|
Post by thelegacy on Aug 7, 2016 15:41:10 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2016 16:55:15 GMT
It's interesting that that old thread over at Hobbybroadcaster showed up when it did. I guess there is such a thing as serendipity.
But the original post in the thread was really an example of hearsay. I'd want to see a lot more details about the incident, including the court case, before forming an opinion (including details on the supposedly compliant transmitter). I'm also a little concerned about the source, as Radio Brandy sells transmitters, and their website is full of references from customers claiming excessive (at least for Part 15) ranges.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2016 17:11:27 GMT
Follow the Trail of Links
I appreciate seeing that link, TheLegacy, and even though we still haven't seen the original documentation establishing certain missing facts, it opens some fascinating questions.
On the one hand I know from experience that raising a weak FM transmitter in the air will send a farther signal because of being above surrounding obstructions, but there is certainly a point of diminishing returns where the transmitter would be "too high" and go out of range of the earth.
Another huge question is... since the FCC calculates their F.I.M. reading so they can know the field-strength of the transmitter at 3-meters from the antenna.... what is the much weaker field strength they likely would receive so many feet lower down on the ground.... or, do they get on the roof of a nearby building? It would seem to me the signal on the ground would be too small to get a usable reading on even the best equipment.
Also, a very poor memory fragment in my head recalls a case like the one being talked about, but I thought it took place in Canada. By even saying that I disturb the chain of "hearsay" that causes the story to change shape.
We absolutely need to go back into the news archives and find the original story.
|
|
|
Post by thelegacy on Aug 7, 2016 19:25:55 GMT
I don't know if I posted something that wasn't liked when I posted this link. I know it came from another site but I'm trying to show I didn't under delusional brain malfunction dream, imagine, or just make up something to prove a point. It's also posted in the public section of The New Radio Revolution in case for some reason it disappears. Here it is again showing the 150-200 Ft rule is no longer enforced based on range alone. www.hobbybroadcaster.net/community/index.php?topic=524.0I'll still try and get the actual NOUO and court documentation as a member is helping us with this task. The New Radio Revolution does want to put this to rest so that others can put their FM Transmitters 90-150 Ft in the air and still legally transmit. The object now is to try and find out how many ft 24 stories is and duplicate this with a waterproof case, power and audio going to this weatherproof setup and be able to legally travel that far. Or The New Radio Revolution can urge those who want range to find HIGH apartments made of wood and that have no aluminum siding. They would be legal and if inspected have this very document beside them for leverage in court if necessary. More help for the Hobby.
|
|
|
Post by MrBruce on Aug 7, 2016 19:53:31 GMT
Reading the thread TheLegacy posted a link to, covers a lot of what I have said.
Members there have said in uncertain words, without actual experimentation, not calculators and software, there is really no way to know what each situation will give you in the actual field testing results.
The problem with this corrupt country is, the NAB and those money hungry radio station owners who own 20 stations in ONE MARKET are going to say whatever they have to (unchallenged) to protect their wallets and their income.
Broadcasting was supposed to be a public service for the "people" not a scheme to get rich quick by "rich" station owners! Ask any station owner why they buy and own radio stations and they'll tell you it's to make MONEY off of the advertising, not, "We do this to make people happy at our own expense, why else?"
Clearly stated, the FCC will not act unless someone complains about you. Other-wise how would the FCC know you existed in the first place. My station was shut down because according to Bill DeFelice, a station heard about my network of stations from a listener or listeners.
Now Billy boy never told me if those listeners complained to the station that we were interfering with their signal, or if they merely asked if they owned my station. Billy boy protected the complaining station by NOT even saying who they were, so if there was interference being caused to them, we might have used filters to clean up the interference.
Mind you, since the transmitters were FCC certified Decade MS-100 transmitters, 7 of them in operation in 7 different locations, placed in multi-family apartment buildings, I think it is highly unlikely we interfered with any station to any great degree!! Perhaps one (In Building) listener, but that might be about it.
My belief is that if there was a complaint, it was a listener who was a die-hard NPR radio listener, because the channel we might have interfered with could have been 88.1MHz But, if that is the case, that station's 60 dBu contour is 30 miles west of us!! So sure some people might be able to listen here, because MOST of the low band stations broadcast in MONO not STEREO and can carry well past their intended audience. So, if it wasn't just a case of a jealous station worrying about loosing two listeners to us and there was a complaint of loss of reception due to our broadcast interfering with 88.1MHz, then that station had NO grounds to stand on, since Norwich CT is well out of their 60dBu protected contour!!
The whole problem with Hobbybroadcaster and member Ray F Burns is they could have called WXTZ (My station) at the local phone number we provided both on line and on air and worked with us to correct the problem.
No they wanted to play FCC and be like a pack of wolves or flying monkeys and come in for the kill and use us as sporting decoys!! Referring to us as the "FOX" and themselves as the "HOUNDS"
How immature!!!
Now, for clarity, the FCC was never called into the matter, because, I ordered my network SHUT DOWN and it was executed immediately at my request.
Some may ask, if I was legal, why did I order this. I did so, because this network involved 7 other innocent people, who I did not feel should be fined or harassed to benefit me!!!!
If it was a 1 watt transmitter running from my house and only I was involved, I would NOT have shut down and challenged those idiots, however, we are not just talking about me here, we are talking about 7 nice people who agreed to pick up my on-line feed and re-broadcast it to their neighbors.
To make FM stereo work better and have listeners, we placed those transmitters in LARGE apartment buildings. There were no issues with FM stereo with quieting on the first floor from the 3rd floor!
People talk a good talk about how it is impossible for a LEGAL FM TRANSMITTER to reach from the 3rd floor to the 1st floor without great amounts of interference in the usable signal and people call themselves ENGINEERS? that they do not realize that most home FM stereo systems use the AC power cord as an antenna and, if the transmitter is on the SAME SIDE of the utility supply transformer as the receiver there would almost be a DIRECT antenna connection between the transmitter and FM receiver!!! See how in denial they are??? Logic gets slammed into the ground in an effort to call any person who broadcasts on FM an illegal FM PIRATE!
It is all about the MONEY and the NAB lining their pockets with the broadcaster's money!!
The broadcasters are NOT on the air to give their services away for free. They are there to MAKE MONEY and when you take ONE DOLLAR from them all hell breaks loose and they cry like babies to the FCC.
Bruce.
<Post edited by Moderator>
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2016 0:36:07 GMT
Way Up High
The typical height of each floor of a building takes up around 10-feet, so a 24-story building would be about 240-feet high, which is taller than many towers.
My guess is that we may link to any radio related site as they are also free to link to us, I think.
Speaking only for myself, when I start asking questions about a story it doesn't mean that I don't believe you, it means I am interested in knowing more.
If any of us believe a story without definite proof of its truth we could be wrong, and I have been wrong passing along a few stories that sounded plausible but later turned out to be errors.
It seems factual that the FCC never used a "200-foot rule" when investigating a statement.
The 200-foot number came from a verbal statement made by an FCC spokesman trying to describe part 15 transmitters to a public audience. Ever since that statement made it to print, people have been quoting it as if it was a rule but it's not.
|
|
|
Post by MrBruce on Aug 8, 2016 1:46:46 GMT
Good point Carl. Most FM radios have some type of circuit that allows some form of reception through the AC mains, or has a single wire wrapped around the AC power cord for reception, so WHY WOULDN'T A TRANSMITTER ON THE 100th FLOOR REACH A RADIO RECEIVER ON THE FIRST FLOOR WITH A DECENT STEREO SIGNAL? Specially if both devices are powered by AC power through either an AC to DC wall-wart or internal AC to DC down-step power transformer? Bruce. <Post edited by Moderator>
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2016 3:22:30 GMT
What I Would Expect
From a Part 15 FM transmitter on the 24th-floor of a building I would expect radios in clear line of sight from the porch or window where the transmitter/antenna was located would stand a chance of receiving a signal.
Trouble with that is those radios would probably need to be outdoors or at facing windows or they would likely get no signal from the part 15 FM station.
But I would not expect anyone living in the same high-rise to be able to get the signal at all because it would be blocked by the structure.
From everything I've heard or read about FM, it is not known to couple with power wiring for more than very short distances.
I believe that the actual results would not be as amazing as the imagination might think.
To leave an opening for unexpected results I admit I've never tried it from a tall building.
|
|
|
Post by thelegacy on Aug 8, 2016 4:00:16 GMT
My crappy SainSonic AX-05B did seem to unintentionally transmit carrier current and here is why I say this. At the low power level -48dbm which is around 18 nannowatts it would not leave the house. I could hear the station if I had my Grundig radio RIGHT under the power line. I had to be careful walking down the sidewalk with the antenna too high as to not hit anything especially a power line. I walked for blocks and as long as I was under the line I heard the station. Walk a few feet away and it was gone. I did find out later that the rubber duck antenna was bad and the whole or most of my signal was feeding right back into the transmitter. You can say I BURNED IT OUT!! No more Sainsonic AX-05B as I fried the RF stage and part of the processor too.
I took the Transmitter to a dude who embraces Hobby Radio and he said the unit most likely is not worth fixing. He also said it was my own fault for not having an SWR meter before I fired it up. That is another can of warms but again what happened was that the signal backfired into the transmitter and some of the RF went into the neutral side of the power line. Though it was cool, it wasn't a good thing for the Transmitter. Just to let you know the signal was not full quieting, but wonder what would have happened with the proper coupler?
I've thought about getting a hold of a wireless intercom at 49 Mhz and modify it for an FM frequency and see how far carrier current FM would go. For some reason to the best of my knowledge intentional carrier current is not legal for FM so that is too sad to say I can't find out. But I've seen exactly what Mr. Bruce talks about. So could a C. Crane travel on the same power line for blocks when otherwise it can't be heard? Possibly. With that loose or poor antenna connection I bet the SWR is a nightmare. The signal like my SainSonic is feeding right back into the RF stage of the transmitter. If the unit has a VSWR or transistor that can stand extreme hear or a lot higher power than it transmits you may get away with a faulty antenna at that low power. So you have an unintentional carrier current radiator. Will the FCC bust you? I say NO the unit is certified. The signal is not really strong enough (unless you don't use good practice) to cause interference.
And that could explain why WXTZ could be heard the way it was. Carrier current plus listeners that had Radio's that used the power cord as an antenna.
|
|
|
Post by MrBruce on Aug 8, 2016 9:36:34 GMT
Okay, my fault, I realize I didn't word things correctly, so I need to correct something.
A transmitter does not use the house wiring for an antenna when we are talking FM, but the FM receiver does.
The AM receiver also does not use house wiring, since it uses a ferrite bar with a coil for the antenna.
If an FM transmitter is using house wiring, it isn't from the down-step transformer, since the primary and secondary are not directly wired to each other and the result there would actually be reduction of the signal from secondary to primary anyways.
A battery operated receiver in the same structure would have totally different results over a home stereo system using AC mains power.
The receiver does to some degree use the AC mains for FM reception, try it sometime. Run your FM transmitter in the house, take a portable out into the yard, run it off of batteries and acknowledge the signal strength. Now take an extension cord preferably a 100 foot cord and plug one end into an outlet in the same house as the transmitter is transmitting from and plug the portable into the outlet of the extension cord. Take note of the new signal strength. There should be a vast signal improvement once the portable is plugged into the same mains supply as the transmitter.
Edited to add: NO! The transmitter is not using the extension cord as an antenna, the portable radio is!
Bruce.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2016 13:46:27 GMT
FM Antenna From AC Line
MrBruce is right about some FM radios using AC power line as a reception antenna. It is true.
I had a Panasonic table radio purchased from Radio Shack. It came with the antenna input to the radio tied to one side of the AC power cord through a small capacitor. There was no other antenna on the radio.
What I remember learning when asking an engineer about it (this is hearsay from spotty memory) is that the first X-number of feet of a power line can be used as a "poor-man's" FM receiving antenna, because the first few feet of the power cord is carrying RF from stronger local FM signals.
FM wavelength is something between 2-feet and 3-feet, so that much of the power cord will pick up the strongest signals from the air, the next 2-feet of the cord is weaker, and so-on, until way down the powerline there is no FM signal strength of any advantage to the radio.
LPB the maker of carrier current released a paper explaining that power lines cannot be used for FM because it does not work technically because the powerlines are long wave-length and FM is short wave-length.
By the way, I modified the Panasonic radio by disconnecting the antenna from the power-line and adding a real dipole antenna. The reception improved.
|
|
|
Post by MrBruce on Aug 8, 2016 15:04:00 GMT
Well Carl you're theory just proved TheLegacy is nuts LOL!
Anyways, it is not 100% efficient but it does work better than no antenna at all.
I know that none of the MS-100's were messed with internally with the exception of the logic switches to set the frequency.
Bruce.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2016 16:06:49 GMT
LPB Document on Unlicensed FMDuring the years when LPB (Low Power Broadcasting, Inc.) supplied AM carrier current systems they began getting requests for carrier current FM but the company was unable to serve the need because carrier current becomes ineffective above 30 MHz. That's why LPB released Technical Bulletin No. 6 which details the use of leaky-cable FM which is an effective method for distributing FM signals over a properly designed leaky cable. LPB PAPER ON FM LEAKY CABLEThis Tech Report is linked on the ALPB Website thanks to Jeff Station8
|
|
|
Post by part15engineer on Aug 9, 2016 14:51:01 GMT
Look for Times Microwave T-RAD 600 Series PVC Cable it can still be bought from various vendors on the web @ about $2.00 / ft.
|
|