- This topic has 39 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 6 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
All,
Last week Haskell Maroney (K5HRM) sent me an email reference a Delta Pro Proto NPH-1 evaluation and writeup he had read. He commented on the cost of the item and at $250 retail it is substantially higher than any other Meshtastic device that I have read up on or looked at (or bought). But, it does come with a lot of pluses as compared to some of my recent buys. Thank you for the tip Haskell, looking at these details I also went to the manufacturer’s site and I was very impressed with their offerings.
Last week the Beall’s took delivery of these 2 Set ESP32 LoRa V3 Development Board with 915MHz Antenna + 3000mAh Battery + Meshtastic Case, ESP32-S3 SX1262 Integrated WiFi Bluetooth OLED Display for Arduino LoRaWAN IOT (N32, Blue) ($75). In an example of you get what you pay for, these come as a parts kit you have to build. OK, I’m handy and I got a kick out of building them, but the clearly poor quality 3D printed cases were a disappointment. Calling the case a poor fit is being kind.
As I started off above, the device profiled in My Newest Mesh Node is the Delta Pro Proto NPH-1 (Nephilim Persistent Heavy). In short, it is professional grade. From the article “The NPH-1 is CNC-machined from solid 6061-T6 aluminum billet right here in the USA, then Cerakoted in a tough Vera Black finish.” It also has a waterproof USB-C port and all ports are covered. If it isn’t already, it may as well be called MILSPEC because it is, in a word, robust. And unlike many of the devices you will look at, it “ships preloaded with Meshtastic firmware, ready to pair with your phone via Bluetooth and start building or joining a mesh right out of the box.”
The writeup My Newest Mesh Node (link here) is short, but in the review he links to a video evaluation that he did. And if you want to go right to their site and see their very detailed evaluation, the manufacturer has a page titled NPH-1: The Ultimate Off-Grid Messaging Device that covers it all. It is an exhaustive list of features of the unit and a lot, I mean a lot, of comparisons to other’s equipment. I suggest you check out NPH-1: The Ultimate Off-Grid Messaging Device (link here) while you are familiarizing yourself with the item.
OK, it is 0445 and I’m loading up to head to the DFW HAM EXPO. So far I only know of Steven Lott Smith (KG5VK) and myself going, but I’ll hope to see some of you there. Maybe one of these things will be there where I can get hands on. 😎👍🏼
73
Phillip Beall (W5EBC)
Amazon Prime Day Deal – ThinkNode M6 Outdoor Meshtastic Solar Node
Posted by Phillip Beall (W5EBC) • June 23, 2026
All,
Amazon Prime Day is June 23-26. Club President Mark Johnson (W5PTX) just asked me to confirm this link to the ELECROW Outdoor Meshtastic Solar Node with GPS and nRF52840 – ThinkNode M6 (with 6W Solar Panel and 7000mAh Battery, 915 MHz) priced at $94.99.
Yes, this is the correct unit. It is currently cheaper than what I paid for mine. If anyone is interested, this is the one we installed outside — the mobile/portable nodes link to it nicely.
View on Amazon → $94.99 (Prime Day Deal)
Installation Photos
Click any photo to enlarge in lightbox • Use your browser’s Back button to return to the post when finished
73
Phillip Beall (W5EBC)Thanks for the Tip on Amazon Prime deals for this item
It was already in my shopping cartNow it has been purchased :)
I plan on mounting it at a final height of 120 feet after I play with it closer to the ground
Cheers!
Steve
KG5VKAll,
I am excited to point everyone following this thread to an announcement post – Meshtastic EmComm Grant Submitted to ARDC (link here).
73
Phillip Beall (W5EBC)
ARDC Grant Update – Submission #2138
Just a quick status note on our Meshtastic EmComm mesh grant request to ARDC.
The July application window closed on July 2. ARDC typically takes 60–120 days after a deadline to complete their review process (Grants Advisory Committee + Board). Notifications of approval or decline are sent by email.
We’re only about three weeks past the deadline, so it’s still early. We’ll keep everyone posted as soon as we hear anything.
73
Phillip Beall (W5EBC)
ARDC Meshtastic Grant Update
I want to bring everyone up to date on the ARDC grant application we submitted for the Club’s Meshtastic emergency communications project.
ARDC has now completed its initial review of our approximately $6,000 request. They did not approve the application in its current form, but the response was more encouraging than a simple rejection.
They told us that the project aligns well with their overall goals of supporting amateur radio, but the reviewers raised two principal concerns.
The first involves our original design for combining licensed Part 97 amateur-radio nodes and unlicensed Part 15 nodes in the same routing structure. Their concern is that a Part 97 node could end up routinely forwarding traffic originating from an unlicensed Part 15 station.
Our current thinking is that this can be addressed cleanly by separating the two systems. At locations where we want both capabilities, we could use two independent radios: one operating under Part 15 and another configured separately for licensed Part 97 operation, with no routine automatic forwarding between the two networks.
I am not assuming that this completely satisfies ARDC’s concern. They specifically invited us to meet with them to discuss the reviewer feedback, and I have a 30-minute Zoom call scheduled for Friday, August 21. One of the main purposes of that call will be to make sure we understand exactly what regulatory issue they saw and whether the separated-network approach resolves it.
Their second concern was that they would like to see more confirmed host sites and support from served agencies.
We have already made progress on that front.
Mark Johnson (W5PTX), has signed a formal commitment allowing RRVARC to install two independent ThinkNode M6 units at his location in downtown Paris. That gives us a documented central host location.
We are also working on a supplemental letter from Lamar County Fire Marshal / Emergency Management Coordinator Quincy Blount. Quincy had already provided a strong letter supporting the project before the original grant deadline, and ARDC confirmed to me in writing that it had been added to our application. Since the reviewers nevertheless mentioned served-agency support, I intend to ask during Friday’s call whether that letter was considered and what additional level of agency participation they would like to see.
Haskell Maroney (K5HRM), is helping with that effort and plans to speak with Quincy. We hope to obtain language supporting placement of equipment at the new Lamar County Emergency Operations Center and, where appropriate, other County facilities that could help fill propagation gaps. That is still in progress, so I do not want to call the EOC a confirmed site yet.
The other important point is that the project itself has advanced quite a bit since the original application was submitted.
Members have bought equipment, put nodes on the air, conducted field testing, identified possible host locations, collected location information and worked on propagation modeling.
Among the member-hosted or member-supported locations now in the planning are:
-
- Matthew Murphy (KF5NRU), in Reno, where an M6 is already operating and being tested
- Dr. Randy Holland (N5DDS), in Powderly
- Cliff Leath (KI5OPP), in Detroit
- George Haneke (NV7Z), in Roxton
- Steven Lott Smith (KG5VK), with an M6 planned for a high-elevation installation
- Jerry Keisler (WA5KZA), with his tower near central Paris
- Our own location northwest of the Paris core
- The Atlas-area tower southwest of Paris as another potential infrastructure location
Those locations are useful not only for Lamar County coverage, but because they already extend the project outward in several directions. I still view this as a Red River Valley regional project, not simply a Paris project. What is firming up is that Paris/Lamar County appears to be the most practical place to establish and validate the initial infrastructure concentration, while the member locations around it help support outward expansion.
We have also identified and modeled a number of potential commercial, governmental and institutional sites around Paris. I do not think it makes sense to ask every one of those property owners for a formal commitment before we know whether the grant will be funded or whether actual field measurements show that a particular site is needed. The better approach is to establish the anchor network first, compare its real-world performance to our propagation model, and then approach the specific locations needed to close any remaining gaps.
ARDC has encouraged us to consider revising and resubmitting the proposal and has offered us additional time to do so.
So the immediate plan is:
-
- Have the feedback meeting Friday and get clear answers on the Part 97 issue and what they expect regarding sites and served agencies.
- Continue documenting the host locations and agency support we already have.
- Revise the network architecture as necessary based on ARDC’s feedback.
- Decide immediately after the meeting whether we have what we need to submit a materially stronger application.
Obviously, I would have preferred an approval on the first round. But we have been given specific concerns to address, an opportunity to discuss them directly with ARDC, and an invitation to resubmit.
More importantly, the project today is considerably more developed than it was when the original application went in.
I’ll update everyone again after Friday’s meeting.
73,
Phillip Beall (W5EBC)
Phillip
is greatly appreciate the update
I often run into ARDC leaders at the Huntsville
ham fest
your plan for the zoom meeting is perfect
your talented at this and our Ace in the hole
cheers!
Steve kg5vk
All,
A quick update on the RRVARC Meshtastic/EmComm grant proposal.
I had a productive Zoom meeting last Friday with Adam Zimmel (W0ZML) of Amateur Radio Digital Communications (ARDC) to go over reviewer feedback on our application. The overall discussion was encouraging.
The principal issue raised by the reviewers involved how Part 97 licensed nodes and Part 15 unlicensed nodes would interact. We have a straightforward way to revise the proposed architecture to address that concern.
ARDC also asked for more detail on our proposed backbone sites, documentation showing progress toward securing those locations, additional information on organizations the network could serve and current equipment pricing. Since the original application was submitted, we have made useful progress in several of those areas, including identifying additional locations and securing a downtown Paris site commitment.
ARDC has given us an opportunity to submit supplemental information and I will be working on that next. The goal will be to answer the reviewers’ questions directly while also providing a better picture of the club’s public-service activities and the practical development already taking place around the proposed network.
I came away from the discussion encouraged. There is still work to do, but the proposal remains very much alive.
73
Phillip Beall (W5EBC) -
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.