Nope. That thing will be used as a tool to conduct the research and find the real answers.
It's either going to come voluntarily, or ordered. Either way, that documentation is going to come out.
Along with a new concern of 15.2.1043.
"I'm sure glad my stock is in the older, unmodified Talking House units. Yes siree bob."
Indeed. The only question for that is the still unanswered issue of "final RF stage" and what the "official" declaration and definition of "final RF stage" would apply to this..ie ATU.
I'm sure that will come out in the wash too.
RFB
oh...btw..Happy Labor Day everyone.
If this investigation helps prevent an innocent from being tagged and it was unknown to that innocent end user of these modified units and lack of official certification evidence to those modifications, or the ATU issues, I am sure my efforts will be greatly appreciated.
Well in this case it is not anyone else at fault because a company may have not done the right procedures and followed the law.
Yes it very well could yank that certification, but I doubt that would apply to the existing models that are not modified, only to those that Radio Systems themselves changed, and you know exactly how they did that as do I. Hand soldered in extra resistors across others, adding capacitors across others, changing out resistors in a bias circuit, and adding a beefy modulator transistor and it's working specs beyond the basic circuit parameters.
THAT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE BY 15.2.1043!! Not without a retesting for either the same certification, or a new one. Which to me a new certification would be expected.
But we don't even know if the modifications are approved under the existing certification or under a new one because we have no original OET documents or any added NEW OET documents for the iAM.
And no one seem's concerned about that?
That alone and of itself is incredibly strange..especially here at Part 15.us.
RFB
Nowhere in my plans do I expect to own any of these contested transmitter/ATUs, but I am not a bystander watching quietly from the sidelines.
I keep saying it, but it still appears to me that something about this certification or lack thereof gives a whole new definition to "Final RF stage."
That's all 15.219 says...."...Final RF stage...." It does NOT say final RF Amplifier stage, and it does not say final RF active component stage.
I am so confident of me RE-take on what the rules say, in light of this entire discussion, that I now totally subscribe to the belief that my part 15 transmitters are allowed to provide 100mW RF output to the Final RF stage, that being the loading coil or antenna tuning unit, which are one and the same thing.
The coil is the point at which efficiency suffers, NOT the final RF amplifier.
And that is final.
before we go down this road again let me stop everyone where they are at.
it is what it is.
we need to just be patient and wait on the oet and fcc investigations.
also need to keep watch on eb feed for am violations.
it is only then we will have all the answers as we did with the hamilton ground lead fiasco.
The absolute defining line will come from the FCC or the OET, and come DIRECTLY from them, not from tucked away in a file drawer copies of one page or two leaving out the rest of the story.
Until that defining line comes from a more official source, everyone's assumption to what it means by "final RF stage" is just that...assumption, speculative conclusion.
RFB
Well, the Part 15 rules allow for home brew, non-certified equipment.
Seems like a safe bet to roll 'ur own and not worry about it.
Simple matter to show final input power and even Carl Blare can now measure harmonic output.
And besides, doesn't matter if you have a 100% legal operation complete with official OET data and pictures or not.
When they want to shut you down, they shut you down.
Better a $15 investment than a $1500 investment.
MRAM 1500 is right about what he says.
If you get a shutdown notice, simply turn it off.
How convenient could it be?
I rest his case.
Now we're back on the Talking House/ATU testing documentation again. At least people are starting to realize that the responsibility of providing it lies with the FCC. Good luck on that one. But until/if answers are obtained, based on the FCC ID number on the Talking House and the company's claims, I think that it is legal to use in the U.S. Until, at least, an FCC inspector says that your particular installation isn't legal and needs to be modified. Or the certification is revoked, which can certainly happen, particularly with all the scrutiny on it (makes me wonder if that isn't the intent of all of this - hey, I can be a conspiracy theorist as well)!
Back to the original thread. I still don't see the point. The Talking House/ATU combination, with the supplied coax (25 feet, I believe, not 50) is certified until the FCC states otherwise. I don't know why the simulation wasn't done with that 25 feet, but I guess 50 feet makes the numbers look worse, and that was the intent of the original poster. If I were using this radio, I wouldn't change the length of the coax from that supplied (in fact, when I experimented with the combination, I used about 8 feet of coax).
There's an old saying that certainly applies here. When you want to look extremely knowledgeable, you baffle them with BS. It certainly wouldn't have taken much to reduce the salient points of the poster do a few, clear, sentences; instead, the poster was forced to make multiple follow-on clarification posts, many of them confusing and contradictory at best.
He could have written something like the following, "I simulated the Talking House/elevated ATU installation, including 50 feet (again, I would have used 25) of coax, with no ground connected to the ATU, and a 3 meter whip antenna. Here are the results as compared to the same installation at ground level."
Again, interesting results, but until the FCC states otherwise, just interesting, with no affect on the certification.
Well, from my end I've only presented facts provided by the FCC, the manufacturer and retailer.
The FCC certification was presented along with the application for certification both directly from the FCC website.
Radio Systems, manufacturer-holder of patent, supplied info from what they claim is the OET test data submitted with the application for certification. The document bears the FCC ID affixed to the Talkikng House transmitter and ATU. The data provided indicates the ATU was tested with 8 meters (about 26 feet) of coax. It's only two pages of the complete document but it is what was requested of them.
Both the manufacturer and retailer stress that using a separate ground wire connected to the ATU grounding terminal affects the total antenna length. They stated the coax does not affect the antenna length.
From that point on no assumptions have been made as to implementation of the ATU. Only that it is certified for use based upon the information provided.
If the data does not appear on the FCC website, shame on them. They certainly would have required it in order to grant the certification regardless of whether it's the info provided by Radio Systems or something else.
The issue has never been if the ATU was a part of the certification, or if the coax supplied was also part of the certification.
The issue was also never about if the ATU is an actual final RF stage or not, or what view the FCC has on that.
The question is how were both set up in the testing to be certified.
Yes there is a certification number attached to the permanently affixed label. One on the ATU as well. Great! Fantastic! Fine and handy dandy!
I would just like to see how the things were set up and operated to earn the certification. It assures me, and that's ME, that if I were to set mine up exactly as described and pictured when the units were tested for certification, that mine would pass an inspection with no issues whatsoever, because it is set up just like the setup during the certification testing.
All the other "noodles" thrown on the wall never answered the question. Those answers were what was provided, thus the carrier of provided answers is not at fault for what was given to them to pass around.
According to the FOIA response and direct communication with a long time friend at the Denver Enforcement office, every 10 years records are purged from the database..to which I find highly unusual and rather ridiculous. However my Denver contact did inform me that the manufacturer, ie Radio Systems, is required to retain that original OET documentation in it's entirety on file per FCC Section 2.938.
It would thrill me to no end to see the test setup photos showing this ATU up 20 feet fed by that supplied 25 feet of coax and the whole works earning the certification in such a setup.
It's confirmation worth having and nothing asked for or wanting to see would contain any proprietary or secret company information. It would be the same data as it was on the OET database which is public domain information.
I just hope that helps clear things up a bit. Once again, it has NEVER been about the ATU being certified with that Talking House/iAM as a combined certified unit. The issue has been about missing information and simply wanting to see how both the transmitter and ATU were set up during that certification testing.
A simple request that has unfortunately turned into a major headache to many. And the simple request still remains simple...let's see the data please!
I'm hoping the response I get from RS will put all this to rest and I can see pretty pictures and set my units up just like they did.
Then it's party time!
RFB