A 10W Baofeng? Reviewing the UV-S9 Plus + REAL POWER Test

A bit higher $$ on Amazon. But your comments convinced me that it was an important value given the WX radio and FM.... and I now own one, and use external antenna.

 

Good point Chip. On 2 meters and 70 centimeters respectively, the rules seem to require 1.1 feet min and 10.92 inches of separation while using FM with a 5w output HT and a 0 dBi antenna.

If you have a better antenna, you need to be even farther away. And that's the controlled limit, so if someone is standing/sitting next to you, the minimum required distance is farther away.

Calculations here:

https://ibb.co/rFh113b

https://ibb.co/x7c4gqr

If you're out of compliance, you need to change frequencies, lower your power, and/or use a different (remote) antenna until you come into compliance, per FCC guidelines.

https://www.fcc.gov/bureaus/oet/info/documents/bulletins/oet65/oet65b.pdf

Does this mean you have to report yourself to the nearest anonymous VM if you plan to use your HT in violation of FCC rules?

OET 65 FCC

The Commission still retains the authority to request that a licensee or an applicant
conduct an environmental evaluation and, if appropriate, file environmental information
pertaining to an otherwise categorically excluded RF source if it is determined that there is a
possibility for significant environmental impact due to RF exposure.

See 47 CFR §§ 1.1307(c) and (d)

(c) If an interested person alleges that a particular action, otherwise categorically excluded, will have a significant environmental effect, the person shall submit to the Bureau responsible for processing that action a written petition setting forth in detail the reasons justifying or circumstances necessitating environmental consideration in the decision-making process. (See § 1.1313). The Bureau shall review the petition and consider the environmental concerns that have been raised. If the Bureau determines that the action may have a significant environmental impact, the Bureau will require the applicant to prepare an EA (see §§ 1.1308 and 1.1311), which will serve as the basis for the determination to proceed with or terminate environmental processing.

(d) If the Bureau responsible for processing a particular action, otherwise categorically excluded, determines that the proposal may have a significant environmental impact, the Bureau, on its own motion, shall require the applicant to submit an EA. The Bureau will review and consider the EA as in paragraph (c) of this section.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/1.1307

This makes me wonder if the FCC considered the huge number of 5 watt HT units (and cellphones) in circulation that violate their rules, and if they've considered canceling grants of import acceptance due to "RF hazards" as designed?

Interesting/related:


Radio Frequency Exposure Test Finds an iPhone 11 Pro Exceeds the FCC's Limit
The test, conducted by Penumbra, also highlights problems with the U.S. FCC’s wireless safety regulations


https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk...xposure-test-iphone-11-pro-double-fcc-limits/

 

Baofengs work perfectly well. The build quality is not as good as you get from the big three, but they are so cheap as to be almost disposable. I don't know how clean the signal is - have never measured - but with 5W into a rubber duck, the range is so short that even a very dirty signal is not going to inconvenience many other band users...

Martin (G8FXC)

 

Most HT antennas are probably way less than 0 dBi gain.

 

Lotsa helpful stuff there

I think it is LIKELY that manu's of HT's will specify a distance for a given power, and recommend not going more than X watts with their attached antenna. You watch--will happen soon.

 

You mean like the A.R.R.L. ?
Days after my initial license grant, Newington made it's usual auto generated mailing to me. It consisted of the usual join the club as well as a "deal" to get on the air in partnership with a well known retailer. The "Deal" consisted of a Baofeng package including all the usual for about twice the price available elsewhere.
I do wish I could locate that page as it seems to have passed the event horizon of my infamous black hole filing system.
I find it curious that several years later the A.R.R.L. parroted the F.C.C. opinion [sarc] that these radios could be , under certain conditions, and with reference to a somewhat unspecific and nebulous rule finding , illegal, under certain rules. [/sarc]

In the end what we have is a platform that narrowly meets emission standards, is easily programmable via freeware, (not so easily via the keypad) Has virtually no tuned front end, Is readily available for as little as $20 (in lots of six or more), that with the addition of an effective antenna and a quality speaker/mic, is a viable radio, if only barely.

I'm no longer surprised at the unsubstantiated rhetoric that surfaces from the mere mention of Baofeng. I prefer to talk on my radios rather than talk about them. I have Yaesu, Kenwood, and Icom handhelds that I use interchangeably with several Chinese examples. Stations I talk to are never aware of what radio I'm using. I alone have to suffer the occasional front end over load and curious sensitivity issues of a radio with little to no front end .

 

Only good thing about them is they are good throw away radios. Kept a couple on the boat for those using the dingy or hunting parties. No big deal if they get lost or broken. As for the ARRL, they are pretty much a scam from the get go.

 

Part 90 accepted with power and duty cycle limitations below:

FCC IDENTIFIER: 2AU74UV-S9PLUS
Name of Grantee: Abbree Electronic Co.,Ltd.
Equipment Class: Licensed Non-Broadcast Transmitter Held to Face
Notes: Two-way radio


Grant Notes FCC Rule Parts Frequency
Range (MHZ) Output
-------------------Freq-------------------Watts---------------Frequency Tolerance---------Emission Designator
EF 90-----150.0 - 174.0 mHz-----1.9454 watts------1.092 PM freq. tol.------------11K0F3E bandwidth
EF 90-----406.1 - 480.0 mHz-----1.9679 watts------1.08 PM freq. tol.--------------11K0F3E bandwidth

Output power listed is maximum conducted power. This device must be restricted to work-related operations only in an Occupational/Controlled RF exposure environment and must operate with a duty factor up to 50%. This transmitter may operate with the antenna documented in this filing in Push-to-Talk and body-worn configurations. RF exposure compliance is limited to the specific belt-clip and accessory configurations as documented in this filing and the separation distance between user and the device or its antenna shall be at least 2.5 cm. All qualified end-users of this device must have the knowledge to control their exposure conditions and/or duration to comply with Occupational/Controlled SAR limit and requirements. A label, as described in this filing, must be displayed on the device to direct users to specific training information for meeting Occupational Exposure Requirements, and users must be provided with the training information. The highest reported SAR values for FCC-authorized operations accounting for a 50 % duty factor, are: head 1.87W/kg, body 3.92 W/kg.

EF: This device may contain functions that are not operational in U.S Territories except as noted in the filing. This grant has extended frequencies as noted in the filing and Section 2.927(b) applies to this authorization.

(b) A grant of certification recognizes the determination that the equipment has been shown to be capable of compliance with the applicable technical standards if no unauthorized change is made in the equipment and if the equipment is properly maintained and operated. The issuance of a grant of equipment certification shall not be construed as a finding with respect to matters not encompassed by the Commission's rules, especially with respect to compliance with 18 U.S.C. 2512.

===============

Cites:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/2.927

18 U.S. Code § 2512 - Manufacture, distribution, possession, and advertising of wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepting devices prohibited. (Not to be used for spying).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2512

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/tcb/repo...JGzKG6xMLaDKlkSOuzdCw==&fcc_id=2AU74UV-S9PLUS

Amazon $36.99

BaoFeng UV-S9 Plus High Power 2200mAh Large Battery Tri-Power Portable Two-Way Radio with 15.1Inch 771 Antenna (Black+771Antenna)

About this item

BaoFeng UV-S9 Plus is upgrade of UV-5R. High/ Mid/Low Power ,Dual display / dual standby,AUTO Keypad Lock. FCC ID: 2AU74UV-S9PLUS

With optional methods to charge the battery.Multiple charging mode.We will send a USB Battery Charger Cable to you.

With15.1Inch 771 Antenna,can increase the communication distance and make your conversation smoother

Package Includes: 1 X Portable radio, 1 X Antenna,1 X 771 Antenna,1 X Li-ion battery, 1 X US charger, 1 X USB Charger, 1 X Belt clip,1 X The slingshot, 1X user manual,1 X Earpiece

Special service：A link to the special Baofeng UV-S9 Plus programming software and firmware can be provided free of charge according to your requirements.

 

I own one. More like 7 watts output. I put it on a meter. The person receiving cannot tell the difference between medium 5w and high 7 watts. worth the $29 I paid. I works as good as any handheld.

 

I agree with W8IXI.

After a few days of owning this HT I find nothing 'wrong' with it.

It seems to do well against HT's I bought in the past at 7-10 times the price. Which tells me they are likely being 'dumped' into US markets. To what end?

My output power is also 5 watts. 7.3 watts high position.

It would be fatuous not to recognize the value for the money, but it does beg the question about why the PRC manufacturer has elected to lose money on this radio. No way it costs $ 10 or so to make.

73
Chip W1YW

 

Unless they're using slave labor, it has to cost a lot more. And then, factor in free shipping from a place like Amazon. Sure, a membership is $100+ a year but I can use more in shipping in one week. Maybe they're trying to bankrupt competitors or trying to capture the market, a la the cheap imports from Toyota, Datsun, Subaru, Kia, that eventually turned into good cars.

 

I certainly would not hold a 10 watt? transmitter next to my head regardless of where it is made. As for the ops who malign these Chinese radios are probably the same guys who many years ago referred to the Japanese radios as rice boxes.

 

i have a few Uv-82 radios,, use them for riding bike or on the boat. i'm not going to get upset if they get dropped or fall in the drink,, or spill my drink on it. Few years back when i bought one of the UV-82 at Hamcation ARRL was there offering free TX testing on their spectrum analyzer. The ARRL rep tested and alarmingly found some rf article on the third harmonics and shamefully said it was borderline unacceptable. I asked the ARRL rep (wearing a white lab coat) if this was a common result even with a Yaesu, Icom or Kenwood, like the OM in front of me that was given the same results. After some dancing around the ARRL rep claimed it is pretty common results even with the expensive one. So my conclusion that day was we may be using radios from the "big three" that may be disdained and we don't even know it. However if it is a Baofeng then by default it must be a junk radio.

 

So it is al about Marketing. I looked up the Baofeng UV-S9. Why I found instead is the Baofeng UV "9S". This radio I found is advertised as an 8 watt radio. "Tri Band" that comes with two antennas. VHF-UHF and a "220" antenna. Interesting huh?https://www.baofengradio.com/products/uv-9s. I'll stay with TYT and Anytone radios. They are very reliable and just a few dollars more.

 

all of these radios are utter garbage and based on the same, tired, low rent RDA1846/RDA1847 walkie talkie on chip SOC that was intended for use in low cost consumer grade toy walkie-talkies (FRS/GMRS) sold at Wal-Mart, Family Dollar, etc. The innards aren't that different. Zero front end filtering leaves them venerable to overload and intermod, coupling the output of these turd chips to a PA/IPA with no proper harmonic filtering results in radiating most of the so-called "10-20 watts" into heat into the chassis and spurious emission on the dial. The Chinese slap a new mold onto the same turd and call it "LATEST MODEL" when it's the same old, same old low muffled audio, "I can't hear the repeater because my turdlet radio is too close to my WiFi access point" and the reason many new hams get frustrated because they think they're being ignored on local repeaters (due to low audio) or can't get any response (desensitized front end).

You can't polish a turd.