Re: [Elecraft] AM bandwidth, the rest of the story :=)

2008-01-15 Thread Don Wilhelm
Back in the 'old days' of AM broadcasting in the US, the local stations were spread out with greater than 10 KHz spacing so they would not interfere even when received on wide bandwidth AM receivers. There were a few 'clear channel' superstations that had no competition nationwide and IIRC,

Re: [Elecraft] AM bandwidth, the rest of the story :=)

2008-01-15 Thread Jack Smith
The FCCs frequency assignment policy protected these Class 1A stations from both co-channel and adjacent channel interference, if my recollection of 40 year old rules is correct. Obviously greater co-channel protection was provided than adjacent channel (+/- 10 KHz) protection. As far as

RE: [Elecraft] AM bandwidth, the rest of the story :=)

2008-01-15 Thread Ron D'Eau Claire
There still are clear channel stations: KFI in Los Angeles, KSL in Salt Lake City, WLW in Cincinnati, WOR in New York and a number of others across the country. Also, with rare exceptions, stations in any given market are at least 20 KHz apart. That is, adjacent channels are not assigned in any

Re: [Elecraft] AM bandwidth, the rest of the story :=)

2008-01-15 Thread Kevin Cozens
Ron D'Eau Claire wrote: The clear channel flamethrowers running 500,000 watts are relatively few by comparison. 500kW? I assume that must be a typo. AFAIK, the limit on the AM BCB is 50kW in Canada and the US. -- Cheers! Kevin. http://www.ve3syb.ca/ |What are we going to do

RE: [Elecraft] AM bandwidth, the rest of the story :=)

2008-01-15 Thread Phil Kane
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 09:51:38 -0800, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote: Many AM stations today limit their audio bandwidth to 5 or 6 KHz, maximum, and even more consumer AM receivers sold today limit the audio bandwidth to 5 kHz or less! Some of the reasons for the limits at the transmitter have to do

RE: [Elecraft] AM bandwidth, the rest of the story :=)

2008-01-15 Thread Ron D'Eau Claire
: [Elecraft] AM bandwidth, the rest of the story :=) Ron D'Eau Claire wrote: The clear channel flamethrowers running 500,000 watts are relatively few by comparison. 500kW? I assume that must be a typo. AFAIK, the limit on the AM BCB is 50kW in Canada and the US. -- Cheers! Kevin. http

Re: [Elecraft] AM bandwidth, the rest of the story :=)

2008-01-15 Thread N2EY
In a message dated 1/15/08 3:18:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 500kW? I assume that must be a typo. AFAIK, the limit on the AM BCB is 50kW in Canada and the US. There was one 500 kW AM BC station in the USA, however. IIRC, it was WLW, and it ran that power level

Re: [Elecraft] AM bandwidth, the rest of the story :=)

2008-01-15 Thread David Yarnes
] To: K2 elecraft@mailman.qth.net Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 1:17 PM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] AM bandwidth, the rest of the story :=) Ron D'Eau Claire wrote: The clear channel flamethrowers running 500,000 watts are relatively few by comparison. 500kW? I assume that must be a typo. AFAIK

Re: [Elecraft] AM bandwidth, the rest of the story :=)

2008-01-15 Thread Augie Hansen
David Yarnes wrote: Well, maybe he did mean 50 KW, but then again there are (were) stations like good ole' XERF, Del Rio, Texas! That station (and a bunch of others from south of the border, ran a heck of a lot more than 50 KW. I used to listen to XERF, XEG, and several other south of the

[Elecraft] AM bandwidth, the rest of the story :=)

2008-01-14 Thread Alan Bloom
OK I looked it up. According to Title 47, part 73.44 of the FCC regulations, http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/amfmrule.html#AM the modulation of an AM broadcast station must be down 25 dB at 10.2 kHz from the carrier. Assuming a 3-pole low-pass filter (e.g. a pi-network), the filter