- Posts
I want to know what is so secretive regarding the detailed exhibits for the iAM/THII and the Rangemaster.
I want to know what is so secretive regarding the detailed exhibits for the iAM/THII and the Rangemaster.
why are these two companies seem to be trying to hard to not give up that data. why were they not posted in the oet database???
there is nothing proprietary about test setup photo’s test setup data sheets showing the results, photo’s showing the DUT and it’s test setup conditions.
i hope hamilton and radio systems reads this and decides to correct these issues and put the matter to bed.
for an example of the documentation we are looking for see the procaster documentation linked here…
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=708900&fcc_id=%27VCJ-AMTX100%27this is the same data that we are looking for on the Rangemaster and iAM.
Hamilton and Radio Systems might garner more customers for their part 15 units if they were to supply this documentation to the public for review so we can ascertain from the FCC documentation what is the legal manner in which these transmitters were certified and therefore what the actual legal installation would look like.
IT’S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE!!!!!
THIS IS NOT TRADE SECRETS OR PROPRIETARY INFO!!!!
this is documentation both manufacturers should have in a file drawer or on computer somewhere in their respective companies this is not documentation that should suddenly disappear.
SO ONCE MORE SHOW ME THE RADIOFAX!!!!
Total posts : 45366there is only one reason i can think of as to why that documentation would be pulled from public view and kept secret by both the fcc and manufacturers and it does not bode well for owners of these transmitters. the FCC is most likely pulled the documentation pending an investigation and review of the certification of these transmitters and possible revocation of their FCC certification which means if that were to happen all these transmitters would suddenly be illegal to use because the FCC will have said the transmitters no longer meet the specifications of part 15 and would need to be redesigned and recertified again to meet part 15 regulations.
I FEEL I HAVE NOW MADE MY POINT IN THE MATTER!!!!
personally i will not be buying new or used nor will i be using either companies products till this little matter is cleared up.
i feel i would be putting my other FCC licenses in jeopardy and risking a NOUO or NAL for using these products in a non compliant matter and/or which may have already had their certification revoked or whos certification is under review for possible revocation.
it is up to each one of you as individuals to chose how you want to proceed with this thought i just laid out in this thread and decide whether or not you want to take the risks involved.
now i went through this once before ten years ago with the hamuilton and it’s missing documentation. it seems history is repeating itself again ten years later. same events just different names involved.
THIS WILL BE MY LAST THOUGHT ON THE SUBJECT.
i have thrown up enough warnings and red flags.
it’s up to each user to decide how compliant they wish to be and what kind of a risk they care to take by installing these in a manner that may not be legal or by using something whos certification may already be pulled or in the process of being pulled.
Total posts : 45366That is exactly the results you should get for the TH/iAM/ATU unit as well. Unfortunately we don’t.
And please note everyone, those wonderful photos of the setup during the testing!! Amazing isn’t it! Let’s see…a test vertically, a test horizontally. I can’t imagine how that would be done in a test chamber with an ATU mounted 300 feet up. I don’t think that testing chamber’s roof is tall enough, or even long enough for the horizontal test phase.
Turn the page.
RFB
Total posts : 45366If some believe that photos of the test setup are helpful and demand to see them then that is their privilege.
But for me:
Point 1: If the EUT is being evaluated for compliance with 15.219 then the radiated field strength is not a factor and for the testing it doesn’t matter where, if, or how the EUT is grounded in terms of how this will affect field strength. This is because the grounding is a matter of installation and is not inherent in the in the device itself. The question then is if the manufacturer, in the submitted device manual, gives instructions on grounding which involve long leads has the FCC given an exemption by accepting the manual?
Point 2: The certification testing done in a laboratory is designed to assess the EUT on compliance with the various technical standards of the Part 15 rules. All that can be said with certainty is that the device meets the requirements in the test configuration. Having a picture of this to use as a defense for compliance in another configuration doesn’t seem to prove anything. It comes down to the fact that if the FCC accepts the device for certification then the FCC needs to consider this during a “station” inspection, but will they? Regardless of the test configuration, if the device is installed according to the rules there should be no problem.
Is it the responsibility of the manufacturers to publicly provide the test data when this is the function of the FCC? It would be a nice gesture on their part but the responsibility for this falls on the FCC. If the information has been intentionally suppressed then there must be made available a valid explanation from the FCC about this.
Neil
Total posts : 45366i received this reply from someone who has intimate knowledge of the iAM. i can’t reveal who, the entire contents of reply, etc, but i have cut and paste the relative comments to this discussion which seems to add another layer of controversy to the issue.
QUOTE
====================================================================
I do know the transmitter and ATU was certified as a combined “system” and was accepted by the FCC.I do know about some missing data from the FCC OET database and while I’m not at liberty to discuss the particular circumstances in relation to this, I can say it’s known to the FCC and there are certain checks and balances in place of the missing information (which includes TH, Hamilton and probably MS100).
====================================================================
END QUOTEagain i can not reveal who made this statement but this was from a reliable source
Total posts : 45366Uh ha , I have seen emails that talk about how the TH ATU is tested . I am not going to go into it here , But it has been tested and is legal.
Weather you believe it or not I don’t care.That also being said , I don’t need an FCC Certified device as I am the captain of my ship and I also understand how the FCC Laws work. Thus I am responsible for my station no matter what device I use.
I can build a device and use it for broadcasting with no FCC Cert and should someone complain then the FCC will test my output and if it is not over the legal limit it will pass period.
Should it be over the legal limit I will get a warning and I will have a choice to fix it or shut it off or face a large fine.
That is what you need to know. All the rest is just a game.
You can either agree or disagree ,it makes no difference to me.
This FCC Cert for devices talk is a waist of time and we should be working on getting the laws to help us not taking the same old scaredy cat approach .
Total posts : 45366Of course you are right, Lefty. You and we are the captains of ship.
Until we are boarded by pirates, that is. But I only say that for dramatic effect.
But kc8gpd is contributing a valuable service by tracking and reporting, regarding the very intriguing subject.
Nobody is being accused of part 15 violation, but perhaps that thought creeps in sometime.
My transmitters are not certified, but I am confident that I am legal because these signals don’t go anywhere.
I just hope I don’t get institutionalized for “thinking” I have a radio station. It’s real, honest, it’s just very small.
Total posts : 45366“This FCC Cert for devices talk is a waist of time and we should be working on getting the laws to help us not taking the same old scaredy cat approach .”
I’m gonna say this one more time. It is OUR RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY to get involved and seek answers.
Some might want to just accept face value circumstance and just go along to get along. Well fine for those who ride the wind like the loose leaf of a tree.
Those accepting this..circumstance, please do not try to dump your acceptance onto those who want the truth.
Don’t attempt to define my rights or anyone elses. You can define the limits of your own. You can be satisfied with the bits and pieces that does not answer the question but merely creates more suspicion and more questions.
And somewhere along the line, someone out here who is hard pressed to divert and fragment the point, the question is and always was…where is the missing information.
In other words, it’s someone else who lit the fuse of it’s certified be happy with that, and the next moment the core question gets buried and diverted..like a diversion op, happens all the time in forums where there is something suspicious brought to the light.
People saying “ya I know but I can’t divulge anything” is pure BS nonsense. What are they trying to cover up eh? Instead of getting the right answer, all thats offered are beat around the bush responses that link to more questionable actions that suddenly come out of the woodwork like roaches after dark.
What is good for one is not necessarily good for another. If I am not satisfied with the current answers being tossed up onto the wall, than I or anyone else has the right to dig deeper and get to the truth.
Yes the transmitter and ATU have a certification. Yes its got a grant authorization. Yes its been on the market for years. But so was that OET documentation.
And some of you don’t find that even the slightest of concern when just a few years ago this very same similar situation put a lot of 15.219’ers out to pasture, ya and that unit was certified too and installed per the instructions or “rules” as some put it like as if an installation manual are the rules.
Might want to get the head out of the hole in the sand and realize there is a lot more to this than just missing pieces of information.
No one worry though, when the answers are found, we wont imply that we found something and hand you the lame excuse of “I’m not at liberty to divulge that information”.
RFB
Total posts : 45366For the good and future of the hobby I am dropping this topic and no longer participating in such similar discussions.
Enough info has been presented for anyone with slightest bit of grey matter to make an informed decision as to what kind of configurations are legal for a particular transmitter and site.
You have all been informed enough to accept the legal ramifications of your particular installation should the FCC do a inspection.
Total posts : 45366Sigh..
The hobby gets tense when it begins to become political (in my own lack of a better word).
As someone previously stated (RFB I think), “we are the captains”,
–and as such, we should strive to achieve our ventures in a true and legal fashion.
Are we going to war? Or are we simply enjoying our cruise?
All this banter is not feeling like a pleasure cruise.I don’t know. I’ve experimented and floated around the hobby for close to a decade now, and experienced these same circles of discussions that orbit but never actually land on an answer.
When it comes right down to it, we all must play with the hands we’re dealt. But the value of our cards doesn’t necessarily have any bearing on the outcome of the game, as any poker player knows.
AHH.. I don’t know if I’m making my point.
All I really intended to say was that I think the most beautiful comment made in this thread was when Carl said:
” My transmitters are not certified, but I am confident that I am legal because these signals don’t go anywhere.I just hope I don’t get institutionalized for “thinking” I have a radio station. It’s real, honest, it’s just very small. ”
Total posts : 45366Actually, I think the most intelligent comment was that it’s the FCC’s responsibility to provide the test documentation publicly. The devices cited all have FCC ID numbers – that means they’re certified (with their documentation, of course). Refer to the device’s user documentation re legal installation. THAT is the manufacturer’s sole responsibility.
If the devices are certified, that means that they are legal to use (in the manufacturer’s documented manner) until/if the FCC revokes the certification (which may just be a documentation issue).
You can go on and on with your OPINIONS and SPECULATION about why the test documentation isn’t in the OET database, you can talk all you want about your OPINIONS as to why it is your and my responsibility to be concerned. You can even give your technical OPINION as to why these devices should NOT be certified.
But the FACT (hint, hint) of the matter is that they ARE currently certified.
If one of the purposes of this Forum is to help newcomers to the hobby, and provide solid, FACTUAL information for those delving further into it, then these OPINIONS (to me, rather silly) are absolutely not doing this.
Those that are doing this obviously have their reasons, but it’s not helping either the hobby or this Forum.
Total posts : 45366“But the FACT (hint, hint) of the matter is that they ARE currently certified.”
Here are some facts to ponder on.
Currently it is a FACT that there is missing official information as to the validity of that certification.
Currently FOIA requests for the entire documentation are filed.
We will soon see what is FACT and what is FICTION.
Until then, nothing anyone else says or does or preaches or teaches, I will wait for the official and REAL factual answers.
Thank you.
Question, non related…well sort of.
Why during the hunt for missing info, it was discovered that information could not be found in the IC database either?
Just some more FACTS.
RFB
Total posts : 45366RFB You just re opened the wound.
Once JP Put an end to this nonsense I felt like we could just move on and was going to continue with things as normal.That is not the case now.
Statement coming.
Total posts : 45366I reopened what? I merely stated FOIA requests are filed and answers soon to come. And noted other finds during the research.
Perhaps noting time stamps of posts might be a “clue”.
But your entitled to your interpretation.
RFB
Total posts : 45366I’m only going to state this once to all involved. This matter is finished pending the results of the foia.
This topic is done and when we see the results of foia,request this matter as a whole will be done.
No more debating back and forth over this nonsense.
It is getting nowhere.
Till we see the foia everyone run there ship how they choose and deal with any consequences from your decison.
This has gone on Kong enough.
Just have patience and answers will come.
If you want to do something then as I suggested earlier file an foia on your end as well.
But either way this matter is finished.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
