Rescue Ops version

[amelillo]

Hello!
With the latest upgrade I've seen the new "Rescue Ops" version, which is referenced in the Wiki as a firmware thought for firefighters and rescue operators.
I have two questions:

1. Rescue Ops is actually a Bandscope without the bandscope itself and a lot of free space. Couldn't a Rescue Operator just use the Bandscope version and ignore the spectrum?
2. Even if the free space should be used in the future for something useful, how will the Rescue Ops be able to use the Quansheng if in their specific bands the output power is just a few milliWatts? Here for example firefighters often use 172 MHz, and a Quansheng in that band would be completely useless; so why bother with it?

[emanuelegissi]

Allow me for a partial answer to question 2.

Rescue ops and firefighters in several countries are using UHF frequencies for local scenario communications. So the K5s are good and cheap radios for this use case.

Am I missing anything?

[armel]

@amelillo Hello. Thank you for your message. First of all, the RescueOps edition is not just a simple edition of Bandscope without Bandscope. It offers further possibilities to make this transceiver more practical and robust in use, without the risk of accidentally changing settings, etc. And I'll try to improve it more and more with the precious feedback of professionals like @emanuelegissi.

Secondly, I can confirm that many emergency services still use UHF to exchange quickly with each other, even if they sometimes use other more official numerical modes in parallel (TETRA, etc. with transceivers that cost a fortune...). The advantage of the K5 here is that it's robust, easy to flash and program and inexpensive. What's more, with the help of developers, it's possible to adapt the way they work, what I try to do. Request a firmware modification from Motorola on a TETRA transceiver. You might be waiting a long time 🤭

Finally, who told you about a few milliwatts on 172 MHz? That's a VHF frequency. Your K5 is capable of transmitting at 5 Watts if you are authorized to do so (I'm not).

Armel F4HWN.

[amelillo]

@armel Oh, merci! I just read the caption in the wiki and I misinterpreted so many things. Now it's clear.
Instead, talking about ERP, if you tell me that in U and V the output power is still five Watts, I'm surely remembering wrong informations.
I was convinced to have read that outside of the two ham bands, the rtx filters were so strict that ERP was reduced to a whisper. Moreover, the generation of harmonics, wasted much of the power reducing the radio capabilities while producing much noise, scattered all over the spectrum.
I'm pretty happy to read I was wrong :-)

[armel]

@amelillo You're welcome 😌 You may have confused this with the [CB band on 27 MHz] (https://github.com/armel/uv-k5-firmware-custom/wiki/Radio-operation#warning), which is not VHF but HF. The CB band is something of a dream for some users (not me). But this transceiver is definitely not designed for it.

[amelillo]

Sure I know that graph, and sure I know where CB is placed in the bandplan, I have a general license (IZ5IMK) :-)
But my 172 MHz was just an example. Other rescue operators use frequencies way below, closer to the 6m band, and I was wondering how much of the Quansheng ERP actually goes "in the right direction".
The 27MHz graph shows an extreme example, where almost nothing is modulated on the chosen frequency and 1.35W of power go in harmonics; Tunas' graph, also, just looks at the 54-218 portion of the spectrum, so there could be much more wasted power in higher harmonics. Something that unfortunately I can't evaluate just with a SWR bridge and a dummy load.
What would happen at 50 MHz? And at 70 MHz? And what in the upper UHF?
I'm not interested at all at HF on a handheld, I have my FT-817 for that, and we need real antennas for HF.
But if we discover that transmitting around 70 MHz gives us a single W of ERP with a whole load of power on other harmonics, here's the problem: we have a firmware which is tuned for a rescue operator but he can't use it for the limits of the radio itself.

[armel]

@amelillo Ok. I didn't measure at 50 MHz or 70 MHz. You can forget about the upper UHF band. UHF covers from 300 MHz to 3 000 MHz... (BK4819 is not able to work here). I prefer to let those interested in using these frequencies do their own measurements. I have no use for them.

[emanuelegissi]

Thank you for your detailed examination. In fact I am just trying to use the K5 for local coms on the allowed VHF and UHF bands. I have a general license, too.

[amelillo]

Update.
I contacted Andrej Antunovikj (Tunas), the author of the graph showing how the Quansheng behaves on CB, and I asked about his tests. He wrote me back telling me this:
"I didn't do much research, but the results were underwhelming for anything outside of 136-150MHz, and impossible for anything less than 100MHz because of harmonics"
So, starting on this basis, I'll just wait to have a spectrum analyzer at hand to test the Quansheng for actual performance on key frequencies and I'll know for sure if it can be actually used for anything different from OM VHF and UHF bands :-)

[armel]

@amelillo Ok. If you have a single SWR, try transmitting around 170 MHz (that's what I did) at 500mW, for example. You can read 500mW on the output power. Try transmitting at 5W. You can also read 5W on the output power. I haven't looked at harmonics. But from a power point of view, it's good :)

[amelillo]

Let me tell you that it's not at all. There 's no "power point of view", actually. Harmonics are an essential part of the question and have to be evaluated if we want to have a reasonable amount of data to make our mind.
Take, for instance, the CB example. In front of an intended 5W ERP the radio outputs 27% of its power in observed harmonics on the 54-218 MHz range, i.e. 1.35 W. If I try transmitting at 500 mW, the 4.5 W I'm not using are not just subtracted by the harmonics but in percentage all along that very same spectrum. So I'll have 135 mW of harmonics and the rest would be divided between the actual tx frequency and maybe other harmonics below or over that observed range.
Output power could be still measured as 500 mW. Though, I'd be wasting my power without even realizing it.
That's why, before using this handheld out of the intended OM bands, we need to know if it actually works as intended or not, otherwise it'd be a waste of time. A rescue operator needs a reliable tool. For instance, they often use UHF for short range communications and the Quansheng, as measured by IZ8YMH, delivers just 4.5 W in the 70 cm band; what if we move from 430 to 440 or 450? Or down the band? It's a radio tuned for 144 and 430 which between those frequencies drops dramatically its ERP (less than 1W).
It can't be programmed as a general purpose radio for rescue ops unless we actually measure its behaviour on very specific frequencies which are surely used by a rescue operator; otherwise it's a hazard.

[armel]

@amelillo Harmonics are an essential part of the issue, I full agree with that since the beginning. And as I said, I didn't measure harmonics on frequencies you're talking about. But I think there's been a misunderstanding all along. At no time did I state that this special version of this firmware would allow it to be used on all official rescue frequencies. These frequencies vary widely from country to country, and I don't claim to know them. On the other hand, the transmission mode too, some countries using digital, as I explained (TETRA, etc.). This version is intended for local communications only, and includes a number of features designed to make it easier to use and more robust. I do not claim to change the technical limitations of the BK4819 by software. It's up to you to make your own measurements according to your own needs. Last but not least, I would like to clarify that I am not an expert in emergency services. I just try to help according to the requests made to me by professionals :) Of course, you're free to use it or not. I give and have nothing to sell \o/

[amelillo]

And all you do is extremely honorable, I won't even be able to do that. All my concerns were about actually using a radio which, apart from being effective or not, could also somewhat cause interference. That's the very question: if it's destined to allowed but unlicensed operators (as a paramedic at a bicycle race) who can use it on a wide range of frequencies depending on service and country, we're facing two different problems; the first is to know how it actually behaves at least on the main different bands used by those operators and the second is to know if one or more or even all of these can cause any interference on other bands where actual official rescue operations are being carried out. The risk is encouraging informal communication with devices which unconsciously cause trouble; a local group for a radio assistance to a country festival could disturb a digital emergency communication and be completely unaware of it.
What I meant is that "Rescue Ops" is misleading as a name and before releasing it I'd carry out extensive tests on those harmonics, maybe starting from a reasonably low frequency, say, 50 MHz and analyzing the Quansheng output in steps of a few MHz. If everything is ok but, say, I have a single problem on a single frequency (low output and too many harmonics in key bands), I'd blacklist that frequency by default in RescueOps mode. That would be way safer.
This being said, I still believe your firmware is the best around, the more versatile and complete and I'll go on happily using it.
Even if I'd prefer to have scan presets giving up something else; lists for instance. To scan all the 69 LPD channels with a list I'm forced to store each channel in a memory bank. With a scan preset I could set start and end frequency, the right step and mode and save 69 memory banks.
Thank you for your helpfulness and your good work!

[armel]

@amelillo Regarding your suggestion about scanning and the example of the 69 LPD channels, there is a possible approach. I assume you’ve only saved 2 channels (and not all 69): the first LPD frequency, LPD01 (433.07500), and the last one, LPD69 (434.77500), making sure to set the step to 25 kHz.

Then, simply proceed as follows:

1. Select the LPD01 frequency on VFO A and do a long press on 1 key (to copy the memory frequency to the VFO).
2. Select the LPD69 frequency on VFO B and do a long press on 1 key (to copy the memory frequency to the VFO).
3. Long press on 5 key (to activate ScanRange).
4. Long press on *Scan key to start the scan.

That’s it.

Armel F4HWN.

[f1ixx]

Hi all

For my part, i think Armel make a greet job with firmware (i have a question after)
And for the QRM and interference must be tested by the use. Why? Beacause we haven't same
frequency plan. In French, during assistance, we can try use 446MHZ (PMR) and for me, you
must make test in real time. All change with the other stations (official or not).
Rescuse mod can be see, for me, as emergency radio and quicky intervention.
After the offical arrive, you can organise a beter plan.
I hope i clean and don't say a bad thing.

For my question @armel : i active this nice option, i can pass the talky to a person without training.
That work nice : boot in rescue mode, passe to Main Only but if you in VFO Mode before boot, the talky
are in rescue in VFO Mode.
Why don't force to memory only?
With that, we can prepare the memory with nice setting (power, step, ...) and can't enter a strange frequency.

Many Thank's for work

Boris

[armel]

@f1ixx Hello ;) I agree with you on using this special version of the firmware. Regarding forcing the memory mode, that's an idea. However, in Rescue Ops mode, the transceiver restarts in the last used mode. So, unless we add a shortcut to M, F1, or F2, there’s no way to switch from memory mode to VFO mode. So, is it really useful? Thanks to you :)

[amelillo]

Here's another problem. The Quansheng shouldn't be used on PMR446 band because it can exceed its maximum allowed ERP (500 mW). Though one could object about actually exceeding it (and we should precisely measure the rtx output at low power setting) I doubt that it could be considered CEPT compliant (https://docdb.cept.org/download/1491).
Then we have to front how to put ourselves towards the untrained user. Can we give him a radio which could transmit in an allowed band but with unallowed ERP and leave him the duty of selecting the output power? Or should we lock ERP depending on frequency thus excluding other operators in other countries from using all the available power in that band and that country?

[f1ixx]

Hello all

@armel : yes after post and continu the tests, i find this feature and to force boot in
memory mode kill octets for nothing.

@amelillo : For PMR function, power isn't the problem, we can change the TX power and
setting memory. But you can remove the antenna and it's a problem.

Thank's @armel for jobs

Boris

[armel]

@f1ixx Thank you :)

@amelillo As @f1ixx mentioned, the issue isn’t the power, but the fact that the antenna is detachable. The power can be set to 500mW with my firmware. After that, it depends on the regulations, which, again, vary greatly from one country to another. For example, there’s no PMR in the USA, but there are the FRS/GMRS/MURS bands. In short, it’s complicated, and that’s why I introduced the concept of F_LOCK / TX Lock. It’s up to each user to operate the device in compliance with the local regulations. Solving these issues is not my responsibility :) My little role is not to decide whether this transceiver is legal or illegal, or to make it so. I can't and it's not my job. Finally, this topic goes well beyond the scope of the initial discussion, which was about the RescueOps mode. And the only thing I know is that if it can help simplify coordinated rescue efforts and, why not, save lives, then it’s worth looking into. And that’s where I might be able to help, which is what I’m trying to do :)

[amelillo]

Personally, I don't agree. What I was trying to understand in my first post was if a RescueOps version - apart from good intentions - was technically worthwhile or not.
In absence of extensive tests on harmonics in the many covered bands and with so many variables to set depending on country, band and regulations, the (good) idea of developing a firmware which could let an untrained user communicate easily with fellow users can be easily overridden by the risk of disturbing other important communications.
If the intended use is just secondary support to official operations, well, then PMR446, LPD and similar transceivers already execute that duty and they're also cheaper than a Quansheng.
Sure your role ain't to decide if the transceiver is legal or not, but all we OM have a moral duty not to encourage risky uses of our rtx's.
So, thumbs up with RescueOps version, as long as it's safe. Then, we could also argue that the Quansheng isn't safe by itself, as many many people buy and use it without even having a ham license. But they do know they're breaking the rules. Instead, a rescue operator could potentially handle a transceiver in good faith to an untrained and good willing 18yo boy, letting him "help to save lives" and maybe unconsciously preventing other operators to save other lives.
The RescueOps version introduces itself as a safe and dumbproof firmware but the truth is that we actually don't know it at all.
Shortly: if we're using it on - example - PMR band, I think it's better to use PMR's; if we're using it in reserved bands we should use dedicated rtx's until we know for sure the Quansheng isn't scattering noise all over the spectrum.

[armel]

@amelillo I'm sorry, but I definitely think you haven't fully understood the purpose of this version, what it offers (by the way, have you tried using it?), and how professionals in the field are already utilizing it. Let me reassure you, they do so with a complete understanding of the technical limitations of a radio like the K5. They know how to differentiate between a very low cost transceiver that costs €15–€20 and a TETRAPOL radio that costs €1,500–€2,500. That’s also why they use it for different purposes and for local communications only. I trust @emanuelegissi and @lohtse. They know what they're doing.

[amelillo]

Arguing that an interlocutor hasn't understood is not too polite. I perfectly understand what the firmware does, I tried it, I find it very well conceived and practical but I still have to disagree: I trust what they're doing too, but not even they can know what their radio is doing. The radio can look fully functional, practical and effective but none can know what it's actually scattering around until it's been measured, charted and evaluated. There's no opinion or trust here, it's a matter of fact.
I can see a Hummer as an efficient car and be happy with it but I can't say it's good until I measure its consumption, emissions and evaluate its carbon footprint. Though, no one advertises a Hummer as an environmentally safe and ecological car and that's fair. Then, if it shouldn't meet the safety standards I can't say I know that and I'll drive it "for different purposes and on local commutes only"...

Every other firmware mod is by default perceived as a hack, with a lot of disclaimers which advice against using it out of intended bands (that's the 2m and 70cm ham bands).
This one instead encourages people to do the exact opposite, i.e. using it on bands in which the rtx is either unallowed by regulations or where it can be used with a regular permit but it's absolutely uncertified and non-compliant because it hasn't been tested for safety. Cheap is not a ratio, though attractive, and it should alert us instead of appealing us. Moreover, the market is flooded with even cheaper (BF 888 Pro, 9€ each) programmable handhelds where the user de facto can't unadvertedly change anything because he needs Chirp and a cable. They have Air Copy too. Why bother?
It's not just a matter of good will.
Sorry, I don't want to look aggressive (I'm not at all) and I won't reply again, I trust I've been understood.
Standard Bandscope and Broadcast firmwares are still excellent work, to me, and I'd be glad to see that your efforts go in that direction.
By the way, I found a test on harmonics at 446 and guess what? It's not compliant: -43 dBm@892 MHz and -36 dBm@1338 MHz. So we could disturb GSM and military ECM; compliance is not debatable.
I know it's a matter of tens of mW but we're just outside of the ham band (and regulations); figure out what could happen at 470.

[armel]

@amelillo Seriously, lessons in politeness? Really? You've been focusing on the same subject for 5 days, with no desire to understand.

From the start, you’ve been acting as if this firmware version might somehow lead professionals to use frequencies beyond the range where the BK4819 ensures reasonably clean spectral purity. But what do you actually know about that? These users know what they’re doing. They have these limitations in mind.

As I’ve already said, I’m not claiming to extend these hardware limitation via software. My firmware is simply designed to make the device more robust, more practical, and to prevent accidental parameter changes, all within the technical limits of the hardware.

That’s it. If you still refuse to understand, that’s on you.

You should focus on those using it to transmit in AM or mess around with DSB on the CB band. As for me, I’ve never gone down that path. Instead, I’ve added the ability to operate in QRP (low power) on LPD and PMR, specifically for those without a radio license.

I think I’ve been very clear from the start.

[lohtse]

Could you nuke the unrelated comment please... I want to add feed back after 7+days of use on 34 SAR radios but this thread has gotten out of hand and suspect it coud worse. Which means meaningful cmments and feed back will be lost.... And BTW from a MR/SAR point of view this FW is pretty damn near pefect.

[amelillo]

No need to nuke anything. As I wrote, I won't reply. Be happy.

[lohtse]

Would it be possible to allow the ability to use the A/B function in rescue ops??? It is useful for quickly switching back and forth to another channels for us.. Such as the Winchman/crewchief of a helo yhen back to team channel...

This is the only requested feature those using this FW have wanted/requested.....

[lohtse]

@lohtse Hello. Why not use the shortcut VFO A/ VFO B on F1 or F2 short / long or M long ?

Already assigned too other functions

[armel]

@lohtse Ok. I will try to work on this.

[lohtse]

@lohtse Ok. I will try to work on this.

Thank you...

[armel]

@lohtse Done. I know you know how to compile, let me know if it meets expectations.

[lohtse]

@lohtse Done. I know you know how to compile, let me know if it meets expectations.

Compiled and checked, Works great now flashing 33 other radios lol

Thank you..

[emanuelegissi]

(sorry, not done my homework yet, busy days. I am going to try again tomorrow evening)

[f1ixx]

Hello all
After some test, work nice for me (use 2 K5 with attenuator).
Only question @armel. If i understand the code ;
Normal use = no remarque, see RTFM ;-)
Rescure Ops : if you have a short key with RX Mode : i have even RO (3escure Ops???)
3 time and MO displayed status. The function same work as "Normal mode" (dw, dwr, XB).
Only display change.
My idee to fix, don't use the "RX Mode" function on a shortcut, because it's complicated
to know which mode is active.

The A/B work well in Rescure Ops mode. 👍

Thank's to everyone who helps improve this firmware
Thank's Armel for her great job

Boris

[armel]

@f1ixx Hello and thank you. That's correct. The right choice is not to use the RxMode shortcut when Rescue Ops mode is active. It is the responsibility of the person in charge of transceiver configuration to assign only useful shortcuts. In fact, I'd be curious to know which shortcuts will be used.

[lohtse]

Not sue if or how related to this ,this is.. But Setoff feature is buggy

when set the screen starts flashing on and off when it reaches the present time( eg 00.10) and will continue till you set back too off...

[armel]

@lohtse Yes. 30 seconds before sleep, the screen starts flashing to warn you that your K5 is about to go into deep sleep. It's been like that from the start. And I think it's great to be informed. Is this a problem with the RescueOps version? I can plan to reduce this time. For example, 5 or 10 seconds. But I don't really want to add a new menu to choose whether you want such an alert or not.

[emanuelegissi]

No problem from my part, there are alternative ways to get rid of it

[lohtse]

@lohtse Yes. 30 seconds before sleep, the screen starts flashing to warn you that your K5 is about to go into deep sleep. It's been like that from the start. And I think it's great to be informed. Is this a problem with the RescueOps version? I can plan to reduce this time. For example, 5 or 10 seconds. But I don't really want to add a new menu to choose whether you want such an alert or not.

After trying too use it. It is actually problematic if you are using it with Rescue Ops... the radio actually takes too long to wake up (2-3+secs).. so for critical coms when the radio may have gone it too deep sleep mode you could actually miss important info... So actually I will leave it disabled due too this...

For normal operation(none SAR) I don't see an issue... Due to if someone hasn't responded you would just reach out again by that time it wil have woken up... But for situations where you are passing info over the net for everyone to hear it will be an issue. as a result of the wake up time..

Thank you for the explanations on how it works...

[armel]

@lohtse I explained this in a video. The BK4819 deep sleep depends on the BatSav setting.

BatSav Off -> 0s
BatSav 1:1 -> 2s
BatSav 1:2 -> 4s
BatSav 1:3 -> 6s
BatSav 1:4 -> 8s
BatSav 1:5 -> 10s

So, if you have set BatSav to 1:2, in deep sleep, the BK4819 will listen every 4 seconds and if no signal, go back to sleep for 4 seconds.

In the field, I think it's better to set BatSav to Off.

@emanuelegissi Ok, thank you :)

[lohtse]

In the field, I think it's better to set BatSav to Off.

Agreed and thank you