"My point being we are in charge of our stations and all this stuff asking for proof of certification is not necessary."
And MY point is that I am in charge of my station, and its my ass if I ignore the rules. And if it takes seeing certification documents, which BTW MRAM, what is shown DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION FOR ME, then as the one being responsible and the one that hangs over my station's compliance or not, it's not any of you that will answer for it, I have the frigging right to see the answers that I am looking for. OK guys?
Now since there seems to be agreement that each of us is in charge of our stations, and we most certainly agree that is is our own butts that are on the line, and others are happy with hint and probable answers, then none of you who say "this is good enough" should even be out here saying anything further about the issue. But that is not what has happened, is it.
So why are some of you hell bent on trying to convince anyone else that they do not need to validate their concerns for their sakes?
If your content with the bits and pieces which don't specify a damned thing to the question at hand, fine..go play radio and be happy.
Just don't declare all is settled for everyone. None of you will be there if my station get's tagged because I went by your words and not the facts or half pint tid bit nonsense that does not answer the question.
DON'T TREAD ON ME!.
RFB
"If I am now correctly retaining the information, the one general question remains: defining a final RF stage."
I do not believe that Part 15.us, its members or staff, are part of the standards committee.
Until clear definition is announced, by something more official, it's all nothing but assumptions with no validity.
Plenty of assuming going on lately over this thing.
I don't care what a patent paper says, or instruction manual says. That's not something coming from the standards, or the FCC, or Santa Claus, though some want to still believe that too.
What happened to the drive for truth, accurate information? I seem to remember being scolded once by a moderator here about this place providing accurate information.
Well to date, nothing presented to answer the question has been "accurate".
And anyone with a pre school education can surely see that.
So for the sake of providing accurate information, I think this time both this forum, and some members, have failed that protocol miserably.
In the meantime, the transmitter and ATU sit in their boxes and will sit there until "I" am satisfied with the answers I am looking for.
And it is apparent those answers are elsewhere.
I prefer facts, not fiction.
RFB
RFB Send them to me , I will put them to use .
Except for the question of how high can the ATU be mounted, what do you search for?
The submitted data, the data used by the FCC to grant certification, includes the use of the ATU.
The submitted data, the data used by the FCC to grant certification, includes the statement defining the ATU as the final output stage.
The submitted data, the data used by the FCC to grant certification, includes the use of 8 meters of coax.
By virtue of the FCC ID affixed to the equipment and the data submittal, this system is FCC certified for Part 15 use.
Please tell me what it is you are searching for. When taken at face value, the submittal and subsequent grant of certification certifies this system; a transmitter called Talking House, the ATU connected to the transmitter with at least 8 meters of coax per the submittal, nothing more. It does not spell out how high you can mount the ATU.
If I inadvertantly misled some to think the ATU could be put 300 feet in the air by showing the InfoSpot information found on the ISS website, sorry but people draw their own conclusions. ISS only says "use up to 300 feet" of coax. They don't say how high.
As an Electronics Instructor I was responsible for helping people understand principles of operation. To do that sometimes it takes presenting the information several different ways before the light bulb finally comes on.
I'm am truly out of ways to present this.
"Please tell me what it is you are searching for."
Does this really have to be asked?
What is being sought after are the photographs of the units as they were set up for the certification testing.
I don't want to see patent info, I don't want to see
owners/install manuals, I don't want cut and paste quotes from
company reps, I want to see the photos of the test setup as
required by the testing procedures that gets submitted for
approval..and they all have to have the photos.
It's a simple request, with a simple answer. Unfortunately
that simple answer remains elusive..and obviously not a simple
answer to get.
No one would be raising a stink if someone wanted to see the
photos of the Procaster setup, or a WholeHouse FM setup, or a
C-Crane setup...why...because those documents contain the
PHOTOS of the devices as they were set up for the testing.
Again, the answer is simple. The path to that answer however
is obviously not simple. It continues to be side stepped and
danced around.
And unfortunately those who are throwing out here what they
are being given is not the correct answer either. Not their
fault, but the faults of those providing everything else other
than the correct answer.
Sorry but the 25,000 dollar answer to the 25,000 question has
not been correctly answered. BZZZZZZZZZ!
Next.
RFB
The photos you search for will only satisfy the physical mounting of the ATU which seems to be your concern. Is that it? Is that what is driving your refusal of the facts? To make light of everything else?
You continuously point to the words of the company rep and patent info presented.
Why do you ignore the official FCC certification from the FCC website which I posted. And I have not posted info from the user "manual" rather I have posted the supporting documentation sent to the FCC by which they granted the certification.
One more time: My point is the FCC certified the unit with ATU and 8 meters of coax. No one is insinuating you can mount the ATU 27 feet, 50 feet or 300 feet in the air. You yourself claim to have first hand knowledge of the standard OET testing procedure. So let's run with that.
How silly to purchase the equipment and "leave it in the box". Where is the antenna mounted you currently use? Is it legal? It must be at ground level. Then put the ATU in the same location. As Captain of your ship I'm sure you wouldn't dream of doing otherwise. Oh, did you ever find the strawberries?
You are the one engaging in a Grand Waltz to discredit this equipment by ignoring the facts presented. Is it your desire to make enough noise to attract the attention of the FCC so they might revoke the certificaton? Is this a grand scheme to destroy the simple priviledge the FCC has allowed?
You seem quite personable and dare I say reasonable when engaged in a vocal conversation. I quite frankly do not understand what your ententions are from behind a keyboard.
Earlier: Why do you ignore the official FCC certification from the FCC website which I posted. And I have not posted info from the user "manual" rather I have posted the supporting documentation sent to the FCC by which they granted the certification.
Just to point out that the only Part 15 certification documentation now publicly available for this unit from the FCC website is a single page, which does not detail the electrical/physical configuration, test procedure, or performance data submitted for their approval -- although such was required by the FCC and their certifying agent prior to FCC certification.
This detail should be a matter of public record for this product, just as it is for others.
None of that information has to violate the manufacturer's need to protect the detailed circuit designs and patents applying to such a product or system.
"The photos you search for will only satisfy the physical mounting of the ATU which seems to be your concern. Is that it? Is that what is driving your refusal of the facts? To make light of everything else?"
Your absolutely correct in as far as the specific information I am looking for. As to the statement of refusing facts, I have not refused any facts other than the facts presented to me are not the facts I am looking for, thus is the refusal to accept just those bits of facts when there are other parts of the facts missing.
"One more time: My point is the FCC certified the unit with ATU and 8 meters of coax. No one is insinuating you can mount the ATU 27 feet, 50 feet or 300 feet in the air. You yourself claim to have first hand knowledge of the standard OET testing procedure. So let's run with that."
Ok lets run with that. Anyone who studies something long enough can be considered having first hand knowledge of whatever it is being studied. After many studies of many certification documents available for anyone to look at..or at least they are supposed to be available for anyone to look at..you can begin to see that all of them have a certain similarity, like the requirements called for to be in the submitted documentation sent to the OET for review etc.
I don't dare say that the FCC and OET have changed the standard testing protocols required to be followed before the testing lab submitted the document for consideration that an exception was granted the iAM/ATU units to leave a few of those required protocols out.
"How silly to purchase the equipment and "leave it in the box". Where is the antenna mounted you currently use? Is it legal? It must be at ground level. Then put the ATU in the same location. As Captain of your ship I'm sure you wouldn't dream of doing otherwise. Oh, did you ever find the strawberries?"
Oh so now we move from the point of missing information to attack the one asking why it's missing, then on to making open assumption about what I do or not do with gear sitting in a box and why it's not in use, calling it "silly" because I want to see some simple photographs of how the thing was set up when tested?
Let me ask you something, is it so painful for you or Lefty or anyone else that I insist on seeing information that is supposed to be there but isn't? Is there a reason why YOU want ME to accept YOUR satisfaction in partial facts?
"You are the one engaging in a Grand Waltz to discredit this equipment by ignoring the facts presented. Is it your desire to make enough noise to attract the attention of the FCC so they might revoke the certificaton? Is this a grand scheme to destroy the simple priviledge the FCC has allowed?"
Ok now you stepped WAY out of line here. I demand right now you show us all and quote it with the "blue words" where I discredited this transmitter and its ATU. Don't go creating false perceptions and false stores up. Now your attempting to shift the focus from missing information to attempted discrediting of someone who is simply looking for answers for his own use.
And once you don't find that accusation you made anywhere in my posts, I then demand an open public apology.
"You seem quite personable and dare I say reasonable when engaged in a vocal conversation. I quite frankly do not understand what your ententions are from behind a keyboard."
My.."ententions" are simple. Find the missing information I am looking for. As to others intentions going on right now, I cannot speak for them. I suggest you do the same.
ADDING: By the way, my AM station doesn't use a 3 meter antenna system. It is a carrier current station.
There is a 3 meter antenna system outside (home built). It serves as a backup and has a C-CUFF C-QUAM transmitter inside the outdoor box along with the loading coil and tuning cap. Mounted on a 5 foot fence pole dug 2 feet into the ground, leaving 3 feet above the surface and the box with the 9.8 foot long 1/2 copper rod is at the top, ground lug on outdoor box connected to 3 foot pole connected to 8 foot ground rod connecting to 10 10 foot long ground radials. And the last time I had that thing running is prior to completing the CC system installation and check out..which was more than 3 years ago.
RFB
Ok it is really simple .
don't use the TH ATU . I really don't care at all.
Have swell day.
This is not worth debating anymore.
It all started with your comments about needing the OET test data.
In my post afterward I referred to the ISS claim that seems to imply legally mounting on a pole with up to 300 feet of coax, not to say put it 300 feet in the air. And if you recall, I stated I was in agreement with you.
But alas, it seems you debate solely for the sake of debating with a twist rather than to arrive at a conclusion. The more data I found and posted the more fixated you became on the photos.
You spent money to put the ATU in the air and can't do it. Why? Because you don't know how to find the imfamous photos. Maybe the photos really don't exist.
Problem is, I still don't know what we disagree about.
Let's just agree to disagree and part aquaintances.
What is being sought after are the photographs of the units as they were set up for the certification testing.
I don't want to see patent info, I don't want to see
owners/install manuals, I don't want cut and paste quotes from
company reps, I want to see the photos of the test setup as
required by the testing procedures that gets submitted for
approval..and they all have to have the photos.
As someone who's read much of this and is now wholly confused, perhaps you could explain it to me. A few years ago, I was reading a similar argument about FCC certification of some equipment I was using, and I, too, was looking for the pictures. But I was looking for a specific thing, and the pictures themselves were available for 1 out of 5 products for the same manufacturer.
So, I, too, am wondering, what, precisely, would be in that picture that would matter? I see a transmitter in a box, a chunk of cable, an ATU and an antenna.
There's not multiple ways to hook it up, so that all seems real straightforward. What, then, could possibly the picture tell you that would be important?
mkoskenmaki
I am sorry you have had to read this as I feel this argument has chased away many of the people who were wanting real info about part15 AM/FM Broadcasting.
This argument will have many long term issues that will be felt for a long time.
It saddens me to see this entire argument go three to four pages of one upsmanship.
That being Said , I will continue to work with my TH/IAM/ATU.
Take care and I hope to see you around here for many months to come.
And I still recommend either the I AM Radio with ATU or SS Trans 5000's.
In Fact after talking with Phil at SS Trans I think the IAM ATU will work with the SS Trans 3000. Now there's a thought for ya 🙂
I finally stumbled across the part where he's wanting to know the physical location of the atu during testing. I've some small knowledge of what a number of people have gone through with getting FCC certification on part 15 devices. The FCC asks for data for all known combinations of parts and for data for all said combinations, and looks at the test for "highest possible eirp" and allows that, if it's compliant, and anything less than that. Since this is sold by the manufacturer ( doesn't matter if it's contracted to a builder in China, even, it matters if they're the ones responsible for design and production.
If the FCC tested this, then it's certfied, with the parts included. Period. If not, then the maker or marketer is liable, not the end user - and there's a whole raft of case examples to back that up. As we've seen before, trying to get real creative with "ground" wires and so on may or may not work for the individual agent.
Me? If I bought it, it would be installed with the antenna mounted at 12 feet above ground, planted on the metal building the transmitter would be inside of. From what I can tell, no FCC agent has a sufficiently sensitive FS meter to actually TELL if I'm exceeding allowed power by 20 or even 50%, and thus, they go simply by "installation". And if I am not obviously running an emitting wire (it was tested with coax) exceeding stated length, I can't imagine how they'd ever find a fault.
The part 15 practices tend to give a lot of leeway, so why is everyone blowing a gasket? Put it in, use it, and if your manual doesn't specify this or that, you're following all you can know. Besides, with 20 feet of coax to relocate the antenna, just how much "extra" could you possibly emit, anyway? Can't be that much.
Hi All,
I think we have beat this dead horse 10 feet into the ground so am going to close the comments on it (and a few other threads). If this is a really bad idea, please send me a note using the contact a member functionality and let me know why.
This isn't censorship, we are keeping the discussion - this one has meandered pretty far and wide from the posted topic. If a discussion is required about certification of a particular device, or pairing, please start another post.
I don't think it bears repeating but don't forget; only the FCC at the end of the day has the answer that you are all looking for and they are unlikely to give the question the time of day.
Jon Paul