Just wish a meter that's simple to use, hand held, and could read a signal as small as .1 mV(100 uV) and affordable like around $500 and work in the 88to 108 mhz range was available. Then any hobbyest could know if they're OK.
But as I said in past posts with some disgreement if the transmitter manufacturer went through the hoops to get it certified by Industry Canada or the FCC and assuming the tests were honest we have no choice but to go by that until there exists an affordable meter available to us to do our own measurements.
On Ebay there are hand held field strength meters by Tenmars that have a broad frequency range that includes 88-108 and has what looks like capabilities down to 1mV(1000uV) and in per meter...around $500. Sellers weren't sure if would work for what I wanted.....maybe someone here knows? Timinbovey?
Mark
The Wire antenna that comes with the Whole House 3.0 is I'd say 2-3 foot I'll have to measure it for kicks. As far as the C. Crane it may be closer to legal to use that wire with it as the field strength is only 100 uV/M @ 3 meters. One would have to test to be sure. Note: This is only for educational purposes. If you try this in the USA you most likely will be in violation of FCC Rules part 15:239. You have been warned. As far as certified transmitters being used as instructed and you still get a NOUO for FM? This is why I'm so head strong for the initiative to at least start a different service for Hobby FM. I'd go by the exact field strength Timinbovey found for the Whole House FM Transmitter 3.0 on High power and on its non certified Long Wire. That range is far enough for a Hobby Station. Maybe try for the opening of 87.7 and 87.9 Mhz. I'd even so much as go for ONLY allowing 87.7 and 87.9 Mhz and not allowing any other frequency for FM or at least have the FCC give 3-5 FM channels that can be used for this. I still like the database requirement to make sure people don't stomp on other stations. Fair is fair. I'm sure if the FCC were to do this I could send my WH3 for re programming. If not, I could get the SainSonic fixed as it covers 87.7 and 87.9 Mhz or sell both TX's to someone in New Zealand and buy all new.
I'd like to know how the FCC expects people to check their FM output from certified transmitters when the field testers go for $15,000.
So what does certification mean again?
These bust's are the reason's i shut off my FM.
My focus is now on Longwave, Medium Wave and Shortwave.
Those three bands are dying right now, someone has to keep them alive for nostalgic reasons and well, look what FM get's you.
The Tenmars units that I've seen (and I've not seen them all but they all seem similar except for frequency coverage and features) are all broadband units. Meaning, if you buy one that covers, say 30 MHz - 3 GHz it will give you a reading of RF at that spot which includes ALL RF withing that spectrum range. Their purpose is to show quantity of RF in a given spot, and they are not capable of any tuning to read a specific level of a given frequency.
The equipment to do these measurements is expensive because precision is needed from the antenna to the meter. Components with precise tolerance are used, evrything is calibrated.
You don't have to spend $15,000. You can occasionally find a Potomac FIM-71 on ebay or through used equipment sites for $2,000 - $5,000. (I know, still out of reach of a typical Part 15 guy). Then, to know it's accurate you'll want to have it calibrated etc by Potomac, and depending on any wear on switches or components out of value that calibration can cost around $1,700 or more (often more). My FIM-41 (for AM field strength) cost $1,700 for calibration by Potomac back in October, but again, I use it in my work so the costs are covered by charging for my work. I have mine calibrated every 3 years.
Reading accurate field strength is a careful proposition especially at Part 15 levels. When you're measuring a 100,000 watt FM checking for nulls at 5 or 10 miles you've got more "give" to play with. When you're measuring a Part 15 at 3 meters very small changes in ANYTHING, from antenna position, to standing near the antenna, to a dirty switch, can make quite a difference. As my tests showed, just moving a cable connected to the transmitter can substantially change the field strength!
There just isn't a "cheap" way to be that accurate.
That's why I would think that the BEST thing to be petitioning the FCC for when it comes to FM is a measurement of output rather than field strength. At least watts (milliwatts or nanowatts) out is measurable with a equipment costing a few hundred dollars. Trouble is, use of a gain antenna can than greatly increase field strength/coverage even though your output can be in limits. Perhaps a "x number of milliwatts into a telescoping antenna affixed to the transmitter of no more than 12 inches" or some such, might be a more proper tool.
TIB
..That that ONE transmitter that was supplied to the lab and extensively tested using hundreds of thosands of dollars of equipment in special rooms passed the test and the lab churned out all the required paperwork to submit to the FCC and get certification.
That ONE transmitter. That doesn't mean anything else they built will pass. It also doesn't mean that they didn't send a specially "pre-tested" unit to the lab. It also doesn't mean that maybe for a little cash on the side the guy doing the testing didn't make up the results.
Remember, the FCC does not do the testing. They receive the paperwork and if all is well issue the certification. If you look up over the years the FCC has often instructed manufacturers to make changes before certification was issued.
What I really really want to do is buy 6-12 Wholehouse 3.0 transmitters from various sources (so I know I get a good cross section) and set up my gear for testing, and simply test them all in a row, within minutes of each other, in the EXACT same tet setup, at the same location and same physical setup, and see what the output differences may be. But no matter how I try to talk myself into it I can't justify spending that kind of money on a boxful of transmitters that later I will have no use for. I wouldn't mind investing a couple hundred bucks myself but I wouldn't do it unless I had at least 6 or more for the testing. And I can't borrow them from people in the land, as I want to be 100% certain that EVERY one of them is new out of the box. I'm tempted to just buy them on a credit card, do the test them resell them on eBay at a discount. Hmmm...
I'm just SO curious.
TIB
TIB
"That's why I would think that the BEST thing to be petitioning the FCC for when it comes to FM is a measurement of output rather than field strength. At least watts (milliwatts or nanowatts) out is measurable with a equipment costing a few hundred dollars. Trouble is, use of a gain antenna can than greatly increase field strength/coverage even though your output can be in limits. Perhaps a "x number of milliwatts into a telescoping antenna affixed to the transmitter of no more than 12 inches" or some such, might be a more proper tool."
Now that's a constructive idea to put to the FCC and Industry Canada!....A realistic way of the end user to check compliance....a given length of antenna permanantly attached and a max wattage allowed....so simple and easy to measure!
Way the rule is now it's like a 60 mile an hour speed limit but the average driver needing a $15,000 meter at own expense or no way to check.
They got to know this!
Mark
The first NOUO you posted effectivly had a 76 foot ground lead assuming the antenna was 3 meters.
Since this thread first opened 1-week ago I've been waiting for someone to detect the most probable REAL REASON these NOUOs were issued.
stvcmty came close by noting that WQXR is 1st adjacent above 105.7 and puts out HD side-flares, one of which was no doubt covered by the pirate.
WQXR, at 610 Watts, is an international cultural icon, historic New York radio station and syndicator of major orchestra programs. It is NOT a station to crowd!
What no one seemed to notice was that full power stations sit in all the 1st adjacencies of BOTH pirate stations!
92.3 WBMP, WQBU 92.7, 105.5 WDHA.
The two pirates, 92.5 and 105.7, wedged themselves into the single channels separating the licensed stations! No part 15er would be that stupid.
Carl said: "No part 15er would be that stupid."
I asked: Are you sure about that?
Perhaps Carl should have said - no TRUE Part 15'er.
As I've observed from the Facebook Part 15 AM & FM page, there are many who call themselves Part 15'ers, but in reality they are either 1) pirates hiding in Part 15 clothes or 2) horribly misguided as to the rules of Part 15.
Artisan is right that no TRUE part 15er would set up shop right on the 1st adjancency between two licensed stations.
The stacking policy these days is to separate stations by at least one blank channel.
That makes John WDCX right as well, as I guess I wasn't sure of what I said the first time.
The FCC violation documents linked at the start of this thread might well have included the words, "AND these stations are causing interference to licensed stations by standing on their shoes and poking with their elbows."
The licensed stations cried "Move away, you're in my space!"
I'm very upset about it and need to attend a meeting... an ALPB meeting.