What I do believe is that there is a reason for incessantly finding in the negative against the hobby activities of a small minority.
People tend to believe what they hope or want to be true regardless of proven evidence to the contrary -- which they dismiss as inapplicable.
Sometimes the proven evidence supports what people want to believe, and of course then it is accepted.
As the old saying goes, "Don't shoot the messenger."
You are not shot.
But the message is questionable
If belief were so handilly dismissed as merely "what people want," then religion would be fake and people deluded.
But the good side of abolishing religion is that many radio frequencies would become available for realistic use.
I've re-read the posts several times and find no place where anyone said mlr was lying. I know I didn't. I fully believe that he did indeed receive what he said he did. Near as I can tell most of the following discussions are about why this would be possible, considering that science says it may be unlikely.
Lots of things are unlikely. But they happen anyway. It'd be nice if I ws retired and rich, so I could drive around to Part 15 stations and do field strength readings for them 🙂
I for one would be interested to know if he can receive as well at various other points around the antenna at a similar distance.
Tim in Bovey
We are all messsengers at certain times in life and might carry wounds from ungrateful message recipients from our past.
One station manager once called me "the most unreasonable person he'd ever met." But he hired me again at his next station, so I hadn't struck out.
Another guy delivered a message from a very starched and laced-up staff member who "pronounced every syllable in every word everytime without flubbing," who had said that Carl Blare was "inconsistent."
Yet a third person likened me to "Zelig," both the title and the main character of a Woody Allen film in which Zelig the character re-shaped himself to meet everyone's expectations, which got him the job, the woman, and elected to office. I just call that "salesmanship."
Do I become defensive when a fellow part 15er is challenged?
Yes, and also when a worthy part 15 transmitter is attacked.
But I'm consistent about it!
I may quibble with Rich at times, but he's a resident here, AND HAS NEVER VIOLATED ANY PART 15 RULE.
The problem is that these simulated values come AFTER experiments have obtained different results. So what is the point, except to cast doubt on the findings of the experimentation?
A much better use of time and efforts would be to attempt to explain the real world results at face value (you have to assume that what is being reported is in fact what is actually happening). Or, better yet, actually do some experimentation yourself.
Otherwise, I'm just going to ignore these types of posts, as they serve no value, to readers, to the experimenter or to the Forum as a whole.
The problem is that these simulated values come AFTER experiments have obtained different results.
The comparison included in my post 15 in this thread was based on NEC fields calculated several years after the fields for that real-world system were measured by a consulting engineer.
Yet the NEC fields for this system closely agreed with the fields measured for those conditions by a consulting engineer.
Probably to most technical reviewers, that would/should be a strong indicator of the accuracy of the groundwave fields calculated by NEC relative to those produced by that real-world system when modeled in NEC.
In the present case, NEC calculations show a difference in the ~useful field intensity that could be produced by an elevated Part 15 AM system using conductors with a total radiating length of 118 inches and 100 mW of applied r-f power to the crystal clear fields received 1.2 miles away that were ascribed to that system.
While it might be possible for crystal clear groundwave reception at that radius distance, that would depend on many factors such as the lack of co- and adjacent-channel interference, the characteristics of the receiver and its antenna, the frequency, earth conductivity, localized re-radiated fields, and the r-f power actually supplied to and radiated in that direction by the transmit antenna system.
From Mr. Rich's last post...
"While it might be possible for crystal clear groundwave reception at that radius distance..."
Never mind all the variables and conditions that were thereafter stated.
I would suggest that the next obligation of the commentator is to map out the conditions that may have been in place to explain the results reported by MLR, not a question of whether the antenna was mis-measured.
I would suggest that the next obligation of the commentator is to map out the conditions that may have been in place to explain the results reported by MLR, not a question of whether the antenna was mis-measured.
That could be done by anyone so motivated.
But there are many publicly unknown/unrecognized details for this installation that could erroneously steer the result of such an analysis.
"That could be done"
"That could be done"
Have you any comments/conclusions about the rest of my post 38, from which you posted only a clip from its opening sentence?
This... "But there are many publicly unknown/unrecognized details for this installation that could erroneously steer the result of such an analysis."
That serves as a launching point to question and examine the findings reported by the man who submits details about his Part 15 coverage experience.
We work our way from there.
Again I ask - what's the point, other than casting some doubt on the veracity of the real world results?
Just curious, AR --
If one wants to seek/promote veracity, then why would the undocumented posts here or anywhere else relating to the coverage of a Part 15 AM system that are based on hearsay supersede the performance calculated for those systems by NEC ?
Yes, that gets me good. Do we seek veracity?
Is that in Las Vegas? Veras City?
Where's that Webster College Edition?
First of all, the posts (or at least this one) aren't undocumented or based on hearsay. The individual doing the testing published the results, while clearly describing his installation. That's first hand experience.
You can either believe the information (and I have no reason to doubt it - I've dealt with the individual many times and sold him gear - the Rangemaster he used for the testing may have come from me), or not. I take it for what it is - experimental results.
You are not going to disprove experiments by running simulations. As you yourself state, there are many other factors that could have influenced the results (and you declined to provide any).
And those results are what they are. If I were so inclined, I might ask exactly what 'crystal clear' means, i.e., no static, static but clearly listenable, etc.? And inquire about the sensitivity of the receiver. But other than that, the results are certainly not way out there - in certain directions, I was able to clearly hear the Rangemaster between 1 1/2 to 2 miles (I had to position the car just right, and not move it, there was definitely static but the signal was clear enough to listen to).
Now, if you were to do your own experiments with Part 15, and couldn't get a similar signal with a similar installation past 1/2 mile, then I might listen more. But until then, I'm going with the real world experience.