That is the question I asked at www.meta.ai Surprisingly, unlike some other AIs it gave me a very accurate response:
I was going to post its answer here, but maybe it might be more fun for you to ask it yourself, "What is the actual range capability of a part 15 AM transmitter?".
Meta Ai seems to be the only ai that actually knows the answer!
Yes, the AI Thing was well informed about Part 15 range!
So I got familiar with it and said:
"I think I love you. Can I play with your ears?"
The AI Thing let me down gently by its response.
Ok.. I notice now that it changes its response slightly everytime I ask the question, but it provides the same range capabilities, sometimes in a graphical chart (which I wish I saved), so I'm going to post what it says about range, because it doesnt change that portion of response.
It says:
Typical range estimates:
•In ideal conditions (flat terrain, minimal interference):
Up to 1-2 miles (1.6-3.2 kilometers)
•In urban areas (high interference, buildings):
0.1-0.5 miles (160-800 meters)
•In rural areas (less interference, some terrain):
0.5-1.5 miles (800-2.4 kilometers)
Maximum permitted range:
The FCC doesn't specify a maximum range, but it does require Part 15 AM transmitters to:
•Not exceed 100 mW transmitter power
Not cause harmful interference to licensed broadcast stations
•Comply with field strength limits (2400 μV/m at 30 meters)
Keep in mind that actual range may vary significantly from these estimates. Manufacturers often provide range specifications, but these should be viewed as optimistic estimates.
I wonder where it found those range estimates, because it displays them in some form every time its asked.
Interesting, I wonder if it got it from some of Richard Fry post, because it does correspond with his physics based estimates..
@richpowers Is 2400uV/M@30 meters actually written? I thought just power limited and not even that as it can vary according to the efficiency of the RF amp.
2400uV/M@30 meters is what BETS in Canada should be for AM. Makes more sense.
Well, its ai, and in that particular line it obviously refer to 15.209 limits (ie 200ft), but the rest of it is clearly referring to 15.219 that has no field strength limits.
One more exchange with the AI Thing...
I asked if it would loan me some money.
Although I didn't get the money, the AI Thing passed the buck by listing places where I could seek financial information.
@mark For the band 490KHz-1705KHz, the field strength limit, as stated in 15.209, in microvolts/meter, at 30 meters from the antenna, is actually 24000/F (KHz). For instance, at 1600KHz, the allowable field strength is 24000/1600 = 15µV/M. Carl's AI forgot to include the division by the frequency in KHz - a big factor, and the reason why 15.219 is much more generous in terms of potential coverage than 15.209.
I thought I could really win on the scale of intellectual prowess by asking meta.ai something that would be 'over its head'. So I asked, "What is the difference between entropy and nonsense?".
But the answer made me into a silly school boy.
Let's try this:
"I like to be the smartest guy in the room. Could you please stop being smarter than me?"
Whoa! That question prompted a continuing conversation that would still be going on if I hadn't made a huffy retreat.
Wikipedia doesn't respond well to questions, but meta_ai thrives on questions:
Why is there no canned cod?
-
Texture: Cod has a flaky texture that doesn't hold up well to canning. When cooked and canned, cod can become mushy or fall apart.
-
Flavor: Cod has a mild flavor that may not be as desirable for canning as other fish with stronger flavors.
-
Cost: Cod is often more expensive than other fish used for canning.
I asked 3 questions (circled in red). Be sure to see its response to my third question. Just click to enlarge.
Now, if you note ChatGPT provided citation links. Amonst those links you'll see (part 15) or (part 15 forum), those links come here. You'll might also note some of the citations are (blogspot), those links go to part15lab.blogger https://part15lab.blogspot.com/2017/01/origins-of-part-15-closer-look-at-15219.html?m=1 - Which happens to be my old blog.
At first I suspected it cited my blog because it knows it mine, but that cant be the case because I haven't had the google account for years.
I also suspected it used part15.org as a reference because I come here several times a day - however I also visit at least 3 other part 15 related sites every day.