• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

WWL "National" Coverage

> >
> > However, in the panhandle, you're never very far from the
> > conductivity that the Gulf provides, and that can shoot
> > signals from all over the place... Tampa,
> Houston/Galveston,
> > New Orleans... even while the ground conductivity is
> > terribly poor.
>
> Even a few miles inland, conductivity reverts to about the
> worst that exists in the US... I ran 1270 in Tallahassee,
> and with the best signal in the market, we could not get
> much more than 15 to 20 miles daytime and barely covered the
> city at night. Much of the US has similar conditions, were,
> even under emergency conditions, local stations do not cover
> much and distant ones are neither close by enough to care or
> strong enough to get in day and night.

See, now, that's where my emergency broadcasting plan would come in... and I thought this out last night so I would actually have something to propose.

I would have the FCC create something along the lines of "emergency regions"... larger than DMA's, but not comprised of a few DMA's together, it would be purely geographical. The FCC would then build (probably with Homeland Security funds and FCC fine money... there's no reason they couldn't do it) a secondary 200 kW AM transmitter in each "emergency region" that would be strictly for emergency use by a designated station in each region (meaning a station in an afflicted region would use one or two emergency transmitters in adjacent regions, depending on what's available). The signal of these transmitters would be non-directional.

Each transmitter would be licensed to each designated station in it's adjacent regions as those stations' secondary (or, if they already have one, tertiary) transmitter, running during emergencies at full power 24/7 under an amended emergency broadcasting clause. Even considering horrid groundwave conditions, with the highly powerful skywave signal these emergency transmitters would be throwing out, they'd be able to cover the affected areas... if not from one adjacent region, then another.

As for upkeep of each secondary transmitter, the designated stations in each adjacent region and the designated station in the region where the transmitter is located would work together to maintain the site, meaning each station would help maintain several sites, but they'd also have at least twice as many stations helping to maintain each site as well.

It'd take a little time and money, but I think it could be done. If we were to start doing this next year, we'd probably be able to have a whole network of 200,000-watt emergency AM transmitters, allowing for the dissemination of important information during any type of emergency, up and running by the years' end (if the FCC really worked at it, which isn't characteristic of them, but I can dream, can't I?). It utilizes existing technology that pretty much everyone has in their home, car and/or office. That, alongside my severe dislike of satellite radio altogether, is my biggest gripe about using satellite radio for this purpose... the user base isn't there, and you'd have to distribute receivers en masse in order to compete with the availability of AM radio today. It's just not a suitable solution to a problem that could be dealt with relatively quickly.

Post 901 dedicated to WNAA 90.1, Greensboro... still, after all these years, using the same station ID proclaiming that they broadcast in "FM Stereo!" with a cart-recorder/board loop echo :)<P ID="signature">______________
"Get educated. Read stuff on the web and believe all of it."
-- Phil Hendrie
http://theradioblog.blogspot.com</P>
 
> I certainly do not want to demean the station that managed
> to remain operative after the storm, using emergency
> facilities and rkunning half power to conserve generator
> fuel.
>
> However, today, to claim anything close to 42 state coverage
> is hyperbole of the first order. If they ever had that kind
> of coverage, it was only at night.
>
> 870 is not and has not since the 60's been on a relatively
> clear channel. While there are no US stations on 870 at
> night until you get to NV or NY or ME or MN or places at
> similar distances. The real issue is that all of the
> Caribbean and Latin America has big signals on 870. And this
> means that 870 is pretty useless beyond 500 to 600 miles
> from New Orleans. While that is a big base, it is not 42
> states.
>
> Add to that the fact that noise levels are very different
> from those of 4 to 5 decades ago, when the big stations
> could garner night audiences from across a dozen states or
> so, and the claim pales.
>
I absolutely agree!! I've been trying like crazy to receive WWL from New England and can't even get a peep of it. Too much interference and there's a religious broadcaster on that freq too.

Nor would I normally be able to receive them. 50 states, minus 6 (CT, MA, RI, NH, VT, ME), minus 2 more (AK and HI) = 42...and that's before considering that the station is hard pressed to reach the west coast either. And, good luck in NJ thanks to splatter from WCBS. It just doesn't add up.

These days, I don't think that any MW station in the US has the power to reach the famous "38 states and Canada" let alone 42....
 
>
> See, now, that's where my emergency broadcasting plan would
> come in... and I thought this out last night so I would
> actually have something to propose.
>

You could have much better protection against land based problems, whether they be quakes, radiation or winds by having multiple Comando Solo bases within 2 hours flying time of any part of the US. Such planes could get satellite connectivity with any studio anywhere.

Remeber, a 200 kw AM only covers twice the land of a 50 kw one. And, in the daytime, in some parts of the US, that would be limited to maybe a hundred or so miles in any direction.
 
What gets me is why all of the local stations are all doing their own thing. Why don't they all team together, share fuel, people, resources. Maybe put on the two strongest AMs, FMs and TVs in the market, or at least the two of each with the best mutual coverage area, shut the rest of them off, and all work together on providing information. It's not like we're talking about ratings or ad revenue at the present time anyways! Certainly you can run one FM off the fuel for an entire cluster for much longer than you can on the fuel for that one station.


Also, I was wondering if during an emergency such as this, would a station be allowed to run above licensed power, (say if you were licensed to 3kW but your x-mitter can do 5)?


> I would have the FCC create something along the lines of
> "emergency regions"... larger than DMA's, but not comprised
> of a few DMA's together, it would be purely geographical.
> The FCC would then build (probably with Homeland Security
> funds and FCC fine money... there's no reason they couldn't
> do it) a secondary 200 kW AM transmitter in each "emergency
> region" that would be strictly for emergency use by a
> designated station in each region (meaning a station in an
> afflicted region would use one or two emergency transmitters
> in adjacent regions, depending on what's available). The
> signal of these transmitters would be non-directional.


What a great idea!


>
> Post 901 dedicated to WNAA 90.1, Greensboro... still, after
> all these years, using the same station ID proclaiming that
> they broadcast in "FM Stereo!" with a cart-recorder/board
> loop echo :)
>

I have indeed heard that, and it is quite hilarious, as they sometimes play one with various stereo effects applied to it.
 
> >
> > See, now, that's where my emergency broadcasting plan
> would
> > come in... and I thought this out last night so I would
> > actually have something to propose.
> >
>
> You could have much better protection against land based
> problems, whether they be quakes, radiation or winds by
> having multiple Comando Solo bases within 2 hours flying
> time of any part of the US. Such planes could get satellite
> connectivity with any studio anywhere.
>
> Remeber, a 200 kw AM only covers twice the land of a 50 kw
> one. And, in the daytime, in some parts of the US, that
> would be limited to maybe a hundred or so miles in any
> direction.
>


How about a 200 kW FM? That would certainly do a lot better, except where they take interfernce from adjacent/co-channel stations. In an emergency, though, AM is probably the way to go (unless there is a lot of lightning, etc). When push comes to shove, you can build an AM reciever from stuff you can find in a pile of wreckage. (Although, that would probably be he last thing on anyone's mind, let alone those with the know-how).
 
>
>
> How about a 200 kW FM? That would certainly do a lot
> better, except where they take interfernce from
> adjacent/co-channel stations.

FM is limited by the horizon, whatever the power. In most emergencies, a tower capable of getting regional coverage would be, first, too tall to build, and, second, the first victim of a quake or hurricane.

You could put 500 kw on FM, and the coverage will still not go beyond the horizon.

> In an emergency, though, AM
> is probably the way to go (unless there is a lot of
> lightning, etc). When push comes to shove, you can build an
> AM reciever from stuff you can find in a pile of wreckage.
> (Although, that would probably be he last thing on anyone's
> mind, let alone those with the know-how).

The real problem in a wide area disaster is that in many parts of the country, daytimeAM coverage is limited by ground condutivity and not very good. And since most relief work is carried out under the light of day, that makes AM a fragile thing to depend on.
 
> >
> >
> > How about a 200 kW FM? That would certainly do a lot
> > better, except where they take interfernce from
> > adjacent/co-channel stations.
>
> FM is limited by the horizon, whatever the power. In most
> emergencies, a tower capable of getting regional coverage
> would be, first, too tall to build, and, second, the first
> victim of a quake or hurricane.
>
> You could put 500 kw on FM, and the coverage will still not
> go beyond the horizon.


David David David, are you familiar with the Fresnel effect? Quite often there are enhancing properties such as troposheric ducting tha twill extend the signal as well.

Though I agree that AM still covers better for a regional signal.
 
>
> David David David, are you familiar with the Fresnel effect?
> Quite often there are enhancing properties such as
> troposheric ducting tha twill extend the signal as well.

Two commercial stations that I know of have attempted to cover a distant market via the Fresnel effect.

The first was a northern Italian station in the Aalle d'Aosta area wheich pushed several million watts at Geneva. Geneva was, of course, both below the horizon and below a couple of nasty mountains. The engineers all thought that in the 5 megawatt range, the Fresnel effect would drop a city grade over Geneva anyway. It did, depending on the weather, the mood of the sun god, the temperature and a buncho of ofther factors. The station failed, as it could not deliver a consistent signal via the Fresnel effect alone.

The second was also in Italy, at San Remo (famous mostly due to the festival of the same name) where powers in excess of 1 megwatt were used to try to cover both Nice and Monte Carlo. Both had the same eratic reception, complicated by coastal effects which appear to be thermal inversions. This one did not work either.

Fresnel is very real, but I did not suggest someone blow holes in the ionesphere with high ERP because it is not 100% reliable for servicing an area at great distance. I think it can and is more reliable for its effects in letting an FM, within its coverage area, "drop" a signal into supposedly hidden valleys and such. But as a method of extending, reliably, coverage, I would not count on it.

Again, a program of fly in portable stations would be far more cost effective and less vulnerable to being wiped out by the same disaster that wiped out commercial stations. A station can be set up in hours, and located where it is safe.
>
> Though I agree that AM still covers better for a regional
> signal.
>
 
Re: WWL "International" Coverage 5.835 MHz

Reported from another list:

Listen for WWL on 5835 starting at 0200 UT Sunday evening - beamed
west from Savannah, GA. Probably 250 kW.
 
Re: WWL "International" Coverage 5.835 MHz

> Reported from another list:
>
> Listen for WWL on 5835 starting at 0200 UT Sunday evening -
> beamed
> west from Savannah, GA. Probably 250 kW.
>

I am listening now on 5835...sounds pretty OK. Maybe a little better than 870 sounds at the moment here in Memphis. It's on about a minute or so delay from what's being broadcast on 870.
 
WWL's shortwave signal great in Dallas

> > Reported from another list:
> >
> > Listen for WWL on 5835 starting at 0200 UT Sunday evening
> -
> > beamed
> > west from Savannah, GA. Probably 250 kW.
> >
>
> I am listening now on 5835...sounds pretty OK. Maybe a
> little better than 870 sounds at the moment here in Memphis.
> It's on about a minute or so delay from what's being
> broadcast on 870.


Great signal in Dallas, Texas as of 11:15 p.m. Sunday, September 4.

S9 plus ...

Only the minor fading you get on shortwave.
 
Fresnel effect?

> > David David David, are you familiar with the Fresnel
> effect?


Can someone explain the Fresnel effect?

I assume from the exchange that it is an attempt to extend coverage by throwing high-wattage signals at the area. But is there more to it?

I am totally unfamiliar with it.

Thanks.
 
Re: Fresnel effect?

> > > David David David, are you familiar with the Fresnel
> > effect?
>
>
> Can someone explain the Fresnel effect?

The electronic horizon is not the real horizon.
>
> I assume from the exchange that it is an attempt to extend
> coverage by throwing high-wattage signals at the area. But
> is there more to it?

Fresnel Effect
A phenomenon related to line of sight whereby an object that does not obstruct the visual line of sight obstructs the line of transmission for radio frequencies.

In some cases, there is a shroud effect around hills, where signals that ought to clear the hill do not. And, also, signals that should not fall back into valleys beyond hills sometimes do.

It is unrelated to power, except in the same way that all propagation is related. A high power station may use the Fresnel effect to try to "see over" hills, considering that a lot of power radiated may result in _some_ power arriving at the destination.
 
> Remeber, a 200 kw AM only covers twice the land of a 50 kw
> one. And, in the daytime, in some parts of the US, that
> would be limited to maybe a hundred or so miles in any
> direction.

Well then, run 1 gigawatt... I dunno :) Just give the transmitter enough power to cover all the surrounding emergency regions.<P ID="signature">______________
"Get educated. Read stuff on the web and believe all of it."
-- Phil Hendrie
http://theradioblog.blogspot.com</P>
 
> > Remeber, a 200 kw AM only covers twice the land of a 50 kw
>
> > one. And, in the daytime, in some parts of the US, that
> > would be limited to maybe a hundred or so miles in any
> > direction.
>
> Well then, run 1 gigawatt... I dunno :) Just give the
> transmitter enough power to cover all the surrounding
> emergency regions.

I should have explained that better. In some areas of the country, even 1 million watts would not cover more than a few hundred miles in the daytime. In others, it would cover many states. And the tower, power demands and need to isolate the high RF from populated areas might make the facility vulnerable. Big towers of any kind are vulnerable unless far from the strike zone.

The fact is that hardening existing stations, perhaps with Federal assistance, and having portable backups might be the best solution.

WWL has asked for assistance in getting a new generator, as the one they have will not provide full power service and is not rated for continuous duty.

Years ago, the Civil Defense organization provided such hardened facilities, even temporary crank/up towers and generators. We might use this situation as a chance to reevaluate reviving the old policy.
 
Re: Wind up radios

No one has brought up either of these two ideas.

1, We already have a network of NOAA stations covering much of the nation that "should" be able to be linked by satellite and simulcast. NOAA radios are cheap and the band can be easily added to all future am/fm consumer radios. Additional direct satellite delivered channels with regional coverage areas can eventually be added to the network.

2, Is anyone here old enough to remember the 1973 WGU-20 experiment is really what we are really all talking about; we just haven't figured it out.<P ID="signature">______________
Proud 2 B a pioneering satellite radio subs¢riber
Ai4i is always on the trailing edge of technology
______________</P>
 
> > > Remeber, a 200 kw AM only covers twice the land of a 50
> kw
> >
> > > one. And, in the daytime, in some parts of the US, that
> > > would be limited to maybe a hundred or so miles in any
> > > direction.
> >
> > Well then, run 1 gigawatt... I dunno :) Just give the
> > transmitter enough power to cover all the surrounding
> > emergency regions.
>
> I should have explained that better. In some areas of the
> country, even 1 million watts would not cover more than a
> few hundred miles in the daytime. In others, it would cover
> many states. And the tower, power demands and need to
> isolate the high RF from populated areas might make the
> facility vulnerable. Big towers of any kind are vulnerable
> unless far from the strike zone.
>
> The fact is that hardening existing stations, perhaps with
> Federal assistance, and having portable backups might be the
> best solution.
>
> WWL has asked for assistance in getting a new generator, as
> the one they have will not provide full power service and is
> not rated for continuous duty.
>
> Years ago, the Civil Defense organization provided such
> hardened facilities, even temporary crank/up towers and
> generators. We might use this situation as a chance to
> reevaluate reviving the old policy.

That might be a better strategy, yes. I'd like to think, though, that in areas of the country where conductivity and isolation aren't issues, emergency regions might be helpful. Perhaps, amending my plan, the FCC could use ground conductivity and distance to highly populated areas in order to determine the shape and size of an emergency region as well as the transmitter's power output. Stations in a box may be helpful for situations like this, but for those in areas where ground conductivity can work to their advantage, the emergency region idea may be a more helpful, more permanent solution.<P ID="signature">______________
"Get educated. Read stuff on the web and believe all of it."
-- Phil Hendrie
http://theradioblog.blogspot.com</P>
 
> And, good luck in
> NJ thanks to splatter from WCBS. It just doesn't add up.
>
I used to live in NJ, and back in the 70s I could pick up WWL just fine at night on just a regular portable radio. I lived about 50 miles West of NYC so the interference from WCBS was minimal.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom