Radio without xtal

Actually, there are just a few gorillas who have never bothered to read the FCC regulations, or radio manufacturer's instructions, and are trying to justify ignoring the law so they can save a few $.

Reply to
C G
Loading thread data ...

As cheap as 4 channel radios are today...go buy a whole new set. Don't take a chance on the old transmitter. There's a REASON it was sold the way you bought it! It's ain't worth crashing an airplane to find out. The cost of a transmitter battery and crystal will go a long way toward the new system!

Reply to
Jim Slaughter

Jim et al -

You may be right. Does any> As cheap as 4 channel radios are today...go buy a whole new set. Don't take

Reply to
Lee Hopper

The old radios aren't worth anything except for parts and as buddy boxes. You don't need a battery or crystal to use it as a buddy box.

Today's up to date equivalent of the simple 4 channel radio sells brand new with receiver, batteries, charger, and servos for only $119! You can see one here:

formatting link
**&P=ML There are also other brands to consider. For a few dollars more, you can get a radio that will serve all of your needs for a long time. Here is one:

formatting link
**&P=7 The second radio is a computer radio that will really simplify your life. Well worth the $$$!

Good Luck, Fly Safe, and above all, HAVE FUN!

Reply to
Jim Slaughter

| You may be right. Does anyone know how/why a radio would come to be sold | without xtal or batt? I see the original ebay seller has several others | for sale - there must be a source for these things but I can't imagine | how they come about.

1) Tower Hobbies does sell buddy boxes, which are just radios without a crystal or battery. Other places probably do too.

2) Somebody may take an old radio, remove the crystal and battery, and call it a buddy box.

Doesn't require much imagination ...

Reply to
Doug McLaren

Like Futaba, they're looking for the money!

Reply to
Chuck Jones

And I don't need to spend $45 or more an hour to have some clown like yourself tell me something I am perfectly capable and qualified to figure out on my own. Now if you want to blow the cash? Knock yourself out! It's ignorant people like yourself that make people like me rich.

Reply to
Chuck Jones

Several of the eBay sellers seem to break a system into pieces and sell the components individually.

Reply to
C G

Actually no, genius. They are just looking to follow the law, and make sure the user does the right thing.

Reply to
C G

What's the matter Chuckie, you don't like being wrong so you have to resort to insults? You are wrong. Ignorant is not knowing something. Since you are clueless about knowing right from wrong, it appears you are the one who is ignorant. Just because you are able to figure out where the crystal is and you've read a few things about a radio doesn't mean you are qualified to ensure that the radio is working correctly after you replace the crystal. If you do have the equipment, training, and proper certifications, go for it. If not, you're just another clueless bubba who puts everyone else at risk by ignoring regulations put in place to protect other people. You can justify this behaviour all you want, but it's wrong.

Encouraging others to follow your advice is just plain irresponsible. The FCC regulations are clear. People who don't have the training and equipment to properly test the tx should not change the crystal. You may not like it, but that is the rule.

Reply to
C G

| Actually, there are just a few gorillas who have never bothered to | read the FCC regulations, or radio manufacturer's instructions, and | are trying to justify ignoring the law so they can save a few $.

Actually, I was thinking of you as one of the chest-pounders. My favorite statement of yours was `However, it appears we are just a bit more careful on this side of the pond' -- truly, comedic gold, confusing `possibly restrictive' with `careful'! (And yes, I'm on the same side of the pond.)

You've been stating that the regulations are clear, but they're not. I have read them, and recently. Like most legal documents (yes, these are legal documents, with the force of law behind them), they're not that clear.

Ultimately, the regulations _do_ say who should make adjustments --

The internal repairs or internal adjustments should be performed by or under the immediate supervision and responsibility of a person certified as technically qualified to perform transmitter maintenance and repair duties in the private land mobile services and fixed services by an organization or committee representative of users in those services.

But they use the world `should' rather than `must'. `Should' is not generally a word used in legally binding phrases.

The crystals must not be easily accessible to the user -- that part is relatively clear. But that's an issue for the manufacturer, not the end user. This may say that the FCC intends for users not to change crystals, but it doesn't prohibit it, not by itself.

Generally, if a judge finds you guilty of the word of the law, but innocent according to the spirit of the law, he can (should? must?) find you innocent of the crime in a court. But it does _not_ go the other way -- in order to be found guilty, you need to be guilty of the words of the law, not the spirit. In this case, the spirit may be that you need to be qualified to change crystals, but I'm not sure the words say that.

formatting link
an interpetation of the rules from somebody in the FCC. But there's contradictions in what he says -- Specifically --

He confirmed that you do NOT have to be a certified Radio Operator class technician to perform repairs. The internal repairs or internal adjustments should {note: not MUST) be performed ...

vs.

he said that we cannot legally change R/C xtals unless they are in a certified module

Assuming that changing a crystal is an internal adjustment (and it is

-- the rules say so elsewhere), these two statements do not jive.

I've read over the regulations carefully enough. But I'm not a lawyer, and not any more familiar with the FCC regulations than any other amateur radio operator would be, so I certainly wouldn't suggest that people trust my interpetation of the rules.

In my last post about this, I didn't actually say which side I believed -- because I'm not quite sure. But if I were to make a guess based on the FCC regulations that I've read on the R/C service, I'd say that

1) it's illegal for manufacturers to make the transmitter crystals accessible like they have been doing, but 2) it's legal for end-users to change transmitter crystals all they want, as long as their radios stay within the rules about bandwidth and emissions and such.

Now, it would be nice if people could use a spectrum analyzer or something similar after each crystal change, but the rules do not require that -- you don't have to verify that your signal is within the bandwith allocated, as long as it is. And it would be nice if you were technically qualified to make repairs or adjustments (including crystal changes) to your transmitter, but since the regulations say `should' and not `must', I'd say it's still legal to do it, even if you're not qualified.

Now, if there was an accident and a lawsuit, they lawyers for the plaintiff certainly would look at those words about `should' and use it to bolster their case if adjustments weren't made by somebody the FCC thought should make them, but ultimately you might be found `negligent', which is not the same as guilty of violating FCC law.

Of course, what we really need is spread spectrum to come, ready to save us from all the problems associated with crystal changes. The technology is here, and indeed you can even buy modules and receivers intended for R/C car use in the 2.4 gHz band, but that's not quite sutiable for R/C plane use ...

Reply to
Doug McLaren

Reply to
Jim Slaughter

Doug -

Thankyou for your considered thoughts on this subject.

Just to keep the pot boiling, are you familiar with the Futaba "synthesized transmitter module"? Looks like you can change transmit frequency to be any channel in the 72MHz band but you need a reciever to match whatever channel you choose. for example (and *only* $90 to go with your $340 9C radio) :)

Perhaps the FCC is just lagging behind current technology in some cases.

------------- Doug McLaren wrote: ...

Reply to
Lee Hopper

Actually, ALL of the people I know are careful about this kind of thing, there just seem to be a few people who have little concern for others who are not so careful.

I've read them too, not long before you posted the links, but before this thread appeard. They are clear enough to make it obvious what should be done. Unfortunately, the people who want to do things their own way will always find an excuse to ignore what should be done and do whatever they damn well please. Regulations are usually meaningless to people like that since they obviously know better.

Actually, they do say must in many places, such as: "You must comply with rules (see R/C Rule 18, Sec. 95.218, for the penalties for violations) when you operate a station in the R/C service".

Not by itself, but it's obvious that the FCC's intent here is that the crystal should be an internal part and that the users can't change internal parts.

They jive just fine, if you've got a radio with a user replaceable frequency module, you can change it. If you've got a radio with just a crystal, you can't change it.

Interesting that you choose to interpret the rules opposite what the anonymous FCC person said. The cite you provided made it pretty clear that the FCC said users CANNOT change crystals. Here's another person who says the average Joe should not change the crystals:

formatting link

Based on your interpretation, it appears you are in the camp who wants to find a loophole to justify doing what you want.

I don't care about what happens after an accident, I care about preventing them. Anecdotal observations of people who have changed their crystals and said they have no problem is not justification for ignoring the FCC regs or what's clearly documented in the manufacturer's instructions. From your cite: '(1) The xtals are accessible. Therefore, why can't I change them? [Answer] Because the xtal is an "internal" component. Please see 95.222'. This is very clear, except to those who are going to ignore the regs anyway.

Reply to
C G

Er, no it isn't.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

And when is a crystal not a 'user replaceeable frequency module' ?

I'd say thats exactly what it is.

The fact that futaba et al can change freqeuncies without changing te power stage tuning implies that its band, not spot, tuned anyway...

So in effect changing a crystal and moving a channel on a synth TX are identical in effect.

Apart from the possibility of plugging in a wrong Crystal, which can be checked in a moment with a freq counter...

..no. Its just another exaomple of a litigious culture protecting itself against the CO Jones of this world.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

So, Chuck, Are you telling us that you are a certified tecnician licensed by the FCC. If you are then you can consider yourself qualified. If not then you are no more qualified than the next bum off the street.. If you

Reply to
Sparky

That's nice, but since you don't know WTF you are talking about, what you say is worth nothing.

Sure, whatever you say.

Reply to
C G

| >> They jive just fine, if you've got a radio with a user replaceable | >> frequency module, you can change it. If you've got a radio with just | >> a crystal, you can't change it. | >>

| > And when is a crystal not a 'user replaceeable frequency module' ? | > | > I'd say thats exactly what it is.

Common sense would certainly tell you that, right?

Well, the FCC seems to think otherwise --

(b) An R/C transmitter which incorporates plug-in frequency determining modules which are changed by the used must be type accepted with the modules. Each module must contain all of the frequency determining circuitry including the oscillator. Plug-in crystals are not considered modules and must not be accessible to the user.

I agree, it seems a strange distinction, but there it is ...

| That's nice, but since you don't know WTF you are talking about, what | you say is worth nothing.

Of course, C G loves to pound his chest, but won't go to the trouble of backing up his assertion, as if you weren't even worth the trouble. So it seems I've done it for him.

| > The fact that futaba et al can change freqeuncies without changing te | > power stage tuning implies that its band, not spot, tuned anyway...

I believe it's been pretty well established that this is true. But hopefully when Futaba changes a transmitter crystal, they at least measure the output on a spectrum analyzer and makes sure it's within the limits specified by the law. If that checks out OK, I doubt they do much else.

| > So in effect changing a crystal and moving a channel on a synth TX are | > identical in effect. | > | > Apart from the possibility of plugging in a wrong Crystal, which can be | > checked in a moment with a freq counter...

In a moment? That's all it takes for somebody putting in the wrong crystal to crash a plane. If you're flying with somebody else, you owe it to them to be more careful than that.

And a few of the current batch of synthesizers don't help. The Hitec Spectra has tiny little knobs to adjust, but they're so small that you could easily confuse a 3 with a 4. And to make matters worse, they're hidden from view when the module is installed. The Futaba 9C synthesized module is a little better -- the knobs are visible when installed, but they're still itty bitty.

(But there should be no doubt that synthesized modules are legal according to the FCC regulations. Really, at this point in the game, if you plan on changing transmitter crystals on a regular basis, you should just get a synthesized module and be done with it.)

| > ..no. Its just another exaomple of a litigious culture protecting itself | > against the CO Jones of this world. | | Sure, whatever you say.

The FCC regulations are not `another example of a litigious culture protecting itself'. Why would the FCC need to protect itself from litigation? The R/C section of them were written 20 or so years ago. Things have changed since then, but the regulations have not, not yet.

C G seems to think I'm looking for loopholes. Not explicitly, but if the question is `is it legal?', loopholes certainly count. The question is `is it legal for the end user to change their transmitter crystals in the US?' And I think the answer is yes, based on my reading of the FCC regulations. I'm not a lawyer, but that's my take.

I specifically did _not_ answer the question `_should_ the end user change their transmitter crystals?' or `does the FCC think that end users should change their transmitter crystals?', only if it appeared to be legal or illegal according to the current FCC regulations.

And as for the FCC person who commented on the regulations, I suspect I've actually spent more time reading that part of the regulations than he did. (Which sounds odd, but his response seemed pretty broilerplate-ish. Not that I saw his exact response, only somebody's interpetation of it.) To get a better answer, we'd probably need to get a lawyer to go over the regulations, _one familiar with FCC law_, or we'd need the FCC to make some sort of official ruling clarifying it. I imagine that a court case regarding somebody changing crystals could clarify it too, but I don't think that's likely to ever happen.

And while the FCC does specify who it thinks ought to work on transmitters, `The Natural Philosopher' would probably fit those qualifications if he were to work on a transmitter over here. So jumping on his case as being irresponsible or whatever else seems a bit silly.

Reply to
Doug McLaren

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.