Forgive the top posting - note the interpolations.

On Aug 26, 10:43*pm, Syl wrote:

Thanks. Several of those specs do bring questions though as they aren't
properly defined (unless they are in the full FCC documentation ?

Well, not really - what the FCC requires is apart from many of the
specifications shown. Example: US Federal requirements on automobiles
write to certain requirements - leather seats is not one of them. Part
15 writes to certain requirements - Accepting stereo inputs,
broadcasting 20hz - 20khz, and very low distortion are not amongst
them. They are the leather seats.

a) Just what "very low distortion" means ? To me, very low distortion
would be 0,001% as a minimum. But I understand that in the real world
of transmitters, 0,1% is probably considered very low distortion figures
? This based on the presumption that attaining 0,001% distortion figures
is easier to attain than using tube technology. Correct me if I am wrong.

In the specifications - which you have to dig further into the site to
find. However from my discussions with Phil, that VLD is relative to
most commercial broadcasters and also a function of the much broader
bandwidth.

b) Adjustable compressor/limiter. To what levels ?

Also in the specifications.

c) High Quality PC Board and Components. Does this means the
homebrewer can't use Chinese made parts [grin]

I am not so sure how to answer that question. I have seen homebrewers
use the functional equivalent of Venusian water buffalo poop in their
rigs - as long as it meets the radiation requirements of Part 15, I am
not so sure the Feds will care. Phil sources his parts from all over
the place - but many of the custom parts are made locally - not in
China.


Of course I do not mean to start a discussion on these points,
merely thinking out loud...;o)

You mean that you are not taking a page from Mr. Byrns' book and
attempting to poison the waters around what should be a pretty simple
discussion? ;-{ 0

But...I now better understand the requirements for part 15. As It shows,
the only difference between a commercial unit and a homebrewer's is the
latter does not have to pay labs testing and approval for his
"concoction" whereas the former (the manufacturer) has to have the FCC
seal of approval and the of course the onerous fee(s) along with the
approval tag.

Something like that.

I wonder how the FCC manages the homebrewer's "concoctions", other
than reacting to complaint(s) ? I suspect this is what happened
to the kit builder whom got fined sometime ago ?

Basically, the FCC (as it is presently constituted) is a dumping
ground for political hacks owed a small favor and the sons of wealthy
political hacks owed a larger favor. There is not a scintilla of
competence throughout its political-appointee management and hasn't
been for perhaps the last 6 - 20 years (maybe much longer), depending
on whose ox was gored most recently. For the most part, its
regulations are written so vaguely that the adage "Money talks, the
rest walks" covers their behavior. The individual who was assembling
SSTRANs for resale got fined by the FCC because a competitor selling a
fully-assembled product WITH the FCC compliance certificate at over
10X the cost felt threatened and injured - and had the money and was
paying the fees to get action.

It is interesting to note that said kit-builder is back and has done
the thing he should have done in the first place to be in full
compliance with Part 15 (not sell assembled transmitters) yet still
perform the service for his customers - so simple and so obvious that
he missed it for years and was fined. He is now bullet-proof in that
sense. Care to guess how he is doing it?

Put it this way, every single solitary AM transmitter *KIT* sold in
the United States today for single-house use from Vectronics to Ramsey
to SSTRAN to the L'il 7 et.al. that calls itself "Part 15 compliant"
is subject to the same regulations. It is my opinion based on my
experience with most of them that the SSTRAN happens to be the most
convenient unit to use and short of a parts-box home-brew represents
the best value-for-money in addition to its convenience. That Phil is
a distant neighbor and a decent guy does not change any of that.

As the "other" Phil notes, the FCC reacts to complaints. If the
complainer is of the party-in-power and also has money may affect the
speed and effectiveness of their response - though not necessarily.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA