We know there was an informant, but I don't know who it is, but thought you might know, with your many connections in radio technology.
As far as the date of your analysis is concerned, it could have been of use to the fcc in their initial investigation of the case.
I recall from the history of these forums that you have always exhibited a keen interest in the long ground lead infractions, such as those leading to the bringdown of many Hamilton Rangemaster installations including the KENC case.
Ultimately, informing the fcc of a suspected pirate station is not illegal, whereas exceeding the Part 15 strictures is a rule violation.
My interest is to finally meet and have an open exchange with one of the stalkers who report small stations to the fcc.
So, the short story is the field strength measured was questionable for a Part 15.219 compliant installation.
That led to an inspection which determined the antenna system did not meet Part 15.219 requirements.
Therefore, not meeting Part 15.219 requirements, Part 15.209 is the only other option and the measured field strength exceeded Part 15.209.
Case closed.
What is the identity and motive of the complainant?
That is also part of the NOUO.
Is there a reason it can't be discussed?
How many Part 15 stations get reported to the FCC that waste inspecting agent's time because those stations are found to be compliant?
It is a major part of the Part 15 hobby to question who is using us for sport so they can paper their wall with NOUOs, like fisherman holding up a trout in a photograph.
Part 15 hobbyists are open and honest, but the complaints are placed by secretive suspicious figures who escape scrutiny.
Carl Blare wrote: I recall from the history of these forums that you have always exhibited a keen interest in the long ground lead infractions, ...
That is incorrect, Carl. My interest is not in such "infractions," or the reporting of same to the FCC. A careful read of my posts will show this.
My chief interest is in posting information not specific to any site or operator about how the use of long, radiating conductors between the transmitter chassis and an r-f ground reference buried in the earth might lead to an FCC citation, as in the case shown in this thread.
I would think that unlicensed operators wanting to comply with Part 15 AM would be grateful for such information, rather than characterizing it as anti Part 15 (as some have posted).
The very foremost ABCs of Part 15 life are the 3-meter recitation about ground lead, antenna, etc.
No one supposes that a long ground lead would be anything but non-compliant. It's an argument that isn't taking place.
By bringing it up from time to time it seems like an unasked question is being answered.
Anyway, I am openly interested in talking about people who file complaints. It may not be illegal to file a complaint, but if it is a service to keeping the radio waves safe, why is it done in secret as if wrong?
In today's NOUO who complained and why?
This may have already been answered in the past, but now I'm wondering what the maximum field strength of a compliant, Part 15 AM system would be?
iirc @ 175m it was stated by ermi roos over on HB.net that 1300uV/m is the maximum theoretical f/s limit eminating from a compliant ground mounted 15.219 installation.
this was in response to the gaule nouo.
ermi hangs (so far as i know) out and reads here (and occasionally posts here) so maybe he will have some further comments or maybe rich will.
the outstanding question remains how a TH and ATU would be interpreted by an inspecting agent when the units are elevated on say the porch of a multi dwelling unit like (2nd floor or higher) an apartment and ungrounded except for the AC electrical grounding which i would believe should have been considered as part of certification approval. i know at ground level grounded or ungrounded they would pass. we need a test case that has not been tainted by prior or concurrent illegal operations as was the case with two recent nouo involving the talking house.
In the NOUO linked above it states
UNLICENSED OPERATION OF THIS RADIO STATION MUST BE DISCONTINUED IMMEDIATELY.
The problem with this statement is that it intimates or infers that if licensed, the station would be allowed to continue in operation. But as we well know, there is no license available, so this language is entirely disingenuous on the part of the federal agency.
The simplest case for compliant, unlicensed systems/operators in the US is defined by FCC §15.209 (not that such low fields in the MW band accurately can be measured outside a screen room).
An alternate set of conditions for compliant, unlicensed AM systems/operators in the US is described by FCC §15.219 -- which does not limit the field intensity, only the input power of the transmitter, and the total radiating length of the conductors in the antenna system.
This performance distinction is rather subtle, which is the reason leading to posts on this subject with the goal of proving and illustrating that distinction to present/future operators of such unlicensed systems wanting to comply with Part 15.
An unlicensed system in functional compliance with FCC §15.219 can produce much higher fields at a given distance in the horizontal plane than permitted by an unlicensed system in functional compliance with FCC §15.209.
The issue for such operators is the recognition of whether or not their system as installed/operated actually is compliant with at least one of those sets of rules for unlicensed operation in the AM broadcast band.
The NOUO of interest brings attention to Oswego, Illinois, about which history tells us, "The land was officially owned by the local Potowatomi, Ottawa, and Chippewa tribes but the U.S. Government removed the Native Americans."
Mass graves for good grounding.
Carl Blare wrote:
In the NOUO linked above it states
UNLICENSED OPERATION OF THIS RADIO STATION MUST BE DISCONTINUED IMMEDIATELY.
The problem with this statement is that it intimates or infers that if licensed, the station would be allowed to continue in operation.
Carl, apparently you missed the sentence in that NOUO pasted below. The FCC did not intimate or infer that this station was unlicensed by the FCC, they stated so as a matter of fact.
"The Commission's records show that no license was issued for operation
of a broadcast station at this location on 1600 kHz in Oswego, Illinois."
Given Ermi's data, that is equivalent to about 2600uv/m at the same distance as the station cited.
I know that rules are rules, but we're only talking here about a factor of between 3 to 4 out of compliance, not factors of 100's or 1,000's, as is the case with many pirates. You'd think that the FCC would have bigger fish to fry.
The couple named in the NOUO are Edwin & Teresita Ruiz.
It's always possible that their programming annoyed the neighbors.
Neither is it evident that they had a Part 15 transmitter.
If they are related to the Native Americans who were removed from the area by the U.S. government the NOUO may represent a second removal.