Wasn't this supposed to be the idea behind the high-powered stations?

National full-service coverage?

I believe each city should be limited to maximum six or eight MW
stations.

Two high powered 50 kilowatt stations, the rest would be 10,000 or
lower local/regional channels.

In addition, the LW band and the "Tropical" part of the SW band should
be pressed into service for one or two 500,000 watt national coverage
broadcasters - government sponsored (NPR?)

Want specialist programming? That's what FM is for.

--
Stephanie Weil
New York City, NY

"Stephanie Weil" wrote in message
oups.com...
Wasn't this supposed to be the idea behind the high-powered stations?

National full-service coverage?

Theat was the idea, back in the 30's. Of course, that was pre-TV. Then, the
bulk of radio listening was in the home at night.

Today, the bulk of listening is in the car or at work (two thirds of all
listening) and in the daytime. Night listening is one third of daytime
levels (7 to midnight) and AM night listening is very limited.

I believe each city should be limited to maximum six or eight MW
stations.

The model in the US has always been based on whatever would work tecnically.
Unfortunately, between a half and two-thirds of metro area AMs are
inadequate to cover the market they serve, as they were either designed in
the 30's or 40's before urban sprawl, or they are daytimers or showehorned
in directional monsters.

There are some markets, like Washington, DC, that do not have a single full
market coverage AM.

Two high powered 50 kilowatt stations, the rest would be 10,000 or
lower local/regional channels.

In many markets, 10 kw is not enough to cover the market without being
trashed by manmade noise. Also, the relationship has to considder that low
band AMs cover much better than high band... a 5 kw on 550 outcovers vastly
a 50 kw on 1500.

In addition, the LW band and the "Tropical" part of the SW band should
be pressed into service for one or two 500,000 watt national coverage
broadcasters - government sponsored (NPR?)

Nobody would put up with the fading and static and interference on a
national Am today. This is not the 30's. And younger, under 35 listeners,
have no use fo rhte sound quality of the AM band.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

Snip

In many markets, 10 kw is not enough to cover the market without being
trashed by manmade noise. Also, the relationship has to considder that low
band AMs cover much better than high band... a 5 kw on 550 outcovers vastly
a 50 kw on 1500.

Snip

You are referring to daytime reception only?

Considering daytime ground wave propagation, is the difference in
coverage low to high band due to ground conductivity where the high end
of the band has more loss per mile?

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

Snip

In many markets, 10 kw is not enough to cover the market without being
trashed by manmade noise. Also, the relationship has to considder that
low
band AMs cover much better than high band... a 5 kw on 550 outcovers
vastly
a 50 kw on 1500.

Snip

You are referring to daytime reception only?

Yes. In the US, there are so few stations that have any extended night
coverage as to make the point moot for all but maybe 30 or 40 stations in
the whole nation that can get usable skywave coverage. In any event, night
AM listening is so low that it is irrelevanat, irrespective of coverage.

Considering daytime ground wave propagation, is the difference in
coverage low to high band due to ground conductivity where the high end
of the band has more loss per mile?

Given the same transmitter site, and same radiation efficiency, the
difference is that medium wave signals propagate better watt for watt on the
lower frequencies. Ground conductivity decreases as a function of frequency.
This is why the old adage that 1 kw on 1540 covers better than 50 kw on 1600
is nearly true.

David Eduardo wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

Snip

In many markets, 10 kw is not enough to cover the market without being
trashed by manmade noise. Also, the relationship has to considder that
low
band AMs cover much better than high band... a 5 kw on 550 outcovers
vastly
a 50 kw on 1500.

Snip

You are referring to daytime reception only?

Yes. In the US, there are so few stations that have any extended night
coverage as to make the point moot for all but maybe 30 or 40 stations in
the whole nation that can get usable skywave coverage. In any event, night
AM listening is so low that it is irrelevanat, irrespective of coverage.

Considering daytime ground wave propagation, is the difference in
coverage low to high band due to ground conductivity where the high end
of the band has more loss per mile?

Given the same transmitter site, and same radiation efficiency, the
difference is that medium wave signals propagate better watt for watt on the
lower frequencies. Ground conductivity decreases as a function of frequency.
This is why the old adage that 1 kw on 1540 covers better than 50 kw on 1600
is nearly true.

I assume you meant 540, not 1540.

I think it would be cool to have long wave (LW) broadcasters in the
USA. Ten 2 megawatt stations, on 10 frequencies, evenly spaced across
the country would cover the entire lower 48 day and night. It won't
happen, of course, because nobody owns radios that cover LW besides
radio nerds like us.

"Somebody Somewhere" wrote in message
ups.com...

David Eduardo wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

Snip

In many markets, 10 kw is not enough to cover the market without being
trashed by manmade noise. Also, the relationship has to considder that
low
band AMs cover much better than high band... a 5 kw on 550 outcovers
vastly
a 50 kw on 1500.

Snip

You are referring to daytime reception only?

Yes. In the US, there are so few stations that have any extended night
coverage as to make the point moot for all but maybe 30 or 40 stations in
the whole nation that can get usable skywave coverage. In any event,
night
AM listening is so low that it is irrelevanat, irrespective of coverage.

Considering daytime ground wave propagation, is the difference in
coverage low to high band due to ground conductivity where the high end
of the band has more loss per mile?

Given the same transmitter site, and same radiation efficiency, the
difference is that medium wave signals propagate better watt for watt on
the
lower frequencies. Ground conductivity decreases as a function of
frequency.
This is why the old adage that 1 kw on 1540 covers better than 50 kw on
1600
is nearly true.

I assume you meant 540, not 1540.

Yep. thanks for spotting this.

I think it would be cool to have long wave (LW) broadcasters in the
USA. Ten 2 megawatt stations, on 10 frequencies, evenly spaced across
the country would cover the entire lower 48 day and night. It won't
happen, of course, because nobody owns radios that cover LW besides
radio nerds like us.

Unfortunately, nobody but the over 40 crowd will put up with AM quality, and
it would be a losing proposition from the start.

SW,

"In addition, the LW band and the "Tropical" part of the SW band should

be pressed into service for one or two 500,000 watt national coverage
broadcasters - government sponsored (NPR?) "

i like that idea ~ RHF

SbSw,

"I think it would be cool to have long wave (LW) broadcasters
in the USA. Ten 2 megawatt stations, on 10 frequencies,
evenly spaced across the country would cover the entire
lower 48 day and night."

i like that idea ~ RHF

"David" wrote in message
...
On 18 May 2006 09:16:29 -0700, "RHF"
wrote:

SbSw,

"I think it would be cool to have long wave (LW) broadcasters
in the USA. Ten 2 megawatt stations, on 10 frequencies,
evenly spaced across the country would cover the entire
lower 48 day and night."

i like that idea ~ RHF
.
That's absurd. A satellite covers the whole country and uses way less
energy.


Yes, and a satellite also requires a directional antenna and special
receiver (and a subscription). Putting LW into standard radios would cost
almost nothing, and add little to the cost of a portable radio.

In article ,
"Brenda Ann" wrote:

"David" wrote in message
...
On 18 May 2006 09:16:29 -0700, "RHF"
wrote:

SbSw,

"I think it would be cool to have long wave (LW) broadcasters
in the USA. Ten 2 megawatt stations, on 10 frequencies,
evenly spaced across the country would cover the entire
lower 48 day and night."

i like that idea ~ RHF
.
That's absurd. A satellite covers the whole country and uses way less
energy.


Yes, and a satellite also requires a directional antenna and special
receiver (and a subscription). Putting LW into standard radios would cost
almost nothing, and add little to the cost of a portable radio.

How much energy did it take to put the satellite into orbit?
How much power is used in the uplink effort?

--
Telamon
Ventura, California