Video Camera/transmitter on ebay

Hmmmm. Look up a phenomenon called "harmonics".

I have had a cheap, toy store RC transmitter interfere with my expensive glider RC setup. You can't assume that because two devices operate on different frequencies, that there won't be problems. Moreover, cheap unapproved devices are built to lower quality standards, and may produce spurious RF on frequencies other than intended.

PLEASE stop treating this issue with such cavalier disregard. Unlicensed RF transmission and cheap equipment CAN cause problems and COULD wind up costing the offender thousands of dollars in fines, your anarchic opinions notwithstanding.

Reply to
BB
Loading thread data ...

I looked at

formatting link
the specs. It says very clearly "Amateur Radio License Required" and "Frequency 2.434 GHz". If you bring one to a launch where I'm RSO you darn well better have your ham ticket in your possession, or it ain't going to fly.

That being said, this looks like an interesting little toy. Right off the top of my head, I don't know what other services uses the 2.4GHz band on a shared basis, but I'm almost certain it's not exclusively amateur radio. Remember the disclaimers associated with interference from Part 97: If amateur radio is a secondary user of a band, licensees are responsible for preventing interference to primary users. Even if ham radio is the primary user, amateurs are generally NOT protected from interference by secondary users...

Apocryphal story on unintentional interference: some years ago a whole bunch of alumni from the same college were on a commercial flight. They were all listening to their alma mater's big game on AM radios back in the cabin. Now, everybody knows that a receiver is harmless, right? WRONG! The combined local oscillator output from all those AM radios was sufficient to throw off the navigation receivers in the cockpit in a very serious way. The passengers had to be reminded that use of ANY electronics onboard an aircraft is at the discretion of the 'aircraft operator' and that transmitting and receiving devices are generally prohibited. So, the point is: what you think is harmless may not be.

Mark Johnson Amateur License WB9QLR NAR Trustee

Reply to
Mark Johnson

Point taken. My other point about unexpected unintentional interference, however, still stands. I'd go along with call-sign-on-equipment.

mj

Reply to
Mark Johnson

I'm not aware of any FCC requirement that your license be in your possession in order to operate. You've certainly never seen me with mine in posession, yet I've had one since 1976, when you still needed code to get a Tech. Unless there was a known issue with someone, I'd accept them at their word, as long as they could tell me their call sign.

In fact, I'd expect their call sign to be on their equipment where I could see it. I know Art had his call sign on his stuff in Muncie and at NARAM.

You can always look them up at arrl.org if you want to verify their call sign. Like I just did with yours :-)

BTW, you don't need your LEUP in your possession to do regulated motors either.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

However there are NO regulated motors at all.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

when the fcc archaic rules recide my archaic opinions will recide

CB's with multiple hundred watt amplification do far more damage than my little 800mw transmitter could ever possibly do.

if you radio is of such low quality as to have a problem with it them you need to update your radio.

also its the fault of the FCC read both parts off FCC RULE 15 I still can not get a FCC pers>

Reply to
Chris Taylor Jr

that is the fault of the navigation designers for making their system so prone to interference. it bothers me that I fly on planes with such poorly designed systems.

Reply to
Chris Taylor Jr

I got my second unit today. Took only like 2 days to get it from Hong Kong! This guy is fast.

Unfortunately I think I blew one of my receivers. Instead of a 9v battery, I used a 9v wall adapter. Stupid adapter blew the unit. I put a volt meter on the adapter and it was putting out over 13 volts! We all know that the adapter unloaded voltage is higher than the rated voltage but not by 50%!

Anyway I took the receiver apart and it appears there is a 5v regulator (7805) in it. I am hoping I only blew the regulator.

Also my friend mounted one of these beauties in an N scale train engine and took great videos of his train layout. He is under the impression that the frequency is more around 900 mhz based on the type of drop outs he sees while the camera is moving. I am going to put my scanner to the test and see.

Joe C.

formatting link

"M Miller" wrote:

Reply to
Joe Cacciatore

I wasn't aware that an RSO job was to enforce FCC regulations. If there is a question as to legality you can report the person to the FCC, but what does that have to do with range safety?

Reply to
Arnold Roquerre

"Chris Taylor Jr" unsuccessfully attempted to match wits with a superior intelligence by grunting forth:

I'm not surprised that you're incapable of understanding it.

I believe you'd have a devil of a job understanding the directions on a packet of instant oatmeal.

Up until now, I've reserved judgement - but with the statements above, you've finally convinced me that you indeed truly are - a complete, utter, blithering, half-witted, feeble-minded fool.

Al'right leetle troll, come 'ere 'n get into me kill-file, now! 'at's right! Right in there! Mmmm.....

Reply to
BB

Yet another opportunity to boost one person's ego at the expense of a rocket flyer?

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Can you imagine Chris, and Arnold in the same ring?

ROFL!

tah

Reply to
hiltyt

A 7805 is rated for a max input voltage of 35 volts. I'd look elsewhere.

Reply to
DaveL

Meaning he has a point and you are ignoring it so as to not look like more an ass objecting to it.

yet I get it.

Reply to
Chris Taylor Jr

That would take a lot of Crisco, and wouldn't be very aesthetically appealing.

Reply to
BB

The rSo's job is Safety. After all, that's his middle name. As far as radios, theis DOES concern frequencey control for RC models. Someone does need to coordinate non RC transmitters, so you don't end up with your camera transmitting on my frequency and messign up my video, but this is NOT necessarilly the job of the RSO.

And checking government issued licenses is NOT the responsibility of any one except for a JBGT. The only concern we have is checking for NAR/TRA certification for thse flying H and larger at our launches.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

If my name is on the waiver and the landowner permission letter, I will bloody well do whatever is necessary to insure safety. It's just that simple. It's even more true if the launch happens to be on my property, which our club launches used to be, in years past.

That being said, probably my position is "I need to be satisfied that the electronics are legal and will not cause harmful interference." I'm not sure, without looking at a bunch of FCC regs and statutes, what my responsibilities as an FCC licensee are if I knowingly allow someone else to violate regs. Most regulatory agencies have a 'gotcha' clause for that. [i.e. "If you could have stopped harmful interference but didn't you're just as guilty as the guy who owned the equipment."]

Remember, range safety is more than just assuring that the rocket will be safe. It's also assuring that non-involved persons in the general area will be safe. Allowing potentially-interfering radio emissions from an altitude of N-thousand feet, where N is some positive integer, has the potential of affecting a large number of apparently-non-involved folks.

MJ WB9QLR

Reply to
Mark Johnson

One more thing I should add: An unlicensed Part 15 device must have a certificate and registration number from FCC asserting that it meets the regulations. It is not, to my knowledge, sufficient to simply build a low output device (say 50 mW output) and assert that it is an unregulated device.

WB9QLR

Reply to
Mark Johnson

I don't disagree. It bothers me too. However, that's the result of several factors:

  1. Obsolete TSO standards for spurious signal rejection on the part of FAA and FCC.
  2. Cheap manufacturing that produces avionics that meet the legal requirements but are basically junk otherwise. [See #1.] There are a lot of high-dollar certified aviation radios that are of a general quality level far exceeded by a 0 Icom or Yaesu 2-meter amateur handheld. Here's the deal: A certified King KX-125 aviation NAV/COM radio suitable for mounting in the instrument panel of your airplane lists for 30. A specialized handheld radio with almost all the same functions PLUS amateur 2-meter FM can be bought from Icom or Yaesu for around 0. Most of the price difference is in that "FAA certified for navigation" sticker. I'd be willing to bet that the handheld is probably as good, if not a better radio, in every meaningful electronic way.
  3. Some part of it is the airlines' fault for resisting attempts to modernize aviation COM/NAV requirements. Fer cryin' in a bucket, VHF airplane comm is still AM based. They should have gone to synthesized FM or SSB years ago, but the aviation lobby said it would be too expensive. It wasn't, back then, but probably is, today. Elefino.

Years ago, Sen. Goldwater from Arizona introduced a bill that would have required electronic devices to have the capability to reject spurious signals in order to protect the primary users. The TV manufacturing lobby repeatedly got it shelved, and Goldwater retired. The entire electronics industry would have been far better off, in the long run, if something had been done. It just makes good sense...

Reply to
Mark Johnson

I was afraid of that! Then I probably did the unit in..next stop...garbage can. If the camera really does run around 2.4 gig, maybe my X10 web cam receiver will work..I need time to test all this stuff....

Joe C.

Reply to
Joe C

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.