i love Niels outdoor setup. he has a very good prototype for a certified p15am there.
i wish he would take the experiment to the next level when he perfects that one which is to try cquam under 15.219 using what he learned from his present setup.
"Absolutely, and I referred favorably to Neil's outdoor setup earlier here."
Yes I did read that and recognize you did refer to Neil's latest setup.
What about that nifty shinny tractor eh! Impressive I think!
But you see, you do not live on Neil's property or anywhere near his location. Although Neil's latest setup is an excellent example for a system built based on your simulations for ground mounted 3 meter antennas and ground systems, the measured results with Neil's system, yes the real world results, cannot be applied to everyone's location and setup.
There is that simple fact that every installation location is going to be different, be it with ground conductivity, nearby objects like buildings or trees that will affect the antenna system, ie environment variables which indeed can have a wide difference from location A to location Z.
The more information compiled, the wider prospective and wider the knowledge base becomes.
That's all that is meant by asking you to build a system and present that data with the simulation data. To expand the knowledge base and information out here.
Come join the fun Rich. It really can be a lot of fun, no matter what the paper or sim says. Just doing is where most of the enjoyment comes from.
Hope soon you reconsider.
RFB
A non answer, Rich.
First you advocate strict adherence to the Part 15 rules.
But when called on it, now you're saying that the wording of the rules doesn't matter?
Which is it?
I guess that you feel that it's only YOUR interpretation of said rules that matters, as opposed to anyone else's, including the FCC inspectors (who have passed grounds that don't meet your definition in the past).
To everyone else - I suggest that this guy be ignored. No matter what his background really is, he's obviously only posting to irritate. Typical trollish behavior.
And remember, like squirrels, racoons and other pests, the more that you feed trolls, the more that they come back.
There is a curious intersection between RF engineering and the FCC rules.
Can RF engineers be trusted to interpret rules that by definition exist in the world of law?
Don't you suppose we need a specialized attorney to give us the final opinion?
Do we have an attorney here at part15.us?
Well why not. Where are those attorneys. I imagine they are sniffing down the money.
Engineers, on the other hand, have idle time because of cutbacks in their profession.
But the same downgrading of profession is happening in law. Attorneys are being placed more and more in league with secretaries and may soon be arriving here.
In some situations lately, both seem to be in a state of flux, twists and tangles.
Interpretations are pinpointed so much that the entire point becomes lost.
RFB
Strict interpretation of anything written on a piece of paper is impossible. I learned that while dealing with contracts while working for Microsoft.
You can have a technical interpretation, a legal interpretation, probably many others, and then, most importantly, the real-world interpretation. Which can change, based on individual circumstances. And it's the latter which is enforced by the FCC and Industry Canada. And, if you're lucky, judges in a court of law.
I have been a ham radio operator for years and have a lot of radio knowledge. It appears that my comments have not been posted ? I have communicated with and through the ISS space station ETC. Your loss as I can help others time for me to move along. Final comment admin will not return comments to me.
I have tested SIRUS Starmate receiver and it is 3x over radiating for part 15.
Have a nice day.