[HN Gopher] UV-K5 is the most hackable handheld ham radio yet
___________________________________________________________________
UV-K5 is the most hackable handheld ham radio yet
Author : Brajeshwar
Score : 176 points
Date : 2024-03-28 13:18 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (spectrum.ieee.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (spectrum.ieee.org)
| noodlesUK wrote:
| One thing that I picked up on the spec sheet there which you
| shouldn't really have in a ham radio is a scrambler. I don't know
| if they really mean something like DTS/CTCSS which isn't actually
| encryption, but the word encryption shows up in the user manual,
| though this might just be a troubled translation.
|
| I'm curious if anyone who has one of these has any further
| clarity on what exactly that feature is.
| thrtythreeforty wrote:
| It's "voice inversion" [1] which conceptually is just flipping
| the baseband signal's spectrum around a mutually-agreed upon
| frequency, which serves as the key. The resulting audio is
| difficult to understand. The UV-K5 is only capable of selecting
| a single key frequency; more clever schemes will have some sort
| of rolling code/hopping.
|
| This is separate from CTCSS/DCS which this radio also supports,
| and is not a method for obscuring meaning.
|
| You are correct that it is illegal to use on ham frequencies
| (which can't obscure meaning), but I wanna say it's legal to
| use on FRS. Of course, this radio is not type-certified for
| FRS, so technically that would also be illegal (although many
| people don't care so much about type-certification for FRS).
| You are correct, it has no completely legal use on this
| particular radio.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_inversion
| thereddaikon wrote:
| It could be a mistranslation and just refer to DTS/CTCSS. The
| cpu isn't powerful enough to implement real AES encryption and
| the datasheet doesn't mention a hardware crypto module. It
| could be an inversion scrambler, that's not difficult to
| implement in software and even if it doesn't have that stock
| someone could implement it. But scramblers have limited utility
| now. They are really only useful to annoy others, they are
| trivial to defeat. Undocumented encryption capabilities are
| also not unheard of with Chinese made ham radios either. Seems
| the FCC really only cares when people make a menace of
| themselves and draw their attention.
| AnarchismIsCool wrote:
| People should be able to have encryption if they want it. The
| rules are absolutely unenforceable either way and there isn't
| actually any drawback. I'm a ham but most hams like to freak
| out about it because they think it'll cause companies to
| suddenly start using ham bands with impunity. The reality is,
| we need to enforce the existing rules about IDing in the clear
| periodically and then send whatever you want after that. You
| already can't decode most of the common digital modes without
| significant effort because they rely on proprietary vocoders so
| it's not like encryption would change anything.
|
| Cue hams being angry:
| threemux wrote:
| To be fair there are a large number of people that think the
| AMBE vocoders should be removed from the ham bands too.
| Personally I don't think they run afoul of the rules since
| the intent is not to obscure meaning.
|
| I think encryption is a terrible idea for amateur radio not
| because of companies doing things (they have ample land
| mobile allocations), but because it would be filled with
| cryptoshit scams in no time at all. I know of at least one
| RF-based cryptocurrency already. I'd also be worried about
| high speed traders on the HF bands since they're already
| trying to get licenses in the shortwave broadcast bands as it
| is. Not to mention I've yet to hear of a legit use case for
| encryption in the amateur bands that isn't served just as
| well by other licensed (and licensed-by-rule) services.
| AnarchismIsCool wrote:
| My belief is that the core purpose of ham radio is
| experimentation, so playing with modern protocols,
| modulation schemes and techniques is really important for
| it to remain relevant in the future. It can't forever exist
| as an HF/VHF AM/FM service forever. The future is AES/RSA,
| DSSS/CSS, internet access, and mobile mesh systems.
|
| All that said, if we went to allowing it with a cleartext
| ID, how do you think the crypto scams would defeat that in
| a scalable way?
| ShakataGaNai wrote:
| https://youtu.be/1dt6ykstvOo?si=itGvWonj4MPQaSrq&t=384
|
| Mentions that it's a basic scrambler. I doubt a $30 radio has a
| chip powerful enough for real-time (proper) encryption.
| briandw wrote:
| The website and manual mention "10 groups of scrambled voice
| encryption". They don't specify what this is actually doing.
|
| I've always wondered what it would take to make a really good
| encrypted coms system using one of these. However my
| understanding is that encrypted transmission on HAM is illegal.
| thereddaikon wrote:
| Using encryption on ham bands is illegal yes. You can use it on
| commercial bands if you buy a license from the FCC and ISM
| (common 2.4ghz/5Ghz) is mostly fair game as well. The practical
| reality is people are probably getting away with abusing it
| because the FCC is not omniscient and has limited resources.
| For an individual to draw the ire of the FCC they need to make
| a nuisance of themselves. Occasionally you hear of people
| getting arrested for using illegal cell jammers and the like. I
| can't recall hearing of someone getting caught using
| encryption.
|
| For something like this to really get a crackdown you would
| need a watershed event like RC aircraft had with cheap drones.
| The point where very capable hardware became extremely cheap
| and accessible to people who know nothing about the hobby. The
| RC aircraft community effectively self policed for decades
| because the bar for entry was high enough that anyone getting
| involved had to engage with the community. Drones changed that.
| And the FAA had to step in and regulate. I think we are getting
| close with cheap Chinese radios. But even Baofengs still
| require programming and educating yourself. Devices like the
| flipper zero are far more damaging. Even though they are
| limited in their capabilities, they make it trivial for the
| user to make a nuisance of themselves in ways that are hard to
| ignore. Its probably a matter of time until a cheap radio hits
| Amazon that does everything for you and permits non hobbyists
| to ruin everything. Imagine something as capable as a HackRF
| but as easy to use as an iPhone. Then we have problems.
| reaperman wrote:
| Assuming there was aggressive enforcement against it, could
| someone "get away" with encrypted transmission sent in low-
| power alongside high-power unencrypted transmissions?
|
| Like would a well-encrypted stream look indistinguishable to
| a bit of noise from a low-quality transceiver?
| thereddaikon wrote:
| That depends entirely on what they are listening with. One
| sub set of ham radio is called fox hunting which is a
| gameified form of radio direction finding. Some guys are
| really good at it. If you annoy one of them and they are
| persistent they can potentially track you down. The Feds of
| course have very sophisticated tools far and above what's
| available to you but if you've drawn that kind of attention
| you are already in deep trouble and looking at jail time.
| Powerful software defined radios like the RTL-SDR are
| inexpensive and with a PC can be used to scan broad swathes
| of spectrum and even decode and store transmissions. People
| can setup their own DIY listening posts this way. For
| someone with the right setup and looking at the right time
| they would notice you are using an encrypted transmission.
| To figure out where you are would involve repeated
| detections from multiple points. An adjacent topic is
| pirate radio stations. The Youtube channel Ringway
| Manchester has a series of videos about historical UK
| pirate stations and their stories. You might find it
| interesting.
| reaperman wrote:
| I think you maybe answered a different question than what
| I intended to ask. I meant to ask - if I only transmit
| encrypted communications while I'm legitimately
| transmitting legal content ... how would anyone
| differentiate illegal high-entropy encryption from legal
| high-entropy noise?
|
| Obviously anyone can track my transmissions with "fox-
| hunting". But my transmissions would superficially be
| valid and legal. How would they notice the well-encrypted
| communications which theoretically should look like
| random noise?
| avidiax wrote:
| I think there's one more intrinsic safeguard for these radios
| vs. drones.
|
| Handheld radios are mostly not useful in an urban setting
| (compared with a cell phone), and only other radio users can
| even be bothered by them.
|
| Unlike "drone spotted in posh neighborhood looking into
| windows" as a headline, "Baofeng user briefly interferes with
| garage door opener" just doesn't have any edge.
| thereddaikon wrote:
| That's a fair point but I've seen for a few years now
| Baofeng Ham radios resold as walkie talkies for
| recreational use. Often advertised as for powersports like
| ATVs and boating. This is completely illegal but these
| resellers have been doing it for awhile now without any
| consequences. Still, the real world impact is limited and
| mostly contained to annoying Hams. And its a meme in the
| community that the FCC doesn't care about Hams.
|
| I think the flipper zero/hack rf side of things is the
| bigger problem. Its very useful to whitehats but they also
| lower the bar for a lot of disruptive attacks. Get a
| flipper zero and war drive any neighborhood built in the
| 80's and its prime hunting ground for forcing garage doors.
| I'm surprised we haven't heard more of that actually.
| crmd wrote:
| Question from a non-ham: how does the fcc define encryption?
|
| Is it ok to speak in code, like a numbers station?
|
| What about speaking in Navajo, like the Americans did in ww2?
|
| What if it was a made-up tonal language with lots of clicks
| that sounded similar to a modem transmitting a bitstream?
| threeio wrote:
| "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their
| meaning"
|
| https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/part-97#p-97.113(a)(4
| )
|
| It's intentionally broad, and gives exceptions for
| controlling satellites as the only real exception.
|
| People try to fight that publishing encryption keys would
| mean that you are within the intent of the law, I struggled
| decades ago trying to create a digital voice mode while
| every OM told me I was trying to encrypt things. sigh.
| crmd wrote:
| Awesome, thanks
| thereddaikon wrote:
| What threeio said is right. Technically, encoding data
| digitally isn't encryption and is fine, and there are
| digital modes used by Hams. But if you were to come up with
| your own scheme I could see some sweaty old timers try to
| accuse you of encryption just because their $3k Yaesu can't
| decode it. There's a good reason why a lot of recent
| innovation in the hacker and maker spaces has been in
| unlicensed bands. The rules for the Ham bands were written
| decades ago when just trying to talk to people around the
| world was considered experimental. Now its trivial to do
| that with HF with the right equipment and a bit of reading.
| The FCC tends to neglect the ham space which is both a good
| and bad thing. Lack of attention means people are probably
| getting away with doing a lot of harmless things they
| technically shouldn't be. But it also means we are stuck
| with rules from the 1930's.
| fullspectrumdev wrote:
| > Imagine something as capable as a HackRF but as easy to use
| as an iPhone.
|
| This is literally just a UX overhaul away for the HackRF
| Portapak system. As-is the UX is slightly too awkward for the
| casual user, but these things trend towards becoming more
| user friendly over time.
|
| Honestly a Portapak with Bluetooth module and a phone app to
| control it would be pretty fucking cool, now that I think
| about it.
| mmmrtl wrote:
| This project's trying to add 53-bit *scrambling* with an ESP32.
| Maybe not technically encryption, but the lines are blurry
| https://github.com/kamilsss655/ESPRI?tab=readme-ov-file
| sparrish wrote:
| It's not terribly useful yet but I like where we're headed. Needs
| a beefier CPU and more memory. I'm going to buy a few more to
| help signal to manufacturers that this is the right direction.
| topspin wrote:
| > Needs a beefier CPU and more memory
|
| The MCU is $0.21 at quantity on Alibaba. Make it a whole $0.50
| and they'd really have something. Kind of a shame.
| cjk2 wrote:
| Pretty cool but is the TX / LPF still shitty? The cheaper radios
| usually are a real miss on this front.
| marssaxman wrote:
| Sounds excellent! I suppose I'll buy one.
| trelane wrote:
| For USD28? Oh yeah. :)
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| Is there a legit way to use these without a Ham license? I
| sometimes ski in areas with bad cell service and it would be neat
| to have an alternative. I've seen portable CB radios but they're
| on the pricier side
| trelane wrote:
| You can always listen. It's transmitting that requires a
| license. Possibly also the modding as well.
| trelane wrote:
| It's probably pretty easy for anyone here to get Technician,
| and probably General. I'd expect a large number could get
| Extra, and probably in one sitting.
|
| So you're right, you could use ham radio, but it does require
| a license, but it's probably not hard to get.
|
| Also, if you've an emergency, technically whatever you need
| to do to get help is fine. But it had better be a life and
| death emergency. Especially if you end up taking over the
| radio to a government agency, e.g. FAA or DoD.
| kstrauser wrote:
| > It's probably pretty easy for anyone here to get
| Technician, and probably General.
|
| Yep. If you're reading this, you probably have the
| technical background to pass the Technician exam pretty
| easily.
|
| A big chunk of the exam is stuff you learned in the physics
| class you probably had to take along the way. The rest is
| largely about specific regulations, like the power limit at
| this frequency is X, and don't build a tower more than Y
| tall within Z of airport.
|
| If you can remember "frequency * wavelength = speed of
| light" and "watts = volts * amps", you could probably get a
| passing score on the technical part of it without studying
| in advance.
| MandieD wrote:
| Most of the rest of the Technician exam is what is the
| absolute minimum you need to know about Part 97 to avoid
| disrupting your neighbors' radio reception and/or keep
| the FCC from knocking on your door.
| kstrauser wrote:
| Exactly. They're the training wheels: if you never do
| these things, you'll be fine. (And if you do the right
| things and your neighbor still gets annoyed, we won't get
| mad at you.)
|
| General and Extra are more like "OK, here's how you can
| get as close as possible to those things we told you not
| do to without getting in trouble."
| 2four2 wrote:
| Short answer: no Nuanced short answer: operate on frs channels
| or buy a gmrs license and operate on those bands. This is still
| illegal because your equipment isn't allowed to operate on
| these bands but not heavily enforced. Use at your own risk.
| neilv wrote:
| IIRC, the transmit power of all versions of the UV-5R are too
| high for FRS.
|
| Besides being noncompliant in ways that people are more
| likely to consider harmless technicalities, such as the
| antenna being removable.
| avidiax wrote:
| There are 5W and even 50W GMRS bands. You would need a
| license in that case, but it's not expensive. The handheld
| would be non-compliant, but that wouldn't be detectable on-
| air unless the deviation or power is outside spec for that
| frequency.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Mobile_Radio_Service#
| F...
| ElevenLathe wrote:
| I wonder if this could be programmed to operate on CB bands
| only? If it could, would that be legal to use on the air?
| cbfrench wrote:
| I don't think it would. IIRC, CB radios are type-certified,
| which means that the transmitter itself is licensed, rather
| than the operator (similar to FRS).
|
| That said, these days the FCC gives absolutely zero shits
| about what happens on 11m, so I wouldn't expect any knocks at
| the door if you modify a non-CB radio for use on CB channels.
| avidiax wrote:
| In addition to it being technically illegal, you probably
| can't transmit well on CB without an external antenna and
| amplifier.
| MandieD wrote:
| Wrong frequency range - these handhelds are designed for 2m
| and 70cm, and CB is 11m. You'd have to do a lot of tricky
| hardware modification first, and then hook it up to a rather
| large antenna for a handheld.
| lormayna wrote:
| You can, but the problem is that the radio chip is not
| designed for the 27Mhz, then you will generate an huge amount
| of spurious that will pollute other bands and wasting lot of
| power. I advise don't do that, just to avoid to interfere
| with some critical services.
| cbfrench wrote:
| The better question might be: What is your imagined use case
| for this radio? A VHF/UHF handheld is more or less limited to
| LOS transmission, so you would either need to be within
| reliable range of a repeater or another person with an HT tuned
| to that frequency. If you're looking for something you can use
| in a backcountry emergency, you'd frankly be better off just
| plunking down the money for a satphone, which is going to be
| much more reliable. An HT radio is unlikely to be of much use
| in that scenario, unless you know there's a repeater nearby
| that is regularly used and that you can hit from your location.
| OTOH, if you're looking for a new hobby and a gadget to play
| around with, get a license, pick up an UV-K5, and have fun!
|
| If you want to get a license just to play on the radio, it is
| super easy. A Technician license will allow you legally to use
| any VHF/UHF radio with full access to those bands (plus all of
| 6m and some access to other HF bands).
|
| It's extremely simple to get licensed. Put the HamStudy app on
| your phone, run through the question pool/practice exams until
| the info is in your memory, and then sign up for a remote exam
| on HamStudy.org. I studied for my Technician license for like a
| day and a half and aced the Tech exam. I aced my General and
| Extra exams within a week using the same method. I have no
| background in tech or EE. So, yeah, it's easy.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| I agree in general, that if someone has a short amount of
| time, a small amount of money, and any kind of ability to
| memorize some rules, then getting a Tech license is a breeze!
| And if you're actually enjoying it, getting a General is not
| difficult, either.
|
| In my humble opinion, the rules on antenna and transmit power
| for FRS are annoying - garbage range and prone to
| interference. I wouldn't want to risk pissing off the FCC or
| a ham with too much time on their hands by running hot on FRS
| constantly...
|
| But for occasional backwoods travel with friends or to use in
| an emergency without clogging up ham frequencies, it's
| totally possible to reprogram certain Baofengs and these
| radios to transmit on FRS frequencies with low wattage. In
| fact, I think FRS was modified to allow higher power now, so
| the low-end of these radios fits. It's just the antenna reg
| that they break now.
| cbfrench wrote:
| Yeah, definitely agree 100%. It's not a popular ham
| opinion, but the general follow-up to "Is this illegal?"
| should be "Will anyone care?" Lots of practices in the
| radio world are, strictly speaking, illegal, but no one
| cares. See all the guys running multiple kW amps on CB,
| which is limited (laughably) to 4W AM and 12W PEP on SSB.
|
| If you modify a bunch of Fengs to run on FRS/GMRS freqs to
| talk up and down the mountain out in the middle of nowhere,
| sure, it's illegal, but if no one hears your transmissions
| other that the people on the mountain, it's not an issue
| unless you take the FCC regs as moral edicts. But if you're
| looking for a way to get a signal out in an emergency, a
| satphone is still going to be your best bet.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| Less for emergency use (in a life or death situation I'm less
| worried about upsetting the FCC), more for "hey dude, wanna
| meet up for lunch" or "FYI I'm heading back to the car".
|
| Ideally something that doesn't require everyone to have a
| license (eg I can just hand a friend a without advance prep)
| but with a couple miles of range without LOS (maybe I'm
| underestimating the Toys R Us walkie talkies but I'm assuming
| they don't reach that far).
|
| I've also seen LoRa based solutions like Meshtastic but not
| sure how practical it is
| cbfrench wrote:
| Yeah in that case, you'd probably be better off just
| picking up some decent GMRS handhelds. Spend a little more
| on some antenna upgrades, and you should have no issues. If
| you really want to stay on the right side of the law, you
| can have everyone in your group (who isn't related to you)
| throw $35 at the FCC for some GMRS licenses. But, depending
| on terrain, you should be able to stay in reasonable
| contact with everyone with 5W if you're within a mile or
| two.
| Steltek wrote:
| I'm pretty sure you can find the same radio hardware
| platform but FCC certified for GMRS (or so the label says
| anyway). Maybe they added filtering to get it to pass?
| That means a $35 GMRS radio with USB-C charging,
| swappable antennas, and higher transmit power.
|
| He's already seen Meshtastic, which is something I
| definitely want to play with for his exact use-case:
| coordinating with friends while skiing.
| FrankoDelMar wrote:
| The BC Link is a commonly used GMRS radio for backcountry
| enthusiasts.
|
| https://backcountryaccess.com/en-us/c/bc-link-radios/
|
| Any decently made GMRS radio should be fine for
| coordinating around the ski resort. I've had mixed results
| with FRS as the range is quite poor. This is amplified by
| the fact that the other party could be on a different face
| of the mountain as well as covered by trees. It's also
| convenient that many GMRS and FRS frequencies overlap, so
| if someone in your party only has an FRS radio or doesn't
| have a license, they can still communicate with GMRS users,
| assuming they're within range.
|
| As another commenter pointed out a satellite communicator
| would be preferable in an emergency situation, as FRS/GMRS
| cannot be relied on to request emergency or rescue
| services. I keep a Garmin inReach Mini for this purpose.
|
| https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/765374
| ganzuul wrote:
| > legit
|
| If you have an emergency you can initiate emergency traffic.
|
| Bought an UV-R5 years ago during a short prepping spree as
| backup if the mobile net is compromised. Took off the antenna
| and transmitted less than a second to see if an RTL-SDR would
| pick up the carrier wave. Then it went into storage and I top
| up the battery once per year.
| Avamander wrote:
| Running a transmitter without an antenna is a great way to
| ruin it.
| teraflop wrote:
| But to clarify, for the purposes of amateur radio, "emergency
| traffic" is defined as:
|
| > essential communication needs in connection with the
| immediate safety of human life and immediate protection of
| property when normal communication systems are not available
|
| (47 CFR SS 97.403)
|
| That is, just because your communications are _related_ to an
| ongoing emergency doesn 't automatically give you the right
| to transmit without a license.
| threemux wrote:
| You can use any means necessary if life or property are in
| imminent danger and only if you're already licensed. The
| section of Part 97 everyone quotes applies to amateur
| stations only (like the rest of Part 97).
|
| So unless there's another part of the FCC rules that allows
| this I'm unaware of, even emergency communications made by
| unlicensed users are illegal.
| myself248 wrote:
| What's the reasoning for not getting the license? It's super
| straightforward, the test questions are about some RF basics
| and the regulations you'd have to comply with anyway, and it's
| super cheap and lasts a lifetime.
|
| IOW, I think you're solving the wrong problem.
| colelyman wrote:
| > lasts a lifetime
|
| You need to renew the license every 10 years, but as long as
| you renew you don't need to take a test (which is maybe what
| you mean by "lasts a lifetime").
| amatecha wrote:
| Yeah depends on the country/jurisdiction - in Canada, an
| amateur radio certification is valid for life, and doesn't
| require any sort of re-testing or paid renewal or anything.
| Pretty nice. One of the few times the government has really
| done something right, IMO :)
| fullspectrumdev wrote:
| In a lot of places your name/address is publicly linked to
| your callsign when you have a HAM licence, in databases
| anyone can search.
|
| Which is absolute shit.
| amatecha wrote:
| You can snag one and listen, just can't transmit. Otherwise,
| no, no way to legally use it without obtaining an amateur radio
| certification/license.
| yellow_postit wrote:
| Getting radios for skiing as a family and group has been a game
| changer. Rocky Talkies are very accessible.
| mceachen wrote:
| You got your kids to pass a ham license test? Kudos.
| _whiteCaps_ wrote:
| Rocky Talkies are FRS.
| lxgr wrote:
| For that, I'd just get FRS (US) or PMR446 (EU) radios (or your
| local equivalent). No license needed and very cheaply available
| but still interoperable across manufacturers.
| webnrrd2k wrote:
| I could be wrong, but I believe that anyone, even without a
| license, can use them to listen to ham bands at anytime. You
| can not use them to transmit, unless there is some sort of
| emergency.
| transcriptase wrote:
| I believe both the FCC and ISED have exceptions for unlicensed
| individuals to use any amateur frequency in the event of a
| genuine emergency. For the price it could be worthwhile to
| program one of these with local comms frequencies. As long as
| you don't transmit outside of an emergency it's perfectly legal
| to both have and listen with. Plus it has a flashlight!
| geerlingguy wrote:
| And... I just bought one. It's under the threshold for impulse
| buy to fuel the hobby. Hopefully it doesn't sit in the box for
| too long, I would love to hack away at it and see what else it
| can do.
|
| I would love more manufacturers to open up the firmware on
| devices like these. Leave default safeguards in place from the
| factory, but allow tinkering.
|
| Cheap, hackable stuff helps get new people interested in radio,
| especially if it can be managed using tools people might already
| be familiar with like WebSerial.
| AnarchismIsCool wrote:
| People stress about the safeguards too much. If you run around
| trying to jam gps, airband, or cellular you'll get your pp
| slapped pretty hard. If you go off and experiment with random
| other stuff without making too much noise, literally nobody
| cares.
| kps wrote:
| I just ordered one too, just because of the hackability. (I
| will likely never _transmit_ with it, since I already have a
| radio with a better radio.)
| transcriptase wrote:
| For you and anyone else, make sure you order a programming
| cable. The baofeng one works for the UV-K5. And when you go
| to use it, be aware that you're going to have to press it
| into the radio far harder than you think. It will make a loud
| click the first time, and save you hours of troubleshooting!
| geerlingguy wrote:
| Heh, good to know! I guess they're using ports that are
| just a bit too tight from the factory.
| crims0n wrote:
| Really impressed with the custom firmware people are developing
| for this radio. The one I am on now is written by egzumer and
| even comes with a spectrum analyzer.
|
| Unfortunately, the radio itself is about what you would expect
| from a $30 import. The frontend easily overloads, and the
| harmonics on transmit are way outside what the FCC permits.
| Still, as a gateway into ham radio, it is one hell of a value
| proposition.
| topspin wrote:
| > way outside what the FCC permits
|
| Confirmed. And yet it has an FCC ID from early 2023...
|
| https://fcc.report/FCC-ID/XBPUV-K5
| drmpeg wrote:
| The FCC doesn't test the transmitter. The device is only
| tested to comply with Part 15 unintentional radiation rules
| (just like any other consumer electronics device).
| jcrawfordor wrote:
| Have you been able to perform testing? I think the quality of
| these Chinese radios has actually improved quite a bit over the
| years, and the reports I see of testing UV-K5s shows them
| within FCC limits (well within for 2M, closer to the limit for
| 70cm). The situation is much worse if you transmit outside of
| those bands, but, well, that's not really what it's designed
| for anyway.
|
| You have to be cautious with harmonics reports on these radios
| because a lot of people seem to try to evaluate them with an
| SDR... and they are pretty much guaranteed to overload the
| SDR's front end and cause all kinds of intermodulation that
| people mistake for emissions of the radio.
|
| I wish ARRL still put more testing pieces in QST because it's
| hard to know what to make of the testing reports you see
| online. People end up finding all kinds of different results,
| and I'm sure there's variation between units, but it also seems
| like there's a big aspect of... random internet people
| unsurprisingly having inconsistent test setups.
| transcriptase wrote:
| > You have to be cautious with harmonics reports on these
| radios because a lot of people seem to try to evaluate them
| with an SDR... and they are pretty much guaranteed to
| overload the SDR's front end and cause all kinds of
| intermodulation that people mistake for emissions of the
| radio.
|
| This is something more people should know. On the most
| popular USB SDRs even a local FM radio station will have the
| appearance of transmitting on harmonics, which I know for
| certain the serious hams would report within hours.
| kloch wrote:
| Someone told me once that Beofang uses the open source DSD
| (digital speech decoder) package in their scanners/radios. Can
| anyone confirm this?
| stavros wrote:
| I was about to buy one of these (of course), when I noticed that
| the K6 exists. Which one is the best one to buy to hack around
| with?
| thrtythreeforty wrote:
| The K6 has a USB-C port for charging. Of course, they bungled
| it and it doesn't have the CC resistors to trigger PD chargers,
| so you need an A-to-C cable, or some soldering skillz. Other
| than that, they are reported to be identical hardware.
| thesh4d0w wrote:
| My K5 also has a usb-c port for charging. AFAIK they are
| identical except for slightly different housing.
| _JamesA_ wrote:
| Are you sure about that?
|
| I just ordered the UV-K5 from Amazon sold by Quansheng and it
| is labeled as having USB C charging.
|
| There's also a third party seller with an item description of
| "UV-K6 UV-K5(8)". That listing seems fishy.
|
| I don't see a "UV-K6" listed on the Quansheng web site [1].
|
| EDIT: After more research it looks like the UV-K5(8) is also
| known as the UV-K6 [2]. I'm curious which model I receive.
|
| [1]: http://en.qsfj.com/products/?series=3
|
| [2]: https://hagensieker.com/2024/03/12/quansheng-
| uv-k6-radio-rev...
| smarx007 wrote:
| UV-K5(8) is legit: http://en.qsfj.com/products/3268
| 05 wrote:
| Soldering skillz are always nice to have but the amount of
| Chinese 'USB C' gear that skimp on the 5.1K resistors is
| truly enormous, and adding them gets old really fast. Some
| designers even combine cc1 and cc2 to save 0.01C/ on the
| second resistor, with predictable results..
| ericye16 wrote:
| Just checking: using a modded handset on ham frequencies with a
| ham license would still be perfectly legal, as long as you still
| abide by power/no-encoding rules right?
| ShakataGaNai wrote:
| Provided you are broadcasting within bands you have license
| for, under the power limits for that band/license, and it's not
| encrypted... yea, you're good.
|
| Historically the FCC hasn't care about modding radios, until
| people start doing illegal shit with them... like broadcasting
| FM on AM Airband freq's
| gglitch wrote:
| My understanding is that the purpose of amateur licensing is to
| facilitate and _encourage_ experimentation and learning, up to
| and including people building their own hardware; that 's why
| the rules are about how your machine affects the world.
| kstrauser wrote:
| That's exactly right. I'm licensed by the FCC to build my own
| radio from a bucket of spare parts if I want to, and I can do
| whatever I want with it as long as I stay inside their rules.
| The RF I generate is what I'm responsible for. How I get
| there is up to me.
| ubj wrote:
| This looks interesting. A common complaint about the Baofengs is
| that they transmit significant unwanted harmonics outside the
| intended frequency. Do these radios have this issue as well?
|
| I'm very excited about the prospect of more radios that can be
| easily programmed with mainstream languages such as Python / Rust
| / C++. Hopefully this becomes a stronger trend going forward.
| justin66 wrote:
| > Like Baofeng's 5R, Quansheng's K5 as a radio transceiver is
| _fine._
|
| In other words, its output is so dirty the FCC would ban it if
| they were paying attention?
| nimbius wrote:
| "for over a decade, Baofeng has been the name in Chinese
| handhelds."
|
| well, its certainly _A_ name...as an amateur extra and a VEC, i
| tried...i really tried to love these radios.
|
| - my first baofeng couldnt hit the repeater across the street
| from me.
|
| - my second baofeng arrived with a flashlight i couldnt turn
| off, and died an hour later.
|
| - my final baofeng (a gift) died during a contest and couldnt
| even hit a reference repeater. thankfully i was only really
| using it for a flashlight in a camping tent.
|
| ...but i cant. these things are hot garbage for preppers and
| gun nuts.
| sitzkrieg wrote:
| ive an bf-f8hp that outperforms kenwood ht everytime i
| compare, with stock antenna and all. shrug
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| FWIW the Baofeng radio I tested, a BF-F8HP circa 2017, was
| (barely) compliant with Part 97 spurious emission requirements.
| chriscjcj wrote:
| Your assertions are applicable to early UV-5R models. However,
| some have demonstrated that more modern iterations have made
| substantial improvements.
|
| https://forums.radioreference.com/threads/baofeng-spectral-p...
| justin66 wrote:
| That is good news.
| teeray wrote:
| I wonder if DMR, D-Star, or Fusion can get added to this
| tjohns wrote:
| Almost certainly not. The usual challenges here are:
|
| 1. The codec is computationally expensive (at least by
| embedded-device standards). Often this is handled by a
| dedicated ASIC.
|
| 2. The waveform needed for DMR (TDMA 4-FSK) or D-STAR
| (narrowband GMSK) isn't something this radio's hardware is
| built to generate.
|
| The RF chip in the UV-K5 is a BK4819, which does have some
| limited F2D+F1W FSK data capability. Anecdotally it sounds like
| it's limited to 2-FSK though. You might be able to get APRS
| text messaging / AX.25 packet radio working.
|
| I'm still waiting for somebody to build a truly hackable SDR-
| based HT that can be programmed with custom waveforms.
| alexalx666 wrote:
| It's kinda sad that the state of art moved to China, Bao what?
| Give me a Kenwood or something
| CraigJPerry wrote:
| Have you seen the price of the new kenwood th-75?
|
| I just sold my th-d74 to a chap in Moldova of all places and
| that was a really fun handy for all the extra toys on it but I
| will NOT be getting the 75!
| fourteenfour wrote:
| ~$750 for anyone else who was wondering.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| Is it hackable?
| amatecha wrote:
| Long before people were modding these I got one for $20 CAD from
| Aliexpress. The speaker only works intermittently, requiring me
| to push on the case to get it to work (I guess there's a weak
| solder joint or something). I contacted the seller and of course
| just got infinite runaround. Either way, "buyer beware", these
| things are insanely cheap for a reason. Basically a dollar-store
| HT. :P
| sedatk wrote:
| Just buy it on Amazon for $10 more, and you're good to go.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| All that adds is fast shipping because someone with an
| alphabet soup brand name upfronted a bit of money to get a
| container load of them shipped from China to an Amazon
| warehouse.
| sedatk wrote:
| It adds no-hassle returns.
| amatecha wrote:
| Uh, on Amazon Canada, the Quansheng UV-K5 is being sold for
| $125.99 heh
| mikewarot wrote:
| I had to look around to find a datasheet[1] for the BK4819 which
| is the heart of this rig, but it appears that there are I/Q
| outputs on receive, and possibly I/Q inputs on transmit
| internally, so it's an SDR, and not limited to FM only. The low
| output power will likely restrict it to line of site, but it's an
| interesting substrate on which to work.
|
| [1]
| https://touchardinforeseau.servehttp.com/f4kmn/f4kmn/FRANCAI...
| lxgr wrote:
| Isn't UHF/VHF (edit: pretty much) always line-of-sight?
|
| Edit: Can the downvotes please explain where I'm wrong? It's a
| genuine question!
| rfthrowaway2 wrote:
| Tropospheric ducting is a thing... [1]
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropospheric_propagation
| lxgr wrote:
| Sure, but is that a thing you'd be able to (and want to) do
| using a small handheld radio?
|
| It's not like HF where ionospheric reflections are pretty
| much the biggest appeal of the band.
| rfthrowaway2 wrote:
| Plenty of use-cases, unsure what you're arguing against.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmNo1TX1E3Q
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hn7_CZurV7Y
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/amateurradio/comments/jcvv5g/did
| _so...
| lxgr wrote:
| Who's arguing?
|
| I was under the impression UHF/VHF is mostly used for
| line-of-sight communications, unlike HF, and NLOS usually
| needs much stronger transmitters than would be
| practicable in a handheld radio.
|
| Curious to learn about other applications.
| lormayna wrote:
| Looking forward that someone will port FT8 to this devices. At
| the moment you need a phone or a PC to tx/rx in FT8.
| sitzkrieg wrote:
| this is what im looking forward to, too. ive even started
| making some hardware around digital modes so this might make a
| cheaper frontend + filter investment lol
| gh02t wrote:
| Does it have the hardware? Per the article the CPU and
| available flash memory are super limited.
| le-mark wrote:
| This may not fit here but I'm going to ask if anyone knows; has
| anyone been using starlink phased array antenna s for point to
| point microwave communication? What would be fruitful search
| words for google to find out more? Thanks!
| raphman wrote:
| I don't have any personal knowledge, but you might want to ask
| Oleg Kutkov - he has been reverse-engineering and repairing
| Starlink antennas for some time.
|
| https://olegkutkov.me/ https://twitter.com/olegkutkov
| semi-extrinsic wrote:
| Not answering your question directly, but curious why you want
| to take on the significant endeavour to hack up something like
| this, when you can just buy e.g. a pair of Ubiquiti airFiber 5
| and get 1 Gbps with >100km range?
| FourOnTheFloor wrote:
| How do they make it work on frequencies beyond its range? The
| diagram puts its range below the aviation band.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-03-28 23:00 UTC)