You have no idea what you are talking about.
I have to agree with WDCX and Bruce.
I know a whole lot more than you think I do. OK lets talk about coax first.
You have FOAM isolation, Fish Net shielding, and or one huge copper sleeve. Now believe it or not some LPFM broadcasters will skimp the coax and buy the cheaper stuff. If you do not go with the highest grade coax you will get poor results.
A Chinese PIRATE transmitter of 7 Watts will go a hell of a lot more than 3 miles on a second story building on a telescoping antenna connected directly (NO COAX) to a BNC connector placed next to a window. DON'T ASK HOW I KNOW THIS!!! UNLESS YOU EARN ELITE ACCESS ON MY SITE!!! This is not to be mean but because of the gestapo in the homeland!!
Next is SITE LOCATION!! If the engineer does not take the time to locate an obstruction free zone I could see a 100 watt transmitter only going 1-2 miles if its placed in a poor location near metal and other obstructions that absorb RF Energy.
So lets take a look at a little Chinese 7 Watt transmitter and ask yourself why people with a boom box can clearly hear the signal on 87.9 Mhz for 7-10 miles in Stereo on FM. I bet a car Radio would go 15 plus miles on that very same transmitter.
If your 100 Watt transmitter connected to an antenna (Way better than a telescoping antenna) only goes 3 miles I'd take that thing back, turn in my LPFM license and call it a day because something is horribly wrong and any good engineer should be able to see that. Oh yea the 60 db contour stuff I know NEC is right and real world experience is not so.
If a Whole House 3 can go 1.1 miles on a wire antenna IN THE HOUSE on the first floor next to a window I'd bet if I were to put that very same transmitter on a 20 foot pole I'd get 2 miles maybe 3. So maybe LPFM needs to reduce their power to 310 mW lol (Just Kidding).
Look I can be blunt but I want to know why a 7 Watt transmitter is going further than 100 Watts. If you have half a brain you can find plenty of proof of what I'm saying on video's and transmitter hack sites. I'm sure some is like a fish story, but if I didn't experience this myself I would not be such a butt head about this.
Give me ONE DAY in New Zealand and I'd make all sorts of transmitter video's of 1 watt going 3 miles. JUST ASK JOHNNY C!!! Ask him why he goes further than your 100 Watt transmitter.
The technical answer should be an interesting one to this. It just may have to be talked more in depth on The Elite section of The Initiative site for fear of the gestapo.
Rich? We need your expertise here.
Mark
Again, I will say "Now, I am totally speechless"
But I will say this....
TheLegacy, please, I do respect you, but, you're too high strung to the point you totally missed the whole point WDCX was making.
I understand you want to make a rule changing point for part 15 and you would like to be the ONE who got the FCC rules changed, I can see that.
But, you are losing points with everyone who might just help you get your name in the record books for convincing the FCC to change part 15 to your liking.
No one said anything about Radio Shack coax in this thread, but I will, I have RG8 50 Ohm coax, which is double braided, so don't knock coax bought at Radio Shack, at one time, radio shack published a 465 page catalog where they sold by mail order major brand electronics and components including communications devices and assessories.
I bought the best coax out there through RADIO SHACK in the 1980's, coax shield is silver tight braid on top of tight copper braid, one atop the other with tight criss-cross. Center core is 8 strands of twisted copper thick insulator, thick outer jacket.
I am so frustrated its taken me 10 times to fix this typo filled post!!
If anyone has read this before my edit time ran out you missed A LOT of edits!!!
Bruce.
TheLegacy said: "I bet a car Radio would go 15 plus miles on that very same transmitter."
Then later on TheLegacy said: "I'd bet if I were to put that very same transmitter on a 20 foot pole I'd get 2 miles"
At that point Carl thinks to himself: I don't think licensed LPFM stations are built through betting.
Thelegacy posted (in part):
Now believe it or not some LPFM broadcasters will skimp the coax and buy the cheaper stuff.
If by LPFM you are referring to FCC-licensed LPFM broadcast stations -- they are licensed for a given effective radiated power (ERP) from an antenna having a radiation center at a given height above average terrain (HAAT). The power lost in the coax transmission line of such stations is irrelevant, as ERP is the product of the antenna gain, and the Z-matched r-f power flowing into the input terminals of that antenna. If coax loss is relatively high, then more transmitter power is needed/used to produce that licensed ERP.
If by LPFM you refer to unlicensed FM stations in the U.S. -- they are governed by FCC §15.239 which limits the radiated field to 250 µV/m, 3 meters from their transmit antenna. Antenna gain, coax loss and transmitter power can be any combination producing that maximum field (or less), at that distance from its transmit antenna.
Look I can be blunt but I want to know why a 7 Watt transmitter is going further than 100 Watts.
Other things equal, it cannot.
What documentable _proof_ can you post here to support such a belief?
http://fccdata.org/?call=wlsl-lp&city=&state=&country=US&ccode=1
http://fccdata.org/?facid=193453&appid=1692222&i=2
http://fccdata.org/?facid=193453&appid=1692222&i=1
Transmitter: Nexus Broadcast/NICOM250
Coax: Andrews 5/8 inch hardline (heliax)
You can pull the rest from the links.
To The Legacy: Do you really think I would feed a LPFM with Radio Shack coax?
This is the second LPFM I have placed on the air, not to mention engineering small market AM stations.
The LPFM I manage operates at 18 watts ERP. Let me explain...
The transmitter total power output is 52.5 watts at the connector.
The RF is fed into 5/8" Heliax cable which is 180 feet long. Due to line loss, 40 watts reaches the antenna, a Shively single bay circularly polarized antenna.
Because the power applied to the antenna spits between the horizontal and vertical planes, the efficiency of the antenna is .46, yes less than unity.
40 watts into the antenna equates to 18 watts ERP which is what the FCC allowed. At 138' AGL, the FCC 60 dbu contour plot shows around 3 to 5 miles measured on the map.
However, in the field to a car radio the signal is usable up to 15 miles or more depending upon topographical features and foliage.
Why only 18 watts? For our installation, that's all that is required to achieve the FCC spec. Now, if the antenna were lower, more power would be required.
A special waiver had to be obtained for our frequency as there is a co-channel station about 65 miles away. We picked that frequency, which required the waiver, because it was a sure bet no other LPFM group would apply for that frequency (more complicated and costs a little more to file.) As such we don't have to share air time with another station.
WKFM on the same frequency, located in Berlinville, Ohio, operates at 3.4 kW ERP. Their 60 dbu contour measures 15 miles on the map.
Because of our hilly terrain the car radio range before drop-outs is about 9 miles in any direction. Solid clock radio range in the 60 dBuV predicted contour of 3 to 5 miles.
I was going to point out the 60dbu is often the reference point for range miles, mainly because this is your typically reliable everyday coverage. Anything past that is more prone to interference and less likely to be heard indoors. Also of note is that the majority of a station's listeners come from within the 64dbu contour.
When one examines all the parameters that's required to secure a LPFM or any broadcast license, there is no way the FCC is going to allow an increase in unlicensed power in the FM radio band. The "Pattern" is full.
The initiative is becoming so off putting...
I honestly don't know if I really support any of it anymore.
All I'm going to say to this is that one size does not fit all. Plus for ANY Initiative to work it takes REAL GUTS.
Keeping that said has anyone actually taken the research to understand what the FCC is expecting in a ocument? You may be surprised at the answer.
A member of The Initiative who has never been bouncing on the fence and playing both sides has not ONLY looked on the FCC's website for the answer and found it, but CALLED the FCC. How about that getting the answer from the horses mouth? Does that not take effort. Anyways here is some of what was said:
Keep your OBJECTIVES Short, Simple, To the point.
In other words long paragraphs will be overlooked. Make your point in the first few sentences.
There is No Time Limit to how long it can take for a Document to be looked at by the FCC
So just like a job interview you have to look on their web site and it will tell you. Plus make a follow up call.
Some of you may want to come to the next ALPB meeting and if that member shows up you'll be enlightened on just how government officials should be addressed and how one should act when making a petition. I'll tell you this it enlightened me. Lots of miss information going round about this.
Yes I believe Canada should be a reference point for more power on FM But...
The FCC is not going to entertain re do's. If you don't do it right the first time you'll hang yourself. This is why I'm trying to gather all data about New Zealand, Canada and how they got the extra power.
AM could be the safe heaven for Hobby Broadcasting
Broadcasters are now seeing FM as the Holy Grail. AM will be like the Dinosaur obsolete and worthless for a money making business and again that is due to the FCC's reluctance to clamp down on unintentional radiators which is now starting to effect FM as well. Already a member of The Initiative has experienced this where he lives and it is even effecting Digital Radio.
An overlooked reason for more power
Cheaper Radio's and poor selectivity means a higher DB contour is necessary to get 150 feet to most Radio's. Now you almost have to quadruple that field strength for a Radio at your local Dollar General, Kmart, Walmart. Case in point an Emerson analog boombox where 99.1 in Glouster, VA bled the whole dial. No way would your puny FM transmitter be heard.
Repack has not happened yet
There is still time to make a case for 87.7 and 87.9 as well as the expansion of the FM band. Even new broadcast bands not used anymore by other services.
Shortwave is a good place
Talk is going around the Internet that may change things for Shortwave.
It takes guts and our Initiative is doing more behind the scene than asking for more power on AM, FM, SW we're also putting it straight to the PRO's who want to cozy up to the FCC to try and end hobby Radio on the Internet as well as part 15.
Our group has a major player as far as Digital media that will also take a look at part 15 Hobby Radio and or another service apart from part 15. This was mentioned plenty of times that we should look at a separate service. We are doing that as we speak as this seems to be the most sensible solution. Part 15 and Hobby Radio are separate entities. The real quest is to show the industries how Radio is an asset for them and not a weapon against them. Again this takes logic, guts and people who stick to the grind stone. Prometheus done this and that is why they got the change they so wanted.
Our group wants (do or die) type members who will do what it takes to make this a reality and make it something everyone can benefit from a win win situation.
Watch because there is a change that will happen and the New Radio Revolution will be filing the petition under that group, moniker or whatever you want to call it.
Best Regards from
The New Radio Revolution
"Keeping that said has anyone actually taken the research to understand what the FCC is expecting in a ocument? You may be surprised at the answer"
This was an early point of mine that was largely ignored until one of your own "elite" repeated what I said. There are several folks on this board that routinely work with the FCC that have said this several times as well.
"A member of The Initiative who has never been bouncing on the fence and playing both sides has not ONLY looked on the FCC's website for the answer and found it, but CALLED the FCC. How about that getting the answer from the horses mouth?"
That is awesome and I'm glad that happened for your group. However, I again point at the members here who are professional broadcasters who have been ignored in the past.
I'm afraid that due to the nature of your group and the single person approved "elite" may cause a stagnation in ideas resulting in a less than ideal document. It appears (even from the beginning) that your group does not appreciate outsiders input, I believe if you continue with the closed elite input your petition will be doomed to fail.
Which moves me on to this "The FCC is not going to entertain re do's. If you don't do it right the first time you'll hang yourself."
To which I say reread my previous statement.
"There is No Time Limit to how long it can take for a Document to be looked at by the FCC"
This was something I had thought about the other night, it could be several years before the FCC gets around to even looking at the document. Not to be discouraging, but to give a clear idea on how long this effort could take.
"An overlooked reason for more power
Cheaper Radio's and poor selectivity means a higher DB contour is necessary to get 150 feet to most Radio's."
This is not a good reason. There have always been cheap junk radios.
Please keep in mind my critisism is meant to be constructive and not a jab at you personally.