is Baofeng-wide or radio-specific. Thanks for posting too.
I'd like to see the Rugged Radios RH-5R tested. It looks the same as a UV-5R Boefang. Since it's an American company. Is it within regulation?
They are just rebranded UV-5R's, the same $30.00 radio for a lot more money.
Would the antenna itself on the Baofeng have any impact on reducing the spurious harmonic emissions? I believe that was mentioned on another test analysis I came across - however how would one validate that with the antenna on?
Yes. However, that's not how specifications are written for devices operated under Part 97. For example, Part 90 (commercial two-way) actually requires the testing be performed by measuring radiated spurs off the OE supplied antenna. This is how the UV-5R initially made it past Part 90 type acceptance only to be found to not always pass Part 97 specifications.
I use my Baofeng to talk to others and it works fine. I also only buy my Baofeng radios from BTech
I have a few from BTech that all fail on 2meters. It’s doubtful yours would pass. That being said, they are tri-band and squeak by on the other two bands.
What about Wouxun KG-UV9D Plus? its legal? could you test it?
Okay, if your going to be that critical of a 5 watt radio pushing out a tiny amount of noise than you must give up ever hitting another repeater. Because even a passing radio at that level will blow the crap out of that feng after amplified and rebroadcasted. So you should say I’ll never use the feng on a tower but for radio to radio it’s fine.
You're transmitting on multiple frequencies anytime you PTT. Part 97 is very clear on the specification.
Great test, but now test it beyond this range, this literally affects no one beyond the user's own vicinity and is not a valid justification for anything. I have a feeling that at any normal talking distance this drops to nothing.
So, this video begs the question, what kind of filter can you install on to the BaoFeng to limit its emissions? de W3DJS
Exactly: there are plans for little filters that go between the radio and antenna.
you cant. Filters are for Eliminating FM interference or for Shortwave making CW messages Readable better.
@@markplott4820 Incorrect. Filters can be placed on both inbound and outbound signals.
Ok, now go set up this radio with an antenna and put a rcv'r/spectrum analyzer at 50 or 100 feet. Find any spurious emissions... you won't. Certainly nothing that interferes with anyone else.
This is like the persistent nonsense that the FCC (correction: FAA!) swore up and down that any electronic device used on a plane would make it flip over and crash... (yes, being absurdly melodramatic here...).
But now we can use computers, tablets, & cell phones with no issues!
To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a documented case where a Baofeng; operating by a ham & with a ham band; interfered with any other (public) service, repeater, etc.
In fact, think about it... the 3rd harmonic for 2M freqs. fall into our own 70cm band.
The only legit issue are those knuckleheads who deliberately operate on those police/fire/other unauthorized freqs.
By the way, I have operated my Baofeng while monitoring the harmonic freqs. with my quite sensitive SDR radio; again, have seen nothing on the waterfall.
frequenty a NEW ham gets their hands on a Baofeng , and they DONT PROGRAM it correctly or don't change the factory settings TO BE COMPLIANT.
Good day, I bought my uv5r last spring when my buddy and I started thinking of the prepping mindset. In a SHTF scenario, is this still a good radio for comms? I'm by no means knowledgeable of HAM, but I want to have ability to communicate in dire scenarios.
And thank you for the video!
If you are serious about emergency communications you should get your license and practice using your radio(s). There are volunteer ham groups like ARES who specialize in this and coordinate with the community. Without knowledge and practice your emergency radio will be useful for listening to commercial radio stations and that’s about it.
@@HamRadioInAction do you have links of any URLs that helps with the studying to the technician license?
@@sotacal hamstudy.org/ they also have phone apps.
The first step to actually being a good radio operator is to drop the "SHTF", "Prepper" and "comms" bullshit.
That’s sad...i hope the manufacturer would fix the problem. We NEED good radios.
BTECH
has anyone actually been caught using a radio which is over the power limit? (but still in the correct frequency ranges). UK us 0.5W without a licence. Could i get away with using a 5W UV5r without getting caught. (asking for a friend, of course)
Has anyone tested the Btech UV5x3?
What can you expect for $25?
Just curious. What do you think of your camera work?
Why 2 dislikes? Who will dislike a really great test video like this? Anyway Thanks for the video, its great unique content.
The dislikes are a result of the Un-American boot lickery expressed in this video.
Message to the viewer: Bow and Lick the boots of your self appointed master - these laws concerning insignificant spurious emissions that harm NO ONE MUST be followed...Why? because WE say so.
*Law does not equàte to morality.*
Not to mention the fact that this entire agency and all of its "laws" are illegal. There has never been a Constitutional Amendment authorizing it's existence, much less it's law making abilities. --> To support an illegal agency and it's illegal dictates is tantamount to treason.
We have the tenth Amendment for a reason. If you folks want to support lawful organization of the radio frequency spectrum I suggest that you follow the law. This is a state issue. Period.
Tip: How did they pass alcohol prohibition?
I just gave this comment a 👎
Well you know where the fcc can go.? It's a 4 letter word. fcc also engages in market manipulation which is far more egregious than your spurious emissions. Think for yourself and question authority.
You can get a filter that sits between the radio and the antenna. Oooor, you can just use it as is because nobody cares…
These laws are dumb. I knew a nerd that one time had to ride his bicycle up a sidewalk and on to someone's lawn to avoid something. And he told the story like this was the most exciting thing and how he broke the law by not riding in the street. I was standing there like ok whats your point. Hams are the same nerds that have to follow the rules to the T that anything else is unacceptable. The fcc rules state if you have device manufactured before 1977 you are exempt from the transmitting rule. So if it's so deadly and dangerous then why have that exemption at all.
Just add a dang low pass filter
And its now 2021....And your still using it, and making videos about! LOL... Hum?🤔🤣
I need an outside bandwidth.
Idk about the new ones
Try on some new models too
Cheep? Mine fell ten feet. To the pavement fearing the worst. I snached it up. Surprise it works fine. Tough little dog. Keeps on barking. I'm all by my selfe. No neighbors. Mostly mine is for the FM radio.and wx. The neighbor hood repeaters are locked. I can call my xxx off. So it dosen't matter me much. It's not for DX any how. Tks. Ps chirp program beats the issue with out of range issue's.
Please see FCC Enforcement Advisory 2018-03. There is an exemption for amateur radios. Baofeng radios are not illegal per the FCC.
You are incorrect. The except means amateurs may use radios that can transmit out of ham bands, whereas non amateurs may not. This advisory and exemption has NOTHING to with part 97 emission standards. In other words, I could use my UV-5r to transmit despite it being able to transmit out of band, but since it does not comply with emission standards it still violates FCC rule 97.307(e).
@@HamRadioInAction Have you even read the FCC Advisory that I'm referring to? If not, please do. You are disseminating incorrect information.
@@j.curtissims1510 Hi J. Curtis, I just read the FCC Advisory you mentioned, and the Baofeng radios are not exempt from certification because they can transmit on frequencies outside of the ham band. Per the FCC Advisory you mentioned: "Amateur Radio Exception. There is one exception to this certification requirement: if a device is capable of operating only on frequencies that the FCC has allocated for use by Amateur Radio Service licensees, it does not require FCC equipment authorization, and an amateur licensee may use his or her license to operate such radios. However, many two-way radios that purport to operate on amateur frequencies also operate on frequencies that extend beyond the designated amateur frequency bands." And even if they did not require certification, most of them still violate the spurious emission limits which Ham radio operators must comply with.
The bawfang is a good radio for what it is. I'm a pro ham radio operator been using ham for decades and the bawfang is better then they say. Never had a issue other than hardware voice which isnt important in the first place
Video ideer! legal bafang alternatives...
already in the works. Thanks for watching
BTECH UV-5R is type accepted for Ham use.
Let's seen the NIST traceable calibration paperwork for the scope then we can talk. Otherwise this and your other tests mean absolutely nothing.
Oh for gods sake. Fcc said...
Who cares? Fcc doesn't mean anything in my world.
Yes.....it's illegal.
The coax is a"pipe" even with a filter. Am I right? Let's be fair. Give your scope a antenna, just like the radio. Has and stand 6' away. Then let's see if those spikes are so visible. I never see a "clear air test". ever! Please don't get me wrong. I am picky how I spend my money. And my baofange are for my ESC bag. They have Fm radio, wx, and monitor capacity. I want. Please be fair. Even I can see a corvair situation. Here. I dare you to test with out the pipe. In the mean time rember we as consumers can vote with our feet /wallets. Make complaints visible to the mfg. Tell him to tighten up or we walk! it's that simple. Thanks. ps I got the chirp program and tying down the rig so when i pass into officer space. The radio" now declines" to go"" there with a Curt denial."Denied". That is a plus. Thanks .
You don’t see air tests because FCC title 47 part 97.307 specs are for power supplied to the antenna.
@@HamRadioInAction then to follow the logic. I would have to throw out all the single conversion, direct conversion. And homodyne receivers out the door. They emit local oscillator back to there antennas.
Great video! I started with a Baofeng UV-5R, because of the price, but the mod was horrible. No wonder, when the power is dissipated into the harmonics. As I am a CEPT 1 licensed ham, I have the responsibility to avoid such crap. Hence I work with a Yaesu VX-8DR, which cost me approx. 350$. Despite of the many additional functions, it is worth that. I think, most users tx via a relay, and thus do not disturb each other. So, in the community this seems not to be a major problem. But the rest is not silence, but QRM. And as hams, we should keep our bands clean, I think. And with 25$-gadgets, we are vulnerable to non-licensed jokers. Thank you and vy 73, oe1llc.
If it is life or death, I will take an FCC fine, any day of the week and twice on Sundays....
Saya punya banyak baofeng ...
Dari analog sampai digital.....
I just got my Tech cert 6/12/21. I have purposed in my mind I will never use my hard earned money to buy one of these illegal pieces of crap. First radio? An Icom IC-V86.
Walker talkie on chip radios lack proper filtering on both TX, thus spurious emissions and wide open front ends (no real filtering) on the receiver front ends which is why they overload from anything and everything. At the end of the day, there is no comparison between a quality transceiver with good engineering versus crap designed to a bottom end price point. As hams, we should be mindful of what we transmit- the rules require it.
I wonder how many hams who watch this will stop using their Baofengs!
none
Probably not me. And honestly, I'd rather have an affordable way for people to get into the hobby, rather than worry about some fairly minor signal issues
At this point I only use mine for UHF receivers on my homebrew amsat yagi lol. If I need to transmit on UHF I may use my UV-5R+ just because I'm at 2.0SWR from my shoddy craftsmanship and don't want that on my VX-6R.
You should encourage people to become radio amateurs not try and discourage him with trivia things that don’t really matter
You should encourage people not to buy this piece of shit radio. I bought the UV-5R when I first got my tech license and it took me a few months to realize how crappy the build quality is on them. The volume pot is super scratchy and it doesn't transmit at the 4W advertised. Great receiver but the transmit side on my is garbage.
Are you an amateur? Do you really consider part 97 rules a "trivia" thing?
@@stacyadiaz All of the videos on this channel are encouraging to new hams or people interested in ham radio. Even this video is informative to new hams. I think you may have misunderstood the point of this video.
Try it with the antennae on it.