tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4260200412608523752.post5761570746866786675..comments2017-05-22T18:33:34.708-04:00Comments on RADIO-TIMETRAVELLER: Field Strength Calculator OneRADIO-TIMETRAVELLERhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05463280488316885706noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4260200412608523752.post-19858595228087884832014-11-10T08:57:54.147-05:002014-11-10T08:57:54.147-05:00Hi Paul,
Thanks for your comments. Sorry for the ...Hi Paul,<br /><br />Thanks for your comments. Sorry for the delayed reply. I have been out of the country for the last 3 days (Mexico).<br /><br />Feel free to email. I'll try to answer any questions you might have. The Field Strength Calculator formula is certainly not new, and is a simplified Norton formula originally dating back to the late 1930s. I couldn't begin to tackle the modern formulas, they are way beyond my math abilities.<br /><br />email to:<br /><br />desertbilly-at-gmail-dotcom<br /><br />BillRADIO-TIMETRAVELLERhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05463280488316885706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4260200412608523752.post-16124856026329609802014-11-07T07:49:52.892-05:002014-11-07T07:49:52.892-05:00Hello,
Thanks for publishing Feld Strength Calcul...Hello,<br /><br />Thanks for publishing Feld Strength Calculator One. I've been trying to use it and GRWAVE for the first time.<br /><br />I just got GRWAVE to compile and run.<br /><br />Right now, I'm looking to do a test run of these two programs that will confirm their consistency. Could someone help me out by providing a set of input arguments for each program that will run the same or very similar calculation? So then I can compare them?<br /><br />I'm still learning what all the input arguments are.<br /><br />Bill, I have some ideas to pitch to you if you're available for email discussion. I'm looking to parallelize a MW propagation algorithm for a research project in graduate school. I'm looking for algorithms to implement and also for existing implementations to use as evaluation references.<br /><br />My context is twofold. I'm working with some radio engineers wanting modern propagation software; and, in my research, I'm looking for real-world use cases of software that could be parallelized using experimental multi-core and GPU techniques.<br /><br />Kind regards,<br />Paul<br /><br /><br /><br />Paul Ojanen<br />projanen@indiana.edu<br />PhD student in Computer Science<br />Indiana UniversityPaul O.http://www.blogger.com/profile/14285308634932949323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4260200412608523752.post-90716796049104929492013-01-18T10:26:27.407-05:002013-01-18T10:26:27.407-05:00Hi Stephen,
Yes, finding the distance at a specif...Hi Stephen,<br /><br />Yes, finding the distance at a specified field strength would be a great addition. Unfortunately, the math involved is beyond my abilities. Part of the problem is that the distance figure is required in three separate parts of the simplified formula in order to arrive at the ultimate field strength. It might be possible to use the computer's brute calculating power to test numerous distances and find the one that matches the prescribed mV/m level desired. I'll look into that when I get the chance.<br /><br />Calculating for multiple ground conductivity values along a path is entirely possible (FCC Part 73.184). The FCC produces M3 ground conductivity data in textual form in the file m3.seq available at (link at bottom of this page):<br /><br />http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/m3-map-effective-ground-conductivity-united-states-wall-sized-map-am-broadcast-stations<br /><br />I have studied it a little in the past but have not come up with a way to program it or correctly interpret the data just yet.<br /><br />Your KTMS Santa Barbara station looks to be almost entirely over water path. It would be interesting to arrive at an accurate field strength value for that one.<br /><br />KALL-700 in North Salt Lake City is an interesting one to me as well. It's main lobe points directly at me here in southwestern Arizona. That, combined with what I believe to be much greater ground conductivity than what is indicated on the maps (probably 30+ I think), produces a copyable signal here even at high noon on a simple radio - a distance of more than 500 miles. It is a spectacular example of what difference ground conductivity makes on signal propagation.<br /><br />BillRADIO-TIMETRAVELLERhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05463280488316885706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4260200412608523752.post-46108907091098777432013-01-17T02:32:33.858-05:002013-01-17T02:32:33.858-05:00Hi Bill,
This is quite interesting, and a good st...Hi Bill,<br /><br />This is quite interesting, and a good start. :) I was wondering if a couple features / mods could be added?<br /><br />For one, I'd like to be able to find the distance to a specified field strength. (Also find required field at 1 km to get a specified field at a specified distance.)<br /><br />For another, I'd like to be able to find field strength (or distance) along a path with multiple varying conductivity values. Ideally it'd be nice to include FCC conductivity data, calculate based on coordinates, and have it somehow display on Google Maps (G Earth doesn't run well on this computer).<br />For now I'd be ok with specifying distances to particular conductivities, as long as I can determine those distances <b>accurately</b> (from the M3 map. I've tried lining up the segments in the FCC large map file and they don't line up <i>quite</i> exactly. When trying to overlay it on a screenshot of Google Maps it <i>really</i> gets skewed.)<br /><br />One example (distances & conductivity change locations not quite accurate) would be a station on 990 kHz with a standard field of 42.04 mV/m @ 1 km. (The station runs 5 kW DA with a theoretical RMS of 692 mV/m, making it ... 5000*(42.04/(692*1.05))^2 ... 16.738 watts ERP toward me, if I calculated it correctly - the *1.05 with 692 was cause FCC standard pattern is 1.05x theoretical values generally, and standard wasn't specified for this station.)<br />From the tower site, it's <br />10.692 km of 4 mS/m, then <br />36.694 km of 5000 mS/m, then <br />25.266 km of 8 mS/m, then<br />205.756 km of 5000 mS/m, then<br />19.028 km of 15 mS/m, finally<br />19.33 km of 8 mS/m.<br />Total length is 316.766 km.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ekAvJL4XDE" rel="nofollow">This video shows reception of that station at the end of that path</a>.<br />(It's the station running Sean Hannity (KTMS Santa Barbara) under the Mexican Station, XECL Mexicali.)<br /><br />Another example I'd want to calculate would be my reception of 700 KALL here. When I previously tried calculating it using the charts it fell off the bottom of the chart.Stephenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04987590475133039844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4260200412608523752.post-8881302718967126012012-12-29T10:54:47.008-05:002012-12-29T10:54:47.008-05:00Hi Joseph,
Sorry, I don't have any informatio...Hi Joseph,<br /><br />Sorry, I don't have any information on the Tecsun PL-660. I don't own one and may not get one at this point. The schematics for the PL-600 actually came from another site. All reviews that I have are contained on this site already.<br /><br />Thanks for your interest in the blog!<br /><br />BillRADIO-TIMETRAVELLERhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05463280488316885706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4260200412608523752.post-44932495790864599632012-12-28T00:35:18.216-05:002012-12-28T00:35:18.216-05:00Was trying to get into contact with you via Email ...Was trying to get into contact with you via Email and eventually voice contact if possible. Am looking for reviews, schematic diagrams, and like info for the Tecsun PL-660, especially circuit diagrams, and moticed your fine Blog happened to mention the PL-600. Any schematic info's on the PL-660 ?<br /><br />Joe Rotello<br />info(at)windowgroup(dot)com<br />Skype: joerotelloJoseph Rotellohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13104164846348764461noreply@blogger.com