DIY RC radios?

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote in news:YtqdnaENa83ofE_RnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@supernews.com:

Could you tell me more about this? Or where I could find more info? I did a quick search on AMA's website but didn't find anything.

Since I'm relatively new to actually using R/C (have been interested for decades) I've only ever used 2.4 Ghz.

Brian

A long time ago* there were less than a dozen channels on 72MHz, widely spaced and subject to interference from numerous operators. Back in the '80's the FCC rationalized the 72MHz band plans. For model operators it was a two-step process -- first we got the "even numbered" frequencies, with 40kHz (?) spacing, then in 1991 we got the rest, which brought the spacing down to 20kHz. Transmitters could work to the old accuracy and bandwidth limits on the new even numbered frequencies until 1991, but after that they had to be demonstrably narrower in bandwidth and more accurate.

The AMA administered a program to issue special stickers ("gold stickers") to pre-1991 transmitters that complied with the post-1991 rules. It never applied to transmitters on amateur radio frequencies, in any band. It certainly didn't apply to 2.4GHz transmitters, which would have been wildly experimental back then.

• Not a long long time ago when we couldn't use 72MHz, or a long long long time ago when you had to be an amateur radio operator and only had vacuum tubes for amplification -- just a long time ago.

On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 21:05:53 GMT, Skywise wrote in :

Here it is from the horse's mouth:

Academy of Model Aeronautics Membership Manual, 2010

Transmitter Requirements:

Narrowband transmitters are required for use with all channel number frequencies (CH 00-09 and 11-90). Identification of narrowband transmitters is normally accomplished by a sophisticated laboratory test. Narrowband transmitters can also be identified as follows.

1. All PPM/FM and PCM/FM transmitters are narrowband. Only AM transmitters sold as new, prior to March 1993, are suspect.

1. The manufacturer of a suspect AM transmitter can verify if it is narrowband. If it is not, the manufacturer may offer to modify it to narrowband specifications.

2. AM transmitters that were verified by test to be narrowband prior to March 1998 are considered to be narrowband. A goldcolor sticker, marked ?R/CMA AMA - RF CHECK? was formerly used to identify these tested transmitters. However, it is no longer required to display the R/CMA AMA Gold Sticker on these transmitters.

===========

So I was little off when I said it was 72 MhZ. The regulation also affected the ham band (channels 00..09).

The tests were required only for transmitters sold prior to

1991 and never applied to 2.4 GhZ.

Marty

So they don't need stickers. The 2.4ghz band is an unlicensed band. That doesn't mean it's unregulated.

Have an accident with a home brew and see if the AMA covers it.

-- Ray

On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 14:55:52 +0800, Ray Haddad wrote in :

Quoting what the AMA says in its official Members Manual for 2010 shows that the AMA has no program in place to regulate the kind of transmitters used by its members at the field.

It shows that the Gold Sticker program for channels 00..09 and

10..60 is dead.

That means that what matters are the FCC regulations. So far as I can tell from a very safe distance, Skywise has got that covered.

The issues involved in a particular accident would have to be argued by professionals in a court of law. I'm not one of them, but I can see easily enough how arguments could be made either way.

Back to the Official Members Manual for 2010:

FCC Legal Requirements and Safety Recommendations

3.0. RC users shall comply with FCC regulations. Some of the more pertinent regulations have been presented in this document. Complete RC regulations are contained in the CFR, reference 1. RC users of the 27 MHz, 72 MHz, and 75 MHz bands are required to comply with the CFR Part 95. RC users of the Amateur Radio Service are required to comply with the CFR Part 97. RC users of the Low Power 2.4 GHz band are required to comply with CFR Part 15. The AMA will not assume responsibility for enforcement of the CFR. However, if the violation impacts safety, corrective action may be taken.

==========

Seems to me that Skywise is planning to comply with FCC regulations. The AMA has no contrary regulations and does not see itself as responsible for enforcing FCC regulations.

I think Skywise is all set.

Marty

Go back to my "official" original comment. Clearly you are not discussing the same things but you go right ahead and spout off. It's got to be much more fun for you that way.

-- Ray

WOW Ray. You post comments that you can't prove through documentation and then get mad when someone else quotes AMA documentation that proves you wrong.

Why don't you provide a link to the FCC regs or AMA rules that backs up your "Official" original comment.

Ray Haddad wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

What's with the attitude, dude? Did I steal your chickens in a past life or sumthin'? :)

If we are in error, please cite some reference materials that we can all read to educate ourselves.

Brian

On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 22:24:38 +0800, Ray Haddad wrote in :

OK, there are two threads. Here is your "official" original comment from the first thread:

That has been proven to be false. The AMA is not running any certification program at the present time.

If you meant "certified by the FCC," that also has been proven false. Skywise has shown you the relevant statutes which explicitly authorize him to create his own system.

Aha! Yes. Revisting this "official" original post has been most amusing, as you suggested it would be. Now we know that you are not talking about FCC certification. The only other certifying agency in play, then, is the AMA. And they're out of the certifying business.

You were right, Ray. It was much more fun this way. Thaks for the tip! ;o)

Marty

I think he's demonstrated that it's time to just ignore him. He won't talk sense, he won't listen when sense is talked at him, he has no power over you.

Trying to get him to agree to what you say is a waste of time, and wouldn't do you any material good anyway. So why bother?

Tim Wescott wrote in news:26GdnbJfY8d5zknRnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@web-ster.com:

You're right, of course.

But, there's always the possibility he's aware of some regulation somewhere that we may have missed. I'm just affording him the opportunity to bring it to our attention.

Brian

Go back and read it again.

-- Ray

I have nothing to prove. What I said is completely true. Read it again. You of all people should know better, Tim.

-- Ray

:

This is nonsense. Nobody has proven a thing except that you don't know how to research rules and regulations. All you seem able to do is figure out ways to AVOID them. Now go read the 2.4ghz unlicensed band regulations and get back to me. Read the RULES that you MUST obey in order to use your homebrew. It is unlicensed, yes. It is not unregulated. Now anyone may come along and have the last word becasue I'm finished arguing with a bunch of people who would probably fight a speeding ticket when they were caught red handed doing 140mhp in a

20mph zone arguing that they had good tires so it was all right.

-- Ray

Ray Haddad wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Message-ID: You will have to get it certified before anyone will let you use it at an AMA sanctioned event or at an AMA club field.

What certification? Certified by who?

Neither of those are stated in ANY of your messages.

Brian

Brian, the FCC requires that you conform to rules even in the unlicensed band of 2.4ghz. The AMA will not allow you to bring in a kludged together piece of gear and use it under a sanctioned event. I said that in one concise sentence above. That's all I need to do. I don't live in your skin. What you do is up to you. You can easily read up on the rules of 2.4ghz and find out what you can and cannot do. But you are asking me to do that for you. No thanks.

Do what you wish. Only you will have to pay the consequences. Not me. And guess what? All these guys who have a bone to pick with me from past days are egging you on. Will they take responsibility for your actions? You know they won't. They'll all go scurrying away like cockroaches when you flick on the light. Not me. I'll remind you of what I wrote some day but clearly today is not the day.

All the best to you, friend. Enjoy your project but do be careful. I'm a bit surprised at Tim though. I happen to know he knows the same things I do.

-- Ray

I do just happen to have an old, now antique Heathkit 8 Channel single stick TX, circa 1974 or so. Without a couple of tx board changes, it would not meet the current 72 Mhz standards. Since Heathkit went out of business quite some time ago, I never bothered to fool with it. Just about everything else I have is capable of taking a 72Mhz or 2.4Ghz module.

Ray Haddad wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Certified by who? FCC? AMA? We asked that question and got...

Ray Haddad wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Oh, so you mean by the AMA?

Ray Haddad wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

So again, you must be talking AMA, since the Gold Sticker Program is an AMA program.

Ray Haddad wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Again, referring to the AMA.

Ray Haddad wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

So now we're back to the FCC?

MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!!!

I may know exactly what you are trying to say. You just have so far failed to express it clearly and concisely. Perhaps this is what you are trying to say,

"Before the AMA will allow your hobbyist home built radio onto an AMA field or AMA sanctioned event, the entire radio unit must be certified by the FCC regardless of the fact that the transmitter module used in the entire unit is already FCC certified."

Is that what you are trying to say?

I'm being very pointed for a reason. I have found in years of online debate that many arguments are caused by the two sides not effectively communicating what they mean. I think this may be one of those times.

I want to make sure of what you really mean before I continue further.

Brian

On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 11:57:01 +0800, Ray Haddad wrote in :

OK, here's my last word: Ray doesn't know what he's talking about. Skywise does. Skywise has shown how his gear will comply with FCC regulations, which is all that the AMA requires. The AMA has no radio certification program at present. If you've got gear that meets FCC regs, then you've got gear that's good at an AMA field.

And, in case anyone wants to sue me or have me testify in a lawsuit, here is my contact information:

Rev. Martin X. Moleski, SJ, Ph.D. AMA 5670 NSRCA 2874 TIGHAR 2359 KC2NEB

Professor, Religious Studies Canisius College 2001 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14208

(716) 888-2383

Member, Big-8 Management Board