• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
Part15

Part15

License Free, legal, low-power radio broadcasting

  • About Us
  • Forums
  • Resources
  • Members
  • Contact Us
  • Log In
Forums
Main Category
temp
Co-locating Certifi...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Co-locating Certified Part 15 FM Transmitters

 
temp
Last Post by Anonymous 12 years ago
7 Posts
2 Users
0 Reactions
577 Views
RSS
 wdcx
(@wdcx)
Posts: 444
Noble Member Registered
Topic starter
 

So the question is, co-locating certified FM transmitters would yield in increase in field Stregth? Legal if each transmitter is at or under 250 uV/m? Both fed with same audio source and using the supplied antenna?


 
Posted : 19/01/2015 12:44 pm
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Posts: 0
 

The two co-located part 15 FM transmitters are on different frequencies?

There are probably several ways they might interfere with each other because of the respective antennas absorbing some of the energy from each other... haven't heard of it before, but MAYBE the antennas could re-radiate the signal from the co-transmitter...


 
Posted : 19/01/2015 12:50 pm
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Posts: 0
 

Could be wrong but I don't think so. If the transmitters are all on the same frequency and close to each other they will all overpower each other or interfere with each other. If they are far apart you would have many transmitting in their area.....not a uniform signal collectively adding up to make a stronger single signal like you are thinking.

Mark


 
Posted : 19/01/2015 3:25 pm
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Posts: 0
 

I should have been more clear. They are on the same frequency. So now my next question. If part 15 AM transmitters that are clustered have increased field stregth then why not FM transmitters?


 
Posted : 20/01/2015 5:29 am
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Posts: 0
 

There are several problems with your idea.

The first is no two transmitters will have exactly the same frequency unless they are fed from the same timing source. So the two transmitters would interfere with each other, generate heterodynes, fight to be dominant with the capture effect by the receiver and so on.
On the other hand, if two transmitters were fed by the same timing source and near each other, if inspected, the inspector could call them a single assembly and if they added perfectly the result would be a field strength double the 15.239 limit.

Second, I doubt the transmitters being certified would help if inspected because it is extremely unlikely they were certified to operate in pairs or clusters.

Third, putting multiple transmitters together is going to create a mush of RF junk. My gut feeling is the heterodyning of the signals, even if the transmitters are set for the same frequency, will cause the junk to exceed the bandwidth limit in 15.239.

Field strength will increase as more transmitters are added, but that does not translate into better reception range, it might come across as noise.


 
Posted : 20/01/2015 12:01 pm
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Posts: 0
 

Below is a comparison of the fields radiated by a single FM system compilant with FCC §15.239 (at the left) with the total fields radiated by two such system when co-located.

Changing the distances and orientations of the two antennas, and/or adding more antennas to the system can produce many more nulls in the net radiation patterns of such an array.


 
Posted : 21/01/2015 4:51 am
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Posts: 0
 

Thanks Rich.  Makes sense.


 
Posted : 21/01/2015 5:33 am
Forum Jump:
  Previous Topic
Next Topic  
Share:
Forum Information
Recent Posts
Unread Posts
Tags
  • 13 Forums
  • 7,756 Topics
  • 63.6 K Posts
  • 29 Online
  • 2,249 Members
Our newest member: electronic
Latest Post: Part 15 Too Restrictive for Automakers
Forum Icons: Forum contains no unread posts Forum contains unread posts
Topic Icons: Not Replied Replied Active Hot Sticky Unapproved Solved Private Closed

Primary Sidebar

Online Members

 No online members at the moment

Recent Posts

  • RichPowers

    Ultra long range Part 15 broadcasting (to space)

    While car makers appear to be opting for the licenced s...

    By RichPowers , 1 day ago

  • Mark

    Here's a look at why we do processing and what each function does.

    Shows for FM but applies to AM also.

    By Mark , 5 days ago

  • Mark

    RE: Early 80s Realty Radio' AM transmitters

    I don't think the audio quality would be that good on t...

    By Mark , 2 weeks ago

  • RichPowers

    RE: Early 80s Realty Radio' AM transmitters

    I was very tempted to buy them both, they were dirt che...

    By RichPowers , 2 weeks ago

  • RichPowers

    RE: Part 15 Too Restrictive for Automakers

    @mark I had to pause when you mentioned "15 minute citi...

    By RichPowers , 2 weeks ago

Recent Topics

  • Mark

    Here's a look at why we do processing and what each function does.

    By Mark 5 days ago

  • RichPowers

    Part 15 Too Restrictive for Automakers

    By RichPowers 2 weeks ago

  • RichPowers

    From Virtue to Vice - Music Morality

    By RichPowers 3 weeks ago

  • RichPowers

    affordable DAC Impressive Versatility “audiophile quality” Promising Big performance at small price

    By RichPowers 3 weeks ago

  • RichPowers

    New Canadian Resident?

    By RichPowers 3 weeks ago

Topic Tags

  • Carl Blare3
  • KDX RADIO3
  • WINDOZE3
  • Transmitter2
  • Radio Phvern2
  • station upgrade2
  • archive.org2
  • playlist2
  • Zara Radio2
  • #SW2101
View all tags (75)

Copyright © 2026 · Part15.org · Log in

‹›×

    ‹›×