"If I were Mr. Conover I would be offended by comments suggesting he is falsifying information."
I'm not suggesting anything. I am saying if what is being said by him is also what the documentation says, then let's see it.
Well this particular ride is getting quite tiring. The answer is obvious, and yet so elusive.
It surprises me to see such resistance to wanting to see official documentation to validate what's being said.
Perhaps there is more here to think about than meets the eye.
RFB
I offer no such resistance to wanting to see the official documentation. I am simply accepting the information he offers as truthful.
Why do you resist contacting him?
Call him, email him, write him a letter. He has provided that information also. It's obvious there is some distrust of his words as they are not accepted:
dis·trust [ diss trúst ] 1.lack of trust: a feeling that somebody or something is dishonest or unreliable
2.have no confidence in somebody: to have a feeling that somebody or something is dishonest or unreliable
Synonyms: suspicion, disbelief, doubt, misgiving, cynicism, mistrust, wariness, chariness.
Sounds to me like someone insinuated he is a liar:
dictionary.reference.com/browse/insinuated verb (used with object) 1. to suggest or hint slyly: He insinuated that they were lying. 2. to instill or infuse subtly or artfully, as into the mind: to insinuate ...
On that same point, a "passive" component such as a step-up transformer can increase a signal level passing through it, again rivaling what an amplifier can do.
It can increase the output voltage relative to the input voltage, but the power available at its output always is less than at its input.
But I do agree that a transmission line as a transport pipe for RF is a transmission line. I think what we have here is a transmission line PRIOR to the final RF stage, which is not the same as a transmission line following the final RF stage.
What if the line prior to the ATU added radiation to that of the whip?
I also submit the function of the loading coil, bringing the antenna to resonance, is a function akin to amplification.
Only if amplification means minimizing losses in the antenna system. A loading coil can resonate the antenna system, but always produces loss to the available input power.
Probably most people would not consider a component or network whose output power is less than its input power to be an amplifier, or an r-f stage in the commonly accepted use of that term in the electronics industry.
It really doesn't matter, Rich, whether you agree with the statements from Radio Systems or not.
The Talking House WITH ATU is certified. The FCC obviously accepted the wording that they provided to certify the unit.
I don't think that anyone should fear using these units, unless the FCC revokes the certification (I wonder, can they even do that?) , particularly with the coax cable provided by the manufacturer when purchased.
No, it DOES matter! This is no time to be having double standards when it comes to ensuring the proper use of these things.
And I will repeat, the one thing that will set aside all doubt is being held back. Why?
Your saying that the most crucial document that every other Part 15 certified device has on record proving how they were setup when certified, is irrelevant and doesn't matter?
I can't believe I am seeing this here..at this forum, where I thought and believed that adhering to the rules, and making sure what we use is intended for our purposes, all the hunting down of certified this and that, other units with their documentation, easy to see how those are certified, and yet this one lone wolf out there with nothing to prove it's certification configurations, not even on the FCC website, and your saying it doesn't matter???
Is this the Part 15.us form or did I get BAMFED to some other fake thing here because something is not what it seems lately.
I can see that for some, just taking someone's word because they are some big wig in a company or a long time friend, it's perfectly fine for them to just toss it to the wind and accept "hear say" as good enough.
But for others, that doesn't fly at all, like with me. And there is no reason why anyone should just throw it to the wind because of hear say and run the risk of getting hit with a NOUO or NAL.
What went well for one person in the past does not mean that is exactly how things will turn out for someone else.
It does matter. It matters a great deal!
RFB
"Call him, email him, write him a letter. He has provided that information also. It's obvious there is some distrust of his words as they are not accepted:
Trust in words cannot be given when the proof is being withheld by both the "talker" and the database where that proof should be right at this moment.
But I did send off an email. The response..."We will get back to you with an answer very soon!".
I asked to see a copy of the OET certification document which is supposed to be on file in the OET database which is public information.
I guess they have to go hunt down that elusive documentation that doesn't matter and that words in an email take the place of that validating documentation.
Whatever works for you works for you. But not for me. When that documentation finds it's way out of someone's dark file cabinet so we know without a doubt, I will be full of doubts until that documentation is presented.
Actions speak louder than words. Words have no meaning if they have no foundation.
I see a bottomless bit below.
RFB
Why not just call the FCC and ask them to inspect every single part 15 Transmitter and station ?
Then when nothing is left please be sure to blame someone who tried to help.
Just once, it would be nice to have a meaningful discussion without all the hyperbole.
There's nothing unusual about missing documentation in the OET databse - I went into it and most records I looked at did not have that documentation (I did not confine myself to Part 15 transmitters). I would have thought that would be the first thing anyone would do before insinuating anything underhanded.
Now, the Talking House and the ATU have been around a looong time. There is an FCC certification number on the Talking House main unit, which allows you to connect the ATU (I saw nothing on the ATU itself), but I think it's a safe bet to assume that the two are FCC certified for use together (certification also includes the accompanying documentation, and the documentation has instructions re the ATU). The FCC hasn't shut down the company - in fact, there are probably more Talking Houses, lots with ATU's, out there than any other Part 15 transmitter - but it has certainly shut down many other companies and even individuals with smaller presences.
So I wonder - what's the big deal here? The units are certified from the FCC's point of view. There's certainly lots of room in the rules to certify this arrangement (spurious technical opinions aside), just as there's plenty of room to shut down, say, a ground wire connected to a metal mast, even though Ground is not defined in the rules.
It would be nice to know the criteria for certification, but it was long enough ago that these documents may not exist (I wonder when the FCC put the OET database online - it might be their problem, not anyone else's).
I would also think that if one elevated the ATU, and then used a ground wire on an ATU attached to a metal mast or structure, that the FCC might apply the same criteria they've used to disallow other installations. But that would be up to the FCC, as they would have the final say. If you used a choke to eliminate the ground radiating, that might pass, it might not.
Members of the Forum are NOT the FCC (unless they have a mole or two here to see what's happening). I'd suggest leaving the kind of witch hunt this thread has unfortunately turned into for the FCC. There are certainly many other issues that we can spend our time on here that are more important.
WARNING: technical information follows, but at least there are no numbers involved!:
Here are my technically oriented comments on the subject.
Per figure 7 in the patent, both the coax shield and the ground post are connected to circuit ground inside the ATU.
GROND-LEVEL ATU
A Horizontal run of coax, laying on the earth, acts partially as a vertical antenna counterpoise (ground radial) and partially as an RF conductor, via the outside of the coax shield, back to the transmitter and then on to the service entrance ground via the house wiring. There is likely to be very little radiation from the coax because it is horizontal and in close proximity to earth.
A ground rod and ground radial system at the base of the antenna and connected to the ATU ground post will provide a much lower RF ground resistance and divert much of the transmitter RF current to earth ground locally and cause less RF to flow on coax shield. Range will improve. Such a ground connection at the ATU also provides a good measure of lightning surge protection. Operating with no earth ground connection below the ATU leaves only one path for lightning surge currents. They will flow through the coax, through the transmitter, through the house AC wiring to earth ground (not good!).
ELEVATED ATU
Elevating the ATU with just the coax connection and no separate ground wire will cause the elevated portion of coax to radiate due to the RF current flowing to ground on the outside of the coax shield. The RF ground loss resistance will likely be fairly high and is essentially unpredictable. It depends on the length of the coax laying on the ground and the RF ground resistance of the wiring inside the house.
Elevating the ATU with a ground wire connected from the ATU to a ground rod/radial system below the ATU will lower the RF ground loss resistance and divert much of the RF current away from the coax. Range will improve. The ground wire will be in parallel with the coax shield to ground. RF current will be divided between the two paths according to the resistances of the two paths. A good measure of lightning surge protection will be provided by the added ground wire.
Even though the TH/ATU are FCC certified, I seriously doubt that they were tested with the antenna elevated to anywhere near the possible 100 ft implied by the length of the supplied coax. More likely they were certified with the coax laying on the floor of the screen room, right on top of the ground plane. This would mimic a similar real-world installation where the coax is run on the ground to a remote ATU with no elevation. In this configuration, even though there is a long transmission line, it can be easily argued that the "transmission line" doesn't contribute to the radiated signal, so it doesn't count in the 3-meter rule. However, when the ATU is elevated, the vertical portion of the coax will radiate, just like a separate ground wire will.
The few FCC NOUOs for part 15 AM have two things in common. First, there is never any mention of the transmitter make, model or the certification status. Second, there is almost always a paragraph describing the alternate part 15.219 rule and some description of the excess length of the ground lead. Just because the TH/ATU is certified does not automatically give a user a free pass on skirting the 15.219 rule.
On the plus side, there are still just a small fraction of all NOUOs issued to part 15 AM operators. FCC actions are initiated by complaints. The likelihood of complaints in the AM band are low. An NOUO is not a horrible thing. Just cooperate with the FCC and your case will be dropped.
Phil thanks for the info.
It's the posts like you have just made that will push me to buy an SS5000 when the time comes.
My ATU if you look at the pics I posted is 16 feet off the ground on the top of my house .
I have my ground wire running to my Transmitter so I don't go over the limit of ten meters . I started out with the ground running from the ATU down to the grounding Steak in the earth.
but MRAM cam up with the idea of using the Coax for the ground and I think it will work just fine. I would like to talk to you in person some time to discuss all of the issues that keep coming up.
What worries me about all of the Ground talks is I feel we are chasing away people who could join us in our venture to save radio with our network.
Anyway Phil if I email you my phone number would you be willing to chat about all of this . Also I would like to interview you live on my station to get some of the ideas out to the public about Part 15 Broadcasting.
Again thanks for the post.
-----------------------
Now for the rest of you guys 🙂
Don't get upset when you read this , I respect each and everyone of you , but I want to make a point.
Part 15 Certification is not always necessary .
if you ponder this as a Ham Operator consider some of the things I am saying.
If I build a ten meter rig and amp and antenna I don't worry about being legal because I am following the rules that were set out.
Should I have an issue with interference then the FCC will visit me.
with respect I will fix what ever the issue is and as long as it does not interfere with anyone then all is good in the FCC's eyes.
You see guys I don't want to wait for a fcc certified system , I read the rules and I follow them to a T in my eyes.
Should an issue arise I will be more than happy to work with the FCC to fix the issue. I don't need anyone to hold my hand with a FCC Cert on a transmitter.
I will do what I truly feel is right and should the FCC and I disagree then I will ask the Agent to take a reading on his hardware and compare my hardware to his and deal with the issue and ask the FCC to take another look.
I am more than happy to work with the FCC as they are the bottom line in our rules and regs .
But sitting here going over and over on the same thing is not getting anything done.
The Talking House Part 15 ATU is very good and works very well.
Is is an elegant way to approach the final stage of a transmitter.
I don't care if it has FCC certs or not. I am in charge of my station and responsible for all aspects of it. I am not going to run to mommy if the FCC does not agree with me . I wont pull the , Oh the FCC Cert on this transmitter means it should pass.
It is our job to read the rules and follow them.
Just paying for a cert does not take that away.
You may or may not agree with my install of the ATU . The FCC may or may not agree with my install. but should they feel the need to test my system and it does not pass , it is not Info Systems fault , It is mine.
I am very serious about this part 15 stuff and I have goals and dreams of saving radio, I don't want to get caught up with all of this stuff.
each one of us has to take responsibly , You may not agree with me and my install, but I feel I am on the right path and I hold no issue with the FCC should they take a different look on my install.
My Ground and antenna are legal in my opinion .
weather you agree or not does not really matter to me.
I think this ground talk is a waist of time and we should be working on making radio better for all and not trying to one up each other on these forums.
take care.
"Just once, it would be nice to have a meaningful discussion without all the hyperbole."
I totally agree. And one heck of a statement from someone who does not have to worry about this specific issue regarding a missing OET document and dealing with the rules of the USA.
However AR, I and other citizens here in the US can't just sit comfortably across a border and make such statements when it's our rear on the line.
NO, missing documents is NOT a normal thing for an agency equipped with enough sophistication and technology they spend 20 grand on field meters.
Don't hand out nonsense when you know its nonsense. Only one fool ends up showing themselves.
And you really think the FCC was working with punch card records and typewriters and did not have computer databases for the last 20 years?
Sure something can slip through cracks when transferring extremely large databases. But it is incredibly and highly unlikely that a specific document would be, or two as mentioned about the Hamilton OET document that "slipped" somehow in a transfer.
Ya your right, members of the forum are not the FCC. Yep, so perhaps others might consider that too.
This is no witch hunt. I love it how some like to create false premise by elaborate wording of pure nonsense.
Amazing. What other round and round will be next?
Around and around we go...and in the center is the spot where that missing document is..or was..and is not now..but should be.
It is clear what the "big deal" is. And perhaps it's much too big for the non FCC people of the forum to handle.
But nothing is required in asking to see a document, and then ask why is it missing. And forgive me for being blunt AR, but I as a US citizen of this country bound by it's laws and regulations, I have the right to question my government and any of its agencies that hold their thumb over me.
I also have the right to question something I see suspicious in a regulating system of this nation I live in that is missing certain pieces of information that is supposed to be there, and can be so easily replaced immediately by the copies from the originating companies as well as the testing companies that submitted said document by either emailing or mailing the OET a new copy, or providing one for us out here by merely asking for it.
So ya AR, what's the big deal man!
I rest my case completely on this here at Part 15 forum.
All I ask is for clarity. Yet clarity continues to be clouded by clutter.
So sad.
RFB
If the mailman brought a letter that made you upset would you attack the mailman?
This discussion about FCC documentation, certified transmitters, technical definitions and regulations, is EXACTLY what this website is set up to accommodate. Therefore this thread should be regarded as being "on topic" and entirely central to the whole spirit of part 15.
But I hear strong criticisms toward some of the members for having the opinions they have and for standing up for those opinions. Messengers are being attacked.
When civil discourse becomes uncivil, the problem is no longer a part 15 problem.
I had some catching up to do while i have been away it looks at though i missed a lot. So this is about the atu and the long run of coax being certified. The way i see it, the certification has been proven.
Now i saw a question asked about the coaxial cable used to bridge the gap between the transmitter and atu , whether it radiates or not.
Sure it does, the common 75 ohm tv/cable was created with reception in mind. In other words it is usually more at home when connected between a receiver and antenna, be it radio/t.v. or cable.
Even though cable companies are under strict fcc rules governing how much of their signal can radiate the bottom line is 75 ohm coax is meant to receive but amazingly works pretty well for broadcasting. So if this coax is used to transmit and radiates a portion of the Medium Wave signal, wouldn't it be safe to say that if that cable was buried a foot or more into the soil that would dampen or attenuate the radiated signal to a reasonable level?
I believe it would. Now i am not saying go out and rent a ditch witch this very evening and dig your yard up but if the cable was buried even a foot under the soil a sensitive field strength meter should provide proof whether or not the soil was providing additional shielding to satisfy most FCC field agents and we can sleep better at night knowing we did all that was humanly possible to stay compliant.
On a much better note, after doing some work under the mobile home i live in i was able to spot a very nice ground wire and conduits connecting my homes wiring to the breaker box. Guess i could run something down there and maybe just maybe make use of my SStran transmitter. Time will tell.
Now shake hands and let's have a beer.
Until next time, Keep on rockin!
Thanks for the encouragement!
Without me getting into too many whys and wherefores, I'd appreciate comments on the following idea for an "Armed Forces Radio Service" at a future WWII reenactment weekend.
Equipment: TH5.0 with internal antenna; mp3 program source (predefined playlist for unattended operation), audio mixer and mic (for occasional live announcements).
As the 'barracks' where I will be housed is probably a suboptimal location for the internal antenna (even extending it out of a window), I propose parking my 1991 VW Vanagon Camper nearby, placing all of the equipment inside (with the TH 5.0 near the underside of the fiberglass roof, and running the antenna wire outside (suspending it in some manner or using a PVC pipe to hold it up).
110VAC power will arrive at the vehicle via an outdoor grounded extension cord plugged into the vehicle's RV electrical recepticle (the ground of which is also bonded to the vehicle frame and body).
The TH5.0 power supply and any other powered devices will be plugged into the built-in 110VAC sockets inside the vehicle.
Questions:
1. Theoretically at least, is this the sort of non-ATU configuration that could be expected to produce good results?
2. With the antenna now outside the building, will reception inside suffer significantly?
3. With this installation, is there anything to be gained by using a 102-108" CB whip antenna connected to the Internal Antenna terminal of the TH5.0 with a short piece of wire (assuming this will work at all) in place of the 3 meter indoor antenna wire?
I realize that the 'mantra' is "Just go out and try it," but me being a radio-theory babe-in-the-woods your thoughts will help me noodle out possible reasons (and solutions) if this idea doesn't produce good results.
TIA
-Blaine
What I expect is that putting the transmitter/antenna in the camper will provide far better signal coverage to the surrounding area than if the antenna was attached to the building.
I also expect that your indoor reception will be very strong and satisfying.
If your transmitter location is slightly above the surrounding terrain, the distance will improve, but if you are in a depression, with hills rising around you, the distance will be reduced.