Solent Radio Check

[JonBrooks]

Whilst true in theory I would expect that due to cable loss and conection loss range would be very greatly under a couple of hundreds feet.

We produce "demo" and "training" radio's where the PA (power amplifier) is disconected.
The radio are then are unable to talk one end of our workshop to the other.

It would normally be the PA driver that would blow in a modern set (normally a self contained IC.
Poor VSWR or a short on the feeder cable could cause this.

Just my thoughts

regards

<hr width=100% size=1>Jon Brooks Icom UK Ltd. 01227 741741

 

[Nick_Pam]

But produce 1 milliwatt and feed it into a decent aerial at 16 metres above ground, you'd be surprised at how far that signal will go.....feed it into a dummy load as you probably would in the workshop and it wouldn't reach the other end.
Still - we both know that the subject of transmitter power and aerial efficiency has caused many a loud disagreement and I certainly didn't intend to start another one!!
Nick

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[JonBrooks]

nor I )))))

Just another point of view.
No intention of trying to pick a fight.

Regards

<hr width=100% size=1>Jon Brooks Icom UK Ltd. 01227 741741

 

[nicho]

It's not, of course, just Solent CG. Whilst on passage from Portsmouth to Falmouth last weekend, we heard the same requests made of Portland, Brixham and Falmouth Coast Guards. In each case, they patiently and politely responded to the request with the usual "loud and clear", "weak but readable" etc etc. Not too many boats out in the awful conditions, but just as annoying to listen to. Of course the CG are in a difficult situation: if they do not to respond, and the boat in question is subsequently unable to call for assistance due to inoperative VHF, who carries the can??

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

Re: and another thing

That's exactly what my club does. Ch77 and Ch72 as fall back. Same set up for Mercury meet weekend

<hr width=100% size=1>Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabris, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.

 

[Oldhand]

Re: and another thing

There's no need to use channel 16 if everyone installed and used DSC.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[duncan]

Re: and another thing

and had access to a complete list of the numbers of everyone they might need to call..............at teh risk of starting that one off again!
However I agree that if most 'calling' was by DSC, and radio checks were by DSC call only, C16 would get back to a channel you could monitor/use effectively. The problem with agreed calling cahnnels in areas like teh solent is that if you DW with 16 you get nothing but uninterrupted radio checks so you stay on (say) 72 and miss an important CG request for 'any vessel...............'
Best solution experienced in practice was when CG respond to radio check requests with - "can I have your call sign please" - puts off the next 100 callers too!

<hr width=100% size=1>madesco madidum ..../forums/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[TwoStroke]

Re: and another thing

I thought most radios were dual watch so this situation of missing something wouldn't happen.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[JonBrooks]

Re: and another thing

ours have tri watch too )))))

regards

<hr width=100% size=1>Jon Brooks Icom UK Ltd. 01227 741741

 

[Peppermint]

Re: If Mr CG

gets no requests for a radio check for 10 or 15 mins he might suspect his radio has broken.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[bedouin]

Re: and another thing

Most sets Dual Watch by flipping quickly between the two channels and sticking when it gets a signal - so if you are dual-watching say 16 and 72, and there is constant traffic on 16 you will never end up listening to 72 and could miss traffic on 72

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[TwoStroke]

Re: and another thing

You could always have 2 radios - then you wouldn't miss anything - then again you'd be doing 2 radio checks!! /forums/images/icons/blush.gif

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[A_7]

When I had a CB I never did one Radio Check!

<hr width=100% size=1>