I wonder what will happen to the 198 kHz frequency when the BBC ceases broadcasting Radio 4 long wave.
I know that 648 kHz was allocated to Radio Caroline. Do they pay for
the frequency as such (which apparently no-one else wanted), or just
the licence? Does cost depend on transmitted power?
Will 198 kHz be advertised in the first instance for a national
commercial station? If there are no takers, will it be offered to
community stations? If I am thinking about forming a consortium, how
big an antenna would we need?
Will 198 kHz be advertised in the first instance for a national
commercial station? If there are no takers, will it be offered to
community stations? If I am thinking about forming a consortium, how
big an antenna would we need?
On 02/07/2024 11:38, Scott wrote:
Will 198 kHz be advertised in the first instance for a national
commercial station? If there are no takers, will it be offered to
community stations? If I am thinking about forming a consortium, how
big an antenna would we need?
I can't see there being much serious interest for a system with a
limited number of listeners - I don't even know if my car radio can
receive Long Wave.
If they want to continue the supposed 'national' coverage then the
running costs will be high. If just local community stations then what
is the advantage over VHF FM or DAB?
I never listen to commercial radio but from I read, there does not seem
to great deal of variety.
On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 16:21:35 +0100, Woody <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue 02/07/2024 13:41, JMB99 wrote:
On 02/07/2024 11:38, Scott wrote:
Will 198 kHz be advertised in the first instance for a national
commercial station? If there are no takers, will it be offered to
community stations? If I am thinking about forming a consortium, how
big an antenna would we need?
I can't see there being much serious interest for a system with a
limited number of listeners - I don't even know if my car radio can
receive Long Wave.
If they want to continue the supposed 'national' coverage then the
running costs will be high. If just local community stations then what >>> is the advantage over VHF FM or DAB?
I never listen to commercial radio but from I read, there does not seem
to great deal of variety.
I thought they were keeping the carrier running as there are so many
clocks and other things that use 198kHz as a reference source?
I heard that rumour too. Would this require three transmitters or
would the one at Droitwich be adequate? Could they move to Antorn
where the time transmitter is?
On Tue 02/07/2024 13:41, JMB99 wrote:
On 02/07/2024 11:38, Scott wrote:
Will 198 kHz be advertised in the first instance for a national
commercial station? If there are no takers, will it be offered to
community stations? If I am thinking about forming a consortium, how
big an antenna would we need?
I can't see there being much serious interest for a system with a
limited number of listeners - I don't even know if my car radio can
receive Long Wave.
If they want to continue the supposed 'national' coverage then the
running costs will be high.� If just local community stations then what
is the advantage over VHF FM or DAB?
I never listen to commercial radio but from I read, there does not seem
to great deal of variety.
I thought they were keeping the carrier running as there are so many
clocks and other things that use 198kHz as a reference source?
On Tue 02/07/2024 16:31, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 16:21:35 +0100, Woody <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue 02/07/2024 13:41, JMB99 wrote:
On 02/07/2024 11:38, Scott wrote:
Will 198 kHz be advertised in the first instance for a national
commercial station? If there are no takers, will it be offered to
community stations? If I am thinking about forming a consortium, how >>>>> big an antenna would we need?
I can't see there being much serious interest for a system with a
limited number of listeners - I don't even know if my car radio can
receive Long Wave.
If they want to continue the supposed 'national' coverage then the
running costs will be high.� If just local community stations then what >>>> is the advantage over VHF FM or DAB?
I never listen to commercial radio but from I read, there does not seem >>>> to great deal of variety.
I thought they were keeping the carrier running as there are so many
clocks and other things that use 198kHz as a reference source?
I heard that rumour too. Would this require three transmitters or
would the one at Droitwich be adequate? Could they move to Antorn
where the time transmitter is?
The three transmitters are frequency and phase locked but certainly all
three would be needed.
I doubt any of them would be moved to Anthorn as the three existing >sites/systems are owned by Arqiva but Anthorn is owned by Babcock >International - not helped of course by the fact that Anthorn coverage
is nothing like as good as Droitwich!
Scott wrote:
Woody wrote:
I thought they were keeping the carrier running as there are so many
clocks and other things that use 198kHz as a reference source?
I heard that rumour too. Would this require three transmitters or
would the one at Droitwich be adequate? Could they move to Antorn
where the time transmitter is
I think the piggy-back data service (for Economy7 meters etc) got a
reprieve, but only until next March?
Woody wrote:
I thought they were keeping the carrier running as there are so many
clocks and other things that use 198kHz as a reference source?
I heard that rumour too. Would this require three transmitters or
would the one at Droitwich be adequate? Could they move to Antorn
where the time transmitter is
I thought they were keeping the carrier running as there are so many
clocks and other things that use 198kHz as a reference source?
Andy Burns wrote:
I think the piggy-back data service (for Economy7 meters etc) got aDoes that mean R4 LW remaining until then (as a simulcast of FM)?
reprieve, but only until next March?
On 02/07/2024 16:21, Woody wrote:
I thought they were keeping the carrier running as there are so many
clocks and other things that use 198kHz as a reference source?
If 198 *was* kept going long-term for clocks etc, but without audio >modulation and just data modulation, how would that help anyone? I
thought the problem with LW was the availability of the main power valve >since production had ceased. And that problem would presumably exist
even with a pure unmodulated carrier as well as with data or AM modulation.
Or have I totally misunderstood things - it might well be that ;-)
On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 17:15:24 +0100, Andy Burns <[email protected]>
wrote:
Scott wrote:Does that mean R4 LW remaining until then (as a simulcast of FM)?
Woody wrote:
I thought they were keeping the carrier running as there are so many
clocks and other things that use 198kHz as a reference source?
I heard that rumour too. Would this require three transmitters or
would the one at Droitwich be adequate? Could they move to Antorn
where the time transmitter is
I think the piggy-back data service (for Economy7 meters etc) got a
reprieve, but only until next March?
On 02/07/2024 16:21, Woody wrote:
I thought they were keeping the carrier running as there are so many
clocks and other things that use 198kHz as a reference source?
If 198 *was* kept going long-term for clocks etc, but without audio modulation and just data modulation, how would that help anyone? I
thought the problem with LW was the availability of the main power valve since production had ceased. And that problem would presumably exist
even with a pure unmodulated carrier as well as with data or AM modulation.
Or have I totally misunderstood things - it might well be that ;-)
If 198 *was* kept going long-term for clocks etc, but without audio modulation and just data modulation, how would that help anyone? I
thought the problem with LW was the availability of the main power valve since production had ceased. And that problem would presumably exist
even with a pure unmodulated carrier as well as with data or AM modulation.
I heard that rumour too. Would this require three transmitters or
would the one at Droitwich be adequate? Could they move to Antorn
where the time transmitter is?
If 198 *was* kept going long-term for clocks etc, but without audio modulation and just data modulation, how would that help anyone? I
thought the problem with LW was the availability of the main power valve since production had ceased. And that problem would presumably exist
even with a pure unmodulated carrier as well as with data or AM modulation.
On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 19:36:34 +0100, NY <[email protected]> wrote:
On 02/07/2024 16:21, Woody wrote:
I thought they were keeping the carrier running as there are so many
clocks and other things that use 198kHz as a reference source?
If 198 *was* kept going long-term for clocks etc, but without audio >>modulation and just data modulation, how would that help anyone? I
thought the problem with LW was the availability of the main power valve >>since production had ceased. And that problem would presumably exist
even with a pure unmodulated carrier as well as with data or AM modulation.
On 02/07/2024 16:31, Scott wrote:
I heard that rumour too. Would this require three transmitters or
would the one at Droitwich be adequate? Could they move to Antorn
where the time transmitter is?
I suppose they could just power the transmitter (at reduced power) for
a period during the night.
Aren't we all supposed to have 'Smart' meters by then?
It might be cheaper to let everyone get 'cheap' rate all night on a
good old fashioned time switch (like my meter uses).
Plenty of cases where we can't:
1. They rely on _some_ sort of mobile signal being available. Still
plenty (OK, a small and - they'd have us believe - diminishing
proportion, but that's still a lot in absolute numbers) of premises
where there isn't one.
2. Other technical reasons, such as needing access to the electricity
meter (for the power for the link; the gas meter talks to the
electricity meter with a 10-year [?] battery, but to do the mobile link,
it needs more power than such a battery can hold). Not all premises have
such access. And probably other reasons.
I don't think they're fitting any new ones of that type - and, they want
more control, such as to move around the switching times.
On 03/07/2024 00:49, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Plenty of cases where we can't:
1. They rely on _some_ sort of mobile signal being available. Still
plenty (OK, a small and - they'd have us believe - diminishing
proportion, but that's still a lot in absolute numbers) of premises
where there isn't one. 2. Other technical reasons, such as needing
access to the electricity meter (for the power for the link; the gas
meter talks to the electricity meter with a 10-year [?] battery, but
to do the mobile link, it needs more power than such a battery can
hold). Not all premises have such access. And probably other reasons.
I don't think they're fitting any new ones of that type - and, they
want more control, such as to move around the switching times.
We had remote reading meters at work many years ago, they had a little
plug in card for the connection to mobile networks.
There are some areas with no mobile signal but it would be cheaper for
the electricity companies to give those people a basic time switch with perhaps a longer period of off-peak rate and lose the ability to
remotely switch people off.
In message <[email protected]> at Tue, 2 JulIs the industry going to pay for a new transmitter after the BBC has
2024 19:42:06, Scott <[email protected]> writes
On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 19:36:34 +0100, NY <[email protected]> wrote:
On 02/07/2024 16:21, Woody wrote:
I thought they were keeping the carrier running as there are so many
clocks and other things that use 198kHz as a reference source?
(It's mainly electricity load switching; I don't think many use the LW
signal as a reference. Most "radio controlled" clocks use MSF or the
German transmissions. [Is the 198 kHz frequency itself still kept to
amazing accuracy? I know it was when it was 200 kHz, and that that was >maintained when they went to 198, but I don't think there are many
sources that still use that.])
If 198 *was* kept going long-term for clocks etc, but without audio >>>modulation and just data modulation, how would that help anyone? I
Lower power. Just the removal of the (audio) modulation would reduce the >power requirement somewhat, and it's also been suggested that the
data-only systems would work with significantly lower power too.
thought the problem with LW was the availability of the main power valve >>>since production had ceased. And that problem would presumably exist
even with a pure unmodulated carrier as well as with data or AM modulation.
Well, I suppose lower power would put less stress on such a valve - but
as others have said, that's a red herring anyway: modular even MW and SW >transmitters have been available for decades - it (LW)'s not exactly
rocket science. (OK, there'd have to be _some_ engineering work to
implement such a change, but it's well within the capabilities of a
competent engineer, and even Arqiva have some of those.)
[]
In article <v62s3i$22trk$[email protected]>, JMB99 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 03/07/2024 00:49, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Plenty of cases where we can't:
1. They rely on _some_ sort of mobile signal being available. Still
plenty (OK, a small and - they'd have us believe - diminishing
proportion, but that's still a lot in absolute numbers) of premises
where there isn't one. 2. Other technical reasons, such as needing
access to the electricity meter (for the power for the link; the gas
meter talks to the electricity meter with a 10-year [?] battery, but
to do the mobile link, it needs more power than such a battery can
hold). Not all premises have such access. And probably other reasons.
I don't think they're fitting any new ones of that type - and, they
want more control, such as to move around the switching times.
We had remote reading meters at work many years ago, they had a little
plug in card for the connection to mobile networks.
There are some areas with no mobile signal but it would be cheaper for
the electricity companies to give those people a basic time switch with
perhaps a longer period of off-peak rate and lose the ability to
remotely switch people off.
the trouble with basic timeswitches (my daughter had one) is that they do
not keep time after a power cut.
In message <v61qeh$1psvt$[email protected]> at Tue, 2 Jul 2024 22:11:45,
JMB99 <[email protected]> writes
It might be cheaper to let everyone get 'cheap' rate all night on aI don't think they're fitting any new ones of that type - and, they want
good old fashioned time switch (like my meter uses).
more control, such as to move around the switching times.
In article <v62s3i$22trk$[email protected]>, JMB99 <[email protected]> wrote:
We had remote reading meters at work many years ago, they had a little
plug in card for the connection to mobile networks.
There are some areas with no mobile signal but it would be cheaper for
the electricity companies to give those people a basic time switch with
perhaps a longer period of off-peak rate and lose the ability to
remotely switch people off.
the trouble with basic timeswitches (my daughter had one) is that they do
not keep time after a power cut.
the trouble with basic timeswitches (my daughter had one) is that they do
not keep time after a power cut.
On Tue 02/07/2024 13:41, JMB99 wrote:
On 02/07/2024 11:38, Scott wrote:
Will 198 kHz be advertised in the first instance for a national
commercial station? If there are no takers, will it be offered to
community stations? If I am thinking about forming a consortium, how
big an antenna would we need?
I can't see there being much serious interest for a system with a
limited number of listeners - I don't even know if my car radio can
receive Long Wave.
If they want to continue the supposed 'national' coverage then the
running costs will be high. If just local community stations then
what is the advantage over VHF FM or DAB?
I never listen to commercial radio but from I read, there does not
seem to great deal of variety.
I thought they were keeping the carrier running as there are so many
clocks and other things that use 198kHz as a reference source?
On 03/07/2024 00:49, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
In message <v61qeh$1psvt$[email protected]> at Tue, 2 Jul 2024
22:11:45, JMB99 <[email protected]> writes
It might be cheaper to let everyone get 'cheap' rate all night on aI don't think they're fitting any new ones of that type - and, they
good old fashioned time switch (like my meter uses).
want more control, such as to move around the switching times.
They want to "nudge" people into changing when they start to cook dinner.
Basically, the electricity companies, and not the BBC call the shots on
198. The BBC are simply modulating the transmitters with R4 (because why
not) for the time being.
In message <[email protected]> at Wed, 3
Jul 2024 11:20:27, Max Demian <[email protected]> writes
On 03/07/2024 00:49, J. P. Gilliver wrote:I remember hearing/reading that that was one of the reasons given for
In message <v61qeh$1psvt$[email protected]> at Tue, 2 Jul 2024
22:11:45, JMB99 <[email protected]> writes
It might be cheaper to let everyone get 'cheap' rate all night on a >>>>good old fashioned time switch (like my meter uses).I don't think they're fitting any new ones of that type - and, they
want more control, such as to move around the switching times.
They want to "nudge" people into changing when they start to cook dinner.
the UK/France interconnect - that (at that time) Britain tended to have
its main evening meal about six, whereas the continent had theirs at
seven or later.
On 03/07/2024 15:08, Mark Carver wrote:
Basically, the electricity companies, and not the BBC call the shots on
198. The BBC are simply modulating the transmitters with R4 (because why
not) for the time being.
Surely they are running at high power than would be necessary for pure
data service? Are the energy companies accepting that they are paying
for a higher power service than they need?
On Wed, 3 Jul 2024 15:04:24 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <[email protected]>[]
wrote:
I remember hearing/reading that that was one of the reasons given for
the UK/France interconnect - that (at that time) Britain tended to have
its main evening meal about six, whereas the continent had theirs at
seven or later.
6 pm UK time *is* 7 pm in France.
In message <[email protected]> at Wed, 3 Jul
2024 15:31:54, Scott <[email protected]> writes
On Wed, 3 Jul 2024 15:04:24 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <[email protected]>[]
wrote:
I remember hearing/reading that that was one of the reasons given for
the UK/France interconnect - that (at that time) Britain tended to have
its main evening meal about six, whereas the continent had theirs at
seven or later.
6 pm UK time *is* 7 pm in France.
Oops, hadn't thought of that! Or forgot the details. (Maybe it was 5 for
the British meal.) But the point about the interconnect always running
as an import remains.
On Wed 03/07/2024 15:45, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Oops, hadn't thought of that! Or forgot the details. (Maybe it was 5
for the British meal.) But the point about the interconnect always
running as an import remains.
....and the interconnect is dc as well!
On Wed 03/07/2024 15:45, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
In message <[email protected]> at Wed, 3 Jul
2024 15:31:54, Scott <[email protected]> writes
On Wed, 3 Jul 2024 15:04:24 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <[email protected]>[]
wrote:
Oops, hadn't thought of that! Or forgot the details. (Maybe it was 5I remember hearing/reading that that was one of the reasons given for
the UK/France interconnect - that (at that time) Britain tended to have >>>> its main evening meal about six, whereas the continent had theirs at
seven or later.
6 pm UK time *is* 7 pm in France.
for the British meal.) But the point about the interconnect always
running as an import remains.
....and the interconnect is dc as well!
And I remember reading somewhere that the first converter, near
Hawkinge, used mercury arc rectifiers, and was rather spectacular to see
(if you got into the underground facility, it wasn't publicly visible).
Don't know if true or not.
J. P. Gilliver <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
And I remember reading somewhere that the first converter, near
Hawkinge, used mercury arc rectifiers, and was rather spectacular to see
(if you got into the underground facility, it wasn't publicly visible).
Don't know if true or not.
It is certainly true that smaller glass mercury arc power rectifiers are >spectacular. A six-legged glass 'octopus' in a metal cage, containing a
pool of bubbling mercury with weird blue-green light dancing and
flickering around it. They must have inspired a lot of science-fiction >writers.
For big power installations, metal tank mercury arc rectifiers were >preferred; sadly, they looked far more mundance and passive.
I didn't actually learn anything from that video
Here's one of several videos by someone who has resurrected an old
glass mercury arc rectifier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRVKiIkuKko
In one of the videos, he has it wired up to a control box which is
labelled "Scary Blue Thing". If you've ever seen a mercury arc
rectifier up close you'll probably agree this is a good description.
Rod.
aka photonicinduction
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
I didn't actually learn anything from that video
The person in the white van who gave him the rectifier (aka >photonicinduction) has made more detailed videos about them, e.g.
<https://youtu.be/2pDcv6g1FE0>
These folks do seem to think Monty Python's Gumby Man is a good
presentation style ...
In message <[email protected]> at Thu, 4 Jul 2024
10:58:36, Andy Burns <[email protected]> writes
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
I didn't actually learn anything from that video
The person in the white van who gave him the rectifier (aka >photonicinduction) has made more detailed videos about them, e.g.
<https://youtu.be/2pDcv6g1FE0>
That was a bit louder, and did seem to be _trying_ to explain it. Though
I still don't understand why the arc only conducts in one direction! Let alone what the pilots are for. (I understand about the starter just
kicking up a few atoms to get it started.)
These folks do seem to think Monty Python's Gumby Man is a good >presentation style ...
Here's one of several videos by someone who has resurrected an old
glass mercury arc rectifier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRVKiIkuKko
In one of the videos, he has it wired up to a control box which is
labelled "Scary Blue Thing". If you've ever seen a mercury arc
rectifier up close you'll probably agree this is a good description.
Rod.
Getting YouTube volume level correct - or even adequate - obviously _is_ >rocket science, based on the number of them where you can hardly hear
them (even music clips [mostly from TV shows]).
And I didn't actually _learn_ anything from that video - not how it >rectified, or even what the connections were; just that it puts out a
blue light, and contains mercury, and has a big bulb at the top of >indeterminate purpose.
On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 10:32:58 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <[email protected]>[]
wrote:
And I didn't actually _learn_ anything from that video - not how it >>rectified, or even what the connections were; just that it puts out a
blue light, and contains mercury, and has a big bulb at the top of >>indeterminate purpose.
Not everything on Youtube is meant to be a teaching video. Many of
them are just one individual's personal experience of something, in
this case obtaining an old mercury arc rectifier and rigging it up to
see what it could do.
Youtube isn't "broadcasting" in the traditional sense and shouldn't be
judged in the same way. If you're not accustomed to it, don't expect >"presentation" or "production values" every time. A great deal of it
is junk, but some videos enable you to see things you'd never get the
chance to see in real life.
There are a few channels that do attempt to present useful
information. Check out "Explaining Computers" or "Adamant IT" just to
pick a couple of examples at random. Unlike traditional broadcast TV
you have to make your own judgements instead of expecting producers, >scriptwriters and editors and all the other expensive people the
broadcasters employ to have effectively made your judgements for you.
Rod.--
In message <[email protected]> at Thu, 4 Jul
2024 08:59:33, Roderick Stewart <[email protected]> writes
[]
Here's one of several videos by someone who has resurrected an old
glass mercury arc rectifier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRVKiIkuKko
In one of the videos, he has it wired up to a control box which is
labelled "Scary Blue Thing". If you've ever seen a mercury arc
rectifier up close you'll probably agree this is a good description.
Rod.
Getting YouTube volume level correct - or even adequate - obviously _is_ rocket science, based on the number of them where you can hardly hear
them (even music clips [mostly from TV shows]).
J. P. Gilliver <[email protected]> wrote:[]
In message <[email protected]> at Thu, 4 Jul
2024 08:59:33, Roderick Stewart <[email protected]> writes
[]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRVKiIkuKko
Getting YouTube volume level correct - or even adequate - obviously _is_
rocket science, based on the number of them where you can hardly hear
them (even music clips [mostly from TV shows]).
Just today I noticed there's a new toggle in the Youtube video settings >labelled 'Stable Volume'. If I turn that on it does seem to improve the >audio on that video.
Theo
Theo writes:
Just today I noticed there's a new toggle in the Youtube video settings
labelled 'Stable Volume'. If I turn that on it does seem to improve the
audio on that video.
Where is that?
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Theo writes:
Just today I noticed there's a new toggle in the Youtube video settings
labelled 'Stable Volume'. If I turn that on it does seem to improve the >>> audio on that video.
Where is that?
I only remember seeing that in the Android app ...
There are a few channels that do attempt to present useful
information. Check out "Explaining Computers" or "Adamant IT" just to
pick a couple of examples at random. Unlike traditional broadcast TV
you have to make your own judgements instead of expecting producers, >>scriptwriters and editors and all the other expensive people the >>broadcasters employ to have effectively made your judgements for you.
TechMoan, for example, I usually find both informative and interesting. >There's a US one - something like Connections? - similar.
On Wed, 3 Jul 2024 15:38:37 +0100, JMB99 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 03/07/2024 15:08, Mark Carver wrote:Is there any commitment to 'host' the BBC? Could the energy companies
Basically, the electricity companies, and not the BBC call the shots on
198. The BBC are simply modulating the transmitters with R4 (because why >>> not) for the time being.
Surely they are running at high power than would be necessary for pure
data service? Are the energy companies accepting that they are paying
for a higher power service than they need?
lease the capacity to Gold?
On 03/07/2024 15:48, Scott wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jul 2024 15:38:37 +0100, JMB99 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 03/07/2024 15:08, Mark Carver wrote:Is there any commitment to 'host' the BBC? Could the energy companies
Basically, the electricity companies, and not the BBC call the shots on >>>> 198. The BBC are simply modulating the transmitters with R4 (because why >>>> not) for the time being.
Surely they are running at high power than would be necessary for pure
data service? Are the energy companies accepting that they are paying
for a higher power service than they need?
lease the capacity to Gold?
The BBC still hold the broadcast audio licence. Any thoughts about
Global Radio taking over the service is batshit crazy
On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 10:18:25 +0100, Mark Carver <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 03/07/2024 15:48, Scott wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jul 2024 15:38:37 +0100, JMB99 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 03/07/2024 15:08, Mark Carver wrote:Is there any commitment to 'host' the BBC? Could the energy companies
Basically, the electricity companies, and not the BBC call the shots on >>>>> 198. The BBC are simply modulating the transmitters with R4 (because why >>>>> not) for the time being.
Surely they are running at high power than would be necessary for pure >>>> data service? Are the energy companies accepting that they are paying >>>> for a higher power service than they need?
lease the capacity to Gold?
The BBC still hold the broadcast audio licence. Any thoughts about
Global Radio taking over the service is batshit crazy
When you said earlier that R4 LW is subject to a different Ofcom
licence, would you care to elaborate on what the difference is?
On 05/07/2024 11:16, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 10:18:25 +0100, Mark Carver <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 03/07/2024 15:48, Scott wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jul 2024 15:38:37 +0100, JMB99 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 03/07/2024 15:08, Mark Carver wrote:Is there any commitment to 'host' the BBC? Could the energy companies >>>> lease the capacity to Gold?
Basically, the electricity companies, and not the BBC call the shots on >>>>>> 198. The BBC are simply modulating the transmitters with R4 (because why >>>>>> not) for the time being.
Surely they are running at high power than would be necessary for pure >>>>> data service? Are the energy companies accepting that they are paying >>>>> for a higher power service than they need?
The BBC still hold the broadcast audio licence. Any thoughts about
Global Radio taking over the service is batshit crazy
When you said earlier that R4 LW is subject to a different Ofcom
licence, would you care to elaborate on what the difference is?
Look on Ofcom Tech parameters.
The three LW transmitters are now lodged under Licence Ref BBC100279,
the FM service licence (as were the now defunct MW transmitters) was >BBC000004
On 05/07/2024 11:16, Scott wrote:
When you said earlier that R4 LW is subject to a different Ofcom
licence, would you care to elaborate on what the difference is?
Look on Ofcom Tech parameters.
The three LW transmitters are now lodged under Licence Ref BBC100279,
the FM service licence (as were the now defunct MW transmitters) was BBC000004
On Tue 02/07/2024 13:41, JMB99 wrote:
On 02/07/2024 11:38, Scott wrote:
Will 198 kHz be advertised in the first instance for a national
commercial station? If there are no takers, will it be offered to
community stations? If I am thinking about forming a consortium, how
big an antenna would we need?
I can't see there being much serious interest for a system with a
limited number of listeners - I don't even know if my car radio can
receive Long Wave.
If they want to continue the supposed 'national' coverage then the
running costs will be high.� If just local community stations then what
is the advantage over VHF FM or DAB?
I never listen to commercial radio but from I read, there does not seem
to great deal of variety.
I thought they were keeping the carrier running as there are so many
clocks and other things that use 198kHz as a reference source?
On 05/07/2024 13:24, Mark Carver wrote:
On 05/07/2024 11:16, Scott wrote:
When you said earlier that R4 LW is subject to a different Ofcom
licence, would you care to elaborate on what the difference is?
Look on Ofcom Tech parameters.
The three LW transmitters are now lodged under Licence Ref BBC100279,
the FM service licence (as were the now defunct MW transmitters) was
BBC000004
What does that mean in practical terms. I think when Scott asked you to elaborate he meant in technical terms, not the change of a reference
number on Ofcom's site.
A URL to the relevant page would be useful, to save us trying to work
out what to search for on Ofcom's website, since a search on the main ofcom.org.uk for one of those licence references doesn't find anything.
On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 16:21:35 +0100, Woody <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue 02/07/2024 13:41, JMB99 wrote:
On 02/07/2024 11:38, Scott wrote:
Will 198 kHz be advertised in the first instance for a national
commercial station? If there are no takers, will it be offered to
community stations? If I am thinking about forming a consortium, how
big an antenna would we need?
I can't see there being much serious interest for a system with a
limited number of listeners - I don't even know if my car radio can
receive Long Wave.
If they want to continue the supposed 'national' coverage then the
running costs will be high. If just local community stations then what >>> is the advantage over VHF FM or DAB?
I never listen to commercial radio but from I read, there does not seem
to great deal of variety.
I thought they were keeping the carrier running as there are so many
clocks and other things that use 198kHz as a reference source?
Another thought - if the site is owned by Arqiva, why would Arqiva
want to take on a transmission contract rather than sell the site for housing? Is that why the BBC needs to continue R4, to ensure that the
Arqiva remains locked into the contract?
at Wed, 3 Jul 2024 11:20:27, Max Demian <[email protected]> writes
On 03/07/2024 00:49, J. P. Gilliver wrote:I remember hearing/reading that that was one of the reasons given for
at Tue, 2 Jul 2024 22:11:45, JMB99 <[email protected]> writes
It might be cheaper to let everyone get 'cheap' rate all night on aI don't think they're fitting any new ones of that type - and, they
good old fashioned time switch (like my meter uses).
want more control, such as to move around the switching times.
They want to "nudge" people into changing when they start to cook dinner.
the UK/France interconnect - that (at that time) Britain tended to have
its main evening meal about six, whereas the continent had theirs at
seven or later. And also that in practice, apart from for test purposes,
the interconnect has always run in one direction, France having so many nuclear stations (not to mention a tidal barrage). [Maybe things might
change with Britain's plethora of wind farms, but I think we're having problems installing the cables to move the energy around from where the
wind farms are to where the demand is, let alone to the interconnect termination points.]
I wonder what will happen to the 198 kHz frequency when the BBC ceases broadcasting Radio 4 long wave.
I know that 648 kHz was allocated to Radio Caroline. Do they pay for
the frequency as such (which apparently no-one else wanted), or just
the licence? Does cost depend on transmitted power?
Will 198 kHz be advertised in the first instance for a national
commercial station? If there are no takers, will it be offered to
community stations? If I am thinking about forming a consortium, how
big an antenna would we need?
On 02/07/2024 11:38, Scott wrote:
I wonder what will happen to the 198 kHz frequency when the BBC
ceases broadcasting Radio 4 long wave.
I know that 648 kHz was allocated to Radio Caroline. Do they pay for
the frequency as such (which apparently no-one else wanted), or just
the licence? Does cost depend on transmitted power?
Will 198 kHz be advertised in the first instance for a national
commercial station? If there are no takers, will it be offered to
community stations? If I am thinking about forming a consortium, how
big an antenna would we need?
From memory Caroline was a licence to run a specialist radio station
for Suffolk. Clearly they had been lobbying Ofcom to create the
licence, so it's a bit 'tail wagged the dog'. The power they use is
limited by the electricity they can afford, in fact I think their Tx
has solar panels attached to mitigate the cost.
If 198 *was* kept going long-term for clocks etc, but without audio modulation and just data modulation, how would that help anyone? I
thought the problem with LW was the availability of the main power
valve since production had ceased. And that problem would presumably
exist even with a pure unmodulated carrier as well as with data or AM modulation.
On 02.07.2024 um 13:29 Uhr Mark Carver wrote:
On 02/07/2024 11:38, Scott wrote:
I wonder what will happen to the 198 kHz frequency when the BBC
ceases broadcasting Radio 4 long wave.
I know that 648 kHz was allocated to Radio Caroline. Do they pay for
the frequency as such (which apparently no-one else wanted), or just
the licence? Does cost depend on transmitted power?
Will 198 kHz be advertised in the first instance for a national commercial station? If there are no takers, will it be offered to community stations? If I am thinking about forming a consortium, how
big an antenna would we need?
From memory Caroline was a licence to run a specialist radio station
for Suffolk. Clearly they had been lobbying Ofcom to create the
licence, so it's a bit 'tail wagged the dog'. The power they use is
limited by the electricity they can afford, in fact I think their Tx
has solar panels attached to mitigate the cost.
IIRC they wanted to increase that further than 4kW, but Ofcom rejected
that due to strange reasons (covering area etc.), even when operated at
500 kW in the past for the BBC World Service.
In article <v7ijdi$123p$[email protected]>,
Marco Moock <[email protected]> wrote:
On 02.07.2024 um 13:29 Uhr Mark Carver wrote:
On 02/07/2024 11:38, Scott wrote:
I wonder what will happen to the 198 kHz frequency when the BBC
ceases broadcasting Radio 4 long wave.
I know that 648 kHz was allocated to Radio Caroline. Do they pay for
the frequency as such (which apparently no-one else wanted), or just
the licence? Does cost depend on transmitted power?
Will 198 kHz be advertised in the first instance for a national
commercial station? If there are no takers, will it be offered to
community stations? If I am thinking about forming a consortium, how
big an antenna would we need?
From memory Caroline was a licence to run a specialist radio station
for Suffolk. Clearly they had been lobbying Ofcom to create the
licence, so it's a bit 'tail wagged the dog'. The power they use is
limited by the electricity they can afford, in fact I think their Tx
has solar panels attached to mitigate the cost.
IIRC they wanted to increase that further than 4kW, but Ofcom rejected
that due to strange reasons (covering area etc.), even when operated at
500 kW in the past for the BBC World Service.
That service used a highly directional transmitting array aimed at about 100°. There was some back radiation - I measured it some 40 years ago and can't remember too much about it, but it was approximately east of a line between The Wash & the Isle of Wight that you got a reasonable signal.
On 02.07.2024 um 13:29 Uhr Mark Carver wrote:
From memory Caroline was a licence to run a specialist radio station
for Suffolk. Clearly they had been lobbying Ofcom to create the
licence, so it's a bit 'tail wagged the dog'. The power they use is
limited by the electricity they can afford, in fact I think their Tx
has solar panels attached to mitigate the cost.
IIRC they wanted to increase that further than 4kW, but Ofcom rejected
that due to strange reasons (covering area etc.), even when operated at
500 kW in the past for the BBC World Service.
7th picture down here
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/gallerypage.php?txid=1654&pageid=2214
In article <v7ijdi$123p$[email protected]>,
Marco Moock <[email protected]> wrote:
On 02.07.2024 um 13:29 Uhr Mark Carver wrote:
On 02/07/2024 11:38, Scott wrote:
I wonder what will happen to the 198 kHz frequency when the BBC
ceases broadcasting Radio 4 long wave.
I know that 648 kHz was allocated to Radio Caroline. Do they pay
for the frequency as such (which apparently no-one else wanted), or
just the licence? Does cost depend on transmitted power?
Will 198 kHz be advertised in the first instance for a national
commercial station? If there are no takers, will it be offered to
community stations? If I am thinking about forming a consortium,
how big an antenna would we need?
From memory Caroline was a licence to run a specialist radio station
for Suffolk. Clearly they had been lobbying Ofcom to create the
licence, so it's a bit 'tail wagged the dog'. The power they use is
limited by the electricity they can afford, in fact I think their Tx
has solar panels attached to mitigate the cost.
IIRC they wanted to increase that further than 4kW, but Ofcom rejected
that due to strange reasons (covering area etc.), even when operated at
500 kW in the past for the BBC World Service.
That service used a highly directional transmitting array aimed at about 100°. There was some back radiation - I measured it some 40 years ago
and can't remember too much about it, but it was approximately east of a
line between The Wash & the Isle of Wight that you got a reasonable
signal.
Did they ever? thought they used VLF/ELF?
The suggestion was if a sub found itself incommunicado they should
listen on 198kHz to decide whether blighty had been nuked or not, and
then read THE envelope
Do they still communicate with submarines on long wave..?
On 25/07/2024 18:18, Andy Burns wrote:
Did they ever? thought they used VLF/ELF?
The suggestion was if a sub found itself incommunicado they should
listen on 198kHz to decide whether blighty had been nuked or not, and
then read THE envelope
Have a read at this book, there was a transmitting and receiving site in Scotland for communicating with the US Navy boomers (now closed).
Bubbleheads, SEALs and Wizards
America�s Scottish Bastion in the Cold War
David Mackay
https://www.whittlespublishing.com/Bubbleheads_SEALs_and_Wizards
The Americans also use an aircraft to communicate with them.
Smolley wrote:
Do they still communicate with submarines on long wave..?
Did they ever? thought they used VLF/ELF?
The suggestion was if a sub found itself incommunicado they should
listen on 198kHz to decide whether blighty had been nuked or not, and
then read THE envelope
Allegedly, the programme they had to check for was "Today". Presumably
if it was audible, there were some innocent sounding code phrases to use
to say "It's okay, the transmitter blew a fuse" or "read your orders".
my brother-in-law's father-in-law designed the one in Aberdeenshire.
On 21/07/2024 11:45, charles wrote:
Marco Moock <[email protected]> wrote:
On 02.07.2024 um 13:29 Uhr Mark Carver wrote:
On 02/07/2024 11:38, Scott wrote:
I wonder what will happen to the 198 kHz frequency when the BBC
ceases broadcasting Radio 4 long wave.
I know that 648 kHz was allocated to Radio Caroline. Do they pay for >>>>> the frequency as such (which apparently no-one else wanted), or just >>>>> the licence? Does cost depend on transmitted power?
Will 198 kHz be advertised in the first instance for a national
commercial station? If there are no takers, will it be offered to
community stations? If I am thinking about forming a consortium, how >>>>> big an antenna would we need?
From memory Caroline was a licence to run a specialist radio station >>>> for Suffolk. Clearly they had been lobbying Ofcom to create the
licence, so it's a bit 'tail wagged the dog'. The power they use is
limited by the electricity they can afford, in fact I think their Tx
has solar panels attached to mitigate the cost.
IIRC they wanted to increase that further than 4kW, but Ofcom rejected
that due to strange reasons (covering area etc.), even when operated at
500 kW in the past for the BBC World Service.
That service used a highly directional transmitting array aimed at about
100°. There was some back radiation - I measured it some 40 years ago and >> can't remember too much about it, but it was approximately east of a line
between The Wash & the Isle of Wight that you got a reasonable signal.
7th picture down here
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/gallerypage.php?txid=1654&pageid=2214
In The Netherlands all mediumwave masts were gone
shortly after the transmitters were switched off.
On 10.08.2024 um 16:58 Uhr Rink wrote:
In The Netherlands all mediumwave masts were goneWhat about Hulsberg? https://web.archive.org/web/20100902152325/http://www.mwlist.org/mwlist_quick_and_easy.php?area=1&kHz=9999
shortly after the transmitters were switched off.
Still exists on Google streetview.
Or Lelystad/Trintelhaven?
-- kind regards Marco
The RDI (new name for Agentschap Telecom)
will not allow high power mediumwave anymore.
Only one "high power" transmitter still is in use,
max. 1 or 2 kW, but in fact they are transmitting low power.
1566 kHz 63 Watt in The Hague, VAHON Radio.
I think they have no good antenna and mast.
On 12.08.2024 um 18:07 Uhr Rink wrote:
The RDI (new name for Agentschap Telecom)
will not allow high power mediumwave anymore.
Why?
Only one "high power" transmitter still is in use,
max. 1 or 2 kW, but in fact they are transmitting low power.
1566 kHz 63 Watt in The Hague, VAHON Radio.
I think they have no good antenna and mast.
In the past it was at 52° 3'24.81"N 4°24'32.90"E, maybe a T-Antenna on
2 poles?
Old Google Earth pictures show the masts, new ones don't.
According to mwlist, they moved. https://www.mwlist.org/mwlist_quick_and_easy.php?area=1&kHz=1566
The new location doesn't have current streetview pictures, so I can't
see the antenna there. Although, I assume it is a very small one in
the garden/on the roof like for the other LPAMs.
Old MW-masts are gone now.
The first was in Stompwijk (Leidschendam),
but a few neighbors did not like the view (NIMBY).
The second one was in Nootdorp next to motorway A12.
The story goes that there were internal discussions
and they did not pay the land owner. He removed the mast.
That's a pity, because with this antenna they had also a good signal.
On 02/07/2024 16:21, Woody wrote:
On Tue 02/07/2024 13:41, JMB99 wrote:
On 02/07/2024 11:38, Scott wrote:
Will 198 kHz be advertised in the first instance for a national
commercial station? If there are no takers, will it be offered to
community stations? If I am thinking about forming a consortium, how
big an antenna would we need?
I can't see there being much serious interest for a system with a
limited number of listeners - I don't even know if my car radio can
receive Long Wave.
If they want to continue the supposed 'national' coverage then the
running costs will be high.� If just local community stations then
what is the advantage over VHF FM or DAB?
I never listen to commercial radio but from I read, there does not
seem to great deal of variety.
I thought they were keeping the carrier running as there are so many
clocks and other things that use 198kHz as a reference source?
The electricity industry (and not the BBC) are 100% paying the running
and maintenance costs of 198 at Droitwich, Westerglen, and Burghead.
As far as the BBC R4 transmission is concerned, it no longer deviates
from the FM version with opt outs etc, and the dozen or so MW filer
sites all closed down in April.
The LW transmission is also now subject to a different Ofcom licence,
than R4 FM and DAB.
Basically, the electricity companies, and not the BBC call the shots on
198. The BBC are simply modulating the transmitters with R4 (because why
not) for the time being.
The only users for the timing etc data are the energy companies, to
continue controlling the 900,000 or so domestic RTS Economy 7 (etc)
switches. They are woefully behind with upgrading them to Smart Meter
based solutions.
At the moment the new 'end date' for 198 is June 30th 2025.
It'll be 100% down to the energy companies (with presumably advice from >Arqiva on maintenance issues etc) whether that date is extended (yet
again)
In article <[email protected]>, Mark Carver
<[email protected]> scribeth thus
On 02/07/2024 16:21, Woody wrote:Does all beg a question as to what long term uses the existing LW and MW >frequencies will be used for DRM if receivers became more commonplace >perhaps?..
On Tue 02/07/2024 13:41, JMB99 wrote:
On 02/07/2024 11:38, Scott wrote:
Will 198 kHz be advertised in the first instance for a national
commercial station? If there are no takers, will it be offered to
community stations? If I am thinking about forming a consortium, how >>>>> big an antenna would we need?
I can't see there being much serious interest for a system with a
limited number of listeners - I don't even know if my car radio can
receive Long Wave.
If they want to continue the supposed 'national' coverage then the
running costs will be high.� If just local community stations then
what is the advantage over VHF FM or DAB?
I never listen to commercial radio but from I read, there does not
seem to great deal of variety.
I thought they were keeping the carrier running as there are so many
clocks and other things that use 198kHz as a reference source?
The electricity industry (and not the BBC) are 100% paying the running
and maintenance costs of 198 at Droitwich, Westerglen, and Burghead.
As far as the BBC R4 transmission is concerned, it no longer deviates
from the FM version with opt outs etc, and the dozen or so MW filer
sites all closed down in April.
The LW transmission is also now subject to a different Ofcom licence,
than R4 FM and DAB.
Basically, the electricity companies, and not the BBC call the shots on >>198. The BBC are simply modulating the transmitters with R4 (because why >>not) for the time being.
The only users for the timing etc data are the energy companies, to >>continue controlling the 900,000 or so domestic RTS Economy 7 (etc) >>switches. They are woefully behind with upgrading them to Smart Meter
based solutions.
At the moment the new 'end date' for 198 is June 30th 2025.
It'll be 100% down to the energy companies (with presumably advice from >>Arqiva on maintenance issues etc) whether that date is extended (yet
again)
Might be useful in counties where to roll out DAB will be expensive..
Does all beg a question as to what long term uses the existing LW and MW frequencies will be used for DRM if receivers became more commonplace perhaps?..
Might be useful in counties where to roll out DAB will be expensive..
Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 15:06:04 +0100, ScottCan�t see why it needs Droitwich. However, how did teleswitches work in the >mush zone between the two LW transmitters?
<[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
I read somewhere that most teleswitch devices are in the Highlands of
Scotland. If true, would it be technically possible to run Burghead
(only) or does it need to be synchronised with Droitwich?
My meter needs calibration and will stop working - they have always
regularly calibrated meters and never before claimed they will stop
working if calibration is missed.
Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 15:06:04 +0100, Scott
<[email protected]> wrote: [snip]
I read somewhere that most teleswitch devices are in the Highlands of Scotland. If true, would it be technically possible to run Burghead
(only) or does it need to be synchronised with Droitwich?
Can�t see why it needs Droitwich. However, how did teleswitches work in
the mush zone between the two LW transmitters?
I read somewhere that most teleswitch devices are in the Highlands of Scotland. If true, would it be technically possible to run Burghead
(only) or does it need to be synchronised with Droitwich?
I read somewhere that most teleswitch devices are in the Highlands of Scotland. If true, would it be technically possible to run Burghead
(only) or does it need to be synchronised with Droitwich?
I've never had one of my meters calibrated. The digital ones which are outside could in theory be calibrated without my knowledge, but the one
in my first house (1987-2001) was a mechanical spinning disc one which
was indoors and so could only be read (or calibrated) while I was present.
THey are just salesmen telling whatever lies they are paid to tell.
What's worse is that the companies have no qualms about putting their
lies into print because they have convinced the politicians (of all
parties) that their nonsense is true.
On 28/09/2024 16:12, Scott wrote:
I read somewhere that most teleswitch devices are in the Highlands of Scotland. If true, would it be technically possible to run Burghead
(only) or does it need to be synchronised with Droitwich?
I keep getting letters from OVO asking me to ring for an appointment to change my meter to a "Smart" Meter.
Of course when I ring up they cannot do it yet.
But they have gone through a series of claims.
There is a meter with my name on it, waiting to be installed.
Everyone in my area had changed to a "Smart" Meter.
Then more recently
My meter will stop working in June 2025 (it uses a good fashioned time switch).
My meter needs calibration and will stop working - they have always
regularly calibrated meters and never before claimed they will stop
working if calibration is missed.
On 28/09/2024 20:42, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
THey are just salesmen telling whatever lies they are paid to tell.
What's worse is that the companies have no qualms about putting their
lies into print because they have convinced the politicians (of all parties) that their nonsense is true.
They tell people that fitting a "Smart" meter reduces your bill!
It could do. With a smart meter, I can charge my EV in the small hours of the night. I estimate that that has saved me about £1000 in the year.
when I was student (a great many years ago), I spent some time with SESEB.
I had a day in the meter test room. Tests were done very carefully and,
yes, the calibration lasted 10 years.
On 28/09/2024 22:08, charles wrote:
It could do. With a smart meter, I can charge my EV in the small hours of the night. I estimate that that has saved me about �1000 in the year.
Which could be done with a simple time switch?
Just over 3% of cars are battery ones and many will not be able to
charge at home so affects perhaps 1% to 2% of cars?
On 28/09/2024 22:08, charles wrote:
It could do. With a smart meter, I can charge my EV in the small hours of the night. I estimate that that has saved me about £1000 in the year.
Which could be done with a simple time switch?
Just over 3% of cars are battery ones and many will not be able to
charge at home so affects perhaps 1% to 2% of cars?
They tell people that fitting a "Smart" meter reduces your bill!
It could do. With a smart meter, I can charge my EV in the small hours of >the night. I estimate that that has saved me about �1000 in the year.
On 28/09/2024 17:55, NY wrote:
I've never had one of my meters calibrated. The digital ones which are
outside could in theory be calibrated without my knowledge, but the one
in my first house (1987-2001) was a mechanical spinning disc one which
was indoors and so could only be read (or calibrated) while I was present.
They used to change the meter and presumably the one removed was sent
away for calibration. It only happened every ten years or so.
I believe it has now quietly been made illegal, but there must still be thousands of meters out there that are still equipped to do it.
On Sat, 28 Sep 24 21:08:03 UTC, charles <[email protected]> wrote:
They tell people that fitting a "Smart" meter reduces your bill!
It could do. With a smart meter, I can charge my EV in the small hours
of the night. I estimate that that has saved me about �1000 in the year.
That must be about 5% of what it cost you to buy the EV.
In article <[email protected]>, Roderick Stewart ><[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 24 21:08:03 UTC, charles <[email protected]> wrote:
They tell people that fitting a "Smart" meter reduces your bill!
It could do. With a smart meter, I can charge my EV in the small hours
of the night. I estimate that that has saved me about �1000 in the year.
That must be about 5% of what it cost you to buy the EV.
Yes
In article <[email protected]>, charles <[email protected]> scribeth thus
In article <[email protected]>, Roderick
Stewart <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 24 21:08:03 UTC, charles <[email protected]>
wrote:
They tell people that fitting a "Smart" meter reduces your bill!
It could do. With a smart meter, I can charge my EV in the small
hours of the night. I estimate that that has saved me about �1000 in
the year.
That must be about 5% of what it cost you to buy the EV.
Yes
Does your doc prescribe you anything for range anxiety;?...
On 18/09/2024 14:40, tony sayer wrote:
Does all beg a question as to what long term uses the existing LW and MW
frequencies will be used for DRM if receivers became more commonplace
perhaps?..
Might be useful in counties where to roll out DAB will be expensive..
Are DRM receivers becoming more commonplace?
I have never seen one and never heard of anyone using one.
Wouldn't the money be better spent completing DAB coverage?
The rationale is to introduce
incentive based pricing. Octopus Energy are the leaders in this.
Electricity is the most expensive around late afternoon/early evening. This >is when domestic and industrial demand overlap. At other times there can be
a surplus of generation, eg off peak windy days. Octopus offer incentives
to cut consumption a times of very high demand (a form of voluntary load >shedding) and sometimes offer periods of completely free electricity.
Does your doc prescribe you anything for range anxiety;?...
Does your doc prescribe you anything for range anxiety;?...
tony sayer wrote:
Does your doc prescribe you anything for range anxiety;?...
There was a piece in the news about an electric aeroplane being used by
a flight school, the instructor said he didn't get "range anxiety" he
got "range excitement" ...
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 15:06:04 +0100, Scott
<[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
I read somewhere that most teleswitch devices are in the Highlands of >Scotland. If true, would it be technically possible to run Burghead
(only) or does it need to be synchronised with Droitwich?
It was more of a comment re larger countries than the UK where rolling
out DAB would be very expensive because of the area to be covered
which may well be sparsely populated and have limited power
availability etc..
Does all beg a question as to what long term uses the existing LW and
MW frequencies will be used for DRM if receivers became more
commonplace perhaps?..
On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 16:21:35 +0100, Woody <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue 02/07/2024 13:41, JMB99 wrote:
On 02/07/2024 11:38, Scott wrote:
Will 198 kHz be advertised in the first instance for a national
commercial station? If there are no takers, will it be offered to
community stations? If I am thinking about forming a consortium,
how big an antenna would we need?
I can't see there being much serious interest for a system with a
limited number of listeners - I don't even know if my car radio
can receive Long Wave.
If they want to continue the supposed 'national' coverage then the
running costs will be high. If just local community stations then
what is the advantage over VHF FM or DAB?
I never listen to commercial radio but from I read, there does not
seem to great deal of variety.
I thought they were keeping the carrier running as there are so many >clocks and other things that use 198kHz as a reference source?
Another thought - if the site is owned by Arqiva, why would Arqiva
want to take on a transmission contract rather than sell the site for housing? Is that why the BBC needs to continue R4, to ensure that the
Arqiva remains locked into the contract?
On 10.09.2024 um 23:02 Uhr Rink wrote:
Old MW-masts are gone now.
The first was in Stompwijk (Leidschendam),
but a few neighbors did not like the view (NIMBY).
The second one was in Nootdorp next to motorway A12.
The story goes that there were internal discussions
and they did not pay the land owner. He removed the mast.
That's a pity, because with this antenna they had also a good signal.
Interesting. Do you know what happened to the transmitter there?
Thank you for this webpage.
Nice to see the coverage predictions of the 648 and 1296.
648 and 1296 were the most strongest signals on my MW-radio
when I was living in Leiden and Leiderdorp (15 km NE of The Hague).
After those two came 675 Lopik (Dutch Radio 3).
And much weaker were the Flevoland 747 + 1008.
648 is a few months used by NPO Radio 1 when the tower of Smilde was >collapsed.
It's good that Orfordness was still existing.
In The Netherlands all mediumwave masts were gone
shortly after the transmitters were switched off.
Under the 9th picture I read "RNN on 1296 kHz".
Is RNN the Dutch commercial station Radio Nationaal?
Because RNN here means Radio Noordzee Nationaal,
which is another programme / organisation
and they had a FM network and never were on AM.
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 16:58:44 +0200, Rink
<[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
Sorry, but another uninformed question out of curiosity. Why would
Thank you for this webpage.
Nice to see the coverage predictions of the 648 and 1296.
648 and 1296 were the most strongest signals on my MW-radio
when I was living in Leiden and Leiderdorp (15 km NE of The Hague).
After those two came 675 Lopik (Dutch Radio 3).
And much weaker were the Flevoland 747 + 1008.
648 is a few months used by NPO Radio 1 when the tower of Smilde was
collapsed.
It's good that Orfordness was still existing.
In The Netherlands all mediumwave masts were gone
shortly after the transmitters were switched off.
Under the 9th picture I read "RNN on 1296 kHz".
Is RNN the Dutch commercial station Radio Nationaal?
Because RNN here means Radio Noordzee Nationaal,
which is another programme / organisation
and they had a FM network and never were on AM.
they use 1296 kHz, which is exactly double 648 kHz? I thought a radio
signal produced harmonics as multiples so each transmission would
interfere with the other.
Also, in the US, they only use 'odd' FM Band allocations, 88.1, 88.3,
88.5 etc, because then any image resulting from the 10.7 MHz IF, lands
the problem onto an 'even' allocation
Mark Carver <[email protected]> wrote:
On 17/12/2024 18:55, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 16:58:44 +0200, Rink
<[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
Sorry, but another uninformed question out of curiosity. Why would
Thank you for this webpage.
Nice to see the coverage predictions of the 648 and 1296.
648 and 1296 were the most strongest signals on my MW-radio
when I was living in Leiden and Leiderdorp (15 km NE of The Hague).
After those two came 675 Lopik (Dutch Radio 3).
And much weaker were the Flevoland 747 + 1008.
648 is a few months used by NPO Radio 1 when the tower of Smilde was
collapsed.
It's good that Orfordness was still existing.
In The Netherlands all mediumwave masts were gone
shortly after the transmitters were switched off.
Under the 9th picture I read "RNN on 1296 kHz".
Is RNN the Dutch commercial station Radio Nationaal?
Because RNN here means Radio Noordzee Nationaal,
which is another programme / organisation
and they had a FM network and never were on AM.
they use 1296 kHz, which is exactly double 648 kHz? I thought a radio
signal produced harmonics as multiples so each transmission would
interfere with the other.
You only get significant multiples if there is distortion in the
transmitter R.F. amplifiers. This is held to a very low level, then
there is the filtering effect of the tuned circuits following the final amplifier. If harmonics are still above the permitted level, a further filter can be fitted in the aerial feeder.
There should be no problem with a receiver responding to multiples or sub-multiples of the carrier to which it is tuned, unless there is
something very badly wrong with the receiver.
I'd never noticed that relationship !
It shouldn't cause a problem however, it's local oscillator
relationships that were more of an issue.
Notably 908/909 kHz being double 455 kHz, which would produce a whistle
on some sets.
I don't understand that - unless you mean the transmitter has a doubler
stage to generate 908 Kc/s from 454Kc/s and the 454 Kc/s is leaking
through to the output stage?
On 17/12/2024 18:55, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 16:58:44 +0200, Rink
<[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
Sorry, but another uninformed question out of curiosity. Why would
Thank you for this webpage.
Nice to see the coverage predictions of the 648 and 1296.
648 and 1296 were the most strongest signals on my MW-radio
when I was living in Leiden and Leiderdorp (15 km NE of The Hague).
After those two came 675 Lopik (Dutch Radio 3).
And much weaker were the Flevoland 747 + 1008.
648 is a few months used by NPO Radio 1 when the tower of Smilde was
collapsed.
It's good that Orfordness was still existing.
In The Netherlands all mediumwave masts were gone
shortly after the transmitters were switched off.
Under the 9th picture I read "RNN on 1296 kHz".
Is RNN the Dutch commercial station Radio Nationaal?
Because RNN here means Radio Noordzee Nationaal,
which is another programme / organisation
and they had a FM network and never were on AM.
they use 1296 kHz, which is exactly double 648 kHz? I thought a radio signal produced harmonics as multiples so each transmission would
interfere with the other.
I'd never noticed that relationship !
It shouldn't cause a problem however, it's local oscillator
relationships that were more of an issue.
Notably 908/909 kHz being double 455 kHz, which would produce a whistle
on some sets.
But how was 10.7 MHz originally chosen as the VHF radio standard IF? Was
it in some way "better" than 10.5, 10.6, 10.8 etc?
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 10:20:52 +0000, NY <[email protected]> wrote:
But how was 10.7 MHz originally chosen as the VHF radio standard IF? Was
it in some way "better" than 10.5, 10.6, 10.8 etc?
Just general agreement about what seemed to work best I think. There
weren't any regulations about it as far as I know. One manufacturer
top my knowledge - Leak - did use a different IF in their tuners, and
maybe others did too. The Leak Troughline tuner used 12.5MHz.
I'd never noticed that relationship !
It shouldn't cause a problem however, it's local oscillator
relationships that were more of an issue.
Notably 908/909 kHz being double 455 kHz, which would produce a whistle
on some sets.
I don't understand that - unless you mean the transmitter has a doubler
stage to generate 908 Kc/s from 454Kc/s and the 454 Kc/s is leaking
through to the output stage?
I know our local 100 Mc/s VHF transmitter puts out signals around 50
Mc/s but they are well below the main output level.
Roderick Stewart <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 10:20:52 +0000, NY <[email protected]> wrote:
But how was 10.7 MHz originally chosen as the VHF radio standard IF? Was
it in some way "better" than 10.5, 10.6, 10.8 etc?
Just general agreement about what seemed to work best I think. There
weren't any regulations about it as far as I know. One manufacturer
top my knowledge - Leak - did use a different IF in their tuners, and
maybe others did too. The Leak Troughline tuner used 12.5MHz.
Choosing a suitable I.F. was quite a difficult procedure which involved
the use of charts to show the second, third and higher harmonics of the
local oscillator and where they awept across the tuning range, to check
on possible interactions. Strong stations at the image frequency had to
be taken into consideration and so did the possibility of direct IF
pickup breaking through the aerial circuits. (Good sets had an IF
rejector in the aerial circuit to minimise this.)
As it was sometimes impossible to achieve good results with any single
IF, double-conversion was sometimes used - but that brought up even more >interaction possibilities. Another approach was a switchable IF that
altered with the band-change switch, so that each band could have the
most appropriate IF. The prize example of this was the Eddystone
S700/IR54 which was almost a one-off (actually 3 were made) and was used
on the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth liners.
I'd never noticed that relationship !
It shouldn't cause a problem however, it's local oscillator
relationships that were more of an issue.
Notably 908/909 kHz being double 455 kHz, which would produce a whistle
on some sets.
I don't understand that - unless you mean the transmitter has a doubler >stage to generate 908 Kc/s from 454Kc/s and the 454 Kc/s is leaking
through to the output stage?
I know our local 100 Mc/s VHF transmitter puts out signals around 50
Mc/s but they are well below the main output level.
Can you say what one that is very odd to have that happen!..
tony sayer <[email protected]> wrote:
I'd never noticed that relationship !
It shouldn't cause a problem however, it's local oscillator
relationships that were more of an issue.
Notably 908/909 kHz being double 455 kHz, which would produce a whistle >> >> on some sets.
I don't understand that - unless you mean the transmitter has a doubler
stage to generate 908 Kc/s from 454Kc/s and the 454 Kc/s is leaking
through to the output stage?
I know our local 100 Mc/s VHF transmitter puts out signals around 50
Mc/s but they are well below the main output level.
Can you say what one that is very odd to have that happen!..
Bathampton Down repeater.
In article <1r4vgqd.zsdbmc1ufjbhoN%[email protected]d>,
Liz Tuddenham <[email protected]d> scribeth thus
tony sayer <[email protected]> wrote:
I'd never noticed that relationship !
It shouldn't cause a problem however, it's local oscillator
relationships that were more of an issue.
Notably 908/909 kHz being double 455 kHz, which would produce a whistle >> >> on some sets.
I don't understand that - unless you mean the transmitter has a doubler >> >stage to generate 908 Kc/s from 454Kc/s and the 454 Kc/s is leaking
through to the output stage?
I know our local 100 Mc/s VHF transmitter puts out signals around 50
Mc/s but they are well below the main output level.
Can you say what one that is very odd to have that happen!..
Bathampton Down repeater.
Do you mean this one?..
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/gallerypage.php?txid=622
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 169:58:43 |
| Calls: | 12,097 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 15,003 |
| Messages: | 6,517,846 |