Survival Radio Musts, Shoulds, Coulds

[Martin200261]

(2 August 2012, 17:53)NorthernRaider Wrote: Martin why change whats not broken, everyone else uses CH 19 so it makes sense we use the same, for example after TSHTF you could be calling on CH 19 and a none prepper who is online hears you but is in a good position to help you replies?, not all sheeple are hostile to use, indeed many hobby CBers and Hams would probably try and help a prepper if they could.

The only true bone of contention I cannot overcome no matter after how much reassurance I get from Paul, LS and SD if the radio output, I feel most strongly that ten watt hand helds ( maybe as low as 7 watt at a push) is what we will need if we intend to adopt normal sorts of opsec on securing our homes, We will need good RX and TX to at least 15 miles to get the best effect.

I agree that ch19 makes sense but with people talking of using 80 channel sets with european frequencies I wasn't sure which direction we were heading. Myself, I'm up for CB 27/81 and ch19 for the mid range comms - nice and simple.

As for power, I think that's down to personal preference and knowing your local terrain - no need to standardise there just so long as we can shout to each other on the same frequency.

---

(3 August 2012, 00:43)The Local Ned Wrote: I do understand what the toing and froing is about.

We have seen threads recently where all this has been discussed only for it to be viewed as one big headache.

We've all tried to point out the easiest comms setup , UKFM CB on CH19.

The more questions we've been asked and tried to answer , the more it has become apparent that trying to standardise the kit won't work , so we have to standardise the frequency instead.

500mW might get a signal out for one of us , where 5W might not make it for others.

I pointed out the capabilities of PMR446 , and the ease of modding the handsets ( and BASE-sets ) to full power and multi-bands....and was shot down in flames for making things more complicated. Now it seems the penny has dropped and what was a complication is now seen as an advantage just as I tried to point out ??

I'm out of this discussion as of now , it's been fun trying to share some insights , but when the help I try to give is disregarded , and I am ignored then what's the point.

Afraid there is bound to be a lot of heated debate around comms since we all have different ideas of what we need as a personal solution.

I think a consensus is starting to emerge that there is no single solution and that we are all looking at variants of PMR446 for short range, CB (hopefully 27/81) for mid range and HF for long range with people choosing their own preferred combination according to their needs and priorities. Some of us will want to boost power outputs while others will be more concerned with reducing power consumption, so long as there is enough common ground that we can talk to each other then we're going in the right direction.

For myself, I want to include HF for longer range comms but will also be using CB, vhf and uhf for other purposes.

The CB will hopefully provide wider compatibilty with locals as well as preppers so that's a must for me.

vhf and uhf will keep me in touch with other hams and cover the pmr 446 channels.

Just want to sort out common ground with other preppers on HF comms so that I can keep in touch with the rest of the guys on here post shtf.