Yet another ground lead action

I am sorry.

I think that I am the one responsible for him floating over here from one of my email groups for professional engineers.

think i was discussing rangemaster installs with another engineer one time and mentioned this site not realizing the can of worms i was opening.

The FCC responds to licensees, not angry internet posters who took a math class once.

These installations were always in violation of the regs we work under and if a licensed operator feels threatened they will squawk and the FCC will jump.

Remember, licensed broadcasters pay spectrum fees now, AKA "protection money" and if they want you gone, you're gone. If you also clearly violate the regs, you're gone even faster.

This cite makes perfect sense to me, no buddy-writing required. If you're not in compliance with the physical configuration standard then the field strength standard applies. Nothing mysterious or underhanded there at all.

Drop the hyperbole, por favor

The existing rules in section 15.219 were written many years ago and are simply unworkable for many reasons, not the least of which is safety.

It is not practical for many people-- especially urban dwellers-- to mount a transmitter at ground level. The inability to connect an electrical ground to a transmitter mounted outdoors poses a life and safety hazard to a building and its occupants, and violates electrical code requirements. Chokes are not a practical solution, and putting a choke in a ground lead circumvents the lightning protection that would otherwise be afforded.

It is my opinion that the future viability of community radio operation depends on getting the archaic restriction on ground lead length removed from 15.219. Otherwise, the determination of compliance becomes a matter of whim for whoever inspects a particular installation.

As to whether or not certain discussions carried out on this board and others have materially hindered the cause of community radio, you may think that they haven't, but I have personal knowledge to the contrary. That is my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

I'm still new to all of this. My understanding was that you had to comply with either 15.09 or 15.19. The article mentions both were in violation, so if he lowered the total ground to 10 feet, but the field strength was still higher than 15.09. would this station be legal under Part 15?

Ideally the installation should comply with 15.219 OR 15.209. However, the field strength permitted under 15.209 is essentially useless. So if an inspector decides that your installation is non-compliant under 15.219, he can cite you under 15.209, and it's game over.

In the KENC situation, apparently (and I do not have first hand knowledge of this), the inspector "didn't like" the amount of range the station had even after the ground lead was disconnected, so he cited the owner under 15.209.

The FCC measured a very high field strength, even for an elevated transmitter. The radiated power corresponding to the field strength reported in the NOUO is 12.25 mW. Considering the efficiency of a typical Part 15 AM transmitter, which is not very high, the antenna efficiency would have to be in the vicinity of 50% to get 12.25 mW of radiated power. An elevated installation is unlikely to get so much antenna efficiency unless it is VERY elevated.

This case may be the result of a violation of 15.219(a), which is the 100 mW input power rule, as well as the antenna system length rule, 15.219(b), which was cited in the NOUO.

But thank you for doing the calculation anyway.

However, 12.25 mW is an insignificant amount of power to contend with the amount of noise and interference present on the AM band today! Even if a Part 15 installation were 100% efficient (i.e. 100 milliwatts radiated power), that would still represent only a MINUSCULE amount-- 10,000 times, or 40 dB lower than a 1 kW Class D local station! It's almost at the level of a spurious signal.

We should be thinking in terms of making things better, not wishing it was 40 years ago when the AM band was much quieter than it is now. It is unlikely that it will ever be that way again. What with noise from RF lighting, motors, power lines, and electronic equipment such as computers and monitors, HD IBOC hash propagating thousands of miles at night, and the general RF SOUP caused by the FCC allowing every Tom, Dick, and Harry to put a 50 kW station on the air, the AM band has turned into a polluted wasteland.

Let's stop worrying about whether a few milliwatts is too much and instead work to improve our situation.

What was the name of the station. Same office?

Unfortunately, I don't have any further information beyond what was contained in the FCC notice. You might have some success finding them by doing a search, if they have a web page. Sorry!

I bought a Hamilton Rangemaster about a year ago, also I have few pieces of CRL gear installed, wired and ready to go. And naturally I'm interested in getting all the range I legally can. From what I've been reading recently it looks like there is a little bit of clarification of acceptable ground configurations coming down from the FCC side. What is the generally accepted method of grounding?

Thanks

The only thing I would feel comfortable with right now would be ground mounting, if you have a place to do it. That is why I am preparing a petition to address this matter.

I think that is where I'm heading. I have already mounted the transmitter on a push up pole ~20 ft. in the air, but I think I'll go ahead and put it on the ground and install a good ground radial system with a plate. I'm meeting our local congresswoman (Jean Schmidt) tomorrow about another issue we are working on together and am going to talk to her about community part 15 radio to kind of see if she has interest.
Thanks

If you have any success when you meet with your congresswoman, please let us know.

Also, I would like to invite you to join in the petition effort that I am organizing to update the Part 15 rules. Please send me an e-mail using the member Email system you will see at the left if you are interested and able to help.

Your transparent attempt to create a false impression of FCC enforcement actions to further your political agenda is not appreciated.

Letting people know how you feel is one thing, advising our members of your petition idea is fine.

However, if you want to aggressively push your petition over and over again then kindly do that on your own web property and quit the fear-mongering mis-information campaign here.