• 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

Plug & Play transmitters?

R

radiopilot

Well having been out for a couple of days travel, I see everyone's back on the discussion of the SStran versus Rangemaster versus whatever.

Not to bog the board again with repetitive nonsense again... albeit to say...
If I could set up 30 SStran's in my town with each transmitter delivering 1 mile range, that would be 30 miles of coverage, hmm.... that is alot of listening airspace for $3,000.00, about what 3 Rangemasters would cost which only get 6 miles? Now real estate for the transmitters and getting audio to them is the real challenge, but why bother?

What I'm saying here is... if you can achieve 4-5 miles with one or two transmitters, great! Have fun, give the listeners what they want, something they're not getting from the CC's, etc. If you want to get more coverage than part15, buy a 'real' radio station... save yourself the headache of being illegal with 110mw's, or 3.2 meters of antenna length, etc.

As far as 'plug and play', look the SStran may not have the 'delivery' of power the Rangemaster has but it's got the power of a good base coil/copper antenna, if done correctly, while the Rangemaster has to deal with a 27mhz cb whip not intended for the lower AM band so most of it 'delivery' power is lost as well on that 'skinny' whip! What anyone here is doing with any and all gizmos is to trying to squeeze out as much power out of 100mw's... Not highly scientific or rocket science, needing Phd's or broadcast engineering knowledge... just good basic skills with simple understanding of radio principles... simple.

Now about Part15 compliant community radio? It's all part15 compliant no matter what the transmitter/antenna if the part15 rules are followed! There is no secret info for those using the Rangemaster, it's just different setups for different transmitters... the end result is 100mw's to a steel rod/copper tube 3 meters long... the efficiency is grounding and how well one tunes it.

Now I love my SStran and will use it wisely and 'squeeze' that very last bit of mw's, even creating a new antenna that tunes itself, but that is another story... that together with my FM transmitter should do exactly what I intended it to do... and it's working nicely.

I believe the bickering over transmitters is REALLY getting boring here and I would sure hope it ends, the kits issue should have died already, even though it's posted on some websites as being illegal and honestly should be taken off, as it's has no basis at all, anymore... hint.

I think most of our time should be spent making shows others here can broadcast on their stations, and freely trade shows with one another... similar to DaddyG, and Sunrise.

I'm planning on doing a 2-3 hour 'Surf music' show, emphasizing the 1960's surf guitar bands in the style of 'Stevie's Underground Garage' show... if you know what I'm talking about, you know how cool that show is... I used to be a California surfer during the 70's, having surfed many venues and locations and still surf occasionally, so doing the show with my son is going to be awesome, now wouldn't it be great to air that show on your station, get a different perspective, listenership age, etc.?

I believe this what the community board should be all about... :)

Radiopilot
 
Hi,

You wrote "I believe the bickering over transmitters is REALLY getting boring here and I would sure hope it ends,".

The bickering which bores you has given me some good information. You may be an expert on part15 transmitters, but I, and I suspect others are not, so I learn some things here.

As far as producing and distributing programs go, that is a fine idea and it appears there is plenty of room on this board for this. What's the point however if the programs cannot be effectively transmitted? Don't you think that discussions about transmitters, antennas, and legality add to the community knowledge?

Neil
 
> Hi,
>
> You wrote "I believe the bickering over transmitters is
> REALLY getting boring here and I would sure hope it ends,".
>
> The bickering which bores you has given me some good
> information. You may be an expert on part15 transmitters,
> but I, and I suspect others are not, so I learn some things
> here.
>
> As far as producing and distributing programs go, that is a
> fine idea and it appears there is plenty of room on this
> board for this. What's the point however if the programs
> cannot be effectively transmitted? Don't you think that
> discussions about transmitters, antennas, and legality add
> to the community knowledge?
>
> Neil
>


Thanks,

"The overall WNAR-AM transmission installation has been tested, and certified by a recognised testing laboratory, and competent, expert, boadcast engineers as per part 15 of the FCC rules."

If this is the case as SuperSound indicates why the above post on "Ground Losses"? Is not the FCC the final rule one must abide to? Does not the statement above indicating 'competent expert broadcast engineers' mean that the installation meets the intent of the rules?

If the transmitter is at any level for AM the ground lead will radiate, regardless... this is electrical phenomena that is not going to go away simply because someone may not agree to it! I bought my transmitter so that I may mount it to be 30 feet or higher, so consequently the elevated ground will radiate... that's physics and nature.

The 'bickering' is just I'm tired of the 'same issues', if one wants to read about transmitter/antenna issues, it's here already and on other boards, no reason to continue ranting about it again and again....

The good imformation can be had when positive well meaning posts support the new ideas, experimental data support new approaches, and not computrized data which mean nothing unless real time, real experimenting proves suchs ideas and concepts. Some engineers are good at 'books & computer' modeling, theorectical work,etc., some engineers take it a bit further and prove those ideas... I'm one of those engineers that take the data and actually build and make it work... not sit around bickering over what other people have done with any basis other than interpreting rules as they and only they see fit.

So that's it, Neil you're an intelligent person and I respect you for it and hope to continue the good and helpful discussions here on this and other boards, it's helpful to those needing it, but I think my days of hashing it out are over for the same discussions and will only post helpful data, and information that can further boost part15 AM/FM broadcasting.... lay back sorta and ride the waves, instead of making them.

Radiopilot
 
Hi Folks:

I've been reading this forum for awhile now and the part I'm missing in all this discussion is the concept that an Inspector is going to grab all your equipment and slap you with a major fine for being lets say ... 300 uv vs 250 uv.

All the theorectical debate over antenna systems is great, but doesn't it fall into the "How many fairies can dance on the head of a pin?" category on a practical reality basis?

I've been fortunate enough to have extensive dealings with the local Inspectors in my area and have learned a lot from them when I established a low power FM.

I'd be hard pressed to see these guys as being at the door with a Sherrif and guns drawn because you're operating at 100 mw on FM when the emission level required to obtain max field strength limit may only be a few nanowatts.

Regards to all,
Lee
 
> Hi Folks:
>
> I've been reading this forum for awhile now and the part I'm
> missing in all this discussion is the concept that an
> Inspector is going to grab all your equipment and slap you
> with a major fine for being lets say ... 300 uv vs 250 uv.
>
> All the theorectical debate over antenna systems is great,
> but doesn't it fall into the "How many fairies can dance on
> the head of a pin?" category on a practical reality basis?
>
> I've been fortunate enough to have extensive dealings with
> the local Inspectors in my area and have learned a lot from
> them when I established a low power FM.
>
> I'd be hard pressed to see these guys as being at the door
> with a Sherrif and guns drawn because you're operating at
> 100 mw on FM when the emission level required to obtain max
> field strength limit may only be a few nanowatts.
>
> Regards to all,
> Lee
>


Lee,

You echo my sentiments perfectly. The FCC is not out looking for someone using 100mw's and I'd venture to say less than 1 watt, what they are looking for are offensive language, political turmoil against the government, and general interference to TV and other systems...

I don't believe it's going to be a showdown with the FCC unless you have 1-100 watts on FM or AM.... and are interfering with licensed stations.

By the way, nice airplane wish I could be certified in type, still doing the 'twin engine' and 'instrument' studying.... Will be back at Philly in a couple of weeks for Boeing, so that puts that on hold!

Radiopilot
 
Technical threads about transmitters

> > Hi,
> >
> > You wrote "I believe the bickering over transmitters is
> > REALLY getting boring here and I would sure hope it
> ends,".
> >
> > The bickering which bores you has given me some good
> > information. You may be an expert on part15 transmitters,
>
> > but I, and I suspect others are not, so I learn some
> things
> > here.
> >
> > As far as producing and distributing programs go, that is
> a
> > fine idea and it appears there is plenty of room on this
> > board for this. What's the point however if the programs
> > cannot be effectively transmitted? Don't you think that
> > discussions about transmitters, antennas, and legality add
>
> > to the community knowledge?
> >
> > Neil
> >
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> "The overall WNAR-AM transmission installation has been
> tested, and certified by a recognised testing laboratory,
> and competent, expert, boadcast engineers as per part 15 of
> the FCC rules."
>
> If this is the case as SuperSound indicates why the above
> post on "Ground Losses"? Is not the FCC the final rule one
> must abide to? Does not the statement above indicating
> 'competent expert broadcast engineers' mean that the
> installation meets the intent of the rules?
>
> If the transmitter is at any level for AM the ground lead
> will radiate, regardless... this is electrical phenomena
> that is not going to go away simply because someone may not
> agree to it! I bought my transmitter so that I may mount it
> to be 30 feet or higher, so consequently the elevated ground
> will radiate... that's physics and nature.
>
> The 'bickering' is just I'm tired of the 'same issues', if
> one wants to read about transmitter/antenna issues, it's
> here already and on other boards, no reason to continue
> ranting about it again and again....
>
> The good imformation can be had when positive well meaning
> posts support the new ideas, experimental data support new
> approaches, and not computrized data which mean nothing
> unless real time, real experimenting proves suchs ideas and
> concepts. Some engineers are good at 'books & computer'
> modeling, theorectical work,etc., some engineers take it a
> bit further and prove those ideas... I'm one of those
> engineers that take the data and actually build and make it
> work... not sit around bickering over what other people have
> done with any basis other than interpreting rules as they
> and only they see fit.
>
> So that's it, Neil you're an intelligent person and I
> respect you for it and hope to continue the good and helpful
> discussions here on this and other boards, it's helpful to
> those needing it, but I think my days of hashing it out are
> over for the same discussions and will only post helpful
> data, and information that can further boost part15 AM/FM
> broadcasting.... lay back sorta and ride the waves, instead
> of making them.
>
> Radiopilot
>
Hi,

Yes, some things have been beat to death. (In an earilier thread I withdrew a question because I realized this.) Perhaps I misinterpreted your post to say that technical talk about transmitters, etc. should go away. Indeed, new data, ideas, and experiences are welcome by me.

Thanks for clairifying.

Neil
 
> If this is the case as SuperSound indicates why the above
> post on "Ground Losses"?

Because of information given as fact in the post that prompted it, and which would mislead others if allowed to stand.

> The 'bickering' is just I'm tired of the 'same issues', if
> one wants to read about transmitter/antenna issues, it's
> here already and on other boards, no reason to continue
> ranting about it again and again.

I'll be very happy to stop posting "the same issue" when there no longer is any need to do so -- that is, when other posts here don't present seriously unscientific beliefs and concepts as facts.

//
 
> > If this is the case as SuperSound indicates why the above
> > post on "Ground Losses"?
>
> Because of information given as fact in the post that
> prompted it, and which would mislead others if allowed to
> stand.
>


Then take your issues to Supersound, he wrote the post, why continue the rant with me only?


> > The 'bickering' is just I'm tired of the 'same issues', if
>
> > one wants to read about transmitter/antenna issues, it's
> > here already and on other boards, no reason to continue
> > ranting about it again and again.
>
> I'll be very happy to stop posting "the same issue" when
> there no longer is any need to do so -- that is, when other
> posts here don't present seriously unscientific beliefs and
> concepts as facts.
>
> //
>

These sceintific beliefs are yours only as my transmitters are working perfectly and under the rule until the FCC decides they're not and not you!

Radiopilot
 
> Then take your issues to Supersound, he wrote the post, why
> continue the rant with me only?

What?? My first post on "Ground Losses" was not directed to you. It quoted Supersound's text, only. Your screenname or post clips were not used.

I didn't respond to you until you first posted something about this subject that prompted my comment.

If Supersound ever responds to my first post, I'll comment on that as well, if appropriate.

> These sceintific beliefs are yours only as my transmitters
> are working perfectly and under the rule until the FCC
> decides they're not and not you!

The fact that they are "working perfectly" doesn't mean that they meet Part 15 Rules. And I'm not telling you that what you are doing is wrong. That is up to you (and the FCC) to determine.

All I'm trying to do here is to give you and others some accurate perspective on the engineering issues involved. What you do with this information is up to you.

//
 
> > Then take your issues to Supersound, he wrote the post,
> why
> > continue the rant with me only?
> ____________
>
> What?? My first post on "Ground Losses" was not directed to
> you. It quoted Supersound's text, only. Your screenname or
> post clips were not used.
>
> I didn't respond to you until you first posted something
> about this subject that prompted my comment.
>
> If Supersound ever responds to my first post, I'll comment
> on that as well, if appropriate.
>
> > These sceintific beliefs are yours only as my transmitters
>
> > are working perfectly and under the rule until the FCC
> > decides they're not and not you!
>
> The fact that they are "working perfectly" doesn't mean that
> they meet Part 15 Rules. And I'm not telling you that what
> you are doing is wrong. That is up to you (and the FCC) to
> determine.
>

That is a valid statement! Only the FCC needs to be convinced if and when that time arrives!


> All I'm trying to do here is to give you and others some
> accurate perspective on the engineering issues involved.
> What you do with this information is up to you.
>
> //
>

Another valid statement! Thank you.

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


Back
Top Bottom