You left out the word "approximate".. and as I said in my above post, I misread what you had wrote, and thought you were indicaating a 200 foot limit.. But after I read your post again, I see how I was in error
About Reply 16
You left out the word "approximate"..
_________
I quoted verbatim the text in FCC PN 14089. Sorry if that was not recognized by some until now.
>> "Do you also claim the "Approx. Maximum Coverage Radius" for unlicensed AM operation as being "200 feet" as shown in that Notice?" <<
To clarify: Approx. = Approximate.
I wasn't replying to the post from a few days ago, Iwas replying to your post #11 tonight, where you bolded "average maximum" and you had left "Approx." out
Mr Blare wrote in Reply 17: ... The remaining question in # 3 couldn't have been addressed to me because it asks if I "also claim" in a situation where, up to that point, neither poster had claimed anything. ...
_________
Mr Blare aligned himself with the statements in FCC Public Notice 14089, to support his claim that unlicensed AM/FM stations are "broadcast stations."
About Reply 19:
I was replying to your post #11 tonight, where you bolded "average maximum" and you had left "Approx." out.
_______
I think you meant Reply 12 here. Reply 11 is that of Mr Blare.
But in any case, neither FCC PN 14089, nor anything I have posted here defines 200 feet as being the coverage radius LIMIT permitted to unlicensed AM transmit systems.
Such coverage radii depend on the degree of compliance of those unlicensed systems with Part 15, propagation paths and conditions, the characteristics of the systems used to receive those transmissions, co- and adjacent-channel interference, and the ambient r-f noise level at the receive location.
Unless I'm just getting tired it seems like there is no disagreement outstanding at this time.
Excellent discussion everyone, if I may say.
I don't claim anything.
[Member Rich is the most entropic communicator I've ever encountered, and the chaos just keeps on spreading. Let's review:]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post # 12
WRONG. My post in reply 3 was addressed specifically to you, Mr Blare.
Look at the subject line of that Reply 3, which was prompted (only) by your comments in Reply 2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[To save readers from scrolling back and forth # 3 is quoted here:]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# 3
CAREFUL
RE: The earlier posts in this thread...
That document is a Public Notice (only).
Do you also claim the "Approx. Maximum Coverage Radius" for unlicensed AM operation as being "200 feet" as shown in that Notice?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[How could anyone know that a subject line was a question addressed to anyone in particular?... made even less probable by the addition of a secondary title "RE: The earlier posts in this thread... " a trailing sentence mentioning "posts" in the plural (there being only two previous posts). The remaining question in # 3 couldn't have been addressed to me because it asks if I "also claim" in a situation where, up to that point, neither poster had claimed anything. The claim mentioned in my #2 was made by YOU Member Rich. At most your subject line CAREFUL could be taken as a threat or warning of some kind, but it's stated in the open with no reference marker, so it's undefined. Following is my Post # 2:]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# 2
Thank you Druid Hills for bringing this FCC Notice which we haven't seen for awhile.
Note how the document refers to LOW POWER BROADCASTING, a misunderstander's claim that part 15 radio is not broadcasting is where the morph began in the first thread.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Another thread morphed to death]