• 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

WNAR-AM 1620 Transtenna covers 6 miles!

> What kind of costs do you have in an antenae that can cover
> 6 miles? And are you exceeding any limits?
>
> >
>
> Here are pix of the WNAR-AM transtenna in Lansdale, PA that
>
> > covers 6 miles!
> > Website is:
> > www.wnar-am.com
>
> > Links to pix:
> > http://www.wnar-am.com/images/1620 WITH FLAG.jpg
> > http://www.wnar-am.com/images/1620.jpg
> >
>


"The three WNAR transmitters are in compliance with 47 CFR 15.219."

In the website above Dave states that he is using 3 transmitters to achieve the 6 miles.... it's all legal from what I've read, Rfry may have a different answer though, he may think the flag pole is radiating more of the signal than the 3 meter antenna, but I'll let him state that!

Radiopilot
 
> Here are pix of the WNAR-AM transtenna in Lansdale, PA that
> covers 6 miles!
> Website is:
> www.wnar-am.com
> Links to pix:
> http://www.wnar-am.com/images/1620 WITH FLAG.jpg
> http://www.wnar-am.com/images/1620.jpg
>


"http://www.wnar-am.com/images/new%20trans2.JPG"

In the above photo, Dave is using the "Hamilton PCB Design Model AM1000"
FCC certified transmitter, but using it in the configuration he has does not look 'certified' to me or an FCC agent if he were to review the original certification for this transmitter and just the whip antenna... what Dave has in the photo shows a much more modified version which makes the certification of his Rangemaster voided!

Does everyone see the difference in the photos.... look at the photos on the Rangemaster website and see the original 'look' of the transmitter....

http://www.am1000rangemaster.com/

Radiopilot
 
> "The three WNAR transmitters are in compliance with 47 CFR
> 15.219."
>
> In the website above Dave states that he is using 3
> transmitters to achieve the 6 miles.... it's all legal from
> what I've read, Rfry may have a different answer though, he
> may think the flag pole is radiating more of the signal than
> the 3 meter antenna, but I'll let him state that!
>
> Radiopilot
>

If you look at that site more, I noticed he "Added" some circuitry "After" the Rangemaster. Two notch filters and a loading coil at the base of the antenna..

http://www.wnar-am.com/images/1620 atu-2.jpg

<P ID="signature">______________
"What is this R.F. and How Does It Do That?.."</P>
 
> > "The three WNAR transmitters are in compliance with 47 CFR
>
> > 15.219."
> >
> > In the website above Dave states that he is using 3
> > transmitters to achieve the 6 miles.... it's all legal
> from
> > what I've read, Rfry may have a different answer though,
> he
> > may think the flag pole is radiating more of the signal
> than
> > the 3 meter antenna, but I'll let him state that!
> >
> > Radiopilot
> >
>
> If you look at that site more, I noticed he "Added" some
> circuitry "After" the Rangemaster. Two notch filters and a
> loading coil at the base of the antenna..
>
> http://www.wnar-am.com/images/1620 atu-2.jpg
>

This to me looks like a 'mod' to the Rangemaster... and as such should void the certification... if I were an FCC agent, this would be cause for a closer inspection and certification of type issue....

Of course there is no need to 'modify' the SStran to get any further range as that is what the base loaded coil and antenna does alone without certification or grey areas....

Radiopilot
 
> > > "The three WNAR transmitters are in compliance with 47> CFR> > > > > 15.219." > > > > > > In the website above Dave states that he is using 3> > > transmitters to achieve the 6 miles.... it's all legal> > from> > > what I've read, Rfry may have a different answer though,> > > he> > > may think the flag pole is radiating more of the signal> > than> > > the 3 meter antenna, but I'll let him state that! > > > > > > Radiopilot> > > > > > > If you look at that site more, I noticed he "Added" some> > circuitry "After" the Rangemaster. Two notch filters and a> > > loading coil at the base of the antenna..> > > > http://www.wnar-am.com/images/1620%20atu-2.jpg> > > > This to me looks like a 'mod' to the Rangemaster... and as> such should void the certification... if I were an FCC> agent, this would be cause for a closer inspection and> certification of type issue.... > > Of course there is no need to 'modify' the SStran to get any> further range as that is what the base loaded coil and> antenna does alone without certification or grey areas....> > Radiopilot> It's kind of misleading to say that "this is the antenna (and then show it) that broadcasts 6 miles...only to find out that there are three $1,000 dollar transmitters involved in the operation..............look folks, here it is all over again....part 15am radio is like a walkie talkie...it's about the same power...just on a commercial frequency....if you are lucky to live in an area where you have a clear frequency (rare!) in the 1500-1700kHz band, you will have a pretty good range with any good part 15 AM transmitter and a matched antenna....as an example, I could take the best am transmitters and antennas, stick an installation in NYC (where there is virtually NO clear frequency and have a ton of trouble getting a good range. I could also do the same installation in sand and get about the same basically poor quality signal...Certified or not, the sum of the parts of these transmitters are all the same; the main difference is what you can afford to pay for them....There are give and takes for each system; it is up to a buyer to decide what is right for him....a ground rod is not exactly an excellent ground for an AM station, since the vast majority of an AM station's signal is indeed ground.....ground radials are the best installation in any AM installation....Height is cool with such low power, but again, you are taking the very same 102" antenna and either placing it high up, or low to the ground, close to it's radials.Which is better?..that seems to be the question of the year on this board........my opinion hasn't changed; if you want a plug/play transmitter, perhaps Rangemaster is the very best one; but it is costly and has about the same range as any other good part 15 AM transmitter. It costs more because getting certification costs a lot of money....the SSTRAN costs less because it is indeed a kit (one that can be built for you) and the antenna needs tuning...it is a lot more work than screwing in a CB antenna.....They are both great transmitters and they do the very same job...the difference is in cost and work involved in setting up the installation.Antenna Guy Carl<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected], [email protected],[email protected]</P>
 
> > > > "The three WNAR transmitters are in compliance with
> 47> CFR> > > > > 15.219." > > > > > > In the website above
> Dave states that he is using 3> > > transmitters to achieve
> the 6 miles.... it's all legal> > from> > > what I've read,
> Rfry may have a different answer though,> > > he> > > may
> think the flag pole is radiating more of the signal> > than>
> > > the 3 meter antenna, but I'll let him state that! > > >
> > > > Radiopilot> > > > > > > If you look at that site more,
> I noticed he "Added" some> > circuitry "After" the
> Rangemaster. Two notch filters and a> > > loading coil at
> the base of the antenna..> > > >
> http://www.wnar-am.com/images/1620%20atu-2.jpg> > > > This
> to me looks like a 'mod' to the Rangemaster... and as> such
> should void the certification... if I were an FCC> agent,
> this would be cause for a closer inspection and>
> certification of type issue.... > > Of course there is no
> need to 'modify' the SStran to get any> further range as
> that is what the base loaded coil and> antenna does alone
> without certification or grey areas....> > Radiopilot> It's
> kind of misleading to say that "this is the antenna (and
> then show it) that broadcasts 6 miles...only to find out
> that there are three $1,000 dollar transmitters involved in
> the operation..............look folks, here it is all over
> again....part 15am radio is like a walkie talkie...it's
> about the same power...just on a commercial frequency....if
> you are lucky to live in an area where you have a clear
> frequency (rare!) in the 1500-1700kHz band, you will have a
> pretty good range with any good part 15 AM transmitter and a
> matched antenna....as an example, I could take the best am
> transmitters and antennas, stick an installation in NYC
> (where there is virtually NO clear frequency and have a ton
> of trouble getting a good range. I could also do the same
> installation in sand and get about the same basically poor
> quality signal...Certified or not, the sum of the parts of
> these transmitters are all the same; the main difference is
> what you can afford to pay for them....There are give and
> takes for each system; it is up to a buyer to decide what is
> right for him....a ground rod is not exactly an excellent
> ground for an AM station, since the vast majority of an AM
> station's signal is indeed ground.....ground radials are the
> best installation in any AM installation....Height is cool
> with such low power, but again, you are taking the very same
> 102" antenna and either placing it high up, or low to the
> ground, close to it's radials.Which is better?..that seems
> to be the question of the year on this board........my
> opinion hasn't changed; if you want a plug/play transmitter,
> perhaps Rangemaster is the very best one; but it is costly
> and has about the same range as any other good part 15 AM
> transmitter. It costs more because getting certification
> costs a lot of money....the SSTRAN costs less because it is
> indeed a kit (one that can be built for you) and the antenna
> needs tuning...it is a lot more work than screwing in a CB
> antenna.....They are both great transmitters and they do the
> very same job...the difference is in cost and work involved
> in setting up the installation.Antenna Guy Carl
>
How can you prove to an FCC agent that the SSTran is indeed operating at 100 milliwatts? In an email communication I had with its designer, he stated there is no easy way to verify that its input is at 100 milliwatts, other than taking his word for it.
 
> How can you prove to an FCC agent that the SSTran is indeed
> operating at 100 milliwatts? In an email communication I had
> with its designer, he stated there is no easy way to verify
> that its input is at 100 milliwatts, other than taking his
> word for it.
>


So if one gets a Rangemaster.. modifies it to say deliver more power, are you to flash the 'FCC certification' to him and believe that the agent will go away?

How are you to prove to him that the power to the Rangemaster is indeed 100mw also? It is assumed that the designer of the SStran and of the Rangemaster has taken the proper steps to insure the transmitter is in compliance to the part15 100mw rule. Now you can measure the current and the resistance of the transmitter and derive the power out... this is simple Ohms' law... P=I^2*R or P=I*E.... No different if you 'homebrewed' the transmitter and had to show compliance of the 100mw power out.

But we are not talking about the SStran here, but rather the above reference to the photo of what shows the Rangemaster being 'modified' therefore voiding it's certification, and no one 'noticed' it? But if you go to the Rangemaster website it complains about 'kits' being illegal when the reference is for 'TV interface kits'.....Why?

Radiopilot
 
> How are you to prove to him that the power to the
> Rangemaster is indeed 100mw also? It is assumed that the
> designer of the SStran and of the Rangemaster has taken the
> proper steps to insure the transmitter is in compliance to
> the part15 100mw rule. Now you can measure the current and
> the resistance of the transmitter and derive the power
> out... this is simple Ohms' law... P=I^2*R or P=I*E.... No
> different if you 'homebrewed' the transmitter and had to
> show compliance of the 100mw power out.
>
> But we are not talking about the SStran here, but rather the
> above reference to the photo of what shows the Rangemaster
> being 'modified' therefore voiding it's certification, and
> no one 'noticed' it? But if you go to the Rangemaster
> website it complains about 'kits' being illegal when the
> reference is for 'TV interface kits'.....Why?
>
> Radiopilot
>
The Rangemaster has a procedure for using a multimeter to set the input to 100 mW. I use a "homebrewed" transmitter which is constantly metered (volts and current), and I have documented the accuracy of the meters I use. Keith Hamilton has told me that remote metering can also be done with the Rangemaster. The SSTran apparently has no such option. One would think if you have a metering panel in your studio displaying TX input parameters, you would be further ahead than simply stating to the FCC that your kit's designer says that your unit has an input of 100 mW, but you have no way to monitor or adjust it. At the very least, the Rangemaster offers the ability to show (with a multimeter) that it is indeed inputting 100 mW.

The rules do not specify output power, only input power, thus P=I^2*R has no relevance to Part 15, only E*I of the final amp is applicable. You do not measure the "resistance of the transmitter and derive the power out..." Measuring the radiation resistance of an antenna is a very complex procedure, involving several thousand dollars worth of equipment (impedance bridge, generator, detector, etc).

By the way, I agree the Rangemaster in the photo appears to have had its approval voided.
 
> > How are you to prove to him that the power to the
> > Rangemaster is indeed 100mw also? It is assumed that the
> > designer of the SStran and of the Rangemaster has taken
> the
> > proper steps to insure the transmitter is in compliance to
>
> > the part15 100mw rule. Now you can measure the current and
>
> > the resistance of the transmitter and derive the power
> > out... this is simple Ohms' law... P=I^2*R or P=I*E.... No
>
> > different if you 'homebrewed' the transmitter and had to
> > show compliance of the 100mw power out.
> >
> > But we are not talking about the SStran here, but rather
> the
> > above reference to the photo of what shows the Rangemaster
>
> > being 'modified' therefore voiding it's certification, and
>
> > no one 'noticed' it? But if you go to the Rangemaster
> > website it complains about 'kits' being illegal when the
> > reference is for 'TV interface kits'.....Why?
> >
> > Radiopilot
> >
> The Rangemaster has a procedure for using a multimeter to
> set the input to 100 mW. I use a "homebrewed" transmitter
> which is constantly metered (volts and current), and I have
> documented the accuracy of the meters I use. Keith Hamilton
> has told me that remote metering can also be done with the
> Rangemaster. The SSTran apparently has no such option.

The SStran does not need any metering, if you've built one, you'll realize that certain resisters have been added to insure 100mw to the final stage... each and every transmitter if built correctly will have the same 100mw +/- 2-3mw's based on resister tolerance values, etc. There is no other adjustment to get more output to the final stage... period!

One
> would think if you have a metering panel in your studio
> displaying TX input parameters, you would be further ahead
> than simply stating to the FCC that your kit's designer says
> that your unit has an input of 100 mW, but you have no way
> to monitor or adjust it. At the very least, the Rangemaster
> offers the ability to show (with a multimeter) that it is
> indeed inputting 100 mW.
>
> The rules do not specify output power, only input power,
> thus P=I^2*R has no relevance to Part 15, only E*I of the
> final amp is applicable. You do not measure the "resistance
> of the transmitter and derive the power out...

Not true, based on discussions with Phil, one can get the current and use the resisters already in place to obtain the 100mw to the final stage!

" Measuring
> the radiation resistance of an antenna is a very complex
> procedure, involving several thousand dollars worth of
> equipment (impedance bridge, generator, detector, etc).
>

True, but one does not need to go to that extreme to measure the output of the transmitter.

> By the way, I agree the Rangemaster in the photo appears to
> have had its approval voided.
>

Radiopilot
 
SSTRAN final input power

Hello all,

This is off topic from the original post, but I will address the previous few posts in this thread. I have measured the SSTRAN final input power and it is slightly under 100mW. and is independent of the load (four different short antennas tested).

This will surprise those who have worked with higher power transmitters feeding efficient antennas, because the load certainly affects in final input power. But as I consider the situation with the SSTRAN, I conclude that the constant power input is due to very low power going to the antenna. The antenna power (microwatts or less) for a 3 meter antenna comes from the total input power (100 mW.) and therefore has a negligible effect on the total input power. Even if antenna power goes up by a decade, it is very small compared to 100 mW.

Thus, we have a circuit where the input power is set by the predictable biasing and not the unpredictable load. The biasing in the SSTRAN is set to yield an input around 100 mW. subject to part tolerance and is not adjustable. If you are running a "stock" transmitter then you can predict with high confidence that the input power is legal.

If there is interest, I can post in a new thread how I measured the power input.

Neil
 
Re: SSTRAN final input power

Hmmm...this sounds somewhat analogous to the situation with end-fed 1/2 wavelength antennas, where the ground impedance is such a tiny fraction of the very high total antenna system impedance that using a good, fair, or poor RF ground (or even no ground at all) makes very little difference. -- JasonW

> Hello all,
>
> This is off topic from the original post, but I will address
> the previous few posts in this thread. I have measured the
> SSTRAN final input power and it is slightly under 100mW. and
> is independent of the load (four different short antennas
> tested).
>
> This will surprise those who have worked with higher power
> transmitters feeding efficient antennas, because the load
> certainly affects in final input power. But as I consider
> the situation with the SSTRAN, I conclude that the constant
> power input is due to very low power going to the antenna.
> The antenna power (microwatts or less) for a 3 meter antenna
> comes from the total input power (100 mW.) and therefore has
> a negligible effect on the total input power. Even if
> antenna power goes up by a decade, it is very small compared
> to 100 mW.
>
> Thus, we have a circuit where the input power is set by the
> predictable biasing and not the unpredictable load. The
> biasing in the SSTRAN is set to yield an input around 100
> mW. subject to part tolerance and is not adjustable. If you
> are running a "stock" transmitter then you can predict with
> high confidence that the input power is legal.
>
> If there is interest, I can post in a new thread how I
> measured the power input.
>
> Neil
>
 
> Here are pix of the WNAR-AM transtenna in Lansdale, PA
> that covers 6 miles!
____________

Is that the diameter of your coverage area, or the radius? Is your station receivable at those ranges by typical, cheap clock radios inside homes, or only in open country on a car radio?
 
Re: SSTRAN final input power

> Hello all,
>
> This is off topic from the original post, but I will address
> the previous few posts in this thread. I have measured the
> SSTRAN final input power and it is slightly under 100mW. and
> is independent of the load (four different short antennas
> tested).
>
> This will surprise those who have worked with higher power
> transmitters feeding efficient antennas, because the load
> certainly affects in final input power. But as I consider
> the situation with the SSTRAN, I conclude that the constant
> power input is due to very low power going to the antenna.
> The antenna power (microwatts or less) for a 3 meter antenna
> comes from the total input power (100 mW.) and therefore has
> a negligible effect on the total input power. Even if
> antenna power goes up by a decade, it is very small compared
> to 100 mW.
>
> Thus, we have a circuit where the input power is set by the
> predictable biasing and not the unpredictable load. The
> biasing in the SSTRAN is set to yield an input around 100
> mW. subject to part tolerance and is not adjustable. If you
> are running a "stock" transmitter then you can predict with
> high confidence that the input power is legal.
>
> If there is interest, I can post in a new thread how I
> measured the power input.
>
> Neil
>

Neil,

Thank you for your input... Yes indeed this is correct! The input power is 'set' and cannot be modified of course unless you have the proper electronics knowledge and know which components to change.

Therefore the measurement of the SStran's legal limit can be recorded for future use if needed to show compliance to any FCC inquiry, and for peace of mind... like Niel said, for those that need to 'measure' the power there are certain resistors if measured for current (see the SStran manual) and voltage to the biasing transistor, then one can calculate the power.

Radiopilot
 
> Here are pix of the WNAR-AM transtenna in Lansdale, PA that
> covers 6 miles!
> Website is:
> www.wnar-am.com
> Links to pix:
> http://www.wnar-am.com/images/1620 WITH FLAG.jpg
> http://www.wnar-am.com/images/1620.jpg
>
Dave has an SStran, and dosn't use it as a final amplifier because of it's poor power ouput efficiency. The modulation and fidelity are good, but the modulation method impedes output efficiency of the final RF stage. It is INPUT to the final stage that is limited to 100 milliwatts by part 15, but it is OUTPUT that gets the signal on the air. 90+ percentage output efficiency and no transmission line losses help a lot. Placing the final RF amp at the antenna avoids transmission line losses, and every milliwatt counts.
3 to 5 miles is possible with 1 transmitter. Dave gets out almost 3 miles with only one transmitter "on the air". The other 2 transmitters are used to create additional signal in some directions, ovecoming noisy areas and obstructions. Elevating the "transtenna" (copyright 2005-Richard Franklin) 30 or more feet above the ground greatly reduces ground losses. If the supporting structure is metal, grounded, has another use, and is pre-existing, then the ground can be considered an unintentional radiator. It WILL re-radiate and reinforce the signal by inductive coupling and re-radiation. The additional elevation will reduce ground losses.
Input and output power to each final amplifier/transtenna are carefully monitored, and the FCC field engineer for the radio district has been informed, by Dave McCrork, about WNAR-AM's engineering and operations on 1620.
Building penetration and high noise areas are always a problem with low power transmission.
-Rich
 
Rangemaster is not the same as an sstran

After spending days with this thing I cant figure how in the world you can compare your setup to a rangemaster. It is true I guess that both have wires and an antenna. But I dont think it is fair to lead people to believe that perform the same
 
Outdoor antenna service?

There are ways to improve indoor reception of Part 15 AM signals. I know of one Part 15 AM station whose web site describes how to make a simple outdoor antenna with "booster coil" (a 50' or so wire with about 20 turns of it wrapped around a cylindrical oatmeal box, with this coil placed near the radio--sort of like the commercial Select-A-Tenna unit). They even offer to make these for listeners who don't feel up to building something like this.

The antenna need not necessarily be stretched out to a tree (which would make me nervous about lightning). It can be hung under the eaves and brought inside under a window or door to the coil. -- JasonW

> > Here are pix of the WNAR-AM transtenna in Lansdale, PA
> that
> > covers 6 miles!
> > Website is:
> > www.wnar-am.com
> > Links to pix:
> > http://www.wnar-am.com/images/1620 WITH FLAG.jpg
> > http://www.wnar-am.com/images/1620.jpg
> >
> Dave has an SStran, and dosn't use it as a final amplifier
> because of it's poor power ouput efficiency. The modulation
> and fidelity are good, but the modulation method impedes
> output efficiency of the final RF stage. It is INPUT to the
> final stage that is limited to 100 milliwatts by part 15,
> but it is OUTPUT that gets the signal on the air. 90+
> percentage output efficiency and no transmission line losses
> help a lot. Placing the final RF amp at the antenna avoids
> transmission line losses, and every milliwatt counts.
> 3 to 5 miles is possible with 1 transmitter. Dave gets out
> almost 3 miles with only one transmitter "on the air". The
> other 2 transmitters are used to create additional signal in
> some directions, ovecoming noisy areas and obstructions.
> Elevating the "transtenna" (copyright 2005-Richard Franklin)
> 30 or more feet above the ground greatly reduces ground
> losses. If the supporting structure is metal, grounded, has
> another use, and is pre-existing, then the ground can be
> considered an unintentional radiator. It WILL re-radiate and
> reinforce the signal by inductive coupling and re-radiation.
> The additional elevation will reduce ground losses.
> Input and output power to each final amplifier/transtenna
> are carefully monitored, and the FCC field engineer for the
> radio district has been informed, by Dave McCrork, about
> WNAR-AM's engineering and operations on 1620.
> Building penetration and high noise areas are always a
> problem with low power transmission.
> -Rich
>
 
A question about grounds

Hello,

Just a question about something you wrote.

"If the supporting structure is metal, grounded, has another use, and is pre-existing, then the ground can be considered an unintentional radiator."

Is this an "official" interpretation of grounding for part15 AM. Just curious as to where it came from.

Thanks.

Neil
 
Re: A question about grounds

> Hello,
>
> Just a question about something you wrote.
>
> "If the supporting structure is metal, grounded, has another
> use, and is pre-existing, then the ground can be considered
> an unintentional radiator."
>
> Is this an "official" interpretation of grounding for part15
> AM. Just curious as to where it came from.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Neil
>


Neil,

Take a look at this diagram from Rangemaster and look carefully at the tower and it's ground lead to the radials or ground rod... Does this look legal?

http://www.am1000rangemaster.com/hints.pdf
http://www.am1000rangemaster.com/elradial.pdf

Rfry... you are the radio police here, please input your comments as well!

Below are FCC rules for reference:

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 47, Volume 1, Parts 0 to 19]
[Revised as of October 1, 2000]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 47CFR15.203]

[Page 726-727]

TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION

CHAPTER I--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES--Table of Contents

Subpart C--Intentional Radiators

Sec. 15.203 Antenna requirement.

An intentional radiator shall be designed to ensure that no antenna
other than that furnished by the responsible party shall be used with
the device. The use of a permanently attached antenna or of an antenna
that uses a unique coupling to the intentional radiator shall be
considered sufficient to comply with the provisions of this section. The
manufacturer may design the unit so that a broken antenna can be
replaced by the user, but the use of a standard antenna jack or
electrical connector is prohibited.

*****This requirement does not apply to carrier current devices or to devices operated under the provisions of Sec. 15.211, Sec. 15.213, Sec. 15.217, """"Sec. 15.219"""", or Sec. 15.221.*******

Further, this

[[Page 727]]

requirement does not apply to intentional radiators that must be
professionally installed, such as perimeter protection systems and some
field disturbance sensors, or to other intentional radiators which, in
accordance with Sec. 15.31(d), must be measured at the installation
site. However, the installer shall be responsible for ensuring that the
proper antenna is employed so that the limits in this part are not
exceeded.

[54 FR 17714, Apr. 25, 1989, as amended at 55 FR 28762, July 13, 1990]

See Sec. 15.219....

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 47, Volume 1, Parts 0 to 19]
[Revised as of October 1, 2000]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 47CFR15.219]

[Page 732]

TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION

CHAPTER I--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES--Table of Contents

Subpart C--Intentional Radiators

Sec. 15.219 Operation in the band 510-1705 kHz.

(a) The total input power to the final radio frequency stage
(exclusive of filament or heater power) shall not exceed 100 milliwatts.

****** (b) The total length of the transmission line, antenna and ground
lead (if used) shall not exceed 3 meters.******

(c) All emissions below 510 kHz or above 1705 kHz shall be
attenuated at least 20 dB below the level of the unmodulated carrier.
Determination of compliance with the 20 dB attenuation specification may
be based on measurements at the intentional radiator's antenna output
terminal unless the intentional radiator uses a permanently attached
antenna, in which case compliance shall be deomonstrated by measuring
the radiated emissions.

**** This rule says 3 meters total for the antenna and ground 'lead' if used...

This does not imply, what the attach point for the ground lead should be....

Radiopilot

<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by radiopilot on 01/02/06 09:35 PM.</FONT></P>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom