On 8/1/2014 12:37 AM, rickman wrote:
On 7/31/2014 9:47 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 7/31/2014 9:29 PM, rickman wrote:
On 7/30/2014 9:40 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 7/30/2014 1:22 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in
news:lr9ohj$33f$1@dont-
email.me:

But the amplifier you're trying to use is meant to feed a receiver
directly, not another antenna. So output is going to be very low (on
the order of microwatts) - much lower than any amplifier which
feeds an
antenna.


Small point, but.... Microwatts. Those new legal microstransmitters
are said
to be in NANOwatt range output, but allegedly work on the distance
scales I'm
interested in. Microwatts should certainly have worked, but despite
the crude
test dipole being good (on standard wired reception test anyway), it
didn't
work for transmitting even a foot or two with the radio's whip
parallel to
the upper part of it. If nanowatts should have, the MAR-6 looks like
driving
picowatts, if I'm lucky.


I would suggest you check again. Receivers aren't that sensitive.
Most
unlicensed transmitters are in the 100-500 mw range, and have a
coverage
of maybe 100 feet. And picowatts aren't even worth discussing.

I'm unclear, is mW microwatts or milliwatts as you wrote it? The reason
I ask is that a 500 milliwatt transmitter would certainly have a
receivable distance much greater than 100 feet, no?


According to standards, mW is milliwatts. uW (actually, greek "mu"W but
I'm not using a charset here that defines it, so the standard is "uW")
would be microwatts.

I'm not asking about the standard, I'm asking what you meant by mW. Why
do you say with a power level of 500 mW (27 dBm) a transmitter would
only have a range of 100 feet? With the low bandwidth we are discussing
this seems to be *very* short.


I follow the standards.

Not much more than that. Remember - the commercial FM band has +/-
75kHZ deviation. Additionally, there are limits as to the antenna on
Part 15 devices - you can't, for instance, place a 6db gain antenna 200'
in the air.

Realtors around here use them to advertise houses; they place one in the
house with a recording that describes the house with a sign out front
showing the frequency. Reception from the street is typically within a
couple of houses either side.

Our college radio station ran 10 watts to a 3db gain antenna on top of
one of the dorms. The dorm was only 3 stories plus attic, so the
antenna was maybe 40-45 feet in the air. Good coverage was about a 2-3
mile radius with a typical portable receiver (or car); an external
antenna on the receiver obviously extended that.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 7/30/2014 1:22 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:lr9ohj$33f$1@dont-
email.me:

But the amplifier you're trying to use is meant to feed a receiver
directly, not another antenna. So output is going to be very low (on
the order of microwatts) - much lower than any amplifier which feeds an
antenna.


Small point, but.... Microwatts. Those new legal microstransmitters are said
to be in NANOwatt range output, but allegedly work on the distance scales I'm
interested in. Microwatts should certainly have worked, but despite the crude
test dipole being good (on standard wired reception test anyway), it didn't
work for transmitting even a foot or two with the radio's whip parallel to
the upper part of it. If nanowatts should have, the MAR-6 looks like driving
picowatts, if I'm lucky.


I would suggest you check again. Receivers aren't that sensitive. Most
unlicensed transmitters are in the 100-500 mw range, and have a coverage
of maybe 100 feet. And picowatts aren't even worth discussing.

You were the guy that believed that dBm meant dB over a millivolt,
weren't you? And claimed that you had all that experience in cabling
and signal levels? And thought that digital TV was transmitted at
the same ERP as analog?

I'm getting more and more astonished that you made any working system
and did not just fry the expensive receivers of all your clients!

On 8/1/2014 8:00 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 8/1/2014 12:37 AM, rickman wrote:
On 7/31/2014 9:47 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 7/31/2014 9:29 PM, rickman wrote:
On 7/30/2014 9:40 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 7/30/2014 1:22 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in
news:lr9ohj$33f$1@dont-
email.me:

But the amplifier you're trying to use is meant to feed a receiver
directly, not another antenna. So output is going to be very low (on
the order of microwatts) - much lower than any amplifier which
feeds an
antenna.


Small point, but.... Microwatts. Those new legal microstransmitters
are said
to be in NANOwatt range output, but allegedly work on the distance
scales I'm
interested in. Microwatts should certainly have worked, but despite
the crude
test dipole being good (on standard wired reception test anyway), it
didn't
work for transmitting even a foot or two with the radio's whip
parallel to
the upper part of it. If nanowatts should have, the MAR-6 looks like
driving
picowatts, if I'm lucky.


I would suggest you check again. Receivers aren't that sensitive.
Most
unlicensed transmitters are in the 100-500 mw range, and have a
coverage
of maybe 100 feet. And picowatts aren't even worth discussing.

I'm unclear, is mW microwatts or milliwatts as you wrote it? The reason
I ask is that a 500 milliwatt transmitter would certainly have a
receivable distance much greater than 100 feet, no?


According to standards, mW is milliwatts. uW (actually, greek "mu"W but
I'm not using a charset here that defines it, so the standard is "uW")
would be microwatts.

I'm not asking about the standard, I'm asking what you meant by mW. Why
do you say with a power level of 500 mW (27 dBm) a transmitter would
only have a range of 100 feet? With the low bandwidth we are discussing
this seems to be *very* short.


I follow the standards.

Not much more than that. Remember - the commercial FM band has +/-
75kHZ deviation. Additionally, there are limits as to the antenna on
Part 15 devices - you can't, for instance, place a 6db gain antenna 200'
in the air.

Realtors around here use them to advertise houses; they place one in the
house with a recording that describes the house with a sign out front
showing the frequency. Reception from the street is typically within a
couple of houses either side.

Our college radio station ran 10 watts to a 3db gain antenna on top of
one of the dorms. The dorm was only 3 stories plus attic, so the
antenna was maybe 40-45 feet in the air. Good coverage was about a 2-3
mile radius with a typical portable receiver (or car); an external
antenna on the receiver obviously extended that.

Ok, if you are talking about 500 milliWatts, how do you get 100 feet
from that?

--

Rick

On 8/1/2014 8:45 AM, rickman wrote:
On 8/1/2014 8:00 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 8/1/2014 12:37 AM, rickman wrote:
On 7/31/2014 9:47 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 7/31/2014 9:29 PM, rickman wrote:
On 7/30/2014 9:40 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 7/30/2014 1:22 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in
news:lr9ohj$33f$1@dont-
email.me:

But the amplifier you're trying to use is meant to feed a receiver
directly, not another antenna. So output is going to be very
low (on
the order of microwatts) - much lower than any amplifier which
feeds an
antenna.


Small point, but.... Microwatts. Those new legal microstransmitters
are said
to be in NANOwatt range output, but allegedly work on the distance
scales I'm
interested in. Microwatts should certainly have worked, but despite
the crude
test dipole being good (on standard wired reception test anyway), it
didn't
work for transmitting even a foot or two with the radio's whip
parallel to
the upper part of it. If nanowatts should have, the MAR-6 looks like
driving
picowatts, if I'm lucky.


I would suggest you check again. Receivers aren't that sensitive.
Most
unlicensed transmitters are in the 100-500 mw range, and have a
coverage
of maybe 100 feet. And picowatts aren't even worth discussing.

I'm unclear, is mW microwatts or milliwatts as you wrote it? The
reason
I ask is that a 500 milliwatt transmitter would certainly have a
receivable distance much greater than 100 feet, no?


According to standards, mW is milliwatts. uW (actually, greek "mu"W
but
I'm not using a charset here that defines it, so the standard is "uW")
would be microwatts.

I'm not asking about the standard, I'm asking what you meant by mW. Why
do you say with a power level of 500 mW (27 dBm) a transmitter would
only have a range of 100 feet? With the low bandwidth we are discussing
this seems to be *very* short.


I follow the standards.

Not much more than that. Remember - the commercial FM band has +/-
75kHZ deviation. Additionally, there are limits as to the antenna on
Part 15 devices - you can't, for instance, place a 6db gain antenna 200'
in the air.

Realtors around here use them to advertise houses; they place one in the
house with a recording that describes the house with a sign out front
showing the frequency. Reception from the street is typically within a
couple of houses either side.

Our college radio station ran 10 watts to a 3db gain antenna on top of
one of the dorms. The dorm was only 3 stories plus attic, so the
antenna was maybe 40-45 feet in the air. Good coverage was about a 2-3
mile radius with a typical portable receiver (or car); an external
antenna on the receiver obviously extended that.

Ok, if you are talking about 500 milliWatts, how do you get 100 feet
from that?


Portable receivers have notoriously poor antennas and receive
sensitivity. A whip antenna is better, but awkward. An external
antenna on a good receiver will receive a fair amount further - but
that's not portable. Plus building, etc. will attenuate the signal
(concrete is really bad - add steel rebar and it's even worse).

Like anything else - you *can* get farther than 100 feet, but that's
about all you can expect reliably.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

On 8/1/2014 8:18 AM, Rob wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 7/30/2014 1:22 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:lr9ohj$33f$1@dont-
email.me:

But the amplifier you're trying to use is meant to feed a receiver
directly, not another antenna. So output is going to be very low (on
the order of microwatts) - much lower than any amplifier which feeds an
antenna.


Small point, but.... Microwatts. Those new legal microstransmitters are said
to be in NANOwatt range output, but allegedly work on the distance scales I'm
interested in. Microwatts should certainly have worked, but despite the crude
test dipole being good (on standard wired reception test anyway), it didn't
work for transmitting even a foot or two with the radio's whip parallel to
the upper part of it. If nanowatts should have, the MAR-6 looks like driving
picowatts, if I'm lucky.


I would suggest you check again. Receivers aren't that sensitive. Most
unlicensed transmitters are in the 100-500 mw range, and have a coverage
of maybe 100 feet. And picowatts aren't even worth discussing.

You were the guy that believed that dBm meant dB over a millivolt,
weren't you? And claimed that you had all that experience in cabling
and signal levels? And thought that digital TV was transmitted at
the same ERP as analog?

I'm getting more and more astonished that you made any working system
and did not just fry the expensive receivers of all your clients!


And I'm more and more astonished that you seem to know my business
better than I do. But that's trolls for you.


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 8/1/2014 8:18 AM, Rob wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 7/30/2014 1:22 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:lr9ohj$33f$1@dont-
email.me:

But the amplifier you're trying to use is meant to feed a receiver
directly, not another antenna. So output is going to be very low (on
the order of microwatts) - much lower than any amplifier which feeds an
antenna.


Small point, but.... Microwatts. Those new legal microstransmitters are said
to be in NANOwatt range output, but allegedly work on the distance scales I'm
interested in. Microwatts should certainly have worked, but despite the crude
test dipole being good (on standard wired reception test anyway), it didn't
work for transmitting even a foot or two with the radio's whip parallel to
the upper part of it. If nanowatts should have, the MAR-6 looks like driving
picowatts, if I'm lucky.


I would suggest you check again. Receivers aren't that sensitive. Most
unlicensed transmitters are in the 100-500 mw range, and have a coverage
of maybe 100 feet. And picowatts aren't even worth discussing.

You were the guy that believed that dBm meant dB over a millivolt,
weren't you? And claimed that you had all that experience in cabling
and signal levels? And thought that digital TV was transmitted at
the same ERP as analog?

I'm getting more and more astonished that you made any working system
and did not just fry the expensive receivers of all your clients!


And I'm more and more astonished that you seem to know my business
better than I do.

I certainly do! Your claims are all hogwash. Either you did not know
your (technical) business when you were in it, or you have forgotten
everything now that you are out of it for decades.

You have no idea about what orders of magnitude are involved.
For example: a picowatt is about 8.6uV in 75 ohms. An FM receiver
will give a clear signal on that. Not full quieting, but certainly
receivable.

Unlicensed transmitters for dedicated frequencies like 433MHz (wireless
headphones and the like) are about 10mW, and for broadcast bands
(e.g. to link an MP3 player to a radio) they are even less. E.g. in
the FM broadcast band the limit in the EU for such a transmitter is 50nW
effective radiated power. That still allows for a 30dB path attennuation
for a usable signal on the receiver.

But as you are used to jumbling up your dBm and dBmV values, you have
no idea about that. Your business was probably connecting ready-made
equipment, and selling. But certainly not testing and debugging, that
is clear.

On 8/1/2014 12:22 PM, Rob wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 8/1/2014 8:18 AM, Rob wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 7/30/2014 1:22 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:lr9ohj$33f$1@dont-
email.me:

But the amplifier you're trying to use is meant to feed a receiver
directly, not another antenna. So output is going to be very low (on
the order of microwatts) - much lower than any amplifier which feeds an
antenna.


Small point, but.... Microwatts. Those new legal microstransmitters are said
to be in NANOwatt range output, but allegedly work on the distance scales I'm
interested in. Microwatts should certainly have worked, but despite the crude
test dipole being good (on standard wired reception test anyway), it didn't
work for transmitting even a foot or two with the radio's whip parallel to
the upper part of it. If nanowatts should have, the MAR-6 looks like driving
picowatts, if I'm lucky.


I would suggest you check again. Receivers aren't that sensitive. Most
unlicensed transmitters are in the 100-500 mw range, and have a coverage
of maybe 100 feet. And picowatts aren't even worth discussing.

You were the guy that believed that dBm meant dB over a millivolt,
weren't you? And claimed that you had all that experience in cabling
and signal levels? And thought that digital TV was transmitted at
the same ERP as analog?

I'm getting more and more astonished that you made any working system
and did not just fry the expensive receivers of all your clients!


And I'm more and more astonished that you seem to know my business
better than I do.

I certainly do! Your claims are all hogwash. Either you did not know
your (technical) business when you were in it, or you have forgotten
everything now that you are out of it for decades.


No, you know NOTHING about my job, the people I employ or their
technical expertise. You think EVERYONE IN THE WORLD is as smart as you
are. But here's a clue - the VAST MAJORITY OF THE WORLD is SMARTER THAN
YOU.

You have no idea about what orders of magnitude are involved.
For example: a picowatt is about 8.6uV in 75 ohms. An FM receiver
will give a clear signal on that. Not full quieting, but certainly
receivable.


I know EXACTLY what a picowatt is. And I also know what portable
receivers are capable of. Sure, if you feed a picowatt directly into
the front end of a receiver, a good receiver will hear the signal. But
what field strength do you need at the antenna for a portable FM
receiver to hear that signal? And most of your inexpensive portable
receivers will not hear much of a signal (if at all), even if you do
feed a picowatt directly into the front end (not that you can without
major surgery on the receiver).

Unlicensed transmitters for dedicated frequencies like 433MHz (wireless
headphones and the like) are about 10mW, and for broadcast bands
(e.g. to link an MP3 player to a radio) they are even less. E.g. in
the FM broadcast band the limit in the EU for such a transmitter is 50nW
effective radiated power. That still allows for a 30dB path attennuation
for a usable signal on the receiver.


Sure, but you're also talking a 5Khz deviation (actually about 12Khz
bandwidth). Commercial FM uses 75Khz deviation (typically around 180Khz
bandwidth). A huge difference.

But as you are used to jumbling up your dBm and dBmV values, you have
no idea about that. Your business was probably connecting ready-made
equipment, and selling. But certainly not testing and debugging, that
is clear.


No, i am not used to jumbling them up. You just have no idea what my
industry uses for measurements.

IOW, a typical troll - thinks he knows it all when he knows absolutely
nothing.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
And I'm more and more astonished that you seem to know my business
better than I do.

I certainly do! Your claims are all hogwash. Either you did not know
your (technical) business when you were in it, or you have forgotten
everything now that you are out of it for decades.


No, you know NOTHING about my job, the people I employ or their
technical expertise. You think EVERYONE IN THE WORLD is as smart as you
are. But here's a clue - the VAST MAJORITY OF THE WORLD is SMARTER THAN
YOU.

I never doubt that!
But I am sure I know more about it than you!
And so do many others here.
It is you that is *thinking* he has a lot of knowledge, but knows
absolutely no facts. Not that this is required to employ people, just
make sure you never toucht the stuff yourself!

You have no idea about what orders of magnitude are involved.
For example: a picowatt is about 8.6uV in 75 ohms. An FM receiver
will give a clear signal on that. Not full quieting, but certainly
receivable.


I know EXACTLY what a picowatt is. And I also know what portable
receivers are capable of. Sure, if you feed a picowatt directly into
the front end of a receiver, a good receiver will hear the signal. But
what field strength do you need at the antenna for a portable FM
receiver to hear that signal? And most of your inexpensive portable
receivers will not hear much of a signal (if at all), even if you do
feed a picowatt directly into the front end (not that you can without
major surgery on the receiver).

It was you that was coming up with picowatts when others suggested
nanowatts. That tells enough, doesn't it?

Unlicensed transmitters for dedicated frequencies like 433MHz (wireless
headphones and the like) are about 10mW, and for broadcast bands
(e.g. to link an MP3 player to a radio) they are even less. E.g. in
the FM broadcast band the limit in the EU for such a transmitter is 50nW
effective radiated power. That still allows for a 30dB path attennuation
for a usable signal on the receiver.

Sure, but you're also talking a 5Khz deviation (actually about 12Khz
bandwidth). Commercial FM uses 75Khz deviation (typically around 180Khz
bandwidth). A huge difference.

No, not at all. It is the EU regulation for unlicensed devices operating
in the 100 MHz broadcast band that they must not emit more than 50nW.

Now I'm sure that in America everything is bigger and the rules are better
(not the receivers, apparently), but you are not going to convince me that
the same equipment in America emits 100-500mW. That is just ignorance
on your side.

But as you are used to jumbling up your dBm and dBmV values, you have
no idea about that. Your business was probably connecting ready-made
equipment, and selling. But certainly not testing and debugging, that
is clear.


No, i am not used to jumbling them up. You just have no idea what my
industry uses for measurements.

Oh yes I do! dBm, meaning dB over a milliwatt.
And in the cable industry, dBuV, meaning dB over a microvolt.

In America, where everything is bigger, probably dB over a millivolt,
but not expressed as dBm!

IOW, a typical troll - thinks he knows it all when he knows absolutely
nothing.

That's you, I take?

On 8/1/2014 7:45 AM, rickman wrote:
On 8/1/2014 8:00 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 8/1/2014 12:37 AM, rickman wrote:
On 7/31/2014 9:47 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 7/31/2014 9:29 PM, rickman wrote:
On 7/30/2014 9:40 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 7/30/2014 1:22 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in

Our college radio station ran 10 watts to a 3db gain antenna on top of
one of the dorms. The dorm was only 3 stories plus attic, so the
antenna was maybe 40-45 feet in the air. Good coverage was about a 2-3
mile radius with a typical portable receiver (or car); an external
antenna on the receiver obviously extended that.

Ok, if you are talking about 500 milliWatts, how do you get 100 feet
from that?


I concur with the 100ft number with 500 milliwatts.
If everything is right you can get a little more, but don't
rotate the radio or move your body to the wrong spot.
I have a transmitter that is switchable between 500mw and 1 watt.
I might be able to get 200 ft but the radio needs to be held just right.
It works fine around the house and yard with 6db of attenuation before
the rubber ducky antenna.

Mikek

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 8/1/2014 1:48 PM, Rob wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
And I'm more and more astonished that you seem to know my business
better than I do.

I certainly do! Your claims are all hogwash. Either you did not know
your (technical) business when you were in it, or you have forgotten
everything now that you are out of it for decades.


No, you know NOTHING about my job, the people I employ or their
technical expertise. You think EVERYONE IN THE WORLD is as smart as you
are. But here's a clue - the VAST MAJORITY OF THE WORLD is SMARTER THAN
YOU.

I never doubt that!
But I am sure I know more about it than you!
And so do many others here.
It is you that is *thinking* he has a lot of knowledge, but knows
absolutely no facts. Not that this is required to employ people, just
make sure you never toucht the stuff yourself!


Wrong again. But like all trolls, you THINK you know things you don't.
The difference between ignorance and stupidity - ignorance can be
cured. And like all trolls, you are just plain stupid.

And as a matter of fact, I train the people who work with me. I've been
in the electronics business for over 40 years, working on everything
from $40 dollar CB sets to multi-million dollar computer mainframes. I
doubt you've even touched a soldering iron.

You have no idea about what orders of magnitude are involved.
For example: a picowatt is about 8.6uV in 75 ohms. An FM receiver
will give a clear signal on that. Not full quieting, but certainly
receivable.


I know EXACTLY what a picowatt is. And I also know what portable
receivers are capable of. Sure, if you feed a picowatt directly into
the front end of a receiver, a good receiver will hear the signal. But
what field strength do you need at the antenna for a portable FM
receiver to hear that signal? And most of your inexpensive portable
receivers will not hear much of a signal (if at all), even if you do
feed a picowatt directly into the front end (not that you can without
major surgery on the receiver).

It was you that was coming up with picowatts when others suggested
nanowatts. That tells enough, doesn't it?


Check back - I wasn't the one who mentioned picowatts. However, like
all trolls, you can't read, either.

Unlicensed transmitters for dedicated frequencies like 433MHz (wireless
headphones and the like) are about 10mW, and for broadcast bands
(e.g. to link an MP3 player to a radio) they are even less. E.g. in
the FM broadcast band the limit in the EU for such a transmitter is 50nW
effective radiated power. That still allows for a 30dB path attennuation
for a usable signal on the receiver.

Sure, but you're also talking a 5Khz deviation (actually about 12Khz
bandwidth). Commercial FM uses 75Khz deviation (typically around 180Khz
bandwidth). A huge difference.

No, not at all. It is the EU regulation for unlicensed devices operating
in the 100 MHz broadcast band that they must not emit more than 50nW.


That's fine for the EU. It is different in the U.S.

Now I'm sure that in America everything is bigger and the rules are better
(not the receivers, apparently), but you are not going to convince me that
the same equipment in America emits 100-500mW. That is just ignorance
on your side.


I didn't say the same equipment. I said it is legal in the United States.

But as you are used to jumbling up your dBm and dBmV values, you have
no idea about that. Your business was probably connecting ready-made
equipment, and selling. But certainly not testing and debugging, that
is clear.


No, i am not used to jumbling them up. You just have no idea what my
industry uses for measurements.

Oh yes I do! dBm, meaning dB over a milliwatt.
And in the cable industry, dBuV, meaning dB over a microvolt.


In your country, maybe. But here, most cable technicians when talking
dB are talking dBuV. But one again you show your ignorance.

In America, where everything is bigger, probably dB over a millivolt,
but not expressed as dBm!


I never said that, either. But like the troll you are, you can't get
anything straight.

IOW, a typical troll - thinks he knows it all when he knows absolutely
nothing.

That's you, I take?


You all over. As you just proved once again.

But that's only expected from an anonymous poster with an invalid email
address and no call sign (probably aren't a ham, either). Too afraid to
let his boss know the trash he's posting - he'd get fired.

Now I'll let you have the last word. Trolls always need to have the
last word.


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================