• 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

Measuring Pt 15 AM Field Strength

R

rfry

WCWalker has written here that field strengths generated by Part 15 AM systems cannot be measured accurately. That belief needs more research by Mr. Walker.

If a Part 15 AM station is "listenable" on any kind of radio receiver, its field strength can be measured with good accuracy using a meter such as in the link below, and others.

http://www.pi-usa.com/fim2241/fim2241g.htm

//
 
***Then why did the FCC Engineer in KC claim my signal was OVER power when I actually had the output power level set to ZERO and the signal, quite literally, could not even reach my radio less than a few feet away?

Either he was lying or his equipment did not work right or perhaps he did not know how to use it. His superiors in DC took care of the issue.




> WCWalker has written here that field strengths generated by
> Part 15 AM systems cannot be measured accurately. That
> belief needs more research by Mr. Walker.
>
> If a Part 15 AM station is "listenable" on any kind of radio
> receiver, its field strength can be measured with good
> accuracy using a meter such as in the link below, and
> others.
>
> http://www.pi-usa.com/fim2241/fim2241g.htm
>
> //
>
 
> ***Then why did the FCC Engineer in KC claim my signal was
> OVER power when I actually had the output power level set to
> ZERO and the signal, quite literally, could not even reach
> my radio less than a few feet away?
>
> Either he was lying or his equipment did not work right or
> perhaps he did not know how to use it. His superiors in DC
> took care of the issue.


True. I support Walker's logic. Here in New York I can hear a New Jersey Station in a specific spot in my driveway and in other spots in town. It sometimes is so loud you will think it's a local station. How will you measure that Field Strenght versus my Part 15 when it is on or off?
>
>
>
>
> > WCWalker has written here that field strengths generated
> by
> > Part 15 AM systems cannot be measured accurately. That
> > belief needs more research by Mr. Walker.
> >
> > If a Part 15 AM station is "listenable" on any kind of
> radio
> > receiver, its field strength can be measured with good
> > accuracy using a meter such as in the link below, and
> > others.
> >
> > http://www.pi-usa.com/fim2241/fim2241g.htm
> >
> > //
> >
>
<P ID="signature">______________
Robert Dillon</P>
 
> True. I support Walker's logic. Here in New York I can hear
> a New Jersey Station in a specific spot in my driveway and
> in other spots in town. It sometimes is so loud you will
> think it's a local station. How will you measure that Field
> Strenght versus my Part 15 when it is on or off?
____________

Exactly. If a Part 15 AM chooses a frequency where there can be co-channel interference at some times/places from one or more commercial broadcast stations, then the FCC could measure a signal on that freq even when the Part 15 was suddenly shut down, and not know the difference -- unless they were careful to determine the source(s) of the radiation using triangulation, or identify it by some other means.

The FCC could have made a mistake, but on the other hand, the "Part 15" station could have been radiating excessive power, as well. The FCC measurement process may not have been sophisticated enough to produce the right answer, even though the right FCC test equipment was available.
//
 
Agreed. Not to mention all of the AM band noise one would get from nearby transformers, computer monitors, and TV sets.

Those Field Strength meters were no doubt designed with multi-watt transmitters in mind. The signal from a 0.1 watt Part 15 AM "Bic Lighter" (to use the flamethrower jargon) probably falls within the noise level of such a meter--in William's case, the agent's meter couldn't "tell the difference" between his transmitter and the ambient AM band noise. -- JasonW

> > ***Then why did the FCC Engineer in KC claim my signal was
>
> > OVER power when I actually had the output power level set
> to
> > ZERO and the signal, quite literally, could not even reach
>
> > my radio less than a few feet away?
> >
> > Either he was lying or his equipment did not work right or
>
> > perhaps he did not know how to use it. His superiors in
> DC
> > took care of the issue.
>
>
> True. I support Walker's logic. Here in New York I can hear
> a New Jersey Station in a specific spot in my driveway and
> in other spots in town. It sometimes is so loud you will
> think it's a local station. How will you measure that Field
> Strenght versus my Part 15 when it is on or off?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > WCWalker has written here that field strengths generated
>
> > by
> > > Part 15 AM systems cannot be measured accurately. That
> > > belief needs more research by Mr. Walker.
> > >
> > > If a Part 15 AM station is "listenable" on any kind of
> > radio
> > > receiver, its field strength can be measured with good
> > > accuracy using a meter such as in the link below, and
> > > others.
> > >
> > > http://www.pi-usa.com/fim2241/fim2241g.htm
> > >
> > > //
> > >
> >
>
 
> Those Field Strength meters were no doubt designed with
> multi-watt transmitters in mind. The signal from a 0.1 watt
> Part 15 AM "Bic Lighter" (to use the flamethrower jargon)
> probably falls within the noise level of such a meter--in
> William's case, the agent's meter couldn't "tell the
> difference" between his transmitter and the ambient AM band
> noise. -- JasonW
_______________

This assessment is incorrect. If the field strength from a Part 15 AM system can't be distinguished from ambient noise in the AM band by a professional field strength meter, then a normal radio receiver couldn't do it, either. So then why would anyone want to operate a Part 15 station?

The certainty IS that if a Part 15 AM signal is strong enough to provide a useful (listenable) signal to any kind of radio receiver, a field strength meter can measure that signal strength with good accuracy. This is not an opinion, it is a provable fact.

"Beliefs" and "understandings" not based on this reality may lead to operation of Part 15 AM systems in ways that will increase the risk of illegal operation, and possible FCC citations.
//
 
***That is YOUR opinion and not a stated fact.

Fact: The FCC engineer claimed my signal was too strong despite the fact the transmitter's power level was set to ZERO. The signal could not be heard even a few feet away at my radio.

Fact: Part 15 Field Strength rules DO NOT apply to intentional radiators such as the Rangemaster or Trans AM 100 on the AM band. 15.219

Fact: An FCC Supervisor told my friend (GM of a 5 kw commercial radio station) that their Field Strength Meters CAN NOT accurately read extremely low power AM signals.

Fact: R. Fry comes in here claiming to have all the answers about what is legal and not legal with part 15 broadcasting despite the fact he is a retired broadcast engineer and not in the part 15 broadcast business.

Fact: R. Fry's opinions or interpretaions as they pertain to the rules in part 15 seem to contradict those of the FCC. His interpretations are not based upon actual discussions or dealings with the FCC but merely what he finds and reads off the internet.

Fact: R. Fry is woefully ignorant of the facts on part 15 issues.


> > Those Field Strength meters were no doubt designed with
> > multi-watt transmitters in mind. The signal from a 0.1
> watt
> > Part 15 AM "Bic Lighter" (to use the flamethrower jargon)
> > probably falls within the noise level of such a meter--in
> > William's case, the agent's meter couldn't "tell the
> > difference" between his transmitter and the ambient AM
> band
> > noise. -- JasonW
> _______________
>
> This assessment is incorrect. If the field strength from a
> Part 15 AM system can't be distinguished from ambient noise
> in the AM band by a professional field strength meter, then
> a normal radio receiver couldn't do it, either. So then why
> would anyone want to operate a Part 15 station?
>
> The certainty IS that if a Part 15 AM signal is strong
> enough to provide a useful (listenable) signal to any kind
> of radio receiver, a field strength meter can measure that
> signal strength with good accuracy. This is not an opinion,
> it is a provable fact.
>
> "Beliefs" and "understandings" not based on this reality may
> lead to operation of Part 15 AM systems in ways that will
> increase the risk of illegal operation, and possible FCC
> citations.
> //
>
 
> This assessment is incorrect. If the field strength from a
> Part 15 AM system can't be distinguished from ambient noise
> in the AM band by a professional field strength meter, then
> a normal radio receiver couldn't do it, either. So then why
> would anyone want to operate a Part 15 station?

A field strength meter (and I've built a few) only provides an indication of the voltage present at its antenna terminals, regardless of the form of RF producing the voltage (white noise, AM, FM, SSB, video, etc.) at the frequency at which the field is being measured. Most of the noise one hears on an AM receiver (transformers, computer monitors, fluorescent lights, etc.) is quite short-range in nature, and it is easy to isolate the receiver from these noise sources or simply null them out by rotating the receiver. Because of this, it is not difficult to receive Part 15 AM signals even in such an environment.

> The certainty IS that if a Part 15 AM signal is strong
> enough to provide a useful (listenable) signal to any kind
> of radio receiver, a field strength meter can measure that
> signal strength with good accuracy. This is not an opinion,
> it is a provable fact.

I have reproduced what happened to William myself. With all of the local noise impinging upon the field strength meter's antenna, the meter needle didn't visibly move at all with my Part 15 AM transmitter on or off. The transmitter is clearly audible on a pocket receiver up to 1/4 mile away.

> "Beliefs" and "understandings" not based on this reality may
> lead to operation of Part 15 AM systems in ways that will
> increase the risk of illegal operation, and possible FCC
> citations.

Now, finally, we're down to brass tacks. When operated according to the three simple rules (antenna + ground lead length, power to the final stage, and harmonic suppression), there is *NO* risk of illegal operation, despite *your* beliefs. You have an inordinate interest in Part 15 broadcasting which parallels that of some anti-firearms advocates I've had occasion to argue with. They were embarrassed or afraid to come right out and say they opposed the Second Amendment, so they attempted to obfuscate the issue by being extremely nit-picky about local and state gun laws. Like them, the tone of your postings suggests that you don't think that citizens should have the freedom to broadcast without a license at any power level. It doesn't offend me if you feel that way--I just wish you'd come right out and say it. -- JasonW
 
> Fact: The FCC engineer claimed my signal was too strong
> despite the fact the transmitter's power level was set to
> ZERO. The signal could not be heard even a few feet away at
> my radio.

Not enough information has been provided to know what accounts for the situation you report.

> Fact: Part 15 Field Strength rules DO NOT apply to
> intentional radiators such as the Rangemaster or Trans AM
> 100 on the AM band. 15.219

Suggest you read Sec 15.209 (title block below). Note that it DOES limit field strength for systems with intentional radiators in the AM band, and elsewhere. This is the paragraph referenced in FCC notices about Part 15 AM field strength violations that were posted here yesterday.

TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION
CHAPTER I--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES--Table of Contents

Subpart C--Intentional Radiators

Sec. 15.209 Radiated emission limits; general requirements.

> Fact: An FCC Supervisor told my friend (GM of a 5 kw
> commercial radio station) that their Field Strength Meters
> CAN NOT accurately read extremely low power AM signals.

Have you ever made such measurements? I have, and the meters can accurately measure anything you can tune in and listen to on a standard radio. Not opinion, but a fact you can demonstrate to yourself if you have the means to do it.
//
 
***Then Carrier Current stations must comply with part 15.219 and 15.23 clearly states kits are prohibited.

Jason W. has just stated he's done field strength studies and his findings support the FACTS that I have posted.

And I have read 15.209 and know what it is about. Yes, while it does state "intentional radiators" in this rule it is an ancient rule that no longer seems to be enforced. And more importantly, from what I have been told by people at the FCC and others with contacts at the FCC, 15.219 SUPERCEDES 15.209 when you use a Hamilton or similar transmitter.

USI is the first company to my knowledge, that obtained FCC Type Acceptance for a Part 15 AM transmitter. That was in 1978. I know someone that sold hundreds of these units plus I know that Keith Hamilton has sold a large number of his unit and Bill Baker of ISS has sold tons of the Infomax over the years. I have not heard of one single instance where the FCC ever tried to shut down someone using a part 15 AM transmitter of this nature for violating field strength.

The FCC in DC told KC the Field Strength rule did not apply to my Trans AM 100 transmitter! Again, what DC says and what a Field Office says are two different things. Unless you are some kind of Commie that does not respect the words of those with higher authority (FCC in DC), I would have to believe you would take the word of the FCC in DC over a Field Office.

I agree with Jason completely and I would have to say you remind me of the gun grabbing nuts in this country. And you are starting to look like an educated illiterate!



> > Fact: The FCC engineer claimed my signal was too strong
> > despite the fact the transmitter's power level was set to
> > ZERO. The signal could not be heard even a few feet away
> at
> > my radio.
>
> Not enough information has been provided to know what
> accounts for the situation you report.
>
> > Fact: Part 15 Field Strength rules DO NOT apply to
> > intentional radiators such as the Rangemaster or Trans AM
> > 100 on the AM band. 15.219
>
> Suggest you read Sec 15.209 (title block below). Note that
> it DOES limit field strength for systems with intentional
> radiators in the AM band, and elsewhere. This is the
> paragraph referenced in FCC notices about Part 15 AM field
> strength violations that were posted here yesterday.
>
> TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION
> CHAPTER I--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
> PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES--Table of Contents
>
> Subpart C--Intentional Radiators
>
> Sec. 15.209 Radiated emission limits; general requirements.
>
>
> > Fact: An FCC Supervisor told my friend (GM of a 5 kw
> > commercial radio station) that their Field Strength Meters
>
> > CAN NOT accurately read extremely low power AM signals.
>
> Have you ever made such measurements? I have, and the
> meters can accurately measure anything you can tune in and
> listen to on a standard radio. Not opinion, but a fact you
> can demonstrate to yourself if you have the means to do it.
> //
>
 
> A field strength meter (and I've built a few) only provides
> an indication of the voltage present at its antenna
> terminals, regardless of the form of RF producing the
> voltage (white noise, AM, FM, SSB, video, etc.) at the
> frequency at which the field is being measured. Most of the
> noise one hears on an AM receiver (transformers, computer
> monitors, fluorescent lights, etc.) is quite short-range in
> nature, and it is easy to isolate the receiver from these
> noise sources or simply null them out by rotating the
> receiver. Because of this, it is not difficult to receive
> Part 15 AM signals even in such an environment.

And the same is possible for professional field strength meters, which do NOT use a simple vertical whip that can receive noise from all directions. They use a high quality loop antenna that has two very deep nulls in its azimuth pattern. If a cheap table radio can be rotated to avoid local noise and receive a useful Part 15 signal, then a professional field strength meter (the Potomac Instruments FIM-41, for example) can do it at least as well.

> > The certainty IS that if a Part 15 AM signal is strong
> > enough to provide a useful (listenable) signal to any kind
>
> > of radio receiver, a field strength meter can measure that
>
> > signal strength with good accuracy. This is not an
> opinion,
> > it is a provable fact.
>
> I have reproduced what happened to William myself. With all
> of the local noise impinging upon the field strength meter's
> antenna, the meter needle didn't visibly move at all with my
> Part 15 AM transmitter on or off. The transmitter is
> clearly audible on a pocket receiver up to 1/4 mile away.

Was it listenable on the pocket receiver at the same location as you were using your field meter? If the answer is yes, and if the field meter you were using was of professional quality (like the FIM-41) and was used correctly, you would have been able to get some kind of indication of the field strength change when the tx was turned on and off.

> the tone of your postings suggests that
> you don't think that citizens should have the freedom to
> broadcast without a license at any power level. It doesn't
> offend me if you feel that way--I just wish you'd come right
> out and say it.

Not at all. 47 CFR Part 15 gives US citizens the right to use the radio spectrum in the manner they describe, and that is nothing I object to in the least.
//
 
> ... 15.209 ... is an ancient rule that
> no longer seems to be enforced.

> ... from what I have been told
> by people at the FCC and others ...

> ... to my knowledge,...

> I have not heard of one single instance ...

etc.

How much help would your statements be to someone who was cited by the FCC after operating according to your beliefs?
//
 
***You are a cretin. I sincerely apologize for having to stoop to this level but it is quite apparent that you are sounding like a broken record. Worse still you are incapable of understanding the interpretations of the FCC's rules by the FCC in Washington.




> > ... 15.209 ... is an ancient rule that
> > no longer seems to be enforced.
>
> > ... from what I have been told
> > by people at the FCC and others ...
>
> > ... to my knowledge,...
>
> > I have not heard of one single instance ...
>
> etc.
>
> How much help would your statements be to someone who was
> cited by the FCC after operating according to your beliefs?
> //
>
 
> And the same is possible for professional field strength
> meters, which do NOT use a simple vertical whip that can
> receive noise from all directions. They use a high quality
> loop antenna that has two very deep nulls in its azimuth
> pattern. If a cheap table radio can be rotated to avoid
> local noise and receive a useful Part 15 signal, then a
> professional field strength meter (the Potomac Instruments
> FIM-41, for example) can do it at least as well.

In a typical neighborhood, the loop won't help much if at all at Part 15 power levels because nearby noise sources (near the transmitting antenna) are scattered in all directions. In a neighborhood like mine where most houses have metal roofs, reflections cause low-level background noise to be equally strong in all directions.

> Was it listenable on the pocket receiver at the same
> location as you were using your field meter? If the answer
> is yes, and if the field meter you were using was of
> professional quality (like the FIM-41) and was used
> correctly, you would have been able to get some kind of
> indication of the field strength change when the tx was
> turned on and off.

I was using an MFJ-801 Field Strength Meter at the time. With the transmitter either on or off, its needle never moved, although local noise kept its needle raised a little over 1 "tick" when set for maximum sensitivity (with the transmitter on or off). I made measurements at the base of my 20' mast and from 15' away. With the transmitter on, I could clearly receive it on a pocket AM receiver at these same locations, as well as up to 1/4 mile away. With the transmitter off, I could also hear the local noise on the receiver at the measurement locations and elsewhere.

> Not at all. 47 CFR Part 15 gives US citizens the right to
> use the radio spectrum in the manner they describe, and that
> is nothing I object to in the least.

I'm glad to hear it. -- JasonW
 
>In a typical neighborhood, the loop won't help much if at all
>at Part 15 power levels because nearby noise sources (near the
>transmitting antenna) are scattered in all directions.
>In a neighborhood like mine where most houses have metal roofs,
>reflections cause low-level background noise to be equally
>strong in all directions.

If at any location where noise cannot be minimized with respect to the Part 15 AM signal by rotating the loop antenna of a good field strength meter (FIM-41), then neither can it be minimized by rotating the loopstick antenna of a radio receiver at that location. And if the best received signal-to-noise ratio is 1:1, nobody would want to listen to that station, so trying to measure field strength there is somewhat pointless.

Once again: if the Part 15 AM station can be heard clearly on a normal receiver at any location, then a suitable field strength meter like the FIM-41 will be able to measure its field strength there.

>I was using an MFJ-801 Field Strength Meter at the time.
>With the transmitter either on or off, its needle never moved,
>although local noise kept its needle raised a little over 1 "tick"
>when set for maximum sensitivity (with the transmitter on or off).
>I made measurements at the base of my 20' mast and from 15'away.
>With the transmitter on, I could clearly receive it on a pocket
>AM receiver at these same locations, as well as up to 1/4 mile
>away. With the transmitter off, I could also hear the local noise
>on the receiver at the measurement locations and elsewhere.

I'll try to find specs on the MFJ-801, but if it was not able to read the field strength while 15 feet from a radiating Part 15 transmit antenna, something was fundamentally wrong. Either the meter design doesn't have the sensitivity required, or maybe it wasn't working right.

The field strength 15 feet horizontally from a good Part 15 AM antenna system connected to a tx with 100 mW input power to the final RF amplifier should be greater than 5 millivolts per meter. That is a substantial amount of field strength that a suitable field strength meter can easily read. And it is far above the ambient noise level even in city environments. Many AM broadcast stations have large audiences in areas where their signals are 1 mV/m or less.

For confidence, here is a table of values showing calculated field strengths for the conditions shown, using the FCC's engineering data (sources on request).

DATA:

Frequency = 1600 kHz
Tx Power Output = 80 milliwatts
Radiator: Ground-mounted 3 meter vertical with
a total of 20 ohms in ground and coil losses.

Results:
Contour level > Distance to contour

5.000 mV/m > 0.0032 miles (about 17 feet)
4.000 mV/m > 0.0040 miles
3.000 mV/m > 0.0054 miles
1.000 mV/m > 0.0161 miles

//
 
> For confidence, here is a table of values showing calculated
> field strengths for the conditions shown, using the FCC's
> engineering data (sources on request).
>
> DATA:
>
> Frequency = 1600 kHz
> Tx Power Output = 80 milliwatts
> Radiator: Ground-mounted 3 meter vertical with
> a total of 20 ohms in ground and coil losses.
>
> Results:
> Contour level > Distance to contour
>
> 5.000 mV/m > 0.0032 miles (about 17 feet)
> 4.000 mV/m > 0.0040 miles
> 3.000 mV/m > 0.0054 miles
> 1.000 mV/m > 0.0161 miles
>


How do you calculate those?

Also (this one anyone can answer), how would you estimate/calculate ground/coil losses based on the ground system used (radials, stakes, wire mesh, tall tower (but not so tall I have to put aircraft beacons on it. I live about 5 miles or so from a small airport))?
 
>
> How much help would your statements be to someone who was
> cited by the FCC after operating according to your beliefs?
> //
>

So please tell us of the many people you know who HAVE been cited by the FCC for these violations? Perhaps if we have an understanding of how large this problem is, we could react appropriately.

-Dick
 
RE: AM Field Strengths

> How do you calculate those?

It isn't real simple. First I modeled the 3-meter antenna on 1.6 MHz with 10 ohms of ground loss and 10 ohms of coil loss, using NEC (Numerical Electromagnetics Code). That gave me the groundwave field strength at 1 km for 1 kW of radiated power, which is the FCC "efficiency" for that antenna system.

That antenna efficiency was then used with the FCC's propagation curves for that frequency to determine the field strength at those distances, for the given power applied to the antenna feedpoint.

> Also (this one anyone can answer), how would you
> estimate/calculate ground/coil losses based on the ground
> system used

Coil losses can be measured with a suitable meter. Ground losses can be estimated indirectly by measuring the feedpoint impedance of the antenna, and subtracting the coil resistance and the radiation resistance.

Radiation resistance can be calculated (approximately) for these short antennas using this equation:

Radiation Resistance in ohms =~ (Height of antenna in degrees)² / 312

Note that the "height" here must include the 3 meter antenna itself plus the entire length of any conducting path leading from the tx chassis to the physical earth (that is, the ground lead, the ground wire, the tower, or whatever -- all of which when connected in series will form part of the antenna, and radiate).

//
 
> > How much help would your statements be to someone who was
> > cited by the FCC after operating according to your
> > beliefs?
> > //
>
> So please tell us of the many people you know who HAVE been
> cited by the FCC for these violations? Perhaps if we have an
> understanding of how large this problem is, we could react
> appropriately.
______________

Links to several separate FCC Notices about this were posted here yesterday.

//
 
.. - --- --- .- -- --. . - - .. -. --. ..-. . -.. ..- .--. .-- .. - .... .-. ..-. .-. -.-- .----. ... ..-. ..- -.-. -.- .. -. --. .- - - .. - ..- -.. . - --- .-- .- .-. -.. .--. .- .-. - .---- ..... .- -- -... .-. --- .- -.. -.-. .- ... - .. -. --. .-.-.- .. .-- .. ... .... .... . .-- --- ..- .-.. -.. - .- -.- . .... .. ... .-. . ..-. ..- ... .- .-.. - --- -... . ... -.-- -- .--. .- - .... . - .. -.-. - --- .--. .- .-. - .---- ..... -... .-. --- .- -.. -.-. .- ... - . .-. ... -.--.- .-- .... --- .-- .- -. - - --- -- .- -..- .. -- .. --.. . - .... . .. .-. .-. .- -. --. . ..- -. -.. . .-. - .... . .-. ..- .-.. . ... -....- .---- ----- ----- -- .. .-.. .-.. .. .-- .- - - ... --..-- ...-- -- . - . .-. .- -. - . -. -. .- .- -. -.. --. .-. --- ..- -. -.. .-.. . .- -.. -.--.- .-- .... .. -.-. .... .. .----. -- ... ..- .-. . -.. --- . ... -. --- - -. . -.-. . ... ... .- .-. .. .-.. -.-- -- . .- -. - .... . .- -. - . -. -. .- .... .- ... - --- -... . -. --- -- --- .-. . - .... .- -. ...-- -- . - . .-. ... .- -... --- ...- . .--. .... -.-- ... .. -.-. .- .-.. . .- .-. - .... --. .-. --- ..- -. -.. -.--.- -.--.- - --- -.. .- -- -. . -.. .... . .-.. .-.. .-- .. - .... .... .. ... ..-. ..- -.-. -.- . -.. -. .- -... -... .. --. -... .-. --- .- -.. -.-. .- ... - . .-. ... ..- .--. .--. --- .-. - .. -. --. ... -- .- .-.. .-.. -... .-. --- .- -.. -.-. .- ... - . .-. -.-. .-. ..- ... .... .. -. --. ... .... .. - .-.-.- .. .-- --- ..- .-.. -.. -... . --.- ..- .. - . ... ..- .-. .--. .-. .. ... . -.. - .... .- - .-. ..-. .-. -.-- .----. ... ..-. ..- -.-. -.- .. -. --. ... .... .. - - -.-- .- - - .. - ..- -.. . .. ... .-- . .-.. -.-. --- -- . --- -. - .... .. ... -.-. --- -- -- ..- -. .. - -.-- .-. .- -.. .. --- -... --- .- .-. -.. --..-- .- -. -.. .. .-- --- ..- .-.. -.. .-.. .. -.- . - --- ... . . .. - -.-. --- -. -.. . -- -. . -.. - --- .... . .-.. .-.. .-.-.-

Note, if you translate the morse code to english, you may be able to figure out why I didn't write the post in plain english.

> ***You are a cretin. I sincerely apologize for having to
> stoop to this level but it is quite apparent that you are
> sounding like a broken record. Worse still you are
> incapable of understanding the interpretations of the FCC's
> rules by the FCC in Washington.
>
>
>
>
> > > ... 15.209 ... is an ancient rule that
> > > no longer seems to be enforced.
> >
> > > ... from what I have been told
> > > by people at the FCC and others ...
> >
> > > ... to my knowledge,...
> >
> > > I have not heard of one single instance ...
> >
> > etc.
> >
> > How much help would your statements be to someone who was
> > cited by the FCC after operating according to your
> beliefs?
> > //
> >
>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom