The AM Forum

Perhaps this has been addressed before.

Every once and awhile,  I scan through Part 97 just to stay up with things.   I took one of the Extra Class exams on line and fell flat on my face when it came to the rules and regs.
Gee,  perhaps there have been a few changes in the last 60 years I wasn't aware of.....Hi.

Anyway,   Current rules tell me that the maximum transmitter output to the antenna should be no more than 1.5KW.

My question is,  where? 
At the end of the connector on the box?   At the antenna switch?  At the lightning arrestor?
What if I have 1.5 KW out and 100 watts at the end of my transmission line? (I know,  replace the transmission line)  What I'm getting at is that I don't see it stipulated anywhere in the rules.
Suppose I want to run 1.5 KW and I opt to use 7/8's low loss on 160 meters where I can get almost no attenuation at the end of the run, verses RG 8AU or some other line that has more loss?
Can I consider the output of the transmission line my transmitter output or is it the output from the box that generates the signal?   If that is the case,  is there another part in the rules that addresses this issue and stipulates the box??  I didn't see it if there is.
Suppose I have the power amp mounted to a pole so there is no line loss at all?   
Suppose I measure and adjust my transmitter so that I have 1.5 KW presented to the feed point on the antenna?   Will that meet the spirit of the rules?

Opinions?

73s
Pete

part 97 simply states

 No station may transmit with a
transmitter power exceeding 1.5 kW
PEP.


I assume that the 1.5 KW PEP means the average power of a single
RF cycle at the peak of a modulation envelope, at the output of the rig
minus any line losses

I might be wrong

How, then, does the FCC define "Transmitter Power" as used in 97.313? Part 97.3 provides definitions but there is no definition of "Transmitter Power" in 97.3.

I do not find any specifications in Part 97 that specify where or how power is to be measured.

Therefore, I would choose to measure output power at the endpoint of the transmitter - amplifier - tuner - feedline - matching device, the final connection at the antenna itself. My transmitter could then be loaded for whatever power is needed to provide the full 1.5KW PEP at the antenna.

So much for my armchair lawyer analysis of Part 97.

I think I would take the common sense approach to this.

1.5Kw at the antenna feedpoint makes the most sense to me (it is also where we Brits have to take the power maximum from, but we are only talking 26dbw PEP at the feedpoint)

I can't see how the playing field could be levelled any other way - as the original poster points out, feeder losses are a variable factor.

It is quite odd that there is no mention of where the power is to be measured, but as with our license conditions, there are probably a number of grey areas.

Cheers
Sean

I think they mean at the output of the transmitter, before going through any antenna tuners, feedlines, etc. But that makes me wonder, if I built two transmitters, both which run the legal limit, then build a combiner and feed a single antenna from the output of the combiner, which is being fed by both transmitters on the same frequency at the same time, would that be legal? I say yes, because I have not found anything in part 97 that says you cannot run two transmitters at the same time on the same frequency, and if the FCC is defining the power limit by the power output at the transmitter, then the power level at the output of the combiner doesn't matter, as long as the power at the output of the transmitters is not over the legal limit. If you could make the transmitters and the combiner work, you could almost have an unlimited power output, I think a combiner that has 4 inputs would be nice, build 4 375 watt class D/E transmitters, feed the combiner with them, and you are legally running 1500 watts of carrier. The only thing I could see wrong would be if the FCC would consider the oscillator, modulator, and power supply as part of the transmitter, if they didn't then you could get away with a single oscillator, power supply, and modulator feeding the multiple RF amplifiers, but if they would then you would have to have an oscillator/power supply/modulator for each RF amp, and have to worry about getting everything synchronized. The other idea that I've often thought about playing with is two synchronized transmitters feeding seperate antennas, that idea would be the easiest to try out, and would still have pretty much the same effect, as long as the receiving station wasn't in a location where the signal from the two transmitting antennas were 180 degrees out of phase.

Why don't I cut to the chase and be truthful!

I have a Collins 20 V and would like to run as much power as legally acceptable under the rules.
Since this beast can put 4KW PEP into a transmission line,  I want to radiate as much as legally possible.
I have a transmission line with 3db loss.   I plan on presenting 1.5KW PEP to the Balun.
So,  if I start with 780watts X 1.414 X2 +780/2, I should end up with 1492.92 PEP at my Balun. I plan on making an actual measurement with a through line wattmeter and keeping it in my records just in case the impossible happens.    
Would I be in compliance of the rules using this scenario?

73's
Pete

This is a completely editorial comment guys but this subject has been covered in great detail on this forum.  Maybe one of the moderators can make suggestions on where the references are.  I'm lousy at doing searches.

Please don't go down the trail of transmission line losses and antenna gain.  The power is measured at the transmitter. Period.

Transmission losses etc are used when calculating MPE (Maximum Permitted [RF] Exposure) which is a environmental health and safety issue.

Help moderators! 

Al

If an FCC inspector stopped by to measure power output, he would most likely want to stick his 50 ohm Bird wattmeter on the output of an SO-239  jack on the transmitter.  I doubt we could convince him to climb up the tower and take a measurement up there.  If the system used all high impedance open wire feeders off a balanced tank, he would probably pass.  (Maybe multiply E X I like the old days, but certainly not open the transmitter cabinet to verify)

Feedlines and antennas: I don't think they are concerned if someone is running a monster antenna that has +13dB gain over a dipole - or a mobile whip that has a -13dB loss over a dipole - or has a feedline with a -13 dB loss.   It's all about conveniently measuring the amplifier's power output directly at the SO-239 connector to comply with their admittedly hard-to-interpret law.

Based on Riley's inspections years ago, he was more concerned about behavior complaints received about a  ham - or that this guy was building an amplifier on the bench with TWO 8877s rather than actually axing the guy to load up his working amplifier. It was more like, "What are this guy's intentions?"

Things have certainly changed since the 50's and I think they have become more concerned with complaints based on offensive behaviour, QRMing, etc.  It is much easier to get into trouble with 100 watts acting like an a-hole rather than  being a FB OP running 3KW.... ;D

T


 

(780*1.414*2) = 2205.4  I admit it's been a number of decades since I studied this stuff but I don't know where the +780/2 comes from.


By the way, 4KW is considered QRP by some of those guys that 'own' 20 meters!

These are all valuable comments and I appreciate them all.  

I even agree for the most part.

Please direct me to a place in the rules where it says that transmitter power is measured on the output of the box.  The closest I can come is output of the transmitter.  
This will help me if I'm ever inspected as I could quote the rules.

If this scenario is true,  I could but a box on the tower with no transmission line and go from the box to the balun with the full 1.5 kw.  I agree this is a very gray area.
I agree that there are people that are running 10KW transmitters with 40000 ERP to the antenna and put out a nice clean signal.   They just don't talk about it.

I'm not one of them.
I just want to be ready for an inspection after the FCC cleans up 3840.  LOL.

BTW,  I based my calculations on 1.414 times the carrier for lower side band plus 1.414 times carrier for upper sideband plus carrier and then, divided by two which would account for the 3db transmission line loss.
Did I screw up?

Typically with the FCC rules, the hows are listed separately in other sections. For instance for Part 90 which deals with intentional radiators like two-way radios, and for Part 97, the methods are all in Part 2 and you are expected to go there and cite those.

§2.1046   Measurements required: RF power output.
(a) For transmitters other than single sideband, independent sideband and controlled carrier radiotelephone, power output shall be measured at the RF output terminals when the transmitter is adjusted in accordance with the tune-up procedure to give the values of current and voltage on the circuit elements specified in §2.1033(c)(8). The electrical characteristics of the radio frequency load attached to the output terminals when this test is made shall be stated.

(b) For single sideband, independent sideband, and single channel, controlled carrier radiotelephone transmitters the procedure specified in paragraph (a) of this section shall be employed and, in addition, the transmitter shall be modulated during the test as follows. In all tests, the input level of the modulating signal shall be such as to develop rated peak envelope power or carrier power, as appropriate, for the transmitter.

(1) Single sideband transmitters in the A3A or A3J emission modes—by two tones at frequencies of 400 Hz and 1800 Hz (for 3.0 kHz authorized bandwidth), or 500 Hz and 2100 Hz (3.5 kHz authorized bandwidth), or 500 Hz and 2400 Hz (for 4.0 kHz authorized bandwidth), applied simultaneously, the input levels of the tones so adjusted that the two principal frequency components of the radio frequency signal produced are equal in magnitude.

(2) Single sideband transmitters in the A3H emission mode—by one tone at a frequency of 1500 Hz (for 3.0 kHz authorized bandwidth), or 1700 Hz (for 3.5 kHz authorized bandwidth), or 1900 Hz (for 4.0 kHz authorized bandwidth), the level of which is adjusted to produce a radio frequency signal component equal in magnitude to the magnitude of the carrier in this mode.

(3) As an alternative to paragraphs (b) (1) and (2) of this section other tones besides those specified may be used as modulating frequencies, upon a sufficient showing of need. However, any tones so chosen must not be harmonically related, the third and fifth order intermodulation products which occur must fall within the −25 dB step of the emission bandwidth limitation curve, the seventh and ninth order intermodulation product must fall within the 35 dB step of the referenced curve and the eleventh and all higher order products must fall beyond the −35 dB step of the referenced curve.

(4) Independent sideband transmitters having two channels by 1700 Hz tones applied simultaneously in both channels, the input levels of the tones so adjusted that the two principal frequency components of the radio frequency signal produced are equal in magnitude.

(5) Independent sideband transmitters having more than two channels by an appropriate signal or signals applied to all channels simultaneously. The input signal or signals shall simulate the input signals specified by the manufacturer for normal operation.

(6) Single-channel controlled-carrier transmitters in the A3 emission mode—by a 2500 Hz tone.

(c) For measurements conducted pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, all calculations and methods used by the applicant for determining carrier power or peak envelope power, as appropriate, on the basis of measured power in the radio frequency load attached to the transmitter output terminals shall be shown. Under the test conditions specified, no components of the emission spectrum shall exceed the limits specified in the applicable rule parts as necessary for meeting occupied bandwidth or emission limitations.

[39 FR 5919, Feb. 15, 1974. Redesignated and amended at 63 FR 36599, July 7, 1998]

W2UD - you have just opened a whole new world of government-speak for me to wade through. I've been licensed for over 50 years and embarrassed to confess I never before heard of Part 2. Obviously I have a lot more reading to do!

Thanks & 73
Jack
WA2OLZ

Mike;
The only thing I see addressing power output is 97.313,b
Good engineering practices can be found in several other sections of the rules as you pointed out.
Your examples are a good place to go to find them.   
If I were to be inspected,  could I be held accountable for anything outside of part 97?
If I were,  should it not be part of the Amateur Radio license test? 
At the time I got my Commercial license,  there were no Amateur part 97 questions in elements 1-4,  which meant I was not expected to know them.
If I were inspected,  could I not indicate I would be willing to acquiesce to the wishes of the inspecting officer while pointing this out, citing I had made a good faith effort to abide by the letter of the law?
(don't mistake this as being argumentative,  I am just interested in my options)

The FCC was beyond vague when they wrote the part 97 rules concerning power.  They never did get around to stipulating where the power was to be measured.  The answer is spelled out in other parts of the rules concerning Land Mobile but so are allot of other rules non binding as far as Amateur Service.

I just got through reading through part 97 again this evening and just haven't found anything that addresses this and unlike Part 90 which does and goes into great detail as you pointed out,  is it
binding to Amateur operation?   


Respectfully,
Pete

I'd be OK if an FCC inspector wanted to see my station.

Anyone who worries should be prepared to be measured at the transmitter. I believe they have the equipment to test a transmitter with built-in tuner or open-wire feed ceramic insulators, etc. just need a voltmeter, ammeter, and phase meter. I bet it is all inside one expensive instrument with a handle on it.

The FCC also can take field strength measurements. That way, a difference between a 3000W and 1500W signal is possibly evident, and someone who is tricky with a secret switch or the turn of a variac wheel may still be found out or cause suspicion if the field strength suddenly is changed.

At some point, one could ask, what could be wrong that would cause the FCC to send an inspector to my station?

I don't think it is for having some unintentional 1800W peaks, or some occasional splatter. It is not for the slightly incompetent or occasionally careless operator. It is for intentional scofflaws, trouble makers, and for checking on RFI complaints.

Not sure that I understand what is so confusing about "where to measure transmitter power".

and.....

ignorantia legis neminem excusa     ;D

Prego! Its in there Pete. I didn't bring the regs back to the house; but it said, at the output of the transmitter. To me that means make the measurement between the transmitter and feed line.

The real issue is how to make the measurement, not where. At the date the change was made to PEP, little or nothing was on the amateur market that could. (or that most amateurs could understand) So here we are beating the dead horse again.

The ARRL and FCC blew it; should of stuck with a plate voltage meter & amp meter. Then of course we wouldn't anything to gripe about.

73's
Craig

It's my fault,  Craig.  I just didn't ask the question properly.

In this day and age,  the output of the transmitter may be hard to define.
You and I think of it as a Box with an SO 239 on it.
Anything past that Box is the output.
 Really?
In a solid state rig,  the PA could be in a tower mounted
Box with zero feed line between the output and the antenna.
Is the last box along the transmission line the transmitter output?   Think about it a minute.
If it was,  what would it have to have in it to be considered the transmitter output?
An exciter?  A PA,  A tuning unit?   Dunno...
You could run the legal limit to the wire in this configuration or run
two thousand watts out of a box on the ground and suffer enough feed line loss to put
you well under the limit at the end of the feed line.
So,  what is the FCC really interested in?

They understand this issue as in an AM part 15 transmitter running 100mw,  the antenna is limited to 9 meters (excluding anything under ground)and the FCC stipulates that any feed line involved is part of the overall antenna length.
That's why manufacturers of LPB equipment make the actual transmitter to mount at the base of the antenna in order to be able to radiate over the entire 9 meters.

I'm thinking the FCC needs to take a look at the rules and nail a few things down but every time they do,  it's not going to go well for us so I'm just going to keep my mouth shut. Hi
I was just looking for a possible different take on current thinking.
I must have given the wrong impression as I'm not trying to get away with anything.  If I were,  I'd just do what others have done and not asked but I really do value the opinions on this board.  Unlike others,  most of the guys here have had some real "up to their elbows" experience and know a thing or two.

Pete

Could you not just contact the FCC directly, and ask for clarification?

We had similar problems over here with specification of Foundation License approved equipment - there was, and still is a grey area regarding modified commercial VHF sets - because these sets were not as the manufacturer let them leave the factory, the letter of the license conditions forbids Foundation licensees from using transmitters of this type.

Frustrated by the conflicting views, I contacted OFCOM (our version of the FCC) to get the situation clarified, by return, I was sent a full, and clear to understand position from them, which effectively spells out that FLs are not allowed to use these sorts of equipment on the air, full stop.

I would have thought the FCC, who by the sounds of things are a whole lot more effective than our OFCOM would be more then happy to explain in a language that is simple to understand their requirements - typical government department documents are far too self contradictory.

If the regs are not specific, then you've got some wiggle room. My suggestion is to leave it alone. Contacting the FCC runs the risk of giving a bureaucrat a reason to draft an NPRM.

The FCC rules and the rulemaking process are confounding, imperfect and actually represent a living record of ideas, technological progress, best practices of fairness, democracy, individual power and big think. Some rules are legislative but many are interpretive only. Virtually every company I have worked for has kept an FCC lawyer or expert legal firm on a retainer. You can do it yourself or you can use labs and lawyers. There is no one crisp answer on many issues. As there is no one answer, many times research and experience rule the day. If so and so got warned or fined, our company may get warned or fined...When you deal with case law, politics and fairness in an open system of experts, volunteers, lawyers, legislators, broadcasters, government safety the FAA and other users and manufacturers (many or most of whom are hams), crazy things get put into the rules.

Hi Pete,

I hear you. In just about any case, wouldn't the FCC measure the power (PEP) of the final PA? (amateur use, Part 97)  Doubt that Binh Nguyen, the Resident Agent here in the PNW, would accept my PEP output from the VFO of the Ranger used as the exciter of the Johnson Desk KW. HI

All this PEP stuff needs to be kept real simple. A KISS level is needed for some, gotta only have to watch the munkey swing the needle. Needle points to 1500, you are there.

As others have stated before; the RF output of some transmitters aren't 50 ohms, etc., & this opens other cans of worms. Don't poke the FCC in their eyes, giving them a reason for a visit.



73's
Craig

You've got a good point,  Craig;

Well,  as I said, I value input and hence the question.   I don't have all the answers.
I do have an interpretation and I suppose if visited by an FCC inspector,  the worst that could happen is
he could disagree with me.  In that case,  I would adjust or align in such a manner as to conform to his
take on the situation.   Then,  I could take it up with a request for rule making.
Doing so ahead of time always seems to get the Ham on the short end of the stick, so to speak.

Thanks all for your input.

Pete

Interesting discussion you have started Pete.
I deal with a different federal regulatory branch using CFRs.  From phone calls to DC years ago a learned that the regulations are always written purposely vague.  This is because it is very seldom that any two cases are identical.  By keeping the rules vague the inspector has leeway to interpret.  In my case the onsite inspector usually has the last word.  Even when I talked with the fellow who wrote particular paragraphs and got his exact intentions the local inspector's interpretation was what I had to live with.

Pete,

Binh has been to my shack twice in the last couple of years. As you know the Part 15 RFI sux here in Springtucky. All the grow lights drive me crazy. I pushed the issue of RFI and that put me on the radar. Binh monitored my transmissions as well and I bet you he had the equipment in his vehicle to measure the frequency, band width, and power level without having to be at the shack.

Binh mentioned both the RFI & my station info on his visits. I was running legal power, etc; but Binh has to look at both parties. Be careful when poking the FCC in the eyes.

Craig,

We've hashed over this topic before in the AM forums.  Here is one thread and it has links to other threads as well.

http://amfone.net/Amforum/index.php?topic=20087.0

Happy New Year.

From Title 47 (Telecommunications) Chapter I (Roman numeral one) of the Code of Federal Regulations  
(10–1–10 Edition).  Chapter 1 is for F.C.C.

PART 97—AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE

Part 97.3  Definitions

97.3(b)(6) PEP (peak envelope power). The
average power supplied to the antenna
transmission line by a transmitter during
one RF cycle at the crest of the
modulation envelope taken under normal
operating conditions.

So power is measured where the transmitter meets the transmission line.  This is the transmitter output.  Can't be plainer.  If the impedance at this point is other than 50 Ohms then the power measurement may not be convenient for most people.

97.313 Transmitter power standards.
(a) An amateur station must use the
minimum transmitter power necessary
to carry out the desired communications.
(b) No station may transmit with a
transmitter power exceeding 1.5 kW
PEP.
(c) No station may transmit with a
transmitter power output exceeding 200
W PEP:
(1) On the 10.10–10.15 MHz segment;....... and on and on with specific band limitations.

Well, that seems clear enough to me - certainly leaves no question that the power is measured at the entry point to the antenna feedline.

Looks like the lowest loss feeders are the way forward to make the most of everything.

"From Title 47 (Telecommunications) of the Code of Federal Regulations Chapter I (Roman numeral one) (10–1–10 Edition)"

Spot on. That resolves (and dissolves) any mystery.

I have seen fairly recent FCC reports of visit to CB stations where they speak of a linear amplifier, and state that it was warm to the touch, indicating recent operation.  I wonder how long it's been since the inspector teams actually hitched up a Bird wattmeter or an oscilloscope to anyone's output terminal.  Legend has it that the Commission went to the output power standard so that inspectors wouldn't have to reach into someone's homebrew glomming amplifier with meters to measure voltage and current.
I have thought if one wanted to run illegal power (perish the thought) that the way to do it would be either to run some 90 ohm Russian coax with some of their arcane connectors to which no adapters exist, or else to run a balanced wire output from the transmitter, of some odd unspecified impedance, into a load that was purposely reactive. 
I recall when I was a Novice, occasionally running a DX-60 at 90 watts input, up past the red line that indicated 75 watts input.  But, realizing that the FCC vans were always lurking just around the corner, I cranked the power back pretty quickly, thus saving myself from a lengthy residence at a Federal house of corrections.  Back then, I believed!

While it is measured at the transmitter output may I remind you that the difference between 1500 and 2000 watts is barely noticeable if at all noticeable at the receive end. On the other hand your electric bill will go up and your equipment reliability will go down.  So trying to get a few extra watts at the 1500 watt level is fruitless.

Good antennas and transmission lines are important to get that power to the ether. A 3db gain antenna is sure cheaper than running an additional 1500 watts.


Happy New Year!

I've been aware of hams using 1 kW broadcast transmitters on the amateur bands since the 1980s. This amounts to easily several dozen (at one time there was a list of close to 100 but not all were 1 kW). I've never heard of one being inspected or fined.

I have to concur with similar comments regarding behavior and the FCCs response to complaints of such.   The current and most often MO is squashing complaints of malicious interference if one reads the FCC website. Unless a complainant can prove another amateur is running "obscene power" (a term coined by W2VJZ) the FCC will not go out of their way to bring out the equipment to test your station. 

I've heard story that said the fellows in the black vans pulled in... asked the
station operator to transmit....
Yup 1400 watts output... you're good.

Of course this was in AM... nothing but carrier, no modulation   ;D

Well again I go back to what the heck difference does it make. If we go by the common definition that 1 S unit = 6dB   then at the 1500 watt PEP level you would have to run 6000 watts to gain 1 S unit. Hardly a worthwhile use of power. As we go up in power the required power vs. gain gets crazy. At 50KW a 1 s unit gain would require 200KW. On the other hand at lower powers you can achieve a lot of gain with modest amounts of additional power.  From 5W to 80W is 12dB or 2 S units.

"what difference does it make"?
That's a fair question.

1/2 an S unit up from the noise floor can make the difference you're asking about.
If you like to DX, like I do then higher power is very helpful.

As far as "enough power needed to maintain communication" goes,   it's hard to quantify if you're calling CQ or contesting.   By the time you figure out what the appropriate power is, the QSO is over.

The original intent of the post was to try and find out what my fellow hams thought might be the FCC's
standard as the location where power output should be measured.  In many broadcast installations,  an RF ammeter is located at the base of each tower.   Since the base impedance of the tower is known and part of the station proofs,  power to each antenna is easily calculated.    

If I had read the "definitions" section as one poster pointed out,  I would have found my answer.
The FCC want's to measure power output on the back of a "box" at the hams station.
They could care less how much power is delivered to the antenna.   I get it.

Having undergone no less than 31 inspections over my Commercial Career, I can tell you that in 90 percent of the cases,  the inspector just wanted to look at the paperwork to check license expiration dates.  The other 10 percent involved Intermod complaints and in one case interference to a cordless telephone.  We hardly ever went to any of the many hundreds of paging transmitters I supervised.

I see a close parallel to running high power to those in my classic car hobby.
Many spend many thousands to squeeze just another few horsepower from an otherwise very adequate engine.  Quarter mile improvements could be measured in the 100th's of a second yet,  it was done as part of the joy of the hobby.

Having the ability to run the limit is part of the "joy of the hobby" for me.   I also don't have any problem with those who like to run a couple of watts because it doesn't make any difference to their operation.  I admire their dedication.   There is something compelling about talking 1000 miles on a few watts, so I understand.  It's just not for me.
Thanks to the posters for helping me understand how my peers see this.

  

All true but completely irrelevant for 99% of AM operation. I'm pretty sure that you're not running AM to work DX that is 0.5 dB above the noise floor.  ;)

" work DX that is 0.5 dB above the noise floor"

Just for clarification,  Steve,  I referenced 1/2 S unit or 3 db not .5 db.

Not that anyone needs my approval, but I support anyone operating low power 100 percent.

I'll amend my statement - I'm pretty sure that you're not running AM to work DX that is a 3 dB above the noise floor. My point remains the same.

That said, I've worked a fair amount of DX on AM. Some of those stations had high power, some didn't. Most had better than average antennas. The notable exceptions were on 10 meters where both low power and average or below antennas are often involved. But these were only when the band was hot. When it's so-so, the guys with the yagis and power stand out. In other words, the antenna is usually more important than the power. If you have both, you have it all.

And I do approve of those who run high power 100 percent of the time!   ;D   And my ears are very thankful.

Hope to hear your big rig on the air soon.

Well,  Steve,  I should start a new post but it's interesting you bought that up.  I'm located in Western Washington out on the Coast.   I HEAR lot's of stations on the East Coast and even down into some of the Southern States.  I also hear folks I normally talk to in Eastern Washington and Oregon work them from time to time.
I normally run about 145 watts with my old Valiant and it does a fairly good job.   I hired a tree climber to hang my dipole at 153 feet and it matches perfectly on 3870 with no tuner.   
Most of the East Coast guys are S4 to S6 here and my noise level is usually an S3.
They don't hear me at all.  Not even a whisper.  I've even resorted to being polite and using good operating practices....Hi
The locals here me fine on either my 40' dipole or my 153' dipole.   There doesn't even seem to be much difference in the antennas close in.
So,  You see,  I have taken the antenna thing to heart.   I'm just not sure what else to do besides more power.
It makes me wonder what those guys are running back there.

You will hear the guys with the better antennas, at least most of the time. Most people are running antennas (usually dipoles) at 60 feet or less. The guys with the dipoles at 80-90 feet stand out at the longer distances. I've also used a K9AY and a Beverage on receive to reduce the noise floor and pull out more stations.

Some of us on this end of the continent have made specific efforts on 75 meters to work the west coast on several occasions throughout the winter months in recent years. Unless the conditions are exceptional, only those with high antennas and/or good locations are heard or relatively easily heard on this end. Sometimes signals are extremely strong. I've worked stations from the northwest that were 5/9+20-30. On one exceptional night, I worked a 7-land station, even though I had mistakenly tuned up into my 160 meter coax-fed dipole!

I'm sure that I will be able to hear you, given your set up.

Very true! The FCC is looking for the band polluters that are running way in excess of our little 1.5KW P.E.P. power. The folks who interfere with other services.
Running anything past 2KW of carrier really stresses typical Ham radio antenna systems.
Running a 1KW AM carrier vs a 375 W carrier is not worth the electricity to produce that small increase. No one on the receiving side will notice a difference. Now a 5KW carrier will be noticed.
I have used broadcast transmitters at 250 W and get excellent reports. The secret will always be the antenna.
A short dipole 30 feet high off the ground going through most cheap tuners on 160M, is not an antenna.
Read Steve's (K4HX) other replies.
Fred

Well,  perhaps you're right, Fred.  I have this vision of a couple of guys in suits pushing
my 1500 lb transmitter into the back of a white van.
Maybe I should re-think running a broadcast transmitter and stick to my little Ranger.
I'd hate to be known as K7 Power Pig or K7 Peter Polluter,  Hi

Pete, K7PP

Pleased to meet you Kryptonetic Seventh Popular Person !  ;D

Bet Ur 1.5k lb. baby really sounds FB.

NOPE! always run high power. 25 watts is a big struggle on AM, unless you have a helluva antenna system.
The band polluters are the ones who operate their equipment with all knobs full clock-wise and overdrive the linear amp. The CB types with poorly designed transmitting equipment.
Fred