A warning to ALL

Edit second to last sentence...

just something to keep in mind. keep all your heads down and don't advertise your stations locations or anything like that or give too many details.

should have read:

just something to keep in mind. keep all your heads down and don't advertise your stations locations ONLINE or anything like that or give too many details.

EDIT TWO:

second sentence

stick to talking to general topics Prayer Warriors Citation after 9 years was no coincidence.

should have read:

stick to talking to general topics Prayer Warriors Citation (he's on ramsey forum) after 9 years was no coincidence.

I look at what I do as mission ... many NGO missions have problems with governments in foreign countries where they could easily be jailed or worse for small infractions they knew nothing about, or which were made up on the spot to silence their voice(s), or prevent giving help to those in need. I've seen it over and over. But they don't stop.

I try best I can to be compliant while still contributing to community at the same time. That's a road less-traveled these days, and the path isn't always straight, but it's like a calling, something I believe in ... bloom where you're planted sort-of-thing. Makes it easier to lay aside fear, and boldly keep on broadcastin'.

not telling people to stop just be quiet about it in public forums as certain people are picking targets using these and other forums for gathering info.

something is weird and im warning everyone to watch their back and just keep your head down in public forums i chose to put everything on hold for now because of many domestic reasons.

just saying run your setups but be tight lipped in public outside of your local area about the details and locations.

Is this a code name for a member here? Guess I don't know who this this. But putting together pieces of the original post it appears that here and another thread criticism on a personal level was posted against a member where the identity of this member was obvious though no name was used. This is nonsense and this type of criticism of members on a personal level has no place on this forum in my opinion.

If you have a concern about a member then I suggest you express it privately to the board administration by using the CONTACT button on the left.

If one disagrees with a poster's statements then, by all means, respond to the facts in the statements but it does no good nor does it impress me when personal attacks and innuendo are used to try to make a point.

Neil

There are always types whose hobby is negative, making themselves feel superior by injuring others.

Plenty of neighbors all over America who spy on their neighbors and report everything from "that guy keeps his shades down all the time" to "their dog is running loose."

The same kind of creep is known to show up anywhere, even on a small hobby site, where people obviously are respecting the regulations.

But I want facts.

I want to see the NOV's and be informed as to alleged violation.

It would be respectful toward everyone if the public were informed of the complainer and the motive behind the complaint. When the law is used as a weapon against individuals all relative facts need to be known.

ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT is to know if legal part 15 stations, obeying the exact letter of the law, are ever persecuted. This, to me, would be of paramount significance because it would signal a big problem.

FURTHERMORE, since it's been mentioned...

We absolutely should be informed WHY persons banned from several websites are banned. What did they do to become banned. Why is that a secret?

Rev. Robert C. kc8gpd wrote:
we are starting to see a rise in NOV's, NAL's for part 15 and FM stuff again. just something to keep in mind. keep all your heads down and don't advertise your stations locations or anything like that or give too many details.

For consideration...

It is common sense that unlicensed AM/FM operators in the US who understand and comply with Part 15 won't need to take the steps quoted above to avoid FCC actions against them.

For unlicensed operators claiming to comply with Part 15 when they do not, then the advice quoted above may be appropriate.

Carl Blare posted:
We absolutely should be informed WHY persons banned from several websites are banned. What did they do to become banned. Why is that a secret?

No secret(s) from my perspective, Mr Blare, if I am one of the persons to which you allude.

The only website from which I am "banned" is that of the Yahoo Group of Wm. C. Walker relating to the Rangemaster AM1000, which reportedly is a product line he has distributed and installed to 3rd parties, and maybe still does so. Please contact him directly to learn his apparent justification for this.

I unsubbed myself from HobbyBroadcaster after the owner of that site took public issue with some of the technical realities I posted there, and strongly suggested (in public) that I not pursue them.

As to the Pt15us website, a few years ago some of my posts, although accurate, were not desired by the moderators of that time. As a result my posts here lapsed until resuming several weeks ago.

"But I want facts. I want to see the NOV's and be informed as to alleged violation. It would be respectful toward everyone if the public were informed of the complainer and the motive behind the complaint. When the law is used as a weapon against individuals all relative facts need to be known."

The Bill of Rights AND the Constitution protects our right to face our accusers. It's been that way since day one. But then again, since day one there have been shady characters and organizations attempting to tear those two documents to shreds.

It's too bad that it is really happening. No one seems to care because no one is stopping it.

Doing something about it after it happens is somewhat too little too late.

This November will be everyone's big chance. Care to bet on how many will take advantage of that or continue to be led by the nose to the slaughter house.

RFB

I just did a quick sampling of the NOUO and NOV listings for May and June at http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/ . Of the ones I sampled, they were all just the usual overpowered "part 15" FM (or should I say Pirate FM) and the usual commercial operator violations. Did I miss something? It looks like nothing has changed.

We all know that FM is a hotbed for FCC enforcement. I didn't see any part 15 AM actions. Maybe I missed one. If anyone spotted an AM enforcement recently, it would help us all to point it out.

I don't get the connection between recent enforcements and certain individuals who have been posting about AM antenna legalities.

It's good to look at alternate explanations for things that are not clearly understood, and my posting now is for entertainment only, not intended to take sides in any way.

I referred to the table of "20 Logical Fallacies" at theskepticsguide.org and tried to find matching patterns. Here is a quick introduction to logical fallacies:

"Even when all of the premises of an argument are reliably true, the argument may still be invalid if the logic employed is not
legitimate – a so-called logical fallacy. The human brain is a marvelous machine with capabilities that, in some ways, still
outperform the most powerful of super computers. Our brains, however, do not appear to have evolved specifically for precise logic.
There are many common logical pitfalls that our minds tend to fall into, unless we are consciously aware of these pitfalls and make
efforts to avoid them."

Speaking now in my own words, what I was especially researching is the idea of a "false analogy." Here is a description of one type of false analogy:

"Because two different things happened about the same time, there is therefore a connection between those two things."

Let's say there was a NOV (Notice of Violation). I think it takes 3-months for a NOL to make its way onto the FCC database, so there could possibly be one, but we couldn't look it up (yet).

At that same time, assuming the NOV is true, a man returned to town, which is a verifiable fact.

Relationship between the two different events? It would take special knowledge to know if there was. The average reader doesn't have access to special knowledge. Therefore we must consider the chance of a "false analogy".

Dunno.

Carl wrote: Let's say there was a NOV (Notice of Violation). I think it takes 3-months for a NOL to make its way onto the FCC database, so there could possibly be one, but we couldn't look it up (yet).

The FCC issues a NOUO (Notice of Unlicensed Operation) as the first step in Part 15 enforcement actions.

The most recently-issued NOUO in the FCC public list as of today's date was written on June 14, 2012 (11 days ago), for an unlicensed system in the FM broadcast band.

I certainly don't agree with the 'keeping quiet' part. What's the point of broadcasting if you're not broadcasting to someone? You can conduct technical experiments without broadcasting. As long as you're operating within the Part 15 and copyright laws, of course.

But then, I certainly do agree that I've noticed that this Forum has become somewhat more negative in the past while. With technical 'realities' that are not realities at all (perhaps based on some scientific evidence, but then accompanied by sloppy assumptions and inferences - leading to conclusions that are hardly scientific).

Perhaps those that are, say, insisting that the maximum useable range of Part 15 AM is a mile tops should conduct their own experiments to verify that claim. Because based on what I've actually done, and others as well, that claim just doesn't hold water. In other words, put your money where your mouth is. And until that time, stop proclaiming that what is indeed only your OPINION is a 'technical reality'.

The rules applying to unlicensed stations are very simple, but the physical/electrical performance of these stations is complex.

The performance of Part 15 setups can be calculated for a defined transmit system using standard equations found in engineering textbooks and other technical publications. Some of my posts have included links to such calculations based on the appropriate equations. The assumptions for those calculations have been given.

The estimate of ~1 mile range to the ~150 uV/m field in my link can be proven for those conditions by mathematics. My post did not say that such a system could never be heard further away, using a very good receive antenna and receiver.

Of course there are some installations of "Part 15" AM systems on elevated mounts using long, radiating "ground" conductors, and their range to the 150 uV/m field can be considerably more than in my calculation. KENC was one example.

However such stations are not Part 15 stations, because they are not in compliance with Part 15.

While some may consider the paragraph next above to be just my opinion, and that I am "anti Part 15," recall that the FCC has issued NOUOs to several such installations.

My posts are based on technical reality, with hope that they will be useful to those who want to have a better understanding of the physical operation of these unlicensed systems.

My posts can be useful. They can be disbelieved. They can be ignored. But probably it will be a rare case when the calculations behind them are proven to be incorrect.

My Talking House with its remote antenna (ATU) can be heard at distances over 1 mile. Now I'm not sayin' it's any kind of signal the average person would listen to but the installation follows examples set by the manufacturer and the "system" is Part 15 accepted.

A more or less usable signal covers about 1/2 mile radius.