Where Did All The AM Transmitters Go?

[Captainfirst]

So, long story short, I want to get back into Part 15. But all I can find for sale are FM units,
most of which are crap imported from goodness knows where. Anyone got a good used unit they want to sell? Most I can afford is $100 or so. Unit must be Part 15-legal, and FCC type-certified would be a real plus. I'd buy a kit but my soldering skills are next to useless.

 

[RadioMan203]

There are a few certified AM units still in production. They include the Hamilton Rangemaster, Chezradio Procaster, the i AM Radio AM transmitter (both "basic" version (the former Talking House unit) and the same unit with audio improvements. There is also the Grain Industries GI100/1000 which is also certified.

Your more than welcome to stop by HobbyBroadcaster.net to peruse the lab reviews of the first three I mentioned. I never followed up on getting one of the Grain units to review.

 

[RPowers]

The AM Talking Houses are still promoting their $99 Sale, and it shows them as still in stock: http://sales.talkinghouse.com/shop/item.aspx?itemid=70

There are also several AM talking houses on ebay right now with $70 'buy it now', as well as a couple cheaper ones on auction.. I don't know why it is, but in the last month or so, ebay has been getting flooded with both new and used Talking House transmitters.. some of them have been in lots of 5 or 10..
http://electronics.shop.ebay.com/El...+house&_catref=1&_fln=1&_trksid=p3286.c0.m282

 

[edarmsttrong]

Don't waste your dough on a Talking House..very poor audio, even with the factory mod.

 

[RadioMan203]

Don't waste your dough on a Talking House..very poor audio, even with the factory mod.

How old was the unit with the factory mod? We have a new unit that was testing and it's greatly improved over the original "Talking House" version.

 

[ironbear]

The $99 TH units sound OK with a little processing...very consistent input levels are what you want.

 

[LowPayDJ]

I have a few of the Talking House Transmitters that I'm willing to sell. I bought 10 of them last summer for a project, and I only used 5 of them to do what I wanted to do, so I have 5 to sell. If you only want one or two, I'd sell them for $75 each including shipping. Want more,.. make me an offer. Send me a message on here if you are interested.

 

[RadioMan203]

I have a few of the Talking House Transmitters that I'm willing to sell. I bought 10 of them last summer for a project, and I only used 5 of them to do what I wanted to do, so I have 5 to sell. If you only want one or two, I'd sell them for $75 each including shipping. Want more,.. make me an offer. Send me a message on here if you are interested.

I'd like to hear about your project/application of the Talking House transmitters, LowPayDJ. I profile how people who have used the technology in a variety of settings (business, campus broadcasting as well as the radio enthusiast) so others may learn and perhaps even get their interest motivated. Feel free to check out the user profiles on my site and don't worry, we don't chart and graph people to death :

Just as food for thought you might want to re-think your price. A new "Talking House" version transmitter with warranty is going for $99 direct for the factory while used ones priced less on ebay.

 

[rfry]

...don't worry, we don't chart and graph people to death.

Mr DeFelice -- as the signature lines for your posts here state for the website you promote, "The references for legal low-power license free broadcasting under FCC Part 15 regulations. Legal & technical references, equipment reviews, how-to's and more!," would you better serve that end if you appreciated and promoted charts and graphs both on these boards and your boards, to help explain how Part 15 systems perform?

 

[RadioMan203]

... would you better serve that end if you appreciated and promoted charts and graphs both on these boards and your boards, to help explain how Part 15 systems perform?

My site serves its target audience quite fine. as many people are less concerned about many aspects which they either don't have sufficient background in or are paramount in their focus of having a working transmission apparatus or system. More in-depth topics are addressed as appropriate and supporting materials are offered either publicly or on a members-only basis. The multiple "real-world" equipment tests, both measured with Potomac field intensity meters and referenced with common radio receivers, are often more meaningful to people than a chart, graph or simulation.

Hey, I have to be doing something right when major equipment manufacturers reference both our equipment evaluations and the site in general.

 

[WCWalker]

... would you better serve that end if you appreciated and promoted charts and graphs both on these boards and your boards, to help explain how Part 15 systems perform?

My site serves its target audience quite fine. as many people are less concerned about many aspects which they either don't have sufficient background in or are paramount in their focus of having a working transmission apparatus or system. More in-depth topics are addressed as appropriate and supporting materials are offered either publicly or on a members-only basis. The multiple "real-world" equipment tests, both measured with Potomac field intensity meters and referenced with common radio receivers, are often more meaningful to people than a chart, graph or simulation.

Hey, I have to be doing something right when major equipment manufacturers reference both our equipment evaluations and the site in general.

This is correct. Many people have little or no interest in looking at numbers and become intimidated by them. They are easily discouraged by that kind of data and will look elsewhere. Even most Rangemaster Distributors and Keith Hamilton offer little in the way of technical data on their websites but will provide information if requested by a potential customer.

 

[RadioMan203]

This is correct. Many people have little or no interest in looking at numbers and become intimidated by them. They are easily discouraged by that kind of data and will look elsewhere. Even most Rangemaster Distributors and Keith Hamilton offer little in the way of technical data on their websites but will provide information if requested by a potential customer.

The armchair hobbyist may only be concerned about what AM transmitters are available for their use or need simple guidance on how to get from point "A" to point "B" to get on the air. Those same casual enthusiasts may also be put off if they believe it's overly complicated to dabble with low power radio.

Those utilizing more elaborate systems such as carrier-current and radiating coaxial cable transmission would likely desire much greater in-depth information since those systems require more engineering to not only accomplish their intended function but also operate within the bounds of the applicable regulations. I know those who frequent my forums aren't afraid to ask when they need in-depth questions answered and I'd bet William's forum are probably similar in nature.

 

[rfry]

For various reasons, some may not wish to read about, understand, or support the technical realities of functionally legal, unlicensed systems permitted by the FCC to operate in the AM & FM broadcast bands by Part 15.

The purposes of my posts have been to provide a basic understanding of these technical realities -- which are scientifically provable.

This information may be commercially unsatisfactory to some, and operationally unsatisfactory to others, but in neither case does such a judgment negate the validity of these technical realities.

RF

 

[RadioMan203]

The purposes of my posts have been to provide a basic understanding of these technical realities -- which are scientifically provable.

And my posts are chopped liver?

Mr. Fry, I do have to take issue with what you seem to be intimating. Just because one isn't "Johnny on the spot" with (yet another) chart or graph doesn't mean said poster(s) "... may not wish to read about, understand, or support the technical realities of functionally legal, unlicensed systems ..." as you've stated.

I welcome the opportunity to supply technical background information when the user has the need and/or desire for it. The resources I make available can be read by anybody who can comprehend on a "teenager" language level without sporting an overabundance of "tech speak" that would possibly dampen someone's interest in the subject. Additionally, the site user need not worry about being beaten endlessly with subject matter that has been covered and spelled out clearly previously - all they need to do is review the particular reference materials addressing the questioned topic to acquire the information they seek.

Just because perspectives other than "charts and graphs" are offered it doesn't make them are any less meaningful to one's understanding of "functionally legal", as you've been accustomed of putting it more than once. I have personally been able to reach more students by practical demonstrations with a field intensity meter and portable radio than any chart or graph will. I've personally seen the excitement on a student's face when they "get it" by taking part in a demonstration and understanding what they see - I rarely (if ever) see that same excitement provided by any chart!

Those requiring scientific explanation on the theory behind the science are more than welcome to exhaust the supply of graphics and simulations that are available. As I've explained on my site there are some transmission models that, if implemented, would require a deeper understanding of the engineering practices required to make those systems "functionally legal."

Now to pull the thread back onto the subject for which it was meant: I do have it on good authority that there's at least one new AM kit coming to the marketplace and I have seen a prototype of a Part 15 AM transmitter that once the manufacturer completes their design and test phases they plan on applying for their Part 15 certification. I can't same much more about the assembled transmitter due to a non-disclosure agreement but I have to say the bench test of the first prototype looked (and sounded) quite promising.

 

[Ermi Roos]

Also, while Mr. Fry is usually right, he is sometimes wrong, and he will vigorously deny being wrong to the end. Ego, I guess.

 

[rfry]

And my posts are chopped liver?

Well, let's see.

Below is a link to a post you made on your own web site...

http://hobbybroadcaster.net/smf/index.php?topic=972.msg6779;topicseen#msg6779

In your post (should you choose not to delete or edit it), you state that while a certain kit plan might provide greater FM range/coverage than allowed by Part 15.239, you suppose that such might be due to the antenna utilized with that circuit.

But the FCC limits the peak field intensity of an unlicensed transmission system in the FM broadcast band to a specific value, regardless of the transmitter or antenna it uses.

You have posted earlier in this subject thread on R-I that you welcome the opportunity to supply technical background information when the user has the need and/or desire for it.

Are you thinking that the evaluation you have given on your own website supports the position you have claimed for yourself here?
//

 

[RadioMan203]

Despite those who wish to constantly derail this thread I will remain on topic.

I received an email from the manufacturer that supplied me with a pre-production prototype of an upcoming AM transmitter. They are re-working the current prototype design to to see if they can integrate a small scale integrated audio processor without adversely affecting the target cost of this Part 15 offering. They hope to provide asymmetrical modulation processing with no more than three user controls.

 

[rfry]

I expect that this post will close my comments in this thread.

Some have objected to my use of charts and graphs, but to quote an old adage, "A picture is worth a thousand words."

Most likely the reasons for the objections are that the charts and graphs make it easier to understand how Part 15 systems really work, and that information makes some people unhappy. However my charts and graphs continue to receive a fair amount of interest, as shown at the link below.

There are many ways of supporting Part 15. In my case I supply technically accurate information on the Internet about the true performance of the equipment installations used by unlicensed AM/FM operators. How readers choose to use that information is up to them.

There are thousands of times more posts on the Internet with incorrect information about the operation of Part 15 installations than with correct information.

People are quicker to post complaints than appreciation, but over the years there have been some who posted good comments about my efforts -- and I thank them for that.

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

RF

 

[druidhillsradio]

I love you Mr. Fry. There, I said it.

 

[Rob Martin]

ISome have objected to my use of charts and graphs, but to quote an old adage, "A picture is worth a thousand words."

Write a book and get over it man! You harp about your charts just like other issues akin to you're anti part 15. Nobody likes a preacher from the bully pulpit. Your charts are fine for what they are but you seem to think you are the one man authority on all things radio. Sorry to say youre not!!

Most likely the reasons for the objections are that the charts and graphs make it easier to understand how Part 15 systems really work, and that information makes some people unhappy. However my charts and graphs continue to receive a fair amount of interest, as shown at the ]

Youve blown through the point. The charts are fine its the constant badgering on how you think your answer is the only answer thats the point. I actually found *one* chart that actually made sense!!

There are many ways of supporting Part 15. In my case I supply technically accurate information on the Internet about the true performance of the equipment installations used by unlicensed AM/FM operators. How readers choose to use that information is up to them.

And you make it sound as if your information is the only information. Neglecting others comments that dont agree with your "agenda" only serve to make doubt at least in my mind.

There are thousands of times more posts on the Internet with incorrect information about the operation of Part 15 installations than with correct information.

Is that how you classify those that don't follow your brand of black and white?? I will agree there are those who are simply pirate radio minded and they are not part15 in any sence but those who you dont agree with are automatically wrong?? You have to admit your own sence of objectivity is questionable at best.

People are quicker to post complaints than appreciation, but over the years there have been some who posted good comments about my efforts -- and I thank them for that.

I thank those who have given me information that has been useful in my following of part15. Of course the information has to be useful


rob