UHF vs. VHF PART III

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 30 чер 2024
  • Testing of UHF and VHF Comms in the woodland enviroment

КОМЕНТАРІ • 67

  • @Austinsairplanes
    @Austinsairplanes 5 днів тому +2

    As a HAM radio operator, this is my experience.
    UHF is great for dense suburban areas.
    VHF is great for road trips in the country.

    • @RANTStrategies
      @RANTStrategies  5 днів тому

      @@Austinsairplanes yessir…. We are putting all of this to real world application and testing

  • @KA9DSL
    @KA9DSL 7 днів тому +4

    I could have told you that, that's why the US Forest Preserve uses VHF low band. Trees absorb UHF signals easily, internal moisture content.

    • @RANTStrategies
      @RANTStrategies  7 днів тому +1

      @@KA9DSL this is true, but I question how uhf would do compared to the vhf radios issued when I’m out with the forest service…. I have had some REALLY iffy comms in places. Sometimes and especially looking at these results, I feel like UHF could out perform VHF in the forests. Especially when out on fires as there is no moisture content present, that’s why we are there lol.

    • @KA9DSL
      @KA9DSL 7 днів тому +1

      @@RANTStrategies It's called the shrubury effect. And yes, no moisture, no attenuation.

  • @jeffkardosjr.3825
    @jeffkardosjr.3825 8 днів тому +5

    Nice thing about 70cm is a half wave antenna is quite portable.

    • @RANTStrategies
      @RANTStrategies  8 днів тому +1

      @@jeffkardosjr.3825 absolutely! It was just a little surprising to see that with both bands having 1/4 wavelength that 2meters couldn’t get out at all.

  • @Q12_
    @Q12_ 7 днів тому +1

    1 Min in and i want to say thank you for the time and effort you put into your videos in regards to actually going out into the field and putting theories into the test.

    • @RANTStrategies
      @RANTStrategies  7 днів тому

      Hey Q12! Appreciate that!! Welcome to the channel, glad you are into it!

  • @notthatguy4515
    @notthatguy4515 5 днів тому +1

    Just found your channel. Great content.
    Have you tried this with a 1/4 wave jungle antenna at say 10’?
    Thank You for the content.
    Happy Independence Day!!

    • @RANTStrategies
      @RANTStrategies  5 днів тому +1

      @@notthatguy4515 hey, happy 4th!! Glad you did, welcome to the channel….. I have not, there’s going to be a gear an explanation video coming out which should clear some common questions up! Stay safe

  • @johnpush4585
    @johnpush4585 8 днів тому +11

    As an actual Comms Guru for a major PD, I agree with UHF being a better band period! I've talked clear across down town Boston on simplex with portable radios. Mobile radios don't even need a repeater if everyone is in the city. I've also found that UHF is almost always better in the woods. Never walked out of range of UHF. I have with VHF. Excellent channel!!

    • @RANTStrategies
      @RANTStrategies  8 днів тому

      Hey John, definitely appreciate the channel and your feedback. It's always interesting to us to put these things to the test and see where the results wind up. Glad you enjoy and appreciate it like we do!

    • @jeffkardosjr.3825
      @jeffkardosjr.3825 8 днів тому

      I wonder if 6 meters is better than 2 meters for the woods.

    • @jplacido9999
      @jplacido9999 8 днів тому +1

      ​@@jeffkardosjr.3825
      Yes it is, but be carefull with the antenna...

    • @LordGryllwotth
      @LordGryllwotth 7 днів тому +1

      ​@@jeffkardosjr.3825I am thinking the wavelength needs to be smaller than what the forest is dense. But it might be like UHF goes nice and low VHF goes nice. But not in the between. I want to search for a paper about it

  • @baronedipiemonte3990
    @baronedipiemonte3990 2 дні тому +1

    I've had very good range in wooded areas with 1 watt 900 mhz simplex

    • @RANTStrategies
      @RANTStrategies  2 дні тому +1

      We may actually get into that….. very cool!

  • @jplacido9999
    @jplacido9999 8 днів тому +5

    In fact, VHF low band (30-50 MHz) will outperform all UHF radios.
    Of course you must use a good antenna with counterpoise.
    That is better for military and Red Cross style operations...(In the field)

    • @LukePRTR
      @LukePRTR 8 днів тому +4

      Using these freqs also for ECCM modes. No issues

    • @MrFreddarama
      @MrFreddarama 8 днів тому +2

      We have low band 25 mhz for all of our communication vans and they work the best for out in the deep forests and rural foothills. All vehicles have optimized and highly efficient 60 inch antennas with good ground planes. They definitely outperform our UHF radio but we love UHF for repeater service and out in the city.

    • @jplacido9999
      @jplacido9999 7 днів тому +1

      @@MrFreddarama
      25 MHz is HF (altough similar to VHF low band in propagation, but better)
      Are you shure it is 25 MHz ?
      It is great in the woods...
      With 50W version (you can up to 1500W SSB or 500W FM) you get a lot of km between mobile units with good, centered antennas (side mounted are a problem for 360º range).
      Can you give more details ?
      25 MHz is great....👍
      UHF is pratical for portables (you can link the UHF portable to the 25 MHz in the car, via simplex)

    • @timbookedtwo2375
      @timbookedtwo2375 2 дні тому

      @@jplacido9999 25MHz is not an amateur radio band. It is above the 12meter amateur band and below the 11 meter CB band and 10 meter amateur band. It is HF and not VHF. Would not a CB radio with appropriate antenna work as well?

    • @jplacido9999
      @jplacido9999 2 дні тому +1

      @@timbookedtwo2375
      Yes I know. I have near 60 years of radiocomms (SWL, CB, HAM, MIL, POL, Red Cross, Fireman, Civil Defense, etc.)
      I was comment on the guy refering his 25 MHz network, telling him that 25 MHz is HF (not VHF as he stated) and he can be right, because there is some 25 MHz simplex comms licences....
      CB will have the same range but much more QRM....

  • @raymondmartin6737
    @raymondmartin6737 8 днів тому +3

    I have had the Ailunce HD-1 twice, the
    first when it came out around 2017,
    and now again for a couple of years.
    It is pretty good, and for DMR, which
    I started with in 2016, with then very
    few other than UHF with a Commercial
    Hytera model for about $400.00 or
    more.
    I have other DMR capable radios now,
    with the Chinese being more recent
    as DMR was a European ETSI system
    I completed a correspondence course
    from Tait systems in 2018.
    This was a more commercially directed
    course as opposed to amateur radio.
    73 de Ray W2CH New Hampshire.
    Licensed since 1962, and age 80 now. 😊

    • @RANTStrategies
      @RANTStrategies  8 днів тому +1

      @@raymondmartin6737 wow! 80 years old and a ham since 1962! You have probably forgotten more about radio then I’ll ever know. Awesome to have you as part of the channel. So the HD1 that’s in the video is the original from 2017 but it is the gps version. Glad you are enjoying the content and please any insight you have, feel free to provide it, it’s welcomed here. 73!

    • @raymondmartin6737
      @raymondmartin6737 7 днів тому +1

      @RANTStrategies Thanks 😊 Very much.
      Yes both, the first one and my current HD-1
      were and are the GPS version, which I do
      believe we're $10.00 more expensive than
      the non-GPS version. There is now an HD-2
      version, but I saw it's not very different from
      the original HD-1. 73 de Ray W2CH, NH.

  • @MikeSilver200
    @MikeSilver200 4 дні тому +1

    I haven't watched this video, but based on the panel I will respond that the higher the frequency the greater effect of biologicals (trees and such). When wet, it's even worse.

  • @Austinsairplanes
    @Austinsairplanes 5 днів тому

    Have you thought about testing Analogue vs digital(DMR)? I would like to see a test of range and practicality.

  • @justsayingforafriend7010
    @justsayingforafriend7010 6 днів тому

    VHF is great for long distance. UHF is great for in buildings in town. Because of the wavelength....

  • @billmcilwee566
    @billmcilwee566 8 днів тому +1

    Nice test and nice video. No surprise. 70cm has a better chance of finding a path in leaves and trees. Winter might have better QSO for VHF. In Missouri, we encourage folks to get the river edge for better chance for getting a signal through. 73, KF0NNQ WRVR260.

    • @RANTStrategies
      @RANTStrategies  8 днів тому +1

      That is excellent advice, makes perfect sense!

  • @timbookedtwo2375
    @timbookedtwo2375 2 дні тому

    Any info on using the four or six meter amateur bands?

    • @RANTStrategies
      @RANTStrategies  2 дні тому

      @@timbookedtwo2375 nothing on that, we may do some 10 or 20meter stuff at some point

  • @hardwired3640
    @hardwired3640 8 днів тому +2

    1/4 wavelength is half of the antenna. You actually need a 1/2 wavelength antenna to have a true dipole. In practicality you have 1/4 wavelength antenna whip and the metal inside the radio + capacitive coupling between your hand and the radio are acting like the other half of the antenna.
    To state it a different way that might help some people… half of your antenna is the antenna whip and your skin and the body of the radio are the other half. Human skin isn’t very conductive obviously. On uhf it’s manageable to get a 1/2 wavelength antenna whip, but on vhf it’s just too large to be very practical. Better to keep uhf on your person and vhf for longer distance vehicle mounted communication. You can also do something cool like crossband repeat through an IC-2730a on your vehicle. This radio will pass p25 and fusion c4fm in the crossband repeat mode even though the radio is only an analog radio. It’s an undocumented feature.

    • @RANTStrategies
      @RANTStrategies  8 днів тому +1

      @@hardwired3640 💯 % we are actually going to get into this a little on an antenna test video we are going to put out, great info! Also, love the trick with that radio! We all run xts5550s in our trucks.

  • @jr4062
    @jr4062 6 днів тому +1

    It sounded like the old saber sounded the best in uhf. It would have been nice if you did the tests with the old Motorola brick mx radios. Maybe the issues are where and what parts are used in the newer radios.

    • @RANTStrategies
      @RANTStrategies  6 днів тому

      @@jr4062 I thought the same thing! Saber definitely sounded the best to me too!

  • @tangle70
    @tangle70 8 днів тому +1

    Love real world tests. Looking forward to the water test.

  • @user.A9
    @user.A9 7 днів тому +1

    I'd like to see a comparison of VHF vs UHF handhelds used car-to-car inside a vehicle with no antenna outside the vehicle.

    • @RANTStrategies
      @RANTStrategies  7 днів тому +1

      @@user.A9 it is on the list! Just had to find a fair location terrain wise to conduct the test, but it’s coming.

    • @user.A9
      @user.A9 7 днів тому +1

      @@RANTStrategies please do city and rural areas.

    • @dslayer1169
      @dslayer1169 5 днів тому +2

      I did two Baofeng UV-5G’s in an Urban environment with my wife inside the apartment and myself in a cars we got about a mile before it started to become static.

    • @user.A9
      @user.A9 5 днів тому

      @@dslayer1169 did you compare VHF vs UHF?

    • @dslayer1169
      @dslayer1169 5 днів тому +1

      @@user.A9 I did not, so I’d like to see that comparison! I’m not a licensed HAM operator only GMRS so I’m not allowed to transmit on the VHF band yet unless I use MURS, but that wouldn’t be a fair comparison given it’s only 2 watts legal maximum 😂

  • @LordGryllwotth
    @LordGryllwotth 7 днів тому +1

    Thanks for showing us. On boats they use UHF and they reach about everywhere since the wavelength is small and will pass doors and openings! But VHF does not.
    What would be nice is to find some scientific paper on what frequency passes easiest in the dense forest! Might be some spesific bandwidth.

    • @RANTStrategies
      @RANTStrategies  7 днів тому

      That would actually be very cool

    • @blainehartley9157
      @blainehartley9157 3 дні тому +1

      Pretty sure the USMC comms training manual states lower frequencies travel the farthest in every environment outside of urban or densely populated (structurally) areas…..yes uhf is awesome in these congested areas because the shorter wavelength can penetrate objects better but that blessing is also its curse…..that “high energy” so to speak does not carry well over distance….much like a dragster with 3000hp that only goes 1/4 of a mile…..the uhf signal is great within a certain distance but beyond that it runs out of steam rather quickly…..this is why the majority of long range military comms are done on HF frequencies with directional beam and/or loop type antennas….no need for repeaters…..most military air comms are in the 220-240 MHz vhf band….you would think if uhf was superior it would be used in open airspace with no obstruction but the higher wavelength keeps it from performing as well as VHF or HF……someone said in another comment marine radios are uhf and this could be true in some port areas or countries outside the US but marine radios inside the US are VHF and don’t travel very far beyond line of sight…..there are HF marine frequencies and the navy often uses HF ssb for long distance comms…..of course some of this info is dated with the current use of satellite and digital equipment and the extensive data networks available….but in a serious shtf situation you can be certain the armed forces and government will occupy any and all available space in the HF/VHF spectrum and a good portion of UHF for ground based close range comms…..the higher the frequency the less range it can provide….the science is in band usage of critical operations comms…..there is a reason rural public safety and military doesn’t move critical comms above VHF and there are always backup VHF LO or HF frequencies in their band plans

    • @RANTStrategies
      @RANTStrategies  3 дні тому

      @@blainehartley9157 preach on 🙏! Awesome info, thank you for sharing

  • @andrewchristiansen8311
    @andrewchristiansen8311 6 днів тому +1

    1000hz tone at the beginning scared my dog off.. She has bad hips. I cant stress enough how much I hate that noise. I like this topic and am shutting this off cause I dont understand why YTrs add beeps and cut tones. It's annoying to headphone users and dog owners will hate you.

  • @SHTFchef
    @SHTFchef 6 днів тому +1

    You limit is the antenna. This is not a fair test. Get a 1/2 wave vhf antenna for apples to apples.

    • @RANTStrategies
      @RANTStrategies  6 днів тому

      I thought this is fair due to both antennas being 1/4 wavelength. Can you elaborate on why the VHF would have to go to 1/2 wavelength... wouldn't I then have to go to a 1/2 wavelength on the UHF side as well to make it fair?

    • @SHTFchef
      @SHTFchef 6 днів тому +3

      @@RANTStrategies There is a difference between the electrical length of wire in the antenna and the amount of exposed antenna. The more antenna in the air the better.
      A 1/2 wave 2 meter antenna would be a bit more than three feet long. For UHF a genuine half wave is only about 12 inches. In other words, in most cases, the 70cm portion of a dual band has a more "compromised" length relative to the UHF portion. This is because there is a coil being used to add electrical length but not physical length. Even with that however, my personal experience is that UHF is more dependent on pure line of sight and is more easily blocked by obstructions than VHF. Even with the same dual band antenna. Hope this helps.

    • @RANTStrategies
      @RANTStrategies  6 днів тому

      @@SHTFchef I completely agree…. But being they both were utilizing a quarter wavelength antenna, shouldn’t the results have been similar or even VHF out perform UHF?

  • @xitec75
    @xitec75 8 днів тому +1

    As lower the frequency as better is the range. On the 70cm/2m band (only one I can use) I prefer 100+cm foldable tactical ABBREE antennas. If someone wants maximum range I recommend CB radios if you have no HAM license. Another thing to know: If your partner does not hear you, that does not mean that a receiving tower does not hear you. They are so powerful that they get signals more than 100km away even if your partner is less than 2km distance and cannot hear you. Another interesting thing: Some frequencies are being reflected by the enviroment similar to a flashlight against a mirror, others can go throught an obstacle and some frequencies cannot. It's a miracle if you test it in the real world.

    • @RANTStrategies
      @RANTStrategies  8 днів тому

      @@xitec75 while there is usually some truth to this, the focus here is on no infrastructure and short range “squad style” needs for communication.

  • @ericm0612
    @ericm0612 7 днів тому +2

    So much about this is just completely wrong.

    • @RANTStrategies
      @RANTStrategies  7 днів тому

      LOL, Go on……..

    • @neillewis181
      @neillewis181 6 днів тому +1

      I completely agree. I am a veteran ham radio operator, and I live out in the woods. Uhf waves are bent and refracted easier than vhf. I have always been able to get out on 2m to local repeaters. I cannot hit most of the 440 repeaters. This is basic radio knowledge.

    • @RANTStrategies
      @RANTStrategies  6 днів тому +1

      @@neillewis181 then why didn’t it punch through when uhf did? Any thoughts?