• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

A Real-World Measurement Proving Radiation Past a Part 15 AM "Ground Lead"

Many, many posts have appeared on this board and other Part 15 boards to the effect that the length of a short conductor between an elevated Part 15 AM transmitter and another conducting path such as a massive wire is defined by such posters to be the entire ground lead length that "counts" in the legal, 3-meter length permitted by 15.219(b).

A few other posts (mostly mine) have shown that this is untrue from the perspective of physics and experience, because without adequate r-f filters, the entire length(s) of all conducting path(s) connected to the transmitter chassis can radiate significantly until they reach a functional r-f ground -- typically, something buried in the earth. Such conducting paths easily can mean that the total radiating length exceeds the 3-meter length permitted by 15.219(b).

To prove this point, following is a cut & paste from an FCC NOUO on this subject, issued in 2010.

Of course people are free to operate their "Part 15" stations as they wish, but hopefully with recognition of the realities and the risks of doing so.

RF

+ + + +

NOTICE OF UNLICENSED OPERATION

Case Number: EB-10-KC-0023

Document Number: W201032560002

The Kansas City Office received information that an unlicensed broadcast
radio station on 1640 kHz was allegedly operating in Omaha, Nebraska. On
March 24, 2010, agents from this office confirmed by direction finding
techniques that radio signals on frequency 1640 kHz were emanating from
your residence in Omaha, Nebraska. The Commission's records show that no
license was issued for operation of a broadcast station on 1640 kHz at
this location in Omaha, Nebraska.

Radio stations must be licensed by the FCC pursuant to 47 U.S.C. S: 301.
The only exception to this licensing requirement is for certain
transmitters using or operating at a power level or mode of operation that
complies with the standards established in Part 15 of the Commission's
rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 15.1 et seq. The field strength of the signal on
frequency 1640 kHz was measured at 73,800 microvolts per meter (uV/m) at
30 meters,[/i] which exceeded the maximum permitted level of 14.6 uV/m at 30
meters for non-licensed devices set out in Section 15.209 of the Rules, 47
C.F.R. S: 15.209. Further, the station's operation did not comply with the
alternative operating requirements for stations operating in the band
510-1705 kHz that are set out in Section 15.219 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S:
15.219. Specifically, the agents measured the field strength of 19,700
microvolts per meter (uV/m) at 30 meters with the 20 foot ground wire
detached. This shows that the ground wire was radiating and exceeds the 3
meter combined maximum length of all radiating elements permitted under
Section 15.219(a). Thus, this station is operating in violation of 47
C.F.R. S: 301.

You are hereby warned that operation of radio transmitting equipment
without a valid radio station authorization constitutes a violation of the
Federal laws cited above and could subject the operator to severe
penalties, including, but not limited to, substantial monetary fines, in
rem arrest action against the offending radio equipment, and criminal
sanctions including imprisonment. (see 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503 and
510).

UNLICENSED OPERATION OF THIS RADIO STATION MUST BE DISCONTINUED
IMMEDIATELY.

You have ten (10) days from the date of this notice to respond with any
evidence that you have authority to operate granted by the FCC. Your
response should be sent to the address in the letterhead and reference the
listed case and document number. Under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C.
S: 552a(e)(3), we are informing you that the Commission's staff will use
all relevant material information before it to determine what, if any,
enforcement action is required to ensure your compliance with FCC Rules.
This will include any information that you disclose in your reply.

You may contact this office if you have any questions.

Robert C. McKinney
District Director
 
Re: A Real-World Measurement Proving Radiation Past a Part 15 AM "Ground Lead"

so how far range wise would a part 15 am station go(being legal and all)?
 
Re: A Real-World Measurement Proving Radiation Past a Part 15 AM "Ground Lead"

It depends on a lot of factors - nearby interference, the radio & antenna that's receiving the signal, ground conductivity, bandwidth, etc. For example, if you were in a rocky desert near a power plant using a crystal set without an antenna trying to receive a signal the width of a TV station, I doubt it'd go very far. However, if the transmitter was on the beach and you were out in a boat with a high-end communications receiver and a beverage antenna and no interference trying to receive a QRSS CW signal, it might go quite a ways.
 
Re: A Real-World Measurement Proving Radiation Past a Part 15 AM "Ground Lead"

wilson1000 said:
so how far range wise would a part 15 am station go (being legal and all)?

The link below leads to an analysis of this for more or less average ground conductivity and compares the performance of four physical installations, with other conditions constant.

The green circle on that page should be representative of a system that is functionally compliant with Part 15.219.

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h85/rfry-100/150_microvolt_per_meterRadius_Part_.gif

//
 
Re: A Real-World Measurement Proving Radiation Past a Part 15 AM "Ground Lead"

R. Fry said:
The field strength of the signal on frequency 1640 kHz was measured at 73,800 microvolts per meter (uV/m) at 30 meters,[/i] which exceeded the maximum permitted level of 14.6 uV/m at 30 meters for non-licensed devices set out in Section 15.209 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 15.209.

I, and I'm sure others reading this thread would like to know what kind of transmitter power output could possibly generate that kind of field strength described above? This has to be considerably more power than the typical 100 milliwatt input and 30 milliwatt output of a legitimate Part 15 AM transmitter! What mathematical formula can be used to estimate the transmitter power output producing these kinds of field strengths? Thanks!
 
Re: A Real-World Measurement Proving Radiation Past a Part 15 AM "Ground Lead"

stormy01 said:
I, and I'm sure others reading this thread would like to know what kind of transmitter power output could possibly generate that kind of field strength described above? ... What mathematical formula can be used to estimate the transmitter power output producing these kinds of field strengths?

Good question, but unfortunately there is no simple equation to calculate this.

The inverse distance value of a radiated field at a given distance is a function of the power radiated by the complete transmit system, rather than just the output power of the transmitter.

Radiated power depends on:

  • the accuracy of the impedance match between the transmitter and the antenna system
  • the output power of the transmitter for that impedance match
  • the gain of the antenna system in dBi, which in turn depends on the radiation resistance of the "3-m whip" + all other radiating conductors, and the losses in the loading coil and r-f ground (a functional r-f ground being something buried in the earth, typically).

There is no way from the information given in an NOUO of knowing any of these conditions for the system that was cited.

However it is still possible to calculate the effective radiated power (ERP) needed to produce the 73,800 µV/m field that the FCC measured at 30 meters per the NOUO text quoted earlier -- which is about 54.4 milliwatts.

That ERP could be produced using high transmitter power with a low gain antenna system, or vice versa.

Installing a "Part 15" AM transmitter (even one FCC-certified for Part 15) on an elevated mount such as a flagpole, mast, billboard, water tower etc increases the gain of the antenna system due to the increased radiation from unfiltered/unchoked conductor(s) leading to a functional r-f ground, other things equal.

This additional ERP is the reason that such elevated systems can have greater coverage areas than when mounted a few inches above the earth.

Of interest: if effective chokes/filters are used with all those conductors then there is no point in installing the transmitter on an elevated mount, because the system ERP and coverage area would be less than when installed with its base a few inches above the earth, and used no chokes/filters.

//
 
Re: A Real-World Measurement Proving Radiation Past a Part 15 AM "Ground Lead"

It is well-known that 1kW of radiated power from an electrically short vertical antenna at ground level produces a field strength of 300,000 uV/m at 1 km. A highly conductive ground plane is assumed. Field strength varies as the square root of radiated power, and the inverse of distance. The same rule of thumb is equivalent to a field strength of 1000 uV/m at 30 m with 10 uW of radiated power.

10 uW of radiated power is at the low end of of Part 15 AM. A readable signal would extend to about 600 feet. The high end of radiated power for Part 15 AM with the antenna at ground level is about 1 mW. This produces a field strength of 10,000 uV/m at 30 m and a readable signal at about a mile if the ground conductivity is good.
 
Re: A Real-World Measurement Proving Radiation Past a Part 15 AM "Ground Lead"

Ermi Roos said:
It is well-known that 1kW of radiated power from an electrically short vertical antenna at ground level produces a field strength of 300,000 uV/m at 1 km. A highly conductive ground plane is assumed. Field strength varies as the square root of radiated power, and the inverse of distance. The same rule of thumb is equivalent to a field strength of 1000 uV/m at 30 m with 10 uW of radiated power...

Some radio and broadcast texts refer to a quarter wave vertical as "an electrically short vertical antenna"...IIRC, a quarter wave vertical with a proper ground system will produce 305 mv/m at 1 km, for 1 kw input power. I don't think that would hold true for a ten foot antenna, field strength would be much less...so your extrapolated Part 15 values are probably too high (they would be correct if you were using a quarter wave vertical...). Also at 30 m, we still may have some near field effects.
 
Re: A Real-World Measurement Proving Radiation Past a Part 15 AM "Ground Lead"

An electrically short vertical monopole is one that is much shorter than a wavelength. a 3 meter monopole is such a monopole. Certainly a one meter monopole is such a monopole. A quarter wave monopole is not electically short, but it has a field strength only a bit over four percent higher than for a monopole that is electrically short. The ideal quarter wave vertical monopole with 1 kW of radiated power produces a field strength of 313,200 uV/m at 1 km. The ideal electrically short monopole produces exactly 300,000 uV/m at 1 km.

The references to this fact are numerous. Terman uses 186,000 uV/m at one mile for electrically short vertical monopoles, which works out to 300,000 uV/m at 1 km. A comprehensive recent treatment of this subject is given by Valentin Trainotti, "Short Medium Frequency AM Antennas," IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, Vol. 47, No. 3, September 2001, p.263.

Of course, a 3 meter antenna is very inefficient; but radiated power is the power produced by the antenna, not the power applied to the antenna. To get one watt of radiated power from such a short antenna usually requires hundreds of watts applied to the antenna from the transmitter. The power loss in electrically short antennas is very high. The efficiency of the antenna is not relevant to the numbers I gave here because said numbers relate only to radiated power, and not the power applied to the antenna by the transmitter.
 
Re: A Real-World Measurement Proving Radiation Past a Part 15 AM "Ground Lead"

radiomonkey2 said:
IIRC, a quarter wave vertical with a proper ground system will produce 305 mv/m at 1 km, for 1 kw input power. I don't think that would hold true for a ten foot antenna, field strength would be much less...so your extrapolated Part 15 values are probably too high (they would be correct if you were using a quarter wave vertical).

A distinction must be made between "input power," and the amount of that power that is radiated by the antenna system. The antenna system includes the electrical parameters of the radiator itself, along with system losses (mainly antenna input matching and r-f ground system losses).

If those losses are zero, then there is little difference between the radiated fields produced in the AM broadcast band by a 3-meter monopole and a 44-meter monopole, for equal applied power. The difference that exists is related to the slight difference in the shape of their radiation patterns in the vertical plane.

But those losses are not zero in the real world, and electrically short monopoles have much less radiation resistance than 1/4-wave monopoles. The net effect of this means that electrically short monopoles radiate less of the matched power available from the transmitter than do 1/4-wave monopoles.

Antenna system efficiency may be calculated as the quotient of the radiation resistance to the sum of all real resistances in the antenna system.

So to illustrate for a ~typical Part 15 AM setup, an end-fed, 3-meter whip antenna mounted with its base near the earth may have about 0.1 ohm of radiation resistance, 5 ohms of matching loss, and 25 ohms of loss in the r-f ground. The radiation efficiency for that system then would be 0.1 / (0.1 + 5 + 25) = 0.003, or 0.3%.

A 1/4-wave monopole has a radiation resistance of about 37 ohms, so using the same losses as above the system efficiency is 37 / (37 + 5 + 25) = 0.552, or 55.2%.

The higher radiation resistance of the ~ 1/4-wave monopoles used by licensed AM broadcast stations along with lower losses than shown above produce an antenna system efficiency on the order of 95%.

When using a 3-meter monopole having 0.1 ohm of radiation resistance and 5 ohms of matching loss with the r-f ground system loss of a typical licensed AM broadcast station, then antenna system efficiency would be something like 0.1 / (0.1 + 5 + 2) = 0.014, or 1.4%.

Also at 30 m, we still may have some near field effects.

The radius to the near-field boundary is related to the height of the monopole and the operating frequency. When using a 3-meter monopole at the high end of the AM broadcast band that distance is close to 30 meters.

RF
 
Re: A Real-World Measurement Proving Radiation Past a Part 15 AM "Ground Lead"

Ermi Roos said:
The high end of radiated power for Part 15 AM with the antenna at ground level is about 1 mW.

Just to note that the amount of power radiated by a ground-mounted 3-m monopole at the high end of the AM broadcast band under more typical conditions, and assuming 35 milliwatts of matched power from the transmitter is more like 1/10 mW.

This conclusion may be derived as the product of the 0.3% antenna system efficiency from my post just above, and 35 mW.

That reduction in radiated power would reduce the field intensity at every distance in the far field to about 68% of the value it would have with 1 mW of radiated power.
//
 
Re: A Real-World Measurement Proving Radiation Past a Part 15 AM "Ground Lead"

R. Fry said:
That reduction in radiated power would reduce the field intensity at every distance in the far field to about 68% of the value it would have with 1 mW of radiated power.

Correction: the reduction would be BY 68%, and TO 32% of the value it would have with 1 mW of radiated power.
 
Re: A Real-World Measurement Proving Radiation Past a Part 15 AM "Ground Lead"

The minimum radiated power of 10 uW for A Part 15 AM system I guessed would be an amount that should be easily achieved with existing commercially-available equipment. The maximum of 1 mW I guessed can't be obtained by any existing transmitter at ground level that is operated legally. To get 1 mW would require improving transmitter efficiency, and increasing antenna capacitence by (for example) using a larger monopole diameter than a CB whip has. An excellent ground screen and loading coil would also be needed. 1 mW would be the "Holy Grail" of ground-level transmitting systems. Elevated transmitters, however, exceed 1 mW routinely.
 
Re: A Real-World Measurement Proving Radiation Past a Part 15 AM "Ground Lead"

So what would the signal be like when you're very close (maybe 2-3 inches) to a 15.209 or 15.219-compliant transmitter, or when you're a little farther away like maybe 3 feet?  (Assume the ground screen radius on the 15.219, if it's used, doesn't exceed the length of the antenna.)  At close range (3") would it be capable of overloading most radios?  For example, would a radio like a Tecsun PL-310 or similar radio indicate a signal strength of 98/25 using only its built-in loopstick antenna, and sound severely overloaded/distorted enough so that audio modulation was indiscernible?
If so, anyone know where I could find plans to build a relatively simple one?  I'd like to do some experiments and would like to build (or buy) a couple inexpensive (prefer to spend no more than $20-30 total) part 15-compliant transmitters with line inputs (if necessary, I could cut the earpieces off old headphones and just attach the wires to spring terminals or similar on the transmitter board) to simulate some real-world tests.  I don't need the fringe signal to go very far - maybe a couple hundred feet at the most to where the signal sinks into the noise on a pocket radio's built-in loopstick, and I could probably get by with significantly less.
If I could have the option of simulating IBOC noise (so I could run some experiments with that) that may be nice, but I could get by without that.  One of the uses for these would be checking the dynamic range on various pocket radios.  I would set one transmitter on a particular frequency so the signal on the radio is right at the noise level (PL-310 or similar radio (with Si4734 DSP chip) may read 15/00 or 15/01 if I was testing one of those).  Then I'd set up the other transmitter on the first-adjacent (or maybe 2nd-adjacent if I'm simulating an IBOC with the stronger signal), and adjust it so that the signal is just barely starting to overload the portable (for example, a PL-310 or similar radio might be reading a signal of 96/25), and see how well the radio receives the weaker station. :)
 
Re: A Real-World Measurement Proving Radiation Past a Part 15 AM "Ground Lead"

In the near field, the field strength varies as the inverse cube of the distance. If the Part 15 transmitter puts out 3000 uv/m at 30 m, at 1 m it might be in the vicinity of 3 V/m, or so. A few inches from the antenna, it might be over 1000 V/m. Can you overload an AM receiver that is very close to the antenna of of a Part 15 AM transmitter? I think you can.
 
Re: A Real-World Measurement Proving Radiation Past a Part 15 AM "Ground Lead"

In a post in this discussion board on November 12, 2005, Hamilton reported that a field test of a Rangemaster elevated 5 feet gave a field strength measurement of 6500 uV/m at 30 m. The thread in which this statement appeared is called, "14.118 uV/m at 30 meters." Maybe this information came from the certification report for the Rangemaster, but Hamilton didn't say. Unlike transmitters certified more recently, the report does not appear on the FCC website. Hamilton also did not say what the operating frequency was. The default frequency of the Rangemaster is 1610 kHz, and maybe that was the frequency that was used.

The field stength of 6500 uV/m at 30 m with an electrically short antenna corresponds to a radiated power of .4225 mW. The range is in the vicinity if 3/4 mile with good ground conductivity. At 1610 kHz, the radiation resistance is about 0.4 ohms if the elevation is 5 feet. The same antenna at ground level has a radiation resistance of about 0.1 ohms. If the radiation resistance is much smaller than the system loss resistance (which is true in these cases), the radiated power is proportional to the radiation resiatance. So at ground level, the radiated power would be about .4225/4 = .106 mW, the field strength is about 6500/2 = 3250 uV/m, and the range is in the vicinity of 3/8 mile. With an elevation significantly higher than five feet, the radiated power can be several mW.

With several mW of radiated power, the range is difficult to predict because ground plane losses would increase with distance. The range with higher radiated power levels can't be found with NEC because this simulation program does a poor job of modeling ground loss. A better (and much more expensive) simulation program, like wipl-d, would have to be used.
 
Re: A Real-World Measurement Proving Radiation Past a Part 15 AM "Ground Lead"

Ermi Roos said:
With several mW of radiated power, the range is difficult to predict because ground plane losses would increase with distance. The range with higher radiated power levels can't be found with NEC because this simulation program does a poor job of modeling ground loss. A better (and much more expensive) simulation program, like wipl-d, would have to be used.

Rather than using NEC or any other software directly to calculate the groundwave field from a monopole over a real earth path, it is preferable to use it to calculate the "efficiency" Note of the monopole on that frequency with respect to its height, matching loss, and the r-f loss in its connection to a perfect ground plane, and then use the effective radiated power that yields from the applied power with the FCC medium-wave propagation charts for that frequency and earth conductivity to determine the field at a given distance. This approach is the same as used in the AM broadcast industry.

The FCC charts are based on measured data, and are used to determine the FCC coverage contours of licensed AM broadcast stations. The values in them have been validated by thousands of real-world measurements going back over many decades.

This was the methodology used to create the coverage circles in the paper at http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h85/rfry-100/150_microvolt_per_meterRadius_Part_.gif .

Also, the groundwave far-fields within about 400 meters of a typical "Part 15 AM" radiator are not much affected by earth conductivity. Instead they quite closely follow the inverse distance rule, regardless of the radiated power that produced them.

Note: The FCC concept of efficiency is the inverse distance field intensity
produced over a 1 km path when 1 kW is applied to the feedpoint
of the monopole.
 
Re: A Real-World Measurement Proving Radiation Past a Part 15 AM "Ground Lead"

To find the ground loss with distance requires solving the Sommerfeld equation. The solution is difficult, and NEC can't do it, but wipl-d can. Terman's Radio Engineers' Handbook (1943) gives a semi-graphical method for calculating a solution. Some textbooks have propagation charts based on the Sommerfeld equation. Most likely, the FCC charts are based on the Sommerfeld equation also.
 
Re: A Real-World Measurement Proving Radiation Past a Part 15 AM "Ground Lead"

Ermi Roos said:
To find the ground loss with distance requires solving the Sommerfeld equation. The solution is difficult, and NEC can't do it, but wipl-d can.

Does the WIPL-D calculation of groundwave field intensity include diffraction loss due to earth curvature? The FCC charts show such effects.

In any case, there is no need to buy an expensive software package to make these calculations. They can be made with the demo (free) version of EZNEC in conjunction with the (free) FCC charts, using the methods I described earlier in this thread.
 
Re: A Real-World Measurement Proving Radiation Past a Part 15 AM "Ground Lead"

It's amazing what you can do with "measured data."
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom