Baofeng GT-3WP

[mechmedic]

So in my search for a waterproof/highly water resistant handheld radio I came across the Baofeng GT-3WP. Seems decent enough. I think the output is a little higher than the UV-5R but what really caught my eye was the fact that it’s water proof. I don’t plan on diving to a beachhead and assaulting a position of anything like that, but I do live in Eastern NC where rain is a constant and waterways are plentiful. If I did accidentally take a dunk I would like for my radio to not be ruined afterwards. Anyone have any experience with these? From what I’ve seen they generally run about 35-45 bucks a pop. So only slightly higher than a UV-5R.

[JohnyMac]

STOP!

As DMR for encryption is becoming increasingly popular for PERSEC, I highly recommend the DM-1701 DM-1701 for $63-.

Don't worry to much about a waterproof rated radio. I have had my BaoFeng radio out in monsoon conditions and it and the mic never failed. If you are worried about going skin diving with it, buy one of these. In the olden days when radios were less water tight, I kept my marine HT radio in one and would throw it into my inflatable dingy, sailboat cockpit, etc. and never had water, dirt, sand, etc penetrate the closures. 

73 Brother 

[pkveazey]

You can get dual band DMR/Analog Baofengs for under $100. I've got the Baofeng DM5R dual band digital and it works great. WARNING: DMR can be really confusing to program and operate. I also have a dozen Baofeng UV5Rs and 4 of the UV5R eight watters. I wouldn't want to drop any of them in the water but they have had a bit of rain hit them. My everyday carry radio is a Camo color 5 watt dual band Baofeng UV5R with the big  battery pack. Its about 4 years old and the volume control is starting to get a little bit scratchy.

[Jackalope]

     Not to upset anyone, but I suggest avoiding Baofeng radios until they get their act together.  Yup, their radios are cheap, but they're pieces of crap masquerading as radios.  Whoa, you say!  It's actually supported by fact.  The January issue of QST magazine has an article regarding emissions compliance of various manufacturer's handheld radios.  The testing was of models from a three year period including: Alinco, Anytone, Baofeng, Icom Kenwood, TYT, Wouxun, and Yaesu.  Interestingly all the 2019 models passed testing, except Baofeng, which had a 78% failure rate.  They tested 45 Baofeng radios in 2019.  The models which had the highest noncompliance rate over the three year period included: UV-5R, UV-5R+, UV-5RA, UV-5RT, UV-5B, UV-82, UV-86, BF-F8HP, GT-3, F-11, E-5MKII, BF-F9V2, UV-5RIHP, and UV-6R.  Apparently, they're emitting spurious emissions very heavily on 2 meters.

     If you're going cheap, then consider Anytone, TYT, and Wouxun, they passed all testing in 2019.  And I do have some Baofengs, I just try to avoid using them.  If you want rugged radios spend the money, and cry once, especially if your life is going to depend on a particular radio.  I'd suggest a radio from one of the big three: Kenwood, Icom, or Yaesu.  I have analog/digital radios from all three, and they all work great.  You get what you pay for...

[pkveazey]

     Not to upset anyone, but I suggest avoiding Baofeng radios until they get their act together.  Yup, their radios are cheap, but they're pieces of crap masquerading as radios.  Whoa, you say!  It's actually supported by fact.  The January issue of QST magazine has an article regarding emissions compliance of various manufacturer's handheld radios.  The testing was of models from a three year period including: Alinco, Anytone, Baofeng, Icom Kenwood, TYT, Wouxun, and Yaesu.  Interestingly all the 2019 models passed testing, except Baofeng, which had a 78% failure rate.  They tested 45 Baofeng radios in 2019.  The models which had the highest noncompliance rate over the three year period included: UV-5R, UV-5R+, UV-5RA, UV-5RT, UV-5B, UV-82, UV-86, BF-F8HP, GT-3, F-11, E-5MKII, BF-F9V2, UV-5RIHP, and UV-6R.  Apparently, they're emitting spurious emissions very heavily on 2 meters.

     If you're going cheap, then consider Anytone, TYT, and Wouxun, they passed all testing in 2019.  And I do have some Baofengs, I just try to avoid using them.  If you want rugged radios spend the money, and cry once, especially if your life is going to depend on a particular radio.  I'd suggest a radio from one of the big three: Kenwood, Icom, or Yaesu.  I have analog/digital radios from all three, and they all work great.  You get what you pay for...

All of that is valid so I'm not going to disagree with any of it, BUT, the spurious emissions should all be higher frequencies than the fundamental transmitted frequencies and since they are higher, they should have extremely limited range. Also during an emergency, I'm not going to care about spurs. I'm just going to care about the other guy on the other end hearing my weak little 5 watt radio. Also, using a very resonant outside antenna will not transmit many of the spurs. Rubber ducks are horrible about transmitting spurs. Fortunately they are usually 5 watts. If you are on a tight budget, go for the cheapee. If not, you're better off with a higher quality radio. They are generally more reliable and better constructed. I bought a ton of the Baofengs because I plan to pass them out like popcorn during any emergency. Now...… Don't ever use a radio on HF that transmits spurs. Those spurs can cover the entire globe due to their low frequencies and skywave propagation.

[Jackalope]

      Yes, during an emergency the spurs are irrelevant, until they aren't.  In the article the lab present the spectral display of a UV-82X, where the second harmonic of the fundamental is only 15.8 dB below the strength of the desired output signal.  Looking at the display, if they were running 5 watts, it appears the harmonic is at least 4 watts, which could definitely be a problem.  It's a problem not only because of interference, but also because it gives the "bad guys" another chance to locate you.

      In my previous life we had some issues with interference, and you'd be amazed how far VHF signals can travel, without tropospheric ducting, etc.  And we did experience 2nd harmonic interference, though that issue diminished somewhat when narrowbanding kicked in.  Purity of signal is good :-)

[pkveazey]

      Yes, during an emergency the spurs are irrelevant, until they aren't.  In the article the lab present the spectral display of a UV-82X, where the second harmonic of the fundamental is only 15.8 dB below the strength of the desired output signal.  Looking at the display, if they were running 5 watts, it appears the harmonic is at least 4 watts, which could definitely be a problem.  It's a problem not only because of interference, but also because it gives the "bad guys" another chance to locate you.

      In my previous life we had some issues with interference, and you'd be amazed how far VHF signals can travel, without tropospheric ducting, etc.  And we did experience 2nd harmonic interference, though that issue diminished somewhat when narrowbanding kicked in.  Purity of signal is good :-)

I'm not going to fault your reasoning because its perfectly valid. However, your math is flawed. 5 watts with 3db down is 2.5 watts. 5 watts with 6 db down is 1.25 watts. 5 watts with 9 db down is 0.625 watts. 5 watts with 12 db down is 0.3125 watts. 5 watts with 15 db down is 0.15625 watts. The first Harmonic would be about 0.16 watts and the second harmonic would be about 0.05 watts. Those weak spurs would be lucky to reach out a half mile in open country. If someone had spurs like that and were running 100 watts then that would be some serious garbage going out over the air. Anyone reading this should not think that I condone or dismiss spurs. Spurs are garbage and should not be transmitted. My point in the case of a 5 watt handi-talkie is that we should not confuse a head cold with cancer. Both are a nuisance but one is very serious. I'm glad Jackalope brought up the subject because, to me, its a lot more interesting than some of the other subject matter and those interested in getting into radio will find it enlightening and possibly fascinating. Jackalope and I have talked on HF Ham radio and from what I can tell he's a good operator and seems to be well informed and I look forward to talking with him in the future.

[Jackalope]

    Yup, you're right about the mathematics, PK.  I'm thinking the article probably misplaced their decimal point, and it should have read 1.58 dB, especially if you look at the spectrum analyzer.  1.58 dB down would make sense, and put the harmonic signal at 3.5-4.0 watts, which would correlate with the spectrum analyzer.  In any case, spurious emission suppression is terrible in Baofengs, and they seem to be the only manufacturer that hasn't attempted to correct the problem.  Use them in remote areas, and avoid them in heavy RF settings.  The article is in the January, 2020, issue of QST magazine, and titled "ARRL Lab Handheld Transceiver Testing Revisited".  The lab tests transceivers at the Dayton Hamvention, and what's interesting is that they test users' radios, rather than radios provided by the manufacturers, it's more of a real world test..

[pkveazey]

    Yup, you're right about the mathematics, PK.  I'm thinking the article probably misplaced their decimal point, and it should have read 1.58 dB, especially if you look at the spectrum analyzer.  1.58 dB down would make sense, and put the harmonic signal at 3.5-4.0 watts, which would correlate with the spectrum analyzer.  In any case, spurious emission suppression is terrible in Baofengs, and they seem to be the only manufacturer that hasn't attempted to correct the problem.  Use them in remote areas, and avoid them in heavy RF settings.  The article is in the January, 2020, issue of QST magazine, and titled "ARRL Lab Handheld Transceiver Testing Revisited".  The lab tests transceivers at the Dayton Hamvention, and what's interesting is that they test users' radios, rather than radios provided by the manufacturers, it's more of a real world test..

The decimal thing just might be right. I was thinking it might be a decimal thing also but  more on the lower end. Spurs rob power from the fundamental frequency and if the spur was 4 watts, then that would only leave 1 watt to be transmitted on the fundamental frequency. Damn, now I need to do some more reading in my ham handbook to see exactly what is happening. See folks, I told you this stuff is more interesting than how much sugar and flour somebody's got stockedpiled.

[pkveazey]

Well, I went and read my Ham Handbook and what I could find about Spurious images and Harmonics was lame as Hell. I did see that there is no 1st harmonic because that is the Fundamental frequency. The 2nd harmonic was shown on a graph and it was just what I expected it to be. It was half the level of the Fundamental frequency. That would be 3db down from the fundamental frequency's power. Then it got all technical about whether the harmonic was in phase or out of phase with the fundamental. If the harmonic is in phase with the fundamental frequency, then the harmonic is half as strong as the fundamental frequency. If the harmonic is 180 degrees out of phase with the fundamental frequency then it gets canceled out to zero. Then I had to stop reading because my head exploded.