ad: ProAudio-1

Radioddity GA-510 10 Watt HT Review

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by K5ATA, Jan 21, 2020.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-2
ad: abrind-2
ad: Left-3
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Radclub22-2
  1. K5ATA

    K5ATA Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Radioddity has a 10 watt handheld out. They sent me one to look at and test out. It's actually a decent little radio, and that little bit of extra power seemed to help making it into the repeater in our rural environment.

     
  2. KA8VNG

    KA8VNG Ham Member QRZ Page

    That's a lot of power.
     
    KK4HPY likes this.
  3. KD9AUY

    KD9AUY Ham Member QRZ Page

    Why would you want 10 watts next to your head?
     
    GOLDWING48, NI4Y, N4EYZ and 6 others like this.
  4. G0WXU

    G0WXU Ham Member QRZ Page

    I had a BAOFENG GT-3TP. Approx 6 watts O/P. On first try out I was told that my audio was very low. Not good. I made up a mic pre - amp and used a home brew desk mic with the handheld. Got a lot better report back with that. With a Dual band collinear base antenna I could open the local 70cm repeater up at 26 miles and a 2m one up at 20 or so miles. I should have sent it back to China and claimed for a replacement in the first place has it was a no go on its own as a hand held radio. The review you have done on the Radioactivity looks good so I will give one a try. Thanks for the video. 73 de John - G0WXU.
     
    GOLDWING48 likes this.
  5. W5NM

    W5NM Ham Member QRZ Page

    Hey,

    Listen up everyone!!!!!!!! Never key up a handheld radio next to your eyes and brain with power levels above 1 watt in the UHF range.
    I worked for US Army Laboratories and R.F. test facilities where a 5 watt Uhf Handie Talkie puts over 200 volts per meter (V/M) in the middle
    of your eyeball at the distances most people use to to communicate with a talkie.... This is way over the Federal Governments PEL or
    Permissible Exposure Limits. These levels do instant damage to your eyes and is irreversible. Who knows what these levels do to your brain
    Tests showed that low levels at VHF frequencies were not as dangerous but were still of great concern. So, please use an external mic and
    an antenna placed farther away if possible.

    Carmine W5NM
     
    KB2KZT, GOLDWING48, W7SJP and 8 others like this.
  6. K0UO

    K0UO Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    Roger that, in fact if it is over 7 watts the FCC MPE rules state it is not exempt it even if it is PPT see OET65
     
  7. ND5Y

    ND5Y Ham Member QRZ Page

    Did you really mean 5 watts or are there some zeros missing?
    I don't buy it. If that was true then I would have been blind or dead a long time ago.
     
    GOLDWING48 and N3AB like this.
  8. K3FHP

    K3FHP XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Watch out for 5G coming to a street corner near you.
     
    KB2KZT, GOLDWING48, AF4RK and 2 others like this.
  9. K3FHP

    K3FHP XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Exactly my thoughts. Height not power is king for mobile vhf/uhf. That power will just run the battery down faster and make your hand hot.
     
  10. WA5MD

    WA5MD Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    "Radi-oddity"?
    Isn't that a strange brand name for a company trying to sell to the US market?
    That doesn't exactly evoke a positive brand image in my mind.
    Who do these Chinese companies consult with about marketing and branding?
     
    GOLDWING48 and KA2FIR like this.
  11. W3DBB

    W3DBB Ham Member QRZ Page

    It is a marketing strategy for a new model Baofeng transceiver. Baofeng probably has the worst reputation in the business for selling handhelds with excessive harmonic radiation & other problems. So the Baofeng name has been sullied. They tried selling under the Pofung name but everyone recognized the rebranding. Radioddity is a Hong Kong or south China based Internet retailer of these little rigs. My guess is many have dealt with Radioddity's Internet store & they haven't offended too many of their customers, so Baofeng thinks this is a good marketing ploy. Think of it as a store brand for the Baofeng-built GA-510.

    Have owned a Baofeng UV-3R+ for several years & never had a problem. Even the ARRL gave this rig tacit approval. The FCC issued an advisory notice cautioning against using non Part 97 certified transmitters such as this in the Amateur Radio Service. It raised more than a few eyebrows. Brick & mortar US dealers had been selling TYT, Wouxon, Anytone, & other PRC-built transceivers but the government notice had a chilling effect. Initially ARRL pointed out the Amateur Radio Service has the privilege of building and using home-constructed transmitters- no FCC certification needed- codified in Part 97 rules. The matter seemed to disappear into the fabled D.C. swamp plus the League does have advertising paid for by the Big Four to consider. Expect nothing and you will be gratified.

    Would love to read the results of a Radioddity GA-510 run through ARRL lab testing. For me ham radio is 99% listening. Personally I would be afraid of running this rig at 10 watts. The 1 watt setting will be good for most operation. There's a reason Icom's 2 meter analog handheld runs a maximum of 7 watts output.

    I took the plunge & ordered a GA-510 from Amazon. Their ad says fulfilled by Amazon so they will be the ones dealing with customer returns. It costs a bit more than dealing with Radioddity directly on eBay & having to return it to "Cranberry, USA"- wherever that is. They could mean Cranberry Township in the Pittsburgh PA area or they could mean Cranberry USA in God-knows-where. Plus I much prefer giving my credit card information to Amazon even though eBay credit card purchases are laundered through PayPal which is basically an unregulated bank. I'm looking forward to the little rig's arrival.
     
    WA5MD and K0UO like this.
  12. AI7PM

    AI7PM Ham Member QRZ Page

    Seems some are forgetting the basic RF safety rules taught in the Technician Class syllabus.
     
    K0UO likes this.
  13. N5HXR

    N5HXR Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Can you provide some documentation supporting that? Everything I've found suggests that near-field vs far field is significant, and that's why SAR testing is different from MPE. All of my HTs seem to be well under SAR limits.
     
  14. K0UO

    K0UO Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    As I said in my posting, just read FCC OET 65. And it doesn't matter near field or far field if it exceeds the MPE the radio could be harmful.
    And if it's over 7 watts and is a personal handheld device it must be tested, it is not just categorically exempt.
    I'm not saying that unit is out of compliance, I'm just telling you what the rules are, remember the rules are time averaging.
     
  15. N5HXR

    N5HXR Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    The original specific claim was to never put 5W next to your head or it causes instant, irreversible eye damage. "Never" and "instant" don't seem to take any sort of time averaging into consideration...

    In [1], FCC says quite clearly of hand-held radios that, "Because of the low power levels used, the intermittency of these transmissions ('push-to-talk'), and due to the fact that these radios are held away from the head, they should not expose users to RF energy in excess of safe limits." (I'm assuming that "away from the head" means not touching your ear like a cell-phone, based on context?)

    You mentioned time averaging. In [2], I see that it indeed says, "Exposure levels higher than the limits are permitted for shorter exposure times, as long as the average exposure over the specified averaging time in Table 1 is less than the limits." So that makes me think that FCC's statement in [1] about basically not caring about HTs is primarily due to the fact that no one pegs their PTT on their HT next to their head for "indefinite time periods".

    Using ICNIRP's figures in [3] (FCC doesn't seem to specify V/m figures for UHF?), and using the occupational limits, it seems like you can talk on your 5W HT next to your head for a 1/3 duty cycle as long as you want and be within limits.

    If there's clear evidence that instantaneous, infrequent exposure to 200 V/m at UHF frequencies causes instant and irreversible damage to your eyes, then none of these regulations make any sense. If someone has a link to some evidence supporting the medical claim, I'd like to know.

    I do appreciate you posting on this, though, it sent me on a very informative dive into the literature on this topic.

    [1] https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-tec...division/radio-frequency-safety/faq/rf-safety
    [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/1.1310
    [3] https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPemfgdl.pdf
     
    KB5WWW, KK4HPY and KK5R like this.

Share This Page

ad: MLSons-1