Because it's more important to add more mercury to the environment and kill radio to save power!
These are really intentional radiators because the manufacturers and the FCC know they cause interference.
The LEDs may be better and not cause the same interference as florecence does.
But I see now regular bulbs subsituting 60 watts for example using 40 watts but halogen so near the same light but energy saving and they aren't banned. Still an incondecent.
So the regular ones are still there.
But if a lot of people cared enough about AM radio there would be an outcry but that's not the case...unfortunately.
Mark
Maybe it is just me, but I do not see what an AM antenna has to do with the FM initiative and gaining more range on that band.
Nor do I see how it will alleviate the concerns of interference from licensed broadcasters or the FCC. If anything (and if it really works as advertised) it will greatly increase the possibility of interference, causing the FCC to take a hard look at it. That is really why I would like to know, at least generally, what class of antenna it is (we already know it is claimed to be a dipole). I do not want to waste my time and money looking at an antenna that in any way, shape or form could be considered not compliant with the rules.
Just remember as well, if you are expecting the FCC to change the rules to allow more range for FM Part 15, they could just as easily turn around and change the rules to reduce range as well, on both AM and FM. Although it would be pretty difficult to reduce the range on FM, unless they ban it entirely.
The word "initiate" means... to start or begin, and the "FM Initiative" according to me is an ongoing conversation about the IDEA of seeking a Part 15 FM power increase.
The conversation is necessarilly spread out over a long time because of the small number of people who are interested in seeking an FM increase plus the infrequency of ALPB meetings where more concentrated talks can happen and the time spent awaiting the results of Tim's excellent field measurements.
It doesn't appear that anything will change anytime soon, so I expect the Initiative talks to go on as they are for a long time, and that's ok as we are under no deadline, and "The Little Rules" are always entertaining to talk about however we do it.
Speaking with Jeff, Station8, he indicated that he refers to his antenna as a dipole although he conceeds that it is not a 2 element, center fed antenna which a typical dipole is. Rather it is a single element end fed antenna.
There is a case for the "end fed" dipole which by virtue of RF flowing on the outside of the coaxial shield emulates a center fed dipole but his description does not follow that design.
I am curious to see the prototype when available.
... I am curious to see the prototype when available.
That will be interesting.
But the real proof of the performance of any/all antenna designs requires accurate and independently repeatable measurements of the field intensities they produce compared to other configurations, for a given set of conditions.
Hopefully Station8 and his supporters recognise this, and so will provide the technical data needed to prove the performance claimed for whatever antenna system configuration they are promoting here.
Is AM stereo compatible with Modulation-Dependent Carrier Level (MDCL)? Part of the AM revitalization covered easier regulation of MDCL. If reducing the carrier causes problems with the stereo part of AM reception, I cannot see the FCC mandating AM stereo. It would be silly for them to say “stations you can use MDCL” and then tell radio manufacturers “you must implement AM stereo in your radios even though stations using MDCL will not perform well in AM stereo.”
Also, I am very weary of the FCC taking action to require anything be included in radios. If the FCC sent out for comment a proposal to require AM stereo in new radios, I would guess iBiquity would comment that HD radio reception should be required in new radios. That will either kill the entire action or it will lead to the cheapest radio being sold being $50 due to the cost of licensing iBiquity’s technology. iBiquity has more muscle and money to throw around so I would expect HD radio to be mandatory before AM stereo is.
A station broadcasting in AM stereo will not magically sound better than a station broadcasting in mono. A radio that can receive AM stereo will not magically sound better than one that is only mono. A station needs to be broadcasting a signal with content out to 5kHz/7kHz, and the radio needs to be wideband enough to receive the full transmitted range of the AM signal. The noise floor also needs to be favorable.
If a radio is rolling off the high frequencies by 2kHz and there is nothing above 3kHz, even the best AM signal in the world will sound bad. If the station is rolling off audio starting at 3kHz and there is nothing by 5kHz then a wide band AM stereo radio is going to sound like crap. It may even sound worse if there is an adjacent channel station being decoded above the desired station’s upper audio frequency cutoff.
C-QuAM most likely would not be compatible with MDCL, although KAHN probably would work just fine. IIRC C-Quam reduces modulation to 85%, but I could be wrong here.
"A station broadcasting in AM stereo will not magically sound better than a station broadcasting in mono. A radio that can receive AM stereo will not magically sound better than one that is only mono. A station needs to be broadcasting a signal with content out to 5kHz/7kHz, and the radio needs to be wideband enough to receive the full transmitted range of the AM signal. The noise floor also needs to be favorable."
You would actually be surprised, especially with older radios. An AM Stereo reciever by default would sound better than a modern day AM receiver becuase an AM Stereo radio is wideband. Stations broadcast at 10kHz bandwidth, unless they run IBOC. AM used to run 15 kHz.