PaddleWise Discussion on VHF Questions
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 09:28:00 -0800
From: Rob Nevitt
Subject: [Paddlewise] VHF questions: power output, power source, & weather resistance?
I'm a sea kayaker and I've narrowed my search down to 2 models at this
time: Uniden HH940 & Icom M3A. (If you have any recommendations for
others.......).
The basic difference between the 2 are power output & power source
options. The HH940 is 1w output and rechagable, the M3A is 1/5w output
and will take alkalines. Also, the HH940 is listed as "weatherproof".
Does anyone have any opinions as to how significant these choices are?
How much difference will a 5w output make, how likely is it that I will
need it? I like the idea of being able to use alkalines, how long will
a rechargable typically last: enough for 5-6 days use? I've seen
varying claims as to "weathertight" "weatherproof" "weather resistant";
how credible are these claims?
- --
Rob Nevitt
122d42'27"W 38d26'58"N (Santa Rosa, CA)
ils.bytebeam.com
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 19:15:27 EST
From: Blankibr
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] VHF questions: power output, power source, & weather resista...
Rob,
I went with the 5W because if I needed it I wanted to be able to reach out and
touch someone. There was a thread earlier about radios not reaching as far as
we thought.
I would also go with at least waterproof if not submersible. Cost caused me
to stick with waterproof and a radio bag. My 2cents.
Brian Blankinship
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 16:26:59 -0800
From: Dave Kruger
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] VHF questions
1. Weatherproof means it will die if you dunk it. "Submersible" may mean
the mfr will replace it when it dies, or it MAY mean the radio is truly
waterproof. Very difficult to achieve in a HH VHF, especially one powered
by alkalines (see below).
2. 5W will not be enough when you really need to reach out. 1W is plenty
90 % of the time. Because we work on the deck -- so the antenna is only 3
ft off the water -- the range of a HH VHF is very limited while you are in
your cockpit. If you are on the beach, you can improve your range
enormously by moving higher and/or using one of the more efficient
antennas.
3. NiCads suck for HH VHF's, **if the HH VHF is your ONLY means for
summoning help.** Folks on powerboats or sailboats, who typically have a
25W VHF unit and a good antenna placement, typically only use the HH VHF
for docking and incidental communication boat-to-boat when they are on deck
(sipping margaritas, I hope!). Nicads eventually lose their capacity, and
subtly, so you may think you have a good set, but do not. Unless you ONLY
use the radio for day trips, alkalines are a much better power source. If
the set in the radio dies, you can just plug in the spares you carry. A
spare Nicad pack may be just as bad as the original. (Been there; done
that; I used to fly RC model airplanes, and NiCad failure was by far the
dominant cause of equipment-related crashes. If you intend to **rely** on
a NiCad pack, you must cycle it and test it regularly. Otherwise, it may
develop a problem, unbeknownst to you.) The other downside to NiCad power
is that the capacity is very limited -- for other than a one- or two-day
trip, it is likely that you will not have enough capacity with just one
battery pack. OTOH, some folks on long trips have successfully maintained
their NiCads by a solar-powered charging setup.)
The downside to alkaline power is that it is extremely diffcult to make a
battery pack which takes alkalines that is SUBMERSIBLE. Bottom line: you
MUST keep the radio in a radio bag, and you have to protect the radio bag
from abrasion or puncture.
4. ICOM is a very respected brand. I favor the MC 10A, which is cheaper
than the model you are looking at, but I think the M3A may have a more
compact profile (a real advantage). Whichever you buy, have it checked out
at the local marine electronics service center. Rodgers Marine, in
Portland, OR, will do this as part of the purchase, if you buy the radio
there. They do mail order.
Not affiliated with ICOM, or Rodgers Marine.
- --
Dave Kruger
Astoria, OR
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 19:13:42 -0800
From: Dan Hagen
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] VHF questions
I had been planning on staying out of the recent rounds of the handheld
VHF debate, but the advice that Dave Kruger and others are putting out
is, IMHO, just plain wrong.
First, I should make it clear that my recommendations are based on the
assumption that the number-one priority is to have a radio/antenna
combination that provides the best possible chance of getting through in
an emergency. Maximizing your chances requires a good antenna, maximum
achievable power, and minimizing the risk of water damage. Dave's
recommendations will deprive you of all three, as I explain below.
(1) The antenna issue:
The use of a waterproof baggie precludes the use of a decent antenna
during an emergency. The rubber-ducky antennas have very limited range
in comparison with a telescoping antenna. Assuming that you are not in a
position during the emergency to safely remove your radio from the
baggie (a reasonable assumption!) you are stuck without the ability to
use a decent antenna just when you are in the greatest need. On the
other hand, a submersible radio can be fitted and used with a
telescoping antenna, even if you are in the water and subject to
periodic dousings. This will greatly extend your range.
(2) The power issue:
The maximum transmit power for handhelds is 5 watts. But you cannot
achieve this with alkalines unless they are brand new, since they suffer
from significant voltage drop during use. Icom, for example, does *not*
claim that the M3A is a 5-watt radio when used with alkalines. See their
website--they make it clear that the 5-watt rating applies *only* when
using NiCads. I have two Icoms that can use alkalines (an M7 and an
M15), and I have spoken to Icom on this issue. They have made it
perfectly clear to me that they do not rate their radios as 5 watts when
used with alkalines. They ought to know. There is a reason that NiCads
are used in all high-end handhelds. They have consistent power output.
Dave is absolutely correct, however, regarding the need to "babysit"
NiCads. They have to be carefully maintained and tested! With modern
equipment, however, this really is not all that difficult to do, and it
is worth it given their superior voltage performance. Dave is also
correct that NiCads have lower energy density, but he greatly overstates
the extent of this problem. The energy density of alkalines is about
one-third higher than for NiCads. Adding 33 percent (or even 50
percent) to the weight of the batteries that you carry for your trip is
not an issue for sea kayaking. As for the frequency with which you have
to change your batteries on a trip, it should be noted that not all
NiCads are the wimpy-capacity things that Dave has described. The
high-capacity NiCads that I use in my M15 have three times the capacity
of the standard NiCads used in older-generation handhelds. In short, if
you are willing to expend some effort in terms of maintenance and
testing, NiCads provide superior performance. (They also produce a lot
less waste, and are cheaper if you use your radio often.)
If you decide that you do not want the hassles of NiCads (in spite of
their superior performance), this does not mean that you can't get a
submersible radio. I really don't understand the point that alkaline
battery packs are harder to seal. Every alkaline (AA) battery pack that
I have seen seals in exactly the same way as the NiCad packs that they
replace. (See, for example, the very latest "submersible"--not
"waterproof"--designs by Standard and Apelco, both of which have a
manufacturer-supplied alkaline battery pack.) For most of these radios,
there is essentially no difference in the case itself or in the sealing
mechanism between the NiCad pack and the AA pack. For those radios that
do not have a manufacturer-supplied AA-battery pack (such as the M15),
the conventional approach to building one makes use of the case and seal
from the NiCad pack, simply replacing the "innards". There are some
radios, such as the Icom M1, that have an usual battery pack that cannot
replaced with a AA-pack, but these are the exceptions.
(3) The issue of water damage
I have used many different baggies from various manufacturers for
various electronic devices (VHF, cell phone, GPS), and a majority of
them have developed leaks. While some "submersible" radios also seem to
have an unacceptably high failure rate, others (such as the M15 and the
Navico handhelds) have excellent reputations in this regard, with
performance significantly exceeding the manufacturers' minimum standards
for submersibility. With either approach, you need to test your
equipment prior to a trip by dunking it for a significant period of
time. Make sure that the water is very cold, so that the radio is
subjected to a large temperature swing (this is necessary to really test
the seals). The first time you do this with an expensive radio there is
some trepidation, but it must be done. (Better to find out before you
need it.) If you do this, then whichever approach you take (submersible
baggie or submersible radio) you know that it isn't leaking at the start
of the trip. The question then becomes, which is more likely to develop
a failure subsequent to testing, the baggie or the radio seals? In my
opinion, based on the number of baggie failures that I have had (many)
versus radio-seal failures (none), I will go with the latter. I do
believe that my M15 is more rugged than a plastic baggie. If you really
want security, carry a back up. This is what I do. It doesn't add all
that much weight.
Well, that's the case for submersibles and for NiCads. (Which are two
separate issues.) To each his or her own.
Dan Hagen
Bellingham, Washington
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 23:26:33 -0800
From: Dave Kruger
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] VHF questions
Dan Hagen's post has an enormous amount of good advice in it (all but the
pejorative part has been snipped). A couple small disagreements and
corrections:
1. I believe you've got to have $400 to spend to get a decent submersible
radio. I believe the gain an extendable whip can achieve amounts to only
another couple miles of range, *if you are broadcasting from the cockpit,*
or, (worse) *while swimming.* The typical rubber ducky antenna is much
less susceptible to damage, IMHO, and would survive the thrashing inherent
in a capsize better than an extendable whip. Dan, have you got some
specific equipment recommendations on the radio / antenna combination you
favor? I'd be eager to know what works for you.
2. Dan's experience with NiCads is more up-to-date than mine. I suspect
he is talking about NiMH batteries, which have an energy/battery
(equivalent diameter) about 50% greater than ordinary NiCads, IIRC. I
suspect we are putting a pretty fine point on this pencil, but I had
understood that NiMH batteries were more susceptible to loss of charge than
NiCads. However, I would yield to anyone who has the data. In any case,
Dan's point that one has to monitor the NiCad's jives with my experience --
and there *are* some slick little cycling units to keep track of the
battery's condition. Dan, do you recall what the cost would be for one of
those units?
3. Regarding the difficulty of obtaining a truly waterproof alkaline
battery - equipped radio, the problem I've noted is that the seams which
separate to allow replacement of the alkalines are tough to make truly
waterproof. Dan, do you have experience with this? I have not seen an
alkaline pack which would survive dunking. Your post indicates you have.
I agree that the battery pack - radio body seals are the equivalent of the
NiCad variations. It's the seals which close up the alkaline pack which
seem cheesy to me.
Thanks to Dan for an informative post. I always appreciate authoritative
information, especially when presented in the thoughtful and deliberate
manner Dan achieves.
- --
Dave Kruger
Astoria, OR
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 01:40:51 -0800
From: Richard Mitchell
Subject: [Paddlewise] VHF radios, batteries, antennas.
Dan Hagen commented...
"The high-capacity NiCads that I use in my M15 have three times
the capacity of the standard NiCads used in older-generation
handhelds"
It would be useful for us to quantify the battery output of
nicads available to make some comparisons. I've just returned
from a 2.5 week trip in the Caribbean where the nearest AC outlet
was 90+ miles away. How many ni-cad battery packs do I need for
2 weeks of paddling (and incidently how much do they cost?).
I've posted data here on alkaline decline and usefulness over
time an will do so again if there is any interest. But give us
some figures to compare. How many hours at 70s F and a ratio of
90% monitor 5% receive 5% transmit, using the antenna
recommended, will the M-15 battery pack work?
Dan continues: "a submersible radio can be fitted and used with a
telescoping antenna"
How? The M-15 does not come from the factory with either the
alkaline battery pack you mention or an extended antenna. ICOM
discontinued their accessory whip antennas such as the one I have
for my M7 because they were too frequently used by unknowledgable
people to transmit when the antenna wan not fully extended --
fried circuitry being the result as you know. How did you affix
a waterproof antenna to your M15? How do you ensure that it is
correctly deployed before transmitting while in the water? I
have fit a whip antenna to my G3A using parts from a CB shop and
instructions from ICOM, but it is hardly a waterproof
connection. I use the whip antenna on land, but in the water I
revert to the factory issue rubber ducky, and everything goes in
a nylon dry bag (not a plastic radio bag) carried in a cusom
pocket on my PFD, radio turned on, set to 16, and ready to
transmit without any adjustments. Just punch the key through the
bag and transmit. Do you leave your radio on at all times while
paddling? And in an emergency, how do you roll your boat or wet
exit and reenter, with an antenna protruding 28" unless the radio
is on the boat, not your PFD?
Further: "I have two ICOMs that can use alkalines (an M7 and an
M15"
The M-15 uses alkaline batteries? How? How did you manufacture
the alkaline battery pack for the M15 to the same waterproof
tolerances as the factory provided ni-cad unit? If we can all do
this, it will be a boon. I'd very much like to make a waterproof
alkaline battery pack for my M3A. How is it done?
Thanks for clarifying these issues.
Richard Mitchell
ICOM M7 and M3A
"Kayak One" WCD4048
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 09:27:21 -0800
From: rdiaz@ix.netcom.com
Subject: [Paddlewise] VHF Questions
Hi,
Normally I let the VHF queries and answers fly over my head. Oh, I read
them, but not with any great intensity. So, discussions from much
earlier have been stored away in a mishmash.
However I will hit the big 60 this coming weekend and am NOW suggesting
to my wife that a VHF might be a good gift idea. This is a big step for
me (the VHF step; can't do much about Father Time :-)) for several
reasons:
1) I basically distrust all things electrical and electronic in sea
conditions even flashlights (which I carry a reduntant amount of, just
in case);
2) I see a radio as potentially one more crutch to have along to get me
out of a jam that I should not have gotten myself into in the first
place. Or reach for a radio when other self solutions would work just
as well if not better.
So, I am kind of in the market for one right now. I've taken a cursory
look and want something the price range and size of the Icom M1. It is
now rated at submersible, something that I think is a recent upgrade. I
would like to know so I don't get stuck with a discontinued version that
is at some lower grade of water impermability.
It really has to be small, otherwise, knowing myself, I will soon stop
bringing it along. If there are other _small_ models that I should be
contemplating, I would like to hear about them.
My needs are just basically for daytrips at the moment. I think a VHF
marine radio might be useful when paddling in the heavy traffic we have
around here. Thusfar, I have managed to do just fine without monitoring
or transmitting vis-a-vis ferries and large boats. I've just observe
their pattern of movement and adjust my course and location to keep me
out of their way.
Anyway, I am now in the purchase contemplation stage. I am glad that
Rich Mitchell piped up with comments as I have met him when was my guest
for a Statue of Liberty trip here about three years ago, and I value his
opinion (especially his good sense to be a subscriber to my newsletter
:-)).
Just one additional question. Several individuals have talked about
transmitting from land. I thought that marine radios could not be used
on shore or is that something that applied earlier when licenses were
required?
ralph diaz
- --
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Diaz . . . Folding Kayaker newsletter
PO Box 0754, New York, NY 10024
Tel: 212-724-5069; E-mail: rdiaz@ix.netcom.com
"Where's your sea kayak?"----"It's in the bag."
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 10:06:31 EST
From: Bluecanoe2
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] VHF telescoping antennae
In a message dated 1/10/1999 10:49:33 PM EST, dan writes:
<< (1) The antenna issue:
The use of a waterproof baggie precludes the use of a decent antenna
during an emergency. The rubber-ducky antennas have very limited range
in comparison with a telescoping antenna. Assuming that you are not in a
position during the emergency to safely remove your radio from the
baggie (a reasonable assumption!) you are stuck without the ability to
use a decent antenna just when you are in the greatest need. On the
other hand, a submersible radio can be fitted and used with a
telescoping antenna, even if you are in the water and subject to
periodic dousings. This will greatly extend your range.
>>
Tell me about this higher output than rubber ducky, telescoping antennae? I
have never seen reference to this before. Very interested in one.
John
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 10:10:22 -0500
From: Bob Denton
Subject: RE: [Paddlewise] VHF questions
There is a lot of misinformation in Dan's post regarding antennas and
batteries.
1. Alkalines produce MORE voltage then nicads although the curve is
different. A radio that produces 5 watts with nicads may produce 7 or 8 with
fresh alkalines. The nicads will maintain a more constant voltage, and
therefore wattage output, but will die, virtually without warning. I've
never heard the term "Energy Density"?
2. I don't know what type of telescoping antenna Dan is referring to,
but the length of the antenna is not necessarily a key factor in determining
the performance of the antenna. The small duckies tend to be inefficient but
they are factory tuned for the frequency and radio they are designed for. A
telescoping whip would have to be accurately tuned for the operational
frequency by extending it to the exact length, assuming it was long enough
to function as a 1/4 wave. Other factors including the connector can affect
the tuning. This would ideally be done using a field strength meter.
3. Today's nicads are almost memory free and don't require much
coddling.
4. Optimum performance from a fiberglass kayak would be obtained by
mounting a 1/2 wave whip somewhere on the boat. The 1/2 wave performs well
without a ground and should dramatically out perform an antenna mounted on
the radio. A mag mount with a piece of ferrous metal under the deck or hatch
cover may do the trick.
5. If you have any friends that are amateur radio operators, they can
be a good source of information. The amateur VHF band is just below the
marine band, and a lot of amateur equipment will operate (illegally) in the
marine bands. Antennas and other gear can be easily modified to work in the
marine bands and most amateur test equipment will operate in the marine band
as well.
Cya
W2PN
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 09:50:53 -0600
From: "Robert C. Cline"
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] VHF Questions
Reminds me of the time I took my dad out for his first sailing trip. We
were listing to Ch16 which stated: "There is a storm approaching... with
sustained winds of 80 Kn. Switch to Channel 22 for further details. We
had no Ch22.... and were amazed... did they say 80? or 8? Why warnings of
8?
The storm hit within an hour and lasted for hours... over 6 hours at least.
Dad and I thought we were both going to die. We... and the boat survived.
Not that the radio helped any... but the next day there was another
call.... there is a storm approaching with 70 kn. winds, switch to Ch22
for further detais... We anchored our sailboat and we got in our life
raft and headed for shore as fast as we could!
Robert
>2) I see a radio as potentially one more crutch to have along to get me
>out of a jam that I should not have gotten myself into in the first
>place. Or reach for a radio when other self solutions would work just
>as well if not better.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 08:07:09 -0800
From: Dan Hagen
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] VHF questions
Bob Denton wrote:
>
> There is a lot of misinformation in Dan's post regarding antennas and
> batteries.
Well, one of us is confused (or possibly both). I will provide more
specifics this time to help others determine who it is that is providing
misinformation. First, you write:
>
> 1. Alkalines produce MORE voltage then nicads although the curve is
> different. A radio that produces 5 watts with nicads may produce 7 or 8 with
> fresh alkalines.
This is true if you are comparing, say, AA's to AA's, but that is not
relevant to my comparison of VHF alternatives. Let me use a specific
example. I have a radio (Icom M7) that has both a manufacturer-supplied
NiCad CM-89 battery pack (which does NOT use AA's) and a
manufacturer-supplied AA pack for use with alkalines. The CM-89 pack is
rated at 9.6 volts, whereas 6 AA alkalines that fit in the
manufacturer-supplied AA holder produce 6 x 1.5volts for a total of 9.0
volts (when the alkalines are new) Of course it is less than 9.0 as the
voltage drops through use. I asked Icom about the output of this radio
when used with alkalines (since they don't publish a figure) and they
said it would be LESS than 5 watts. I think that they are correct.
>I've never heard the term "Energy Density"?
I have seen this referred to in varous references on battteries. One
place where have I seen this term is the Cadex Battery Book:
http://www.cadex.com/cfm/index.cfm?Pg=52&Lp=144&Db=&Mo=
Check out the section on "choice of batteries". It has a table with
"energy density" (measured in Wh/kg). I did not make the term up.
>
> 2. I don't know what type of telescoping antenna Dan is referring to,
> but the length of the antenna is not necessarily a key factor in determining
> the performance of the antenna. The small duckies tend to be inefficient but
> they are factory tuned for the frequency and radio they are designed for. A
> telescoping whip would have to be accurately tuned for the operational
> frequency by extending it to the exact length, assuming it was long enough
> to function as a 1/4 wave. Other factors including the connector can affect
> the tuning. This would ideally be done using a field strength meter.
Suppliers of such antennas (including the marine electronics shop from
which I purchased mine) claim that a properly matched telescoping
antenna, mounted on the radio, can extend the range of a handheld
significantly. You seem to claim otherwise. I do not have the
expertise to tell who is correct as a matter of theory, so I must rely
on my own experiences, which suggest that the suppliers are correct. Of
course this relies on a properly matched antenna.
>
> 3. Today's nicads are almost memory free and don't require much
> coddling.
What you say disagrees with a major study by the Navy and GTE Government
Systems. This study involved 3 ships and about 2100 batteries. They
found that a proper maintenance routine *greatly* improves performance
of NiCads. There is a link to this study at the above Cadex site. (Go
to the link entitled "GTE report".)
I agree with your point about using test equipment to test your set-up.
Any good marine electronics shop will have such equipment, and will be
willing to help you match an antenna to your radio to improve its
performance.
Dan Hagen
Bellingham, Washington
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 11:29:27 -0500
From: Bob Denton
Subject: RE: [Paddlewise] VHF questions
Standard supplies their radios with a tray that takes both nicads and
alkalines. The nicads produce 5 watts at their nominal voltage. I am not
familiar with Icom's marine radios but I own a number of Icom amateur
handheld VHF/UHF transceivers and have been pleased with their quality and
performance.
cya
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 08:32:31 -0800
From: Dave Kruger
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] VHF Questions
rdiaz@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> However I will hit the big 60 this coming weekend and am NOW suggesting
> to my wife that a VHF might be a good gift idea.
[snip]
> 1) I basically distrust all things electrical and electronic in sea
> conditions even flashlights (which I carry a reduntant amount of, just
> in case);
A good attitude, Ralph, especially for an electronic device as subject to
splashing as a HH VHF -- when you really need it, conditions are likely to
be very rude.
> 2) I see a radio as potentially one more crutch to have along to get me
> out of a jam that I should not have gotten myself into in the first
> place. Or reach for a radio when other self solutions would work just
> as well if not better.
Valid point, unless you plan to leave it on and monitor transmissions of
other, larger craft. Especially in busy, crowded harbors, you *may* find
it increases your awareness of the intentions of tugs, ferries, and the odd
freighter. It sounds like you do fine, now, so the radio is probably not
going to make much difference. Don't know how it is in NYC harbor, but out
here, the commercial traffic is very religious about announcing its
intentions vis-a-vis operations in/near the shipping channel.
> Just one additional question. Several individuals have talked about
> transmitting from land. I thought that marine radios could not be used
> on shore or is that something that applied earlier when licenses were
> required?
Technically, it is illegal for us to transmit with a HH VHF from land.
(Listening is legal.) However, if the transmissions are clearly related to
immediate use of a watercraft (or, to an emergency) and do not lapse over
into the CB-babble mode, no one will hassle you. (There are some special
marine radio licenses which allow marinas, ship pilot services, etc., to
broadcast from land-based stations.) In fact, in some parts of the world
(NOT NYC harbor), marine VHF is the de facto party line for place-to-place
communication, whether ashore or not -- remote sections of the Charlottes,
for example. Illegal, yes. Local usage won out over legal fine print.
Let us know what you settle on. With your customary thoroughness and
erudition, I suspect the rest of us will learn much from your description
of your search!
- --
Dave Kruger
Astoria, OR
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 12:36:00 EST
From: JCMARTIN43@aol.com
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] VHF questions
To Dave's point: line of sight is definitely the issue for sea kayakers; the
only real advantage of the five watt unit is that it will punch through other
radio traffic better, and, if you're worried about getting help when you need
it, punching through traffic is not the issue --- contacting someone is.
Also to Dave's assesment of "weatherproof" --- don't go with anything less
than "JIS-7 Submersible" unless you really want to rely on a plastic bag to
keep your radio dry inside and functional. (Another good feature to look for
is "weather watch" which will allow you to monitor any weather emergency
information in your area while remaining on a tactical frequency.) For what
it's worth, the Apelco 520 is JIS-7 and has the weather feature, as well; its
poor cousin, the 510 continues to serve me well. Defender Marine
, for example, has the 520 for $265, up $30 from the '98
catalog; they're usually a good indication of the best or near-best price on
something like this. Standard disclaimer: no connection with Apelco, Defender,
yadda-yadda-yadda.
Jack Martin
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 11:55:20 -0500
From: Bob Denton
Subject: RE: [Paddlewise] VHF questions
As far as I can tell, energy density is not a formal term but used only to
refer to weight vs power ratio. My local ham repeater belongs to the
Motorola Radio club. I'll ask the engineers about both the nicad situation
and the energy/density term.
cya
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 12:27:48 -0600
From: Patrick Maun
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] VHF questions
Hey Group,
ICOM is still claiming on their website that the M1 is waterproof even
though mine failed. They serviced it under warranty, and sent me a note
explaining that it is only 'water resistant'. Which was quite annoying to
hear after spending some big bucks for something I need to depend on. The
M3, which some people here have mentioned as waterproof is listed on their
website as 'water resistant'. Here is the copy from the M1:
http://www.icomamerica.com/marine/handhelds/
Submersible JIS-7 rating (withstands submersion for 30 minutes at depth of
1 meter)
Waterproof protection you can count on!
Waterproof construction
The IC-M1 is waterproof! Designed for reliable operation under severe
marine conditions. Torrential downpours, heavy seas - no problem for this
transceiver.
- -Patrick
PS Are there any after market solutions for alkaline battery packs for the
M1? ICOM doesn't appear to make one for the M1.
Patrick Maun
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 14:58:19 EST
From: Bluecanoe2
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] VHF questions
In a message dated 1/11/1999 10:49:59 AM EST, BDenton
<< 4. Optimum performance from a fiberglass kayak would be obtained by
mounting a 1/2 wave whip somewhere on the boat. The 1/2 wave performs well
without a ground and should dramatically out perform an antenna mounted on
the radio. A mag mount with a piece of ferrous metal under the deck or hatch
cover may do the trick.
>>
Bob,
I think this is exactly what I suggested only adding a 25 watt radio with
battery to boot.
I have used a simple 1/4 wave SS whip (approximately 18" long) very
successfully for years with marine VHF in appropriate applications. The 1/2
wave whip you refer to is much more "powerful" which is really not a good
choice of words, but we will use it here to simplify things.
The advantage of the whip over the ducky by my experimentation is
overwhelming. In fact, before we had cell phones available locally, I used to
spend a lot of time in the marshes. A few mechanical breakdowns and nights
spent there caused me to look at VHF as the price was coming down from $500.00
+. I bought a 25 watt and used it with much success. To simplify matters
when going with friends, I mounted it inside a 50 cal ammo box with a new
motorcycle battery from Wal Mart in with it. A Shakespeare 40" 1/2 wave whip
mounted to the outside of the ammo can was my link to the world through the
marine operator. I first used the 1/4 wave whip, but since switched to the
1/2 wave after discovering it's advantages. Of course, if you really want a
good antennas, buy one of the $200.00 Co-phased jobs.
The marsh I go into is bordered by the intracoastal waterway and this gave me
access to all it's traffic via radio.
Cell phone now has replaced my "link to the whole world" but not my carrying
my 25W portable marine. I still carry it. I do have a 1 & 5 W HH, but seldom
use it unless it is to talk to another member of my fishing party. I give
them the HH and I got the portable.
I got this idea from the radios we used with Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept as a
summer biologist. They had enormous batteries about the same size as a ammo
box attached and we could talk all night without using up all the "juice"
I have found NiCads handy, but ONLY if I had a spare battery pack AND a way to
recharge it with me. Not having that, I don't have a lot of faith in a small
battery pack for when push comes to shove. I do carry my HH with me in canoe
or kayak WHEN in range of CG or Marine Operator towers OR to receive weather
transmissions. I find that my HH receives WX at a much greater distance than
the $ 29.99 Radio Shack jobs which one would expect since it has a much more
discriminating receiver.
One thing to keep in mind with marine HH is if you are out of range, "you
ain't gonna talk to anyone!"
John LeBlanc
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 15:11:01 EST
From: Bluecanoe2
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] VHF questions
In a message dated 1/11/1999 11:39:07 AM EST, dan writes:
<< This is true if you are comparing, say, AA's to AA's, but that is not
relevant to my comparison of VHF alternatives. Let me use a specific
example. I have a radio (Icom M7) that has both a manufacturer-supplied
NiCad CM-89 battery pack (which does NOT use AA's) and a
manufacturer-supplied AA pack for use with alkalines. The CM-89 pack is
rated at 9.6 volts, whereas 6 AA alkalines that fit in the
manufacturer-supplied AA holder produce 6 x 1.5volts for a total of 9.0
volts (when the alkalines are new) Of course it is less than 9.0 as the
voltage drops through use. I asked Icom about the output of this radio
when used with alkalines (since they don't publish a figure) and they
said it would be LESS than 5 watts. I think that they are correct.
>>
Rated voltage and produced voltage is TWO very DIFFERENT things! The final
say is to take a meter, hit the TX key and read the final output output.
Theoretical and rated is so much rhetoric. One needs actual measured facts.
agreed, not many people have this capability, but if it all means as much as
the posts indicate adn the price paid for a HH is up to $400.00, is the cost
of an actual test too much?
i can tell you my car will do 100 MPH, but if it will only do 80 it will not
win the race against one that does 90 will it?
John
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 15:36:40 -0500
From: Bob Denton
Subject: RE: [Paddlewise] VHF Questions
I did ask at lunch and research is on-going as I write this heh heh. BTW, I
was in one of the few amateur radio stores in New York a few years ago and
they did mention that they were doing a land office business in Marine VHF
radios. Seems it's the radio of choice for small time drug dealers!
cya
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 15:42:59 -0500
From: Bob Denton
Subject: RE: [Paddlewise] VHF questions
There is a common misconception about the value of transmitting power and
reception. "A dime on the antenna is worth a dollar on the radio" is one of
the basic precepts.
I used to talk from Virginia to Europe using 1/3 of a watt. I had a huge
antenna set up for this purpose. When you increase the power 3 fold (or is
it 4 fold) it will only make 1 unit difference on your signal meter...from
S7 to S8. The only time that will be critical is when it takes you out of
the noise floor and makes you audible. With typical environmental noise
(audio) it's unlikely a weak signal would be audible even if just above the
noise floor.
The 1/2 wave antenna is excellent for marine use because it doesn't require
an additional ground plane. The radio functions as the ground plane when
using a duckie, which is less then ideal. The lack of a decent ground is
what would make a co-linear perform poorly in a glass or plastic boat.
The better antennas improve the effective power by flattening out the
radiation pattern concentrating more of the 5 watts at the horizon and less
at the sky. There are inexpensive portable 3 and 4 element VHF yagi antennas
(TV antenna style) which are portable and could be useful for campsites if
hitting the weather transmitter is a problem.
Hope this is useful!
cya
W2PN
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 15:37:46 -0800
From: rdiaz@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] VHF questions
Patrick Maun wrote:
>
> Hey Group,
>
> ICOM is still claiming on their website that the M1 is waterproof even
> though mine failed. They serviced it under warranty, and sent me a note
> explaining that it is only 'water resistant'. Which was quite annoying to
> hear after spending some big bucks for something I need to depend on. The
> M3, which some people here have mentioned as waterproof is listed on their
> website as 'water resistant'.
Patrick is absolutely correct. I visited the ICOM website over the
weekend and was struck by the submersible JIS-7 claim. Seeing this
email, I called ICOM technical people and the guy who answered the phone
said it was not submersible but could take a dunking. And if it failed
in a dunking, it would be repaired under warranty. I pointed out the
website statement but the fellow just kind of pretended I was speaking
Yiddish. I did verify that there has been no model change since its
introduction that would have made its relative water vulnerability any
different. In answer to my question about using a waterproof bag with
the radio he said an emphatic "I would!"
When I was at Goldberg Marine (an E&B affiliate now but formerly an
independent marine shop right in the middle of Manhattan), the clerk
said the same thing about it not being submersible but saying the the
Standard and Apelco were more reliable in a submersion.
ralph diaz
- --
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Diaz . . . Folding Kayaker newsletter
PO Box 0754, New York, NY 10024
Tel: 212-724-5069; E-mail: rdiaz@ix.netcom.com
"Where's your sea kayak?"----"It's in the bag."
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 08:54:55 -0600
From: "Robert C. Cline"
Subject: RE: [Paddlewise] VHF questions
Bob Denton wrote:
>The better antennas improve the effective power by flattening out the
>radiation pattern concentrating more of the 5 watts at the horizon and less
>at the sky. There are inexpensive portable 3 and 4 element VHF yagi antennas
>(TV antenna style) which are portable and could be useful for campsites if
>hitting the weather transmitter is a problem.
>
>Hope this is useful!
How about carrying a half wave dipole? That shouldn't take up much
space... much less than a yagi. Any benefit of a full wave vs. half wave?
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 09:09:22 -0600
From: "Robert C. Cline"
Subject: RE: [Paddlewise] VHF questions
>The problem is that VHF is vertically polarized so you would need to suspend
>the 1/2 wave dipole vertically, then feed it from the middle without
>compromising the radiation pattern. Then you end up with a 1/2 wave
>vertical. The yagi will provide significantly more gain over a
>dipole..usually 7 or 7 dB for 3 elements.
Bob: Are there published documentation on the difference in gain between
horizontal and vertical polarization in VHF frequencies? At most amatuer
freq. range, I didn't notice significant problems communicating between the
two.
Do you happen to have the formulas handy for both the j and the dipole? I
guess the best cut would be for Ch16. What are the dimensions for each?
If you've got the fomulas handy, that is.
>
>The easiest antenna to use in the field is probably a J-Pole made from coax
>and twin lead for pennies. It can be suspended from a tree and will produce
>excellent results.
Yes. I was thinking about carrying a spare antenna in the even I was
stranded somewhere...rather than trying to errect a whip on the boat itself.
Robrt
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 10:23:21 -0800
From: Richard Mitchell
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Antennas -- more info. please.
Regarding accessory antennas...
While it is impolite net style to add a "Me too." I'll risk it
here as this is valuable information for perhaps many of us but I
need help. Would one of you more knowledgeable posters give us
some pragmatic instructions on making an extended antenna for
in-camp emergency use. What materials should we use (coax, plain
wire of what gauge?) How should the antenna be connected to the
radio, how should it be deployed? Hung horizontally between tree
limbs, vertically? A parts list and suggestions for places to
obtain them would be a boon. Of course the formulas for length
etc. would help too, along with any use advice regarding tuning
(without additional equipment).
Thanks for your guidance.
Rich Mitchell
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 14:18:03 -0500
From: Bob Denton
Subject: RE: [Paddlewise] Antennas -- more info. please.
I'd be happy to post plans for an inexpensive J-Pole antenna made from a few
feet of coax,twin lead and a bnc connector.
Give me a couple of days to put something together.
cu
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:13:39 -0500
From: Bob Denton
Subject: RE: [Paddlewise] Antennas -- more info. please.
> Would this work with my Icom VHF hand held?
Absolutely! I'll build one in the next week or so and post plans and
pictures. The materials should cost less than $5 and it will require only a
minimal amount of skill with a soldering iron.
The antenna should provide between 50% and 100% more effective radiated
power then the typical rubber duckie.
cya
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:29:16 -0800
From: rdiaz@ix.netcom.com
Subject: [Paddlewise] My VHF choice
Several people had asked me to post on PaddleWise what VHF radio I
finally picked. After comparing a lot of things, I went with the Apelco
520. Here is my reasoning:
The ICOM M-1 had been my first choice for size, etc. But I wavered on
it because of the lack of real submersibility as admitted by the tech
support people (see earlier post). It bugs me that they claimed a
submersibility rating on the Web but it just ain't so according to their
tech staff, albeit you get a full warranty for water damage. Also the
M-1 is limited in battery power to around 4 hours unless you get the M-1
Plus with a bigger NICAD pack that is rated at 10 hours but which then
makes it slightly bigger and heavier. Again, neither is truly
waterproof in submersion. And no alkaline battery option. Lowest
prices I found were $215 and $230 respectively for the M-1 and M-1 Plus;
$229 and $249 were more typical prices for these units.
The Apelco 520 seemed to me to be a better item. It offers a NICAD
power pack rated at about half way between the two versions of the ICOM
M-1,
i.e. around 7 hours. But it does have an alkaline battery pack as well
as the NICAD. A call to Apelco tech support (really Raytheon, which
owns Apelco) reveals a couple of things regarding submersibility. The
radio is that JIS-7 submersible rated (30 minutes at 1 meter
depth) when using the NICAD pack which snugs in well into the radio.
The alkaline battery configuration is not JIS-7 rated because of how the
pack fits in. If submersed with the alkaline pack, the radio would not
be damaged but the alkaline pack would; you would then have to replace
the alkaline pack for around $25. Not a bad setup overall with lots of
flexibility of use because of the two battery type option.
Price listed was around $260 but I did much better. It was listed in
local stores at $229 (E&B Marine, I think a West Marine sub) but not
available at the store in Manhattan; calling around to the suburbs
yielded just one on Long Island, a floor model. Defender Marine had it
on their web site at that $264 figure. I called to take them up on
their standing offer to match a legit lower price and was ready to argue
the local $229 competitive price in my best city smarts way. But when I
asked what their price was they said $205!!!! So, I did well without
having to be a pushy New Yorker.
Relative weight of the units: ICOM M-1 (10 oz); ICOM M-1 Plus (13
oz). The Apelco 520 is listed at 17 oz. but on a scale it is only 11
oz!!. The Apelco seems to be about a quarter of an inch or so bigger
than the ICOM M-1 in height, width, depth. The ICOM M-1 Plus appears to
be about 3/4 to an inch longer than both. I was looking for something
small...so such things do concern me.
Afterwards, I decided to look again at all the past postings of the last
few weeks regarding VHFs. There had been so much talk, some real
technical, that it had flown by me pretty much. Well lo and behold, my
email pal Jack Martin had recommended that specific model! He seems
savvy regarding radios and lots of other things; or he certainly talks a
good game :-). So I'm glad I came to the same conclusion from a less
hands on knowledge but comparison shopping level. Also BlueCanoe, aka
John Le Blanc, said he has had excellent results with his three Apelco
radios (two fixed and one HH).
I saw another extremely good radio, BTW. The Standard 350. It is also
truly submersible by reputation in addition to claim and has more
capacity, 12 hours. This radio's display window is the biggest I saw
which is good. This radio is heavy, over a pound--perhaps 1.25 lb. It
has a alkaline pack in addition to the Nicad and comes with even a 12
volt charger setup in addition to the AC kind. It cost however $279 at
E&B Marine. It is ever so slightly bigger than the Apelco but looks
more ruggedly built. I did not call their tech support people but
something tells me that in the alkaline pack configuration it might also
fare well in submersion. Just a hunch. Price and size made my choice
of the Apelco 520 the right one for me. I think that there is a bigger
NICAD battery pack for mine as well...I saw a mention of it on some web
site. But I think what I got will work just fine and more battery power
means more weight...an almost inescapable point of physics.
Oh, I've decided not to use a waterproof plastic bag with it. I don't
see that well, nor do I hear well either. The bag cuts down too much in
both senses departments. I don't roll and have been in the water
accidentally only once in 10 years; so my chances of actually submerging
are slim. I will take my chances with the radio sans bag especially
since someone here reported that in his experience all bags leak some.
If I find the radio sans plastic bag fails because of water damage, I
will return the thing under the 3 year warranty and thereafter use a
protective bag. I will have to tether the radio in some way, however,
so I don't lose it overboard. I could attach a float possibly. We
shall see.
Thanks for all the advice,
ralph diaz
- --
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Diaz . . . Folding Kayaker newsletter
PO Box 0754, New York, NY 10024
Tel: 212-724-5069; E-mail: rdiaz@ix.netcom.com
"Where's your sea kayak?"----"It's in the bag."
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 21:52:44 -0800
From: rdiaz@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] My VHF choice
Rob Nevitt wrote:
>
> rdiaz@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >
> > Several people had asked me to post on PaddleWise what VHF radio I
> > finally picked. After comparing a lot of things, I went with the > Apelco 520.
>
> I was the one who originally posted the message: "VHF questions: power
> output, power source, & weather resistance?" At the time I was looking
> at the Icom M3A and a Uniden unit. I ended up getting the Apelco 520
> also as it had all 3 things I was looking for: 5 watts (actually 1/3/5),
> alkaline backup, and submersible. I didn't get quite as good a price --
> $225 from Consumer Marine Electronics -- but I'm satisfied.
I think that Rob and I should hasten to state the standard disclaimer
that we have no connection to Apelco or its parent Raytheon!!! :-)
Your $225 is lower than any other I had seen. I just lucked into that
low price I found. All New Yorkers have a bit of Woody Allen in them
from the character he played in one of his movies who said "The biggest
sin in my family was buying (at) retail." :-)
Like anything, the prices may have lowered for some such thing as a
newer, better model coming out. Such is life.
>
> I had one problem with the unit; it seems that the screws on the
> alkaline packs sent with some units are a few threads too long and the
> battery pack doesn't make good contact with the terminals. I called
> tech support and they are sending me a new one.
I haven't tried the alkaline pack yet. But in researching all over the
place with various manufacturers, I have seen this as an occasional
complaint with battery packs, i.e. they don't make as rich a contact
with the radio's terminal pad as they should. I have to give mine a
try.
It happens with anything made of parts. Boy, could I tell stories about
folding kayaks, but the manufacturers are paying me off to keep mum.
:-)
>
> They also explained to me that the alkaline pack should really be used
> as backup to the nicads as it will only provide a couple of hours of
> use. Thanks for the info on submersability.
Some else had indicated that in some of the radios with switchable
alkaline and NICAD arrangements that sometimes the alkaline
configuration doesn't have as much punch. Unlike most of the other
alkaline arrangements, the Apelco 520's one has just 5 AAs rather than
the usual 6 AAs; so that is definitely less.
I did wander back over various web sites and found the reference to a
larger NICAD pack for this radio, 1200 rather than the 650 standard; it
will run a theoritical 12 hours full power as opposed to about 7. This
bigger pack is the standard pack from the Raytheon 106 radio which also
has 6 watt power and is submersible making it supposedly the most
powerful, longest lasting of the handhelds. The bigger pack will fit
the Apelco 520 but it makes the overall package slightly taller.
ralph diaz
- --
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Diaz . . . Folding Kayaker newsletter
PO Box 0754, New York, NY 10024
Tel: 212-724-5069; E-mail: rdiaz@ix.netcom.com
"Where's your sea kayak?"----"It's in the bag."
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 08:57:49 EST
From: JCMARTIN43@aol.com
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] My VHF choice
In a message dated 1/18/99 1:18:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, rcline
writes:
<<
I've got an apelco 520, and even though it's reputedly submersible, I use
it in a bag... (after flooding an Icom). Anyone use the 520 out of the
bag?
>>
I've been using its predecessor, the 510, de-bagged for five years. Never a
problem with water, even when doing rolls and braces (not deliberately with
the VHF on the PFD --- just forgot). Did give it a good smack once on a
concrete abutment and cracked the display window, letting in water. Apelco
replaced it, even with some obvious mishandling. My guess is that you'll be
fine with the 520, using JIS-7 standards, considering what I've gotten away
with on the 510.
Jack Martin
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:40:27 -0800
From: rdiaz@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] cold weather and VHF
WildConect wrote:
> I too have an Apelco 520. Though I haven't had it but a month, and on the
> water only about 3 times, I've yet to use a protective bag/pouch. It has
> gotten wet, but not submerged. Only problem I've had is the low end operating
> temperature of -20 C (~0 F) seems to be accurate. Warm it up and it works
> fine. Go out with it in my PFD pocket at 0 F and it does not work. Looking
> at making a harness or pouch to wear inside, between PFD and drysuit.
A couple of thoughts:
1. Rather than any elaborate harness or pouch for the inside of your
PFD, just tether it with its existing strap (or something longer) to a
D-ring on the outside of your PFD. Then just lay it inside the PFD
against you. This way it would be safe to access and let go if you need
to do something else with your hands and it will not go overboard. Same
if your forget when unzipping your PFD later...tethered it will not fall
to the ground.
2. Get one of those soft covers that Apelco sells. I have not seen it
but I think it may be made of neoprene. There are universal flotation
covers for VCRs sold by West Marine among others. I don't know if the
Apelco soft cover option is the same. If it is, then having may help in
insulating the radio a bit in cold weather while keeping the radio in an
outside pocket. It would, of course, first have to come from warmer
ambience before putting it inside the cover; and don't expect the radio
to stay absolutely warm. I intend to check out the Apelco cover as a
just-in-case flotation cum cushioning handy device.
3. Before Bob Denton volunteers this...GO SOUTH, YOUNG MAN! Everything
is better in Florida...even VHF radio!!! :-)
ralph diaz
- --
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Diaz . . . Folding Kayaker newsletter
PO Box 0754, New York, NY 10024
Tel: 212-724-5069; E-mail: rdiaz@ix.netcom.com
"Where's your sea kayak?"----"It's in the bag."
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------