[BC] What is

[Phil Alexander]

On 21 Jan 2006 at 23:40, WFIFeng at aol.com wrote:

> The very best possible solution to all of this IBUZ problem on AM, would be 
> to make use of an expanded FM band, where TV channels 5 & 6 are, now. 
> Somewhere, somehow, someone with the right connections has to make a big enough "stink" 
> to get this proposal off the ground and in front of the noses of those who 
> have the ability to make it so.
> 
> Technically, *everything* about this idea makes total sense. 

In the northeast, that might make sense, but tell me how you 
would put a 60 dBu contour over virtually the entire state
of Iowa from Ames in that scenario. (Considering a 0.5 mV/m
AM to be more or less equal to a 1.0 mV/m FM which is about
right for today's receivers.) WOI does it today.

How would you duplicate the coverage of any of the 50 kW 
Class A's? How do you compensate for earth curvature at
VHF? You need 3 kW at least for a peanut whistle local at
VHF. I can do more with a mid-band 250 W AM.

Now, if you want to talk about putting up 3,000 ft towers
and hang half a megawatt ERP on them, maybe ... maybe there
is an idea there if someone is willing to foot the bill.

However, Congress may want an explanation of why they don't
have the auction income they expected from vacated TV
channels. You may also have a problem with public safety
because some of that spectrum has been promised to them.

No, if you want to add space for DAB in addition to the
present Standard Broadcast band. It might be more useful
to look DOWN the dial rather than UP.


Phil Alexander, CSRE, AMD
Broadcast Engineering Services and Technology 
(a Div. of Advanced Parts Corporation) 
Ph. (317) 335-2065   FAX (317) 335-9037





-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.21/236 - Release Date: 1/20/06