Why the Astro Saber is my choice for standard CAP radio

[SarDragon]

I recall reading somewhere that attaching an external antenna to a portable radio effectively changed it to a mobile radio. I do not recall the source of that info.

That said, I just finished a search of the NTIA Red Book, using "external", "external antenna", and "antenna" as search terms, and found nothing remotely resembling the idea in the first paragraph. I'll leave it for someone else to do a similar search in the FCC rules.

[Eclipse]

I recall reading somewhere that attaching an external antenna to a portable radio effectively changed it to a mobile radio. I do not recall the source of that info.

That said, I just finished a search of the NTIA Red Book, using "external", "external antenna", and "antenna" as search terms, and found nothing remotely resembling the idea in the first paragraph. I'll leave it for someone else to do a similar search in the FCC rules.

3)  Emission standards are not affected by power supply, microphone, speaker, antenna or mounting / carrying method.

Emission standards aren't affected, since those are typed in a document, but emissions are, which is what we are discussing here.

To SARDRAGON's response, the opinion of my wing's DC on this is that, at a minimum, a handheld radio, used as a mobile in a vehicle, would then have to meet the mobile standards, and an antenna with gain could well cause the radio to violate those standards.  Since there's no specific standard, he says the simplified" standards available via the compliance list web page could be used as an arguing point, but would not necessarily be accepted by a given wing.

Further, a wing would be well within its rights as a license authority to require a radio used in that mode be tested for compliance on whatever schedule they see fit.  Which doesn't mean you "can't", but sure sounds like a PITA just to prove the point you "can".

The prohibition regarding this configuration apparently existed in a previous version of 100-1 and was aimed squarely at personal radios.

[lordmonar]

Unless you are putting in a post amp......you are not going to be able to put an antenna on a had held that will make it exceed the PEP for the FREQEUNCY standard.

A radio is a a radio is a radio.

The standards are set up for the frequency band....not necessarily for the radio.

The complaint list breaking down the radios into types (portable, mobile, fixed) is simply a way to seperate the actual radios so you find them easy.   Setting up your hand held in your comm room with an external antenna is not goint to make it non-compliant.

[wuzafuzz]

Emission standards aren't affected, since those are typed in a document, but emissions are, which is what we are discussing here.

To SARDRAGON's response, the opinion of my wing's DC on this is that, at a minimum, a handheld radio, used as a mobile in a vehicle, would then have to meet the mobile standards, and an antenna with gain could well cause the radio to violate those standards.  Since there's no specific standard, he says the simplified" standards available via the compliance list web page could be used as an arguing point, but would not necessarily be accepted by a given wing.

Further, a wing would be well within its rights as a license authority to require a radio used in that mode be tested for compliance on whatever schedule they see fit.  Which doesn't mean you "can't", but sure sounds like a PITA just to prove the point you "can".

The prohibition regarding this configuration apparently existed in a previous version of 100-1 and was aimed squarely at personal radios.

Is this "law," or is this "folk law?" 

My understanding of typical mobile gain antennas is they primarily focus the radiated energy into a pattern, typically along the horizon where most of the people you want to talk to are.  Think of taking a sphere and squishing it down into a doughnut, the edges reach a little farther on the horizontal plane.  (There are other directional antennas with different patterns but that's outside the scope of this discussion.) 

I don't believe focusing the energy in a given direction will change the bandwidth of the signal from the transmitter.  Emitted bandwidth is what we are worried about here, not radiation pattern.  If the transmitter sends a narrow band 5 watt signal on 155.160 MHz through the coax and to the antenna, the antenna will radiate no more than 5 watts (less thanks to any loss in the antenna system) narrow band on 155.160 MHz.  The gain merely means that most of that energy goes out on the horizon, with very little going straight up (or down). 

We don't concern ourselves with mobile radios changing compliance if we swap between unity gain or gain antennas.  Adding a more efficient antenna to a portable should be handled the same.  Portables transmit so little power they need all the help they can get.

As for a prohibition in a previous version of 100-1, I'll wager it was removed for a reason.  In any case a former rule is no longer a factor.

[Buzz]

3)  Emission standards are not affected by power supply, microphone, speaker, antenna or mounting / carrying method.

Emission standards aren't affected, since those are typed in a document, but emissions are, which is what we are discussing here.

No, they are not.  Emissions are determined by the internal radio circuitry.  I think you're thinking of radiation, which IS affected by antenna.  Nothing in the standard talks about radiation.

Further, a wing would be well within its rights as a license authority to require a radio used in that mode be tested for compliance on whatever schedule they see fit.

Nope.  Wings are not authorized to set communications equipment standards, no matter how strong the opinion of the Wing staff.  Any radio on the NTIA or NTC approved list is APPROVED.  Unless he can find a prohibition IN WRITING against external power supplies or antennas, it's out of his hands.

The prohibition regarding this configuration apparently existed in a previous version of 100-1 and was aimed squarely at personal radios.

My first ROP card was issued in 1972.  I have never seen any such prohibition in any 100-1.  In fact, until the handoff to NTIA, there was no equipment standard -- if it would operate on CAP frequencies, it could be used, and most of us either used ham gear or recycled public safety radios.

[Eclipse]

Nope.  Wings are not authorized to set communications equipment standards, no matter how strong the opinion of the Wing staff.  Any radio on the NTIA or NTC approved list is APPROVED.  Unless he can find a prohibition IN WRITING against external power supplies or antennas, it's out of his hands.

You're confusing the list of approved equipment with the hands-on testing of a specific radio for compliance.
It's not only within the scope of authority for a Wing's Licensing Officer to do that, it is one of their responsibilities.  Most, if not all, wings test equipment
for actual compliance before licensing it, with those who are allowed to test radios within a specific band of skills and certifications.

Just because the model number is on the compliant list doesn't mean that a non-standard installation will pass the testing.

[arajca]

Nope.  Wings are not authorized to set communications equipment standards, no matter how strong the opinion of the Wing staff.  Any radio on the NTIA or NTC approved list is APPROVED.  Unless he can find a prohibition IN WRITING against external power supplies or antennas, it's out of his hands.

You're confusing the list of approved equipment with the hands-on testing of a specific radio for compliance.
It's not only within the scope of authority for a Wing's Licensing Officer to do that, it is one of their responsibilities.  Most, if not all, wings test equipment
for actual compliance before licensing it, with those who are allowed to test radios within a specific band of skills and certifications.

Just because the model number is on the compliant list doesn't mean that a non-standard installation will pass the testing.

1. Wing Licensing Officers are NOT responsible for testing comm equipment, CAP-owned or otherwise. The typical DCL issues call signs and station licenses, and may be the approver for B-CUT and A-CUT in Eservices.
2. Most wings DO NOT test equipment themselves. To properly test it takes specialized equipment and training that very few CAP members have. The NTC may have the equipment, but I do not know of any wings that have it. Your typical SWR meter is not used for this testing.
3. Manufacturers test the equipment, or have third party testing organizations do it. CAP relies on this testing to specific standards using specific test protocols. CAP does not do type accepting. I think the only testing like this the NTC does is when a radio comes in with an out-of-specs issue.
4. Wings rely on the approved list put out by the NTC. We do not have the time or the money to test every radio that the wing has. My wing has over 350 vhf radios.
5. As for non-standard installations, using a Convert-A-Com or similar device - without a power amplifier - is a standard installation, just not common in CAP, due in part ot the expense. Adding a power amplifer changes the radio classification from portable to mobile and the radio needs to meet the mobile standards when used with the power amplifer.

[Eclipse]

4. Wings rely on the approved list put out by the NTC. We do not have the time or the money to test every radio that the wing has. My wing has over 350 vhf radios.

My wing has at least 5 members that I know personally, and a fair number more than that, qualified to test and certify equipment and requires all equipment be tested and certified before it can be put into service and licensed.

Honestly, I don't know how we ever get anything done with a program that is so inconsistently managed and executed.  The range of "different" we see on these boards in both interpretation and execution borders on the ridiculous.

Some wings are swimming in radios, others can't get what they need.  Some expire B-Cuts, others don't.  Some issue callsigns to people, some to stations.

Etc., etc.

Seriously.

[Slim]

Forget it, guys.  We're having an argument with an anonymous "expert" on the internet.

The Astro Saber works for you.  You have one, and you like it.  Great!  But that doesn't mean that there are other, better radios out there (*gasp*) that work just as well if not better.  I own Jedi and Waris series radios; I use them for CAP, and I trust them with my life at work.  I won't disparage you for carrying around a one pound brick with and antenna, as long as you don't fault me for carrying a radio that is half the size and weight of yours, works as well or better than yours, that I already own (and more importantly, own all of the accessories for--including the hard to come by legally programming software).  Mmmkay?

Definitely not worth any more of my time.

Ohbytheway....when I attempted to place my MT-2000 convertacom into service, my wing rejected the license application for it.  Why, because adding external power and antenna to it wasn't compliant.  As pointed out to me, if that combination was approved for use, it would have been noted on the mobile or fixed station compliance lists.  Kinda like the old argument that you can wear a pink tutu with your service dress, because the 39-1 doesn't say you can't.

[Buzz]

Forget it, guys.  We're having an argument with an anonymous "expert" on the internet.

Yes, I am.  Two of you, actually.

According to NTC:

"Please Note: The equipment in these lists have been evaluated by comparing the manufacturer's published specifications with the published requirements of the NTIA in Chapter 5 of the "Manual of Regulations and Procedures for Federal Radio Frequeny Management" (Redbook). While these determinations are considered authoritative for the Civil Air Patrol Communications program, they may or may not meet the requirements of any other Federal Communications program. Users in other programs should consult with their program management before using these lists."

See that word, "authoritative" . . ?  Unless you can show a rule or reg which disagrees, then you really don't have a leg to stand on -- and if there were such a reg, you would have quoted it by now to prove your beliefs.

BTW, the testing requirements (TIA / EIA 603-B & TSB 102.CAAA-A) MANDATE the use of a STABLE POWER SUPPLY (a battery is not rated as a stable supply) and NO ANTENNA WHATSOEVER (the output goes into a dummy load).  That's about as non-standard an installation as you can come up with.

You might also notice that the transmit standards published on the NTC compliance page are THE SAME for mobile or portable.

However, as this appears to be a religious issue with you and Eclipse, I will let you believe whatever you like.  For myself, I will stick with the NTIA and NTC standards.

And please stop trying to put words in my mouth, Slim.  I have never once said that there were not better radios out there, but pointed out that a CAP-ready Astro Saber is half the price of the next-best, while being significantly more durable -- and you completely dodged the issue of cost effectiveness. 

As far as the programming software being "hard to come by legally," that pegs the BS-O-Meter.   Ma Batwings is happy to sell ANYONE any available version of the software, and I don't know of a Motorola authorized shop which doesn't have a copy of everything since the EEPROM days.  I myself have a (legal) copy of the RSS or CPS for every applicable Motorola platform I've ever used, and I'm not a Motorola authorized shop.  If someone told you that it's any more difficult than signing the user agreement and sending it in with your check, they were pulling your leg.

[DakRadz]

Entirely out of my lane, however....

It's nice to see a new topic for flaming. I knew you communication types had it in you.

But how many of you are authorized to wear the communication patch on your BDUs?

[SarDragon]

Entirely out of my lane, however....

It's nice to see a new topic for flaming. I knew you communication types had it in you.

But how many of you are authorized to wear the communication patch on your BDUs?

And how does that really matter in the grand scheme of things, particularly on this thread?

[wuzafuzz]

As far as the programming software being "hard to come by legally," that pegs the BS-O-Meter.   Ma Batwings is happy to sell ANYONE any available version of the software, and I don't know of a Motorola authorized shop which doesn't have a copy of everything since the EEPROM days.  I myself have a (legal) copy of the RSS or CPS for every applicable Motorola platform I've ever used, and I'm not a Motorola authorized shop.  If someone told you that it's any more difficult than signing the user agreement and sending it in with your check, they were pulling your leg.

It's not difficult, I've done it, but spending $300 for software to program a $200 used radio can be tough to swallow.  Not to mention renewing said subscription if necessary to get newer software.  Granted, older radios might not have newer software coming out all the time but it is an issue for newer radios.

As was mentioned in earlier posts, that software cost isn't such an ordeal if resources are pooled.  But for an individual, it's a PITA unless they are a devoted radio geek.  Using an outside radio shiop is also prohibitively expensive unless they have a ready built codeplug.  Plus they have to be approved by National & CAP-USAF CAPR 100-1 12-10 e.

[Buzz]

The point is that the software isn't hard to get at all, and there is no prohibition in the terms of use agreement against programming as many radios as you like, so if anyone has the software they can do the job.  I've done it for a number of people with their own Motorola radios over the years.

[myBatteryman]

Hello All,

Just an old man sticking in his 2 cents worth.

This thread on CAP radios is very interesting, and lots has changed in CAP in the 30 years since I was active. But I have spent those 3o years in radio, preceded by the CAP Master Communicator level and turned that into a long career.


So, I think I can say, with some authority, the argument about external antennas and accessories is confused.

First, there is no regulation of accessoeies or their use as long as they are passive component.s

So amplifiers are regulated since they are active. 

Antennas are not regulated in a mobile configuration. Base antennas are rehulated but only as to height above structures, FAA regs, and local zoning.

Most mobile antennas are unity gain or 3 dB gain. There is no regulation on these mobile antennas since they wil never exceed a maximum Effective radiated power limit with gain that is barely better than the insertion loss of the cable and fittings.

Long ago when I sat for my Commercial FCC ticket there was a question that asked On a 3 dB antenna, how many wavelengths long is the feedline?  The answer is, of course, long enough to reach.

It is easy to take one idea and extend it inccorectly. 

As for the regulatory risk of breaking some rule of the Air Force, the NTIA, or FCC, I would side with it being infiniely more likely to self regulate you rseleves incorrectly than break any real taboos.

Mictophones, earphones, headsets are all passive devices and not reulated.

DC Power suplies, batteries, battery eliminators, solar chargers, windmills, and water wheels are likewise not regulated since they do not change the emiisions as was stated in the thread so well.

Assuming your radio is type accepted by the FCC and you have not modified it, you meet all legal requirement.s You are not stretching any ethical boundaries.

Mr Buzz, please email me. I want to send you a Surveillance Mic for your radio, and I assure you that it does not change your portable into a mobile.

Jim Bennett
http://mybatteryman.com
317-222-1329

[SarDragon]

Ok, help me out here with some definitions and situations, based on the idea that there are different NTIA spec for mobile and portable radios.

First Q - what is the difference between a mobile and a portable?

I'm guessing that it has to do with (semi)permanent installation in a vehicle - vehicle power and an external antenna.

Second Q - does the use of a portable in a vehicle, hooked up to vehicle power and an external antenna, now change its classification to mobile?

That's the basis for much of the discussion above. Other external bits and pieces (mics, headphones, speakers, etc) do not enter into the scenario.

[Edit]

I just compared the specs from the compliancy list, and the differences are only in the receiver section. Receiver non-compliance, however, has supposedly caused otherwise usable radios to be removed from service.

[myBatteryman]

I have to admit, I am only supposing here... but this is what is likely as to the differences in specs between Portable and Mobile radio

1. Transmitters - Portables limited output power by limitations of battery capacity. Mobile radios have significantly higher output power so their emissions can be more harmful.

2. Receivers - A likely reason for the difference in specifications is to be sure the radios chosen have better intermod specifications. Anyone who ever used a Regency radio in a metropolitan area can recognize that the receiver front end filtering is very problematic.

Those are technical reasons I can think of, perhaps you can direct the question to the team at your National Headquarters who established the NTIA compliant list.

Jim Bennett
http://mybatteryman.com

[RRLE]

First Q - what is the difference between a mobile and a portable?

I searched the FCC web site for "portable radio" (with the quotes). The term is almost always associated with handheld radio. A Fire Service presentation also equates portable and handheld.

The term "mobile radio" is a bit more problematic. It appears that all portable radios are also mobile radios but not all mobile radios are portable.

[sardak]

I'd go with this definition, from Code of Federal Regulations Part 47, Telecommunications

§ 2.1093 Radiofrequency radiation exposure evaluation: portable devices.

For purposes of this section, a portable device is defined as a transmitting device designed to be used so that the radiating structure(s) of the device is/are within 20 centimeters (8 inches) of the body of the user.

A more thorough search of Part 47 would probably help define mobile, also. Both FCC and NTIA rules and regs fall under 47CFR.

Mike

[SarDragon]

OK, so it appears to me that attaching an external antenna to a portable device makes it a mobile device, subject to the rules pertaining thereto.

Discuss.