|
|
Post by Druid Hills Radio on Jan 17, 2017 16:12:42 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2017 17:16:35 GMT
News You Can Use
This line from OCE-12 is useful: "Coverage beyond 300-feet is usually an indication that the operation does not conform to these limits and violates Part 15 Rules."
That gives us a gain of 100-feet over the commonly mentioned "200-foot rule".
Also, think about what the FCC means by "...is usually an indication..." ... That statement leaves open the possibility of an UNUSUAL situation that might be more than 300-feet.
Good work, Druid my fellow.
|
|
|
|
Post by thelegacy on Jan 17, 2017 18:21:45 GMT
Yea like the boy who had his transmitter up 24 stories and got out a few miles (I assume more than one). Something we at NRR has talked about. Again nothing saying you can't connect a barix box to your FM transmitter and stick it 100+ feet in the air. Assuming that every story has 10 foot ceiling that would be 2400 feet. So put your FM transmitter up very high and it could go far.
Makes one want to try it with a C. Crane since we all know its well under the limit. Would you get a mile at that height? I really need to go up in a hotel or maybe a planetarium or some sort of observatory and try it with my phone connected to it and playing The Legacy and have someone drive around. I'll go insane if I don't find out what will happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Druid Hills Radio on Jan 17, 2017 20:51:02 GMT
"Assuming that every story has 10 foot ceiling that would be 2400 feet. So put your FM transmitter up very high and it could go far." Resident Hobby Agent DHR: "Correction - 240 Feet." |
|
|
|
Post by Druid Hills Radio on Feb 17, 2017 15:31:12 GMT
In looking at this document again it is very clear to me that the FCC sees this as "broadcasting."
|
|
|
|
Post by End80 on Feb 17, 2017 20:51:22 GMT
There's a couple things driving me nuts about this document..
First is that it specifies the ground lead as part of the three meter rule..
But it's dated March 1973, but the ground lead was not included in the rules as part of the 3 meter limit until (according to John Reed of the FCC) "November 12, 1974 (FCC 74-1221), the rules were again modified, redesignating 15.202 as Section 15.111 and Section 15.204 as Section 15.113.
Section 15.113 was modified to include the length of the ground lead in addition to the length of the antenna and connecting lead in the 10 feet maximum. This change was added because the earlier rules had not contemplated anyone using an extended ground plane [lead] to extend the range. The change was made to stop this practice.
So, to try and figure out this discrepancy I go to take a look at 74-1221, but I can't find that document anywhere! But it is a real document because numerous other FCC documents do refer to it, but the document itself appears entirely elusive. However, it does exist as shown via Googlebooks I am able to pull up results for 74-1221, but it only provides tiny snippets as follows:
FCC 74-1221 BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the* Matter of Kevision op Part 15 To Conform It to Subpart J of Part 2 and To Reorganize the Rules Therein. Order (Adopted November 12 ...
AND:
FCC 74-1221). In addition. this measurement requirement was specifically proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making in Docket 20990 (adapted November 10. 1976. 41 FR 52705) and adopted in the R&O in Docket No. 20990. 7 These ...
AND
So it wasn't a matter of misstype by John Reed, the document is real.
But there's something else too..
|
|
|
|
Post by End80 on Feb 18, 2017 22:45:11 GMT
What the heck??.. Somehow.. hmm.. The linked document Druid provided above is not the same one I was commenting about in my above post!
I was referring to a one or two page document which was dated March 1973.. it was a very poor scan which had a lot of pixilation in it, and had a few pen written underlined emphasis on a few words in it.. How the hell did I pull up that document, and what document was it???
This driving me nuts!!! My comments had nothing to do with the document linked to this page.
Mystery arises.... |
|
|
|
Post by End80 on Feb 18, 2017 23:20:05 GMT
Ok.. Maybe I'm not losing my mind, or maybe I am, but I discovered the confusion I was experiencing was due to my PDF reader acting up. No matter what document I clicked it was opening up the FCC Silver Anniversary Report of 1959! A reboot seems to have cured the situation and all is well.
Druids linked document is the one I'm talking about (my mistake about it being only two pages long).
You gotta excuse me, it was my birthday a couple days ago and I'm getting old.
|
|
|
|
Post by Druid Hills Radio on Feb 20, 2017 15:14:18 GMT
. End80 said: "You gotta excuse me, it was my birthday a couple days ago and I'm getting old."DHR replied: "That's OK. My birthday was the 18th and the 19th. Long story." |
|
|
|
Post by Druid Hills Radio on Feb 20, 2017 16:02:01 GMT
Another interesting comment was about the user checking his "certificated" equipment from time to time to make sure it is still compliant?
|
|
|
|
Post by End80 on Feb 20, 2017 16:22:43 GMT
Oh! TomTom over at HB was able to pull up 74-1221 from the University of Texas database. Google ain't good for everything.
digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc306588/m1/481/ Here's an excerpt of the item in question, it is not an amended item as thought: 
The ground lead as part of the 3 meter limit was not an amended change in that 1974 document, which of course is confirmed by the 1973 UC12 document, and was already part of the rules that time too.. So obviously Reeds researched was flawed on that specific bit of info.
I guess it's a matter of backtracking the several revisions of UC 12 to find out when the ground lead addition was actually written in -- Not that it really matters, but at least get the story straight.
If Druid had not posted that earlier version of UC 12, then we would have never known the discrepancy in the story which the FCC chief enginer had handed down to us.
|
|
|
|
Post by End80 on Feb 20, 2017 16:48:33 GMT
hold on a second.. I think I'm wrong and John Reed was right after all.. Perhaps I need to know what a UC document actually is to clear this up.. Upon looking at the 1973 document again.. this does appear to be some kind of suggestion to amend the rule, it stars off not mentioning the ground lead, and then emphasizes to include it..
cu |
|
|
|
Post by End80 on Feb 20, 2017 17:15:07 GMT
Excuse me, that's "OCE" not "UC".. where is my mind?
OCE documents are basically documents which provide the results of research which have been undertook by the FCC. |
|
