Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Ari
I always wonder whether broadcast at the most common IF frequencies would be a viable alternative? (eg 455khz for AM) Legality issues aside of course... I'm missing your point. Please explain. I apologise if you already know the following! Its pretty basic radio.. Almost every radio receiver on the market works off the "superhetrodyne" principal where the incoming signal is mixed with a local oscillator down to an intermediate frequency. This makes receiver design a little cheaper as you can then put your expensive filtering at one frequency rather than have something that has to track the actual transmitted frequency. For example a station on the AM band at 870khz is mixed with a local oscillator of 1325 khz (in the receiver) to get a difference of 455khz. If the station frequency is changed then one only needs to modify the local oscillator frequency. This is what the knob on the radio does! The most common IF frequency for an AM radio happens to be 455khz so transmitting on that will mean you will be heard on all AM radios in close proximity. I dont off hand know the most common broadcast FM IF (maybe 10.7MHz or 7.8Mhz) but that should be easy to find. It is important to make sure that the IF of the fire trucks FM two-way radio isnt the same or you'll never be able to hear it inside the truck! To "broadcast over" you would need to amplitude modulate the AM band 455khz TX and frequency modulate the FM broadcast IF frequency. Good advice here, will 20db do it? FM is easier to do than AM. I'd factor in maybe 6dB for FM. You might be able to get by with 12dB for AM but the original station will make some small amount of noise under it. The important thing is that the person listening wil be able to understand the content. Note that this is of course only relevent when transmitting on the actual station frequency. Yes, we are shooting for max overbroadcasting but the reality is it is a hit and miss proposition. Even the scenario of geo related obstructions is a possibility. Well it shouldnt be that hard to model. Do a AM and FM band coverage prediction over the freeways etc you are doing the experiment on to discover what the receive strength will be in dBm. (It doesnt matter what "gain" you make the RX antenna because it will be the same figure that is used for your overbroadcast) For every say 200 yard square take the mean signal of each, then take the 80th percentile as the signal you have to beat. If that was (say) -80dBm you want -74dBm (for FM) at the maximum operating distance (was it a mile each way?) You then reverse model that to determine what the TX EIRP of the thing on the truck has to be. There are bound to be contract houses that will do this prediction for you. I use to work for one that had the software and I have some GPL versions myself. I cant do MF (ie AM broadcast) though. Being in a tunnel of course there werent really any licensing issues. Is that peculiar to Aus? The licensing issue or the tunnel? Tunnel rebroadcast is pretty common around the world. The company I worked for also did one in Indonesia. Its also used in underground mines. Very nice, congrats on that. Was it Yagi technology or fractal? Err, the leaky coax was just a 2km run of an Andrews product that has leaky holes in the shield. It was fed in the middle with a wide band splitter and terminated with 50 ohmss at each end. Its quite a common thing to do in underground environments. (Buildings too) Handy for two way radio as well as cell phones. The AM thing was just a very long terminated (600r) wire. None of the above are yagi or fractal Cheers Bob Ari Silversteinn wrote: |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 11:57:50 -0400, Ari Silversteinn
wrote: You don`t need a radio tire truck. You need a SOUND TRUCK with an AIR HORN to get the audience`s attention to listen to the message. I have seen these systems and they have failed to do two things. Be heard in a modern car with loud radio and great insulation and 2) pass the populace acceptance test. And you've offered this is during an obvious emergency? : 1 Why would they play music loudly in an insulated car when doom is on their heels? 2 Why would neighbors complain of noise telling them they were about to be die? Richard's description adequately suits: Local - that would reach out approximately 1 mile and "overbroadcast" to those immediately in danger within a stationary site. Your objections are more tailored to suit your solution than the problem. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 11:28:32 -0400, Ari Silversteinn
wrote: On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 23:42:16 GMT, **THE-RFI-EMI-GUY** wrote: A disadvantage I see is that a waiver is going to be required in order not to violate FCC rules. In fact, in the state of Florida, interfering with broadcast stations is against state law, so another hurdle to be overcome. Yes, the budget is rich with expected legal expenses. Since DHS has become a player in this, we are hopeful that we can get the necessary punch to overcome FCC and statutory issues. That being said, for this system to work, you have to blanket the entire AM and FM broadcast bands. Even doing so will leave out the motorists who use XM or Sirius, the Ipod listeners and those who are driving with their cellphones plugged into their ears. Do we have to blanket or only blanket each locale, that is, the broadcasting stations of each locale? Not only will we miss those no AM/FM listeners, we will miss those that don't have their radios on. An aggressive, road sign campaign is planned something like " Turn On Your Radio, It Could Save Your Life" type of thing near each incident site. While Florida may have laws to this effect, in fact they are unenforcable because of federal preemption for all radio matters. Still illegal, just the wrong enforcement entity. A state or locality cannot for example legislate on TVI matters (though many have tried.) When they try, the FCC will send a notice to the locals that they are in charge and will handle enforcement. Unfortunately the FCC is unwilling to get involved in the matter of private contracts such as antenna exclusions in housing developments. That said, be aware that when it comes to radio useage in the US, the FCC is actually NOT the ultimate authority. They are responsible only for those frequencies which a military controlled panel has ceded to the FCC for administrative purposes. I can't remember the name right off hand, but during my federal career, I had to work with them and we actually were able to override an FCC allocation because it interfered with a military application. While the FCC played ball with the DOD outfit I worked for, the ultimate beneficiary of that allocation (a TV station) sued and the matter wound up in Federal Court. The court reaffirmed the DOD's ultimate sovreignity in this matter. It ultimately got resolved by some allocation juggling when a combination of the Court, The FCC and the DOD gave the plaintiff some "religion." W3JT |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 18:29:13 -0400, Ari Silversteinn
wrote: Reading about LPAM, this looks technically possible but one concern I have is antennae size. A fire truck, for instance, could have an antenna mounted on its front, and up to 4 feet over the top of its roof, so we might look at as much as 20 feet of length. I realize this places us over the 3 meter max so one of the ???? is whether LFAM is realistic. Hi Ari, As you have described it, and have seen the discussion in regard to the need for ERP - you are so deep in the debit column with AM power EQUAL to a local broadcaster, that to climb out of that hole would be prohibitive. READ: no fire truck has a power plant sufficient to cover both the antenna system losses AND "overbroadcast" as you desire. And this is for ONE station only. Imagine your broader mandate to "overbroadcast" all local stations and that hole just gets deeper. Am I way off base here, can any antennae, fractal or other, or any AM antennae technology, be utilized to design an antenna and propagate this type of signal? With such a plea, to the savvy it reveals you are in over your head. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 11:28:32 -0400, Ari Silversteinn
wrote: Yes, the budget is rich with expected legal expenses. Since DHS has become a player in this, we are hopeful that we can get the necessary punch to overcome FCC and statutory issues. Hi Ari, The various pieces of this jigsaw puzzle is beginning to reveal a picture here. With the introduction of two governmental organizations, and their regulations, your "plan" has all the appearances of being suitably crafted to work on paper. It responds to the individual issues that any squinty-eyed bureaucrat would demand be satisfied for his postage sized turf, but in the overall it would fail miserably, or drive costs so high as to be tainted with the plea that "aren't people's lives worth the price?" Let's see, the original spec calls for a disaster situation that is confined to within 1 mile; that demands the local population be informed; that over-rides their usual paths of communication; that reaches them even when they are not engaged in listening. As already pointed out, big sound trucks do wonders, and have worked well since the beginning of the last century for this purpose. That kids inside their home can hear the ice-cream truck a mile away is a testimony to this simplicity. Knocking on the door of the local broadcasters and commandeering their air-time has a time honored tradition of working quite well too. This involves no more time than getting that expensive mobile power plant rigged with wide band transmitters working into hugely lossy antenna systems into the same danger area. After-all, you could as easily call the first most obvious radio station as them, and you could be calling the others before they even got on the road. The solution demanded is that all radio stations respond to a disaster network alert and citizens tune to the Civil Defense frequency when so warned by them. Is this another administration cut-back that was shelved as one of those unnecessary "entitlements?" Have they clipped all the wires to those old Air Raid sirens? When did the lights go out in FEMA? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On 2005-10-02, Ari Silversteinn wrote:
This would be an "overbroadcast" (my term) in that it would override local AM radio broadcasting to reach into cars, My experience with AM (on the aircraft band) is that two transmitters at the same time yields a horrible squeal and nothing else. The louder station (usually on the ground with hundreds of watts) has no particular advantage over the other station (usually in the air with 5-10 watts). In other words, there is no effect like FM capture. -- Ben Jackson http://www.ben.com/ |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:01:14 -0400, Fred W4JLE wrote:
In that case, simply modify the sign to "Tune to 560, it could save your life" and use a discrete frequency low power transmitter. I assume you mean to take up an unused local channel? Or to bargain for time on a used one? Both ideas make sense. -- Drop the alphabet for email |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 16:20:40 -0000, Dave wrote:
there is no requirement that anyone listen to any broadcast radio. with the rapid growth of satellite radio there are even less people listening to either am of fm broadcast radio. add those who listen to cd's or dvd's and you get even less. The loss of listenership is not arguable. There are systems that are used for local road emergency notification, the 560khz one comes to mind, something along those lines would be the best bet, and add in signs on the backs of vehicles. i guess the real question is, what are you trying to do by overriding local broadcast stations? 1) to grab those that are listening to AM/FM, it is still a hyooge market, 2) client request, 3) DHS preference 4) the number of people alerted by a sign/sticker and independent warning channel is much less than both that and AM/FM, 5) the possibility that once the AM/FM FCC/NAB bond is broken, a precedent could be set for cell, sat, threading messaging, etc 6) spinoff tech for local/reg/national emergencies. and over what size area? 1 mile radius max from point of incident, less most probably. -- Drop the alphabet for email |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Do we have to blanket or only blanket each locale, that is, the broadcasting stations of each locale? Not only will we miss those no AM/FM listeners, we will miss those that don't have their radios on. An aggressive, road sign campaign is planned something like " Turn On Your Radio, It Could Save Your Life" type of thing near each incident site. On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 12:58:40 -0400, J. Teske wrote: While Florida may have laws to this effect, in fact they are unenforcable because of federal preemption for all radio matters. Still illegal, just the wrong enforcement entity. A state or locality cannot for example legislate on TVI matters (though many have tried.) When they try, the FCC will send a notice to the locals that they are in charge and will handle enforcement. Unfortunately the FCC is unwilling to get involved in the matter of private contracts such as antenna exclusions in housing developments. Is there a reason that the locals try to overwrite Fed law then? That said, be aware that when it comes to radio useage in the US, the FCC is actually NOT the ultimate authority. They are responsible only for those frequencies which a military controlled panel has ceded to the FCC for administrative purposes. I can't remember the name right off hand, but during my federal career, I had to work with them and we actually were able to override an FCC allocation because it interfered with a military application. While the FCC played ball with the DOD outfit I worked for, the ultimate beneficiary of that allocation (a TV station) sued and the matter wound up in Federal Court. The court reaffirmed the DOD's ultimate sovreignity in this matter. It ultimately got resolved by some allocation juggling when a combination of the Court, The FCC and the DOD gave the plaintiff some "religion." W3JT Excellent point, in my research I saw this handoff or spectrum management authority of the DoD and it makes sense. This is a serious, additional consideration and is all the more reason to get the DHS' blessings. Thanks. -- Drop the alphabet for email |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 11:28:32 -0400, Ari Silversteinn wrote: Yes, the budget is rich with expected legal expenses. Since DHS has become a player in this, we are hopeful that we can get the necessary punch to overcome FCC and statutory issues. On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 10:27:09 -0700, Richard Clark wrote: Hi Ari, The various pieces of this jigsaw puzzle is beginning to reveal a picture here. With the introduction of two governmental organizations, and their regulations, your "plan" has all the appearances of being suitably crafted to work on paper. It responds to the individual issues that any squinty-eyed bureaucrat would demand be satisfied for his postage sized turf, but in the overall it would fail miserably, or drive costs so high as to be tainted with the plea that "aren't people's lives worth the price?" No one, in the end, will care about that, Richard, it's buzz words. The economic hooks are in lessened liabilities and coordinating better emergency evac and site control plans. Money talks here. Let's see, the original spec calls for a disaster situation that is confined to within 1 mile; that demands the local population be informed; that over-rides their usual paths of communication; that reaches them even when they are not engaged in listening. As already pointed out, big sound trucks do wonders, and have worked well since the beginning of the last century for this purpose. That kids inside their home can hear the ice-cream truck a mile away is a testimony to this simplicity. That piece is a given, no argument there, the AM/FM piece is just one more way to insure commo. Knocking on the door of the local broadcasters and commandeering their air-time has a time honored tradition of working quite well too. This involves no more time than getting that expensive mobile power plant rigged with wide band transmitters working into hugely lossy antenna systems into the same danger area. After-all, you could as easily call the first most obvious radio station as them, and you could be calling the others before they even got on the road. Yes, but as we recently saw, things left to the "if come" often don't "come" ask FEMA. The plan needs to be in place and the control out of the hands of anyone except local/reg/national authority. The solution demanded is that all radio stations respond to a disaster network alert and citizens tune to the Civil Defense frequency when so warned by them. Nothing wrong with that if you know where to tune. I don't, come to think of it. Is this another administration cut-back that was shelved as one of those unnecessary "entitlements?" Have they clipped all the wires to those old Air Raid sirens? When did the lights go out in FEMA? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC MOF, it's an idea that came up over dinner during FEMA/NOLA, don't know about the sirens, all I do know is once FEMA got there, they shutdown most commo inc police in some cases. They want total control so this p[iece has more play at the immediate response (local/state) levels. -- Drop the alphabet for email |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
What Amateur Radio Emergency Communications? | General | |||
What Amateur Radio Emergency Communications? | Policy | |||
No anticipated changes in Morse Requeirement for a while | Policy | |||
Amateur Radio Newslineâ„¢ Report 1415 Â September 24, 2004 | Policy | |||
Ham-radio is a hobby not a service | Policy |