• 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

Permitted output power Part 15? Still VERY confused

I see on another forum http://www.part15.us/modules.php?name=Forums

referring to this document http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/decdoc/scandoc/910724/1.jpg

Rich states:

Using the equation

Field Strength in dB above 1 microvolt/meter =
104.77 + ERPi - 20 log (D)

where
ERPi = Effective Radiated Power in dB referenced
to 1kW from an isotropic radiator
D = Distance in kilometers

and applying the necessary units conversions says that input power of ~11.5 nanowatts to a linear 1/2-wave dipole will produce the FCC's maximum field of 250 uV/m at a distance of three meters. A nanowatt is a millionth of a milliwatt!
-----------------------------

RadioheadC asks:
So, what accounts for the difference between the 10 or 11.5 nanowatts that the FCC and you respectively estimate and the 1 to 10 milliwatts that manufacturers seem to use?

Rich replies:
-----------------------------

The FCC Public Notice you linked to refers to the "Maximum Effective Radiated Power" permitted -- which is the peak directional power actually radiated by the antenna -- not the power input or output of the Part 15 FM transmitter itself.

The transmitter output power can be whatever value it needs to be to produce no more than 250 uV/m at a 3-meter distance in any direction from the antenna. So if the antenna has a peak gain of 1X, the power applied to its input connector could not exceed the nominal 10 nanowatt value.

I think the FCC Rules for "type acceptance" require commercial manufacturers of Part 15 FM transmitters to supply the antenna, and that it should either be permanently attached to the transmitter, or use a unique connector so that it can't be replaced with an antenna that wasn't tested and certified as meeting the Rules with that transmitter.

In any case, antennas for the FM band usually are very efficient, because even though they are short physically, they are long in terms of wavelength (unlike for Part 15 AM antennas). A 1/2-wave FM dipole, for example, is only 4 or 5 feet long, and has a peak gain of 1.64X compared to an isotropic radiator. A "whip" type antenna has somewhat less gain than that, but still far more gain than would permit using anything approaching 1-10 mW with it, and still meet Part 15 Rules.

Manufacturers quoting Part 15 FM transmitter power of 1 to 10 mW may say (if pressed) that these powers are for use only "where authorized." Or maybe some of them either haven't done the math, or are referencing inapplicable/outdated FCC documents. Good question to ask the ones who do this.
//
--------------------------------

Then EDM FAQ document says this:

"I am confused. I read that my local authority allows only 10nW of RF power, your weakest unit transmit 10mW of RF. In my book it is 1 Million times over the limit!?

Don't confuse RF power input to an antenna with actual radiated power received or measured at a point in space. To try and explain: Suppose you take a light bulb and suspend it in the middle of a big sphere or ball. If that is say a 100W of light output, it is obvious that if you can measure at a very small point on the inside surface the light intensity, and convert it to equivalent power it will not be 100W any more but, 100W divided by all the many millions of pin-points that makes up the surface area of this sphere. The light source can be your antenna radiating in all directions, and the point anywhere on the surface representing the receiving antenna some distance from the transmit antenna. Doing the math on a often enquired uV requirement, we calculated that:
250uV/m @ 3m ~ 12.5nW of received power intensity or in engineering terms -59dBm using a 1m sampling antenna 3m distance away from the transmit antenna. (This is only how WE see and interpret it as outsiders, you are advised to get a 2nd opinion)
Also remember that apart from an antenna not be able to transmit or receive without losses, there is free space attenuation that "eats" up some of the signal as it travels from the transmit antenna to the receiver antenna."
---------------------------------

Who is correct, or are they both correct? I wish the FCC would publish requirements for normal people (homebrewers) to understand. It is like trying to figure out a legal document. By the time you finished, you still don't know what the blaze it means! It would have been much simpler to just say 'P'mW out of the transmitter using a no gain, 'N' gain antenna. Why all this complications?
 
I don't know if it is possible to calculate the power vs. field strength in the situation where you are using 1 wavelength distance from the antenna (3 meters).

The problem is that you are still in the near field of the antenna where the coupling includes induced energy as well as radiated energy.

The fcc document you cited explains the intent of the FCC rules is to limit usable distance for a FM part15 transmitter to about 200 feet. I believe if I set up my system to do this, then I will have met the intent of the law and I would use this as an explaination if I were visited. Not legal advice...just my opinion.

Based on experience, a transmitter producing 20 milliwatts into a 50 ohm load (Bird wattmeter) will give this range when connected to a 1 foot whip antenna with no ground plane. Keep in mind that the power into the antenna in my example is most likely not 20 milliwatts due to the mismatch with the transmitter, and this measurement is only a rough guide.

Hope this helps.
 
> I don't know if it is possible to calculate the power vs.
> field strength in the situation where you are using 1
> wavelength distance from the antenna (3 meters).
>
> The problem is that you are still in the near field of the
> antenna where the coupling includes induced energy as well
> as radiated energy.
>
> The fcc document you cited explains the intent of the FCC
> rules is to limit usable distance for a FM part15
> transmitter to about 200 feet. I believe if I set up my
> system to do this, then I will have met the intent of the
> law and I would use this as an explaination if I were
> visited. Not legal advice...just my opinion.
>
> Based on experience, a transmitter producing 20 milliwatts
> into a 50 ohm load (Bird wattmeter) will give this range
> when connected to a 1 foot whip antenna with no ground
> plane. Keep in mind that the power into the antenna in my
> example is most likely not 20 milliwatts due to the mismatch
> with the transmitter, and this measurement is only a rough
> guide.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
This is a new perspective on the problem, thanks BUT
These are the concepts I am battling with:-
the stuff in () is only my thinking

1. The FCC document talks about 10nW maximum effective radiated (OUT) power.
2. Rich talks about 11.5nW allowed feeding (INTO) a 1/2 wave dipole.
3. EDM talks about 12.5nW, or -59dBm of power received (INCOMING) 3m away from the transmit antenna if the antenna to sample with on the receiver side is 1m long.

Now (OUT) i see as after the antenna, (INTO) i see as from the transmitter going into the antenna and (INCOMING) as what power level is received by the receiving antenna.

Someone please explain this to me!
 
for sale: rubber duckie FM antenna tuned to 97.7.........

> I don't know if it is possible to calculate the power vs.> field strength in the situation where you are using 1> wavelength distance from the antenna (3 meters).> > The problem is that you are still in the near field of the> antenna where the coupling includes induced energy as well> as radiated energy.> > The fcc document you cited explains the intent of the FCC> rules is to limit usable distance for a FM part15> transmitter to about 200 feet. I believe if I set up my> system to do this, then I will have met the intent of the> law and I would use this as an explaination if I were> visited. Not legal advice...just my opinion.> > Based on experience, a transmitter producing 20 milliwatts> into a 50 ohm load (Bird wattmeter) will give this range> when connected to a 1 foot whip antenna with no ground> plane. Keep in mind that the power into the antenna in my> example is most likely not 20 milliwatts due to the mismatch> with the transmitter, and this measurement is only a rough> guide.> > Hope this helps.> and within 3kHz of it. Cost; $35.00 and I will include shipping within the continental US......I purchased it with intent to use it, but no longer need it: the antenna is extremely small (about 8" long) but it's intent is to concentrate your signal on that, or a very very close frequency and keep it legal. There are no radials on it (they could be added if you wished to do so). It is small enough to conceal yet stiff enough to put up in the air. It is up to you to decide if you can use it.......if so, shoot me an email at [email protected] and I'd be glad to send it to you.<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected], [email protected],[email protected]</P>
 
Re: for sale: rubber duckie FM antenna tuned to 97.7.........

Carl,

I don't know what you are talking about in your reply to my post. Maybe you are trying to be funny...I just don't know.

By the way, I worked another station on 2 meters with a rubber duck antenna with a handheld transmitter running 2.5 watts on simplex at a distance of 100 miles with a Q5 signal. Maybe it is cheating since he was airborn piloting his airplane.

Again, your humor escapes me. For a rubberduck antenna $35 is way too much....they cost about $15 unless you charge $20 for S&H.

Also, I mention that "within 3 KHz of it" is legal for FM broadcasting. Again, I miss the humor.
 
Re: for sale:rubber duckie FM antenna tuned to 97.7 ??

Carl was performance of the wire antenna better than the duckie or are you affaid to use it because it performs so well. $35 is not bad for a custom cut duckie antenna. It's not to far from a freq I will use after the move. 97.7 is taken here!.
Steve
Radio Brandy

> Cost; $35.00 and I will include shipping within the
> continental US......I purchased it with intent to use it,
> but no longer need it: the antenna is extremely small
> (about 8" long) but it's intent is to concentrate your
> signal on that, or a very very close frequency and keep it
> legal. There are no radials on it (they could be added if
> you wished to do so). It is small enough to conceal yet
> stiff enough to put up in the air. It is up to you to
> decide if you can use it.......if so, shoot me an email at
> [email protected] and I'd be glad to send it to you.
>
 
According to FCC regulations, there is no specified output power for a Part 15 FM transmitter.

As to getting the signal from the transmitter output to the reciever input, you are correct in what you are saying. Maybe, this will help. Engineers use what is called a power budget when designing a radio link. From the receiver specs. you determine what power the receiver needs at its input and work back to the transmitter output. This involves calculating the gains due to the antennas and the losses due to transmission lines and the path. It is easy to do for long range (far field) systems, but impossible to do for short range systems due to the unknowns in the path including reflections and absorbtion loss. It really boils down to experimenting to see what works.

If you are concerned about being legal, then I think the only practical thing to do is to follow the FCC intent that Part 15 FM systems have a range of about 200 feet. The only measurable thing that makes sense regarding the effect of these transmitters is the field strength at a certain distance. This is because antennas can be constructed to give extremely high gain and range at these frequencies.

Unfortunately, this puts us users at a disadvantage, since we do not have calibrated field strength meters. The only sensable approach I know of is to measure and limit the range to be within the rules intent. I know what you pave with intent, but this is all we can do.
 
> According to FCC regulations, there is no specified output
> power for a Part 15 FM transmitter.
>
> As to getting the signal from the transmitter output to the
> reciever input, you are correct in what you are saying.
> Maybe, this will help. Engineers use what is called a power
> budget when designing a radio link. From the receiver
> specs. you determine what power the receiver needs at its
> input and work back to the transmitter output. This
> involves calculating the gains due to the antennas and the
> losses due to transmission lines and the path. It is easy
> to do for long range (far field) systems, but impossible to
> do for short range systems due to the unknowns in the path
> including reflections and absorbtion loss. It really boils
> down to experimenting to see what works.
>
> If you are concerned about being legal, then I think the
> only practical thing to do is to follow the FCC intent that
> Part 15 FM systems have a range of about 200 feet. The only
> measurable thing that makes sense regarding the effect of
> these transmitters is the field strength at a certain
> distance. This is because antennas can be constructed to
> give extremely high gain and range at these frequencies.
>
> Unfortunately, this puts us users at a disadvantage, since
> we do not have calibrated field strength meters. The only
> sensable approach I know of is to measure and limit the
> range to be within the rules intent. I know what you pave
> with intent, but this is all we can do.
>

There is a saying "where there's confusion, chaos reigns" or something like that

If people in the know about RF (Rich, EDM etc.) have problems fully understanding the regulations, how's a average sod suppose to figure it out? Looks like you can't get a straight answer from anybody. Reading through some of the FCC stuff, I do get the idea that, the original requirements may have been determined and stipulated by Engineers in Engineering terms, but then it was left up to some department to translate this information into a document to publish. This resulted in all the "gibberish" ending up in the final documents. I once saw a operating manual for a video recorder that appeared to be translated from Japanese or Korean into English. The words were there, but some things made no sense. Like a early software translation missing the syntax. In some of the FCC documents, the units W, uV, dB ...are there but does not make any sense! Well, not for me

"Gibberish" is a nonsense-language
 
Re: Permitted output power Part 15? as much as you are willing

Lets face it the F.C.C. does not want the general public to operate a radio station of any kind. The last thing the F.C.C wants is you to cut into the profits of the big corprate broadcasters that grease their palms. It is up to you to use good judgement, don't kill your neighboors favorite radio or television program and for God sakes try not to crash any airplanes. One responsible broadcaster might get away with 45 watts where another clown might drag in the feds with a 1/2 watt.
Why sweat the details!

Steve
Radio Brandy


> There is a saying "where there's confusion, chaos reigns" or
> something like that
>
> If people in the know about RF (Rich, EDM etc.) have
> problems fully understanding the regulations, how's a
> average sod suppose to figure it out? Looks like you can't
> get a straight answer from anybody. Reading through some of
> the FCC stuff, I do get the idea that, the original
> requirements may have been determined and stipulated by
> Engineers in Engineering terms, but then it was left up to
> some department to translate this information into a
> document to publish. This resulted in all the "gibberish"
> ending up in the final documents. I once saw a operating
> manual for a video recorder that appeared to be translated
> from Japanese or Korean into English. The words were there,
> but some things made no sense. Like a early software
> translation missing the syntax. In some of the FCC
> documents, the units W, uV, dB ...are there but does not
> make any sense! Well, not for me
>
> "Gibberish" is a nonsense-language
>
 
Re: for sale:rubber duckie FM antenna tuned to 97.7 ??

> Carl was performance of the wire antenna better than the> duckie or are you affaid to use it because it performs so> well. $35 is not bad for a custom cut duckie antenna. It's> not to far from a freq I will use after the move. 97.7 is> taken here!.> Steve> Radio Brandy> > > Cost; $35.00 and I will include shipping within the> > continental US......I purchased it with intent to use it,> > but no longer need it: the antenna is extremely small> > (about 8" long) but it's intent is to concentrate your> > signal on that, or a very very close frequency and keep it> > > legal. There are no radials on it (they could be added if> > > you wished to do so). It is small enough to conceal yet> > stiff enough to put up in the air. It is up to you to> > decide if you can use it.......if so, shoot me an email at> > > [email protected] and I'd be glad to send it to you.> >> It performed part 15 specs and then some, so as I am on a mountain already, I can not use this item.<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected], [email protected],[email protected]</P>
 
Re: for sale: rubber duckie FM antenna tuned to 97.7.........

> Carl,> > I don't know what you are talking about in your reply to my> post. Maybe you are trying to be funny...I just don't know.> > > By the way, I worked another station on 2 meters with a> rubber duck antenna with a handheld transmitter running 2.5> watts on simplex at a distance of 100 miles with a Q5> signal. Maybe it is cheating since he was airborn piloting> his airplane.> > Again, your humor escapes me. For a rubberduck antenna $35> is way too much....they cost about $15 unless you charge $20> for S&H.> > Also, I mention that "within 3 KHz of it" is legal for FM> broadcasting. Again, I miss the humor.> There is no humor at all; that is the price I'm asking for it.<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected], [email protected],[email protected]</P>
 
> According to FCC regulations, there is no specified output> power for a Part 15 FM transmitter.> > As to getting the signal from the transmitter output to the> reciever input, you are correct in what you are saying. > Maybe, this will help. Engineers use what is called a power> budget when designing a radio link. From the receiver> specs. you determine what power the receiver needs at its> input and work back to the transmitter output. This> involves calculating the gains due to the antennas and the> losses due to transmission lines and the path. It is easy> to do for long range (far field) systems, but impossible to> do for short range systems due to the unknowns in the path> including reflections and absorbtion loss. It really boils> down to experimenting to see what works.> > If you are concerned about being legal, then I think the> only practical thing to do is to follow the FCC intent that> Part 15 FM systems have a range of about 200 feet. The only> measurable thing that makes sense regarding the effect of> these transmitters is the field strength at a certain> distance. This is because antennas can be constructed to> give extremely high gain and range at these frequencies.> > Unfortunately, this puts us users at a disadvantage, since> we do not have calibrated field strength meters. The only> sensable approach I know of is to measure and limit the> range to be within the rules intent. I know what you pave> with intent, but this is all we can do.> I'll get really simple here; and it needs to be simple. I can appreciate all the technical info, but from the emails I get about it all, it is way above the heads of people who want to have a simple part am or fm station....so.....fm...........yep, 200 feet is about it, simply put. Don't buy meters or anything else; if you buy a FM tx and it does anything better than 200feet, then it borders on illegal.....look closely at what you are interferring with, and if you are not interferring, then, chances are you are ok.........I do feel a tuned antenna (whatever kind you choose) is best, simply because your signal will stay where you want it, but I wouldn't worry a lot if you have a 300 foot signal and you don't interfere with a commercial broadcaster/your neighbors' tv.....again, just my opinion.....chances are pretty good that you will get a FCC visit if you step all over the FM that lives on your road, but most part 15 broadcasters don't think that way.<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected], [email protected],[email protected]</P>
 
> I am sorry that I could not satisfy your quest for an
> answer.
>
> Keep your range at 200 feet and enjoy the hobby!
>

Thanks for trying!
 
Re: Permitted output power Part 15? Got it figured out!

> Why sweat the details!
>
> Steve
> Radio Brandy
>
>

Finally came to the following simplification from a sat site.

P = 0.3 x E^2 where E = uV/m

Meaning in order to get 250uV/m at 3m, the "piece" of the total transmit power leaving the antenna and traveling out towards the receive antenna can't be more than 18.75nW. From this then, the power received must be smaller due to some path loss. So now the 10 or 12.5nW figure stated before looks quite possible.
 
Re: Permitted output power Part 15? Got it figured out!

> Finally came to the following simplification from a sat
> site.
>
> P = 0.3 x E^2 where E = uV/m
>
> Meaning in order to get 250uV/m at 3m, the "piece" of the
> total transmit power leaving the antenna and traveling out
> towards the receive antenna can't be more than 18.75nW. From
> this then, the power received must be smaller due to some
> path loss. So now the 10 or 12.5nW figure stated before
> looks quite possible. (radiooke)
________

Actually the ~18.75nW figure applies to the use of an isotropic radiator, which is the conventional, reference antenna having equal gain in all directions. But an isotropic radiator does not exist in the real world.

A more useful, real antenna is a 1/2-wave dipole, which has a peak gain of 1.64X that of an isotropic radiator. So the input power to a 1/2-wave dipole has to be 1/1.64X that of an isotropic radiator to produce the same peak field.

Applying that adjustment to the ~18.75nW figure quoted above yields about 11.5nW, which as I remember is the value I quoted in my original post on Part15.us.

So both values are correct, if understood in context.

Also note that this applies to power actually radiated by the transmit antenna, and not to the power received by a receiving antenna (contrary to an earlier poster here).

Rich
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom