Thomas Magma wrote:
I doubt that the FCC has the inclination, desire, or resources to try
to forbid or limit the use of antenna analyzers. If they did, they'd
have to start raiding labs all over the country and confiscating
multi-thousand-dollar vector network analyzers, S-parameter test sets,
and so forth.

A network analyzers is not marketed as an antenna analyzer, or even an
intentional radiator for that matter. I have a signal generator, an
amplifier and an antenna in my lab but it does not mean I can sweep the
entire LF to UHF bands at any wattage.

Then you need to get a better signal generator.

For a fourth: they *might* also qualify for legal use under Part
18 (Industrial, Scientific, and Medical Equipment). These devices can
also operate in most frequency bands (although there are several
subbands which are specifically authorized for them and are thus
recommended), subject to maximum-field-strength limits similar to
those specified for Part 15 devices.

I was just looking through Part 18 and it really is unclear to me, however
one thing was clear to me, ISM devices are prohibited for use in certain
bands. One of which is search and rescue. So now how can I test my ELT
antenna installation on my aircraft if I'm violating FCC rules?

You test it during the time window when testing ELT's is allowed.

Since such devices have been around in one form or another for longer
than most everybody currently alive and the FCC has shown no interest
in them to date, the empirical evidence is the FCC doesn't care about
them.

And for the nitpickers, yes if you hooked one to an antenna and left
it turned on for days, someone might start caring.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

A network analyzers is not marketed as an antenna analyzer, or even an
intentional radiator for that matter. I have a signal generator, an
amplifier and an antenna in my lab but it does not mean I can sweep the
entire LF to UHF bands at any wattage.

Then you need to get a better signal generator.


I meant "does not mean I can legally sweep the entire LF to UHF bands"


I was just looking through Part 18 and it really is unclear to me,
however
one thing was clear to me, ISM devices are prohibited for use in certain
bands. One of which is search and rescue. So now how can I test my ELT
antenna installation on my aircraft if I'm violating FCC rules?

You test it during the time window when testing ELT's is allowed.


This does not apply to the newer 406 ELT's that are currently being sold,
and which are monitored by very sensitive LEO, MEO and GEO satellites. A
band that is also recognized and protected by the ITU.

And for the nitpickers, yes if you hooked one to an antenna and left
it turned on for days, someone might start caring.


Hi Jim,

I'm not necessarily worried about interfering, disrupting or jamming other
receivers in the area, a fast sweeping 3 or 7 dbm CW would not likely
interfere. I am worried about what is legal and what is not legal.
Regulatory bodies such as the FCC/ITU do not use statements or issue
licenses under terms 'it's not likely to' or 'its not much of a concern',
they prefer to issue specific modulation types and field strengths.

Thomas

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:46:04 GMT, "Thomas Magma"
wrote:

I am worried about what is legal and what is not legal.

Hi Thomas,

Then sifting legal advice from ad-hoc postings is a poor remedy for
worry.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:46:04 GMT, "Thomas Magma"
wrote:

I am worried about what is legal and what is not legal.


If worried, write the FCC for clarification

Lots of folks here are guessing --- IMHO

Lamont

In message , The Shadow
writes


On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:46:04 GMT, "Thomas Magma"
wrote:

I am worried about what is legal and what is not legal.


If worried, write the FCC for clarification

Lots of folks here are guessing --- IMHO

Lamont

Asking for clarification is absolutely the last thing you want to do.
Have you never heard of 'Let sleeping dogs lie'? Most authorities (at
least in the UK) have a policy of "If in doubt, say no". Alternatively,
the response may come from some junior employee who has no idea what you
are talking about, and in case he/she is wrong, will simply give an
unconsidered "No" as a 'safe' answer.
--
Ian

I am worried about what is legal and what is not legal.

Hi Thomas,

Then sifting legal advice from ad-hoc postings is a poor remedy for
worry.


I agree with you, however this is not the intelligent answer I was looking
for.

I like to think there are people that participate in certain newsgroups that
are more knowledgeable on specific topics than I am. If I start asking
questions to the FCC or ITU it will be a huge drawn out process. I was
hoping someone knew the answer so I wouldn't have to go that route.

Thomas

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 19:59:05 GMT, "Thomas Magma"
wrote:

I am worried about what is legal and what is not legal.

Hi Thomas,

Then sifting legal advice from ad-hoc postings is a poor remedy for
worry.


I agree with you, however this is not the intelligent answer I was looking
for.

Hi Thomas,

I hesitated to jump in at:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 23:47:22 GMT, "Thomas Magma"
wrote:
So now how can I test my ELT
antenna installation on my aircraft if I'm violating FCC rules?

Where the intelligent response would have been "What about FAA rules
or CFR 91.207(2)(d)(4) (where you would struggle to qualify as an
inspector)?"

As I have been authorized to work under both authorities (I've done
plenty of Navigation Aids, transmitters and Flight Recorders) that
particular question seemed to evidence a struggle in the tarpits.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Thomas Magma" wrote in message
news:dGlzi.84070$fJ5.16631@pd7urf1no...
I am worried about what is legal and what is not legal.

Hi Thomas,

Then sifting legal advice from ad-hoc postings is a poor remedy for
worry.


I agree with you, however this is not the intelligent answer I was looking
for.

I like to think there are people that participate in certain newsgroups
that are more knowledgeable on specific topics than I am. If I start
asking questions to the FCC or ITU it will be a huge drawn out process. I
was hoping someone knew the answer so I wouldn't have to go that route.

Thomas


Au contraire. In the past I have queried the FCC on a number of issues and
received prompt and definitive replies. Doing thus gives you the FCC stance
on the issue -- not the News Group guesses

Lamont

Thomas Magma wrote:
I am worried about what is legal and what is not legal.
Hi Thomas,

Then sifting legal advice from ad-hoc postings is a poor remedy for
worry.


I agree with you, however this is not the intelligent answer I was looking
for.

Why? Are you seriously worried about getting arrested for using an
antenna analyzer?

It's really time to step back and take a deep breath, Thomas. If you
can get wrapped around the axle about this non-issue, there are plenty
more legalistic pitfalls in amateur radio to give you an ulcer.


I like to think there are people that participate in certain newsgroups that
are more knowledgeable on specific topics than I am.

If what you are looking for is specific written words blessing the use
of antenna analyzers, I doubt that such a thing exists. Then again, I
haven't looked for anything either. People have been sending tiny
amounts of RF up their antennas to find out things about it since before
Methuselah, selling and buying instruments of apparent contraband
without anyone getting too excited. 'Til now.

Respectfully suggest that you start looking for your evidence. Most of
us are happy to assume that when used for the intended purpose, an
antenna analyzer is legal and acceptable. If you think it might not be -
and I have to assume that you do, do the research and prove it.

That's my answer. You can decide if it is intelligent or not ;^)


If I start asking
questions to the FCC or ITU it will be a huge drawn out process. I was
hoping someone knew the answer so I wouldn't have to go that route.


It might make for part of Riley's speech at Dayton next year... ;^)

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -