[Lowfer] Ultimate LOWFER Transmitter?

[W2MXW]

At 03:01 PM 3/12/02 -0500, you wrote:
>Jon,
>
>As someone who has had some experience gaining FCC approval some years ago,
>I can't imagine him recovering his cost with relatively small market size of
>Lowfers. I also believe a high percentage of that small market are people
>who actually prefer to homebrew their own equipment.
>
>If one really had a notion to help this group, I would think a better
>approach would be to create a good source of parts and kits applicable to
>experimentation. At any rate I would not think that it's going to be a
>money-maker.
Kits are frowned upon by FCC for Part 15 use. I have this from an official 
FCC OET contact. Totally homebrew, i.e., scratch-built, is actually 
preferred by them to kits.
I agree re the parts aspect but my friend is a manufacturer of complete 
transmitters and other electronic devices under contracts with the military 
and corporations, as well as for  Part 15 hobbyist use, so that is what he 
has to offer.
He likes Part 15 for its own sake (as do I), he's not looking to make a 
profit (no one in their right mind would in such a venture!) although he'd 
like to at least recoup the cost of Type Acceptance and R&D. He still 
hasn't for the original AM transmitters and he's been making and selling 
them for 5 years now so it's obvious he's not in it for profit. With a 
Lowfer project he might be able to though, even with far fewer sales 
because as I understand it, it wouldn't require nearly as much outlay for 
him to pull it off, as it would be based on an existing product (assuming 
there weren't so many design changes that it morphed into something 
entirely new!) But in any case he'd still need to make some sales. If only 
two people were interested it couldn't fly.
As far as homebrewers, and I am among them myself, there's always going to 
be people who either aren't, or who are but would still like a polished, 
ready-built product.

>Also as John pointed out many of the ideas you put forth don't really make
>sense when thought-through. For instance an FCC approved device in PCB form
>(without an enclosure).

I don't see as this is a problem. The present AM bc-band design is offered 
in two different enclosures (indoor and outdoor) and doesn't require 
recert. for each; the process is different than for more 
'consumer-oriented' products. There are lots of Certified products offered 
in bare board form.  And it was only a suggestion because I know that many 
would like to use their own box- but if you want to keep the box or suggest 
a different one then simply say so.

>Anyway.... assuming that you are not a troll, or do not have any ulterior
>motives and are being 100% honest, I'd suggest you and your buddy re-think
>this venture. IMHO :-)
I'm not in this to make a buck. I am helping out the mfr. who happens to be 
a friend of mine by gathering input here but am not getting a penny for it. 
The only compensation I might receive is a free prototype of the unit were 
it to be given the go-ahead. I may not even get that much, I may still have 
to buy the unit. As mentioned Keith (the mfr.) realizes that this could 
hardly be considered a profit venture.
I may be partially to blame for using "we" a lot thus unintentionally 
implying that it is a joint venture of some sort, which it isn't beyond my 
providing my friend with the information I had hoped to glean from your 
input to assist him in designing the rig.

I have been involved in LF experimentation for over a decade, am a member 
in good standing of LWCA, and likewise of this email reflector, not a 
"troll" or profit-monger.

Jon