I thought the Radio 4 was going? I notice its still there, and just next to
it is a foreign station. I don't recognise the language though.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

On 03/10/2023 12:13, Brian Gaff wrote:
> I thought the Radio 4 was going? I notice its still there, and just next
> to it is a foreign station. I don't recognise the language though. Brian

"However, separate scheduling of BBC radio programmes on long wave will
end in March next year - for example Test Match Special will not be
available on long wave."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66644709

Am 03.10.2023 um 12:13:35 Uhr schrieb Brian Gaff:

> I thought the Radio 4 was going?

There are plans, current rumor is March 2024.

> I notice its still there, and just next to it is a foreign station.

189 is Iceland an 207 is Morocco, but both will be very weak in the UK.

On 03/10/2023 13:28, Marco Moock wrote:
> Am 03.10.2023 um 12:13:35 Uhr schrieb Brian Gaff:
>
>> I thought the Radio 4 was going?
>
> There are plans, current rumor is March 2024.
>

The BBC keep changing their minds. They've updated the announcement
today carried on 198 LW to, 'Separate Programmes will cease after March
31 2024.

Last week they were saying all programmes on LW would cease before March
31st 2024

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

On 03/10/2023 16:32, Mark Carver wrote:
> On 03/10/2023 13:28, Marco Moock wrote:
>> Am 03.10.2023 um 12:13:35 Uhr schrieb Brian Gaff:
>>
>>> I thought the Radio 4 was going?
>>
>> There are plans, current rumor is March 2024.
>>
>
> The BBC keep changing their minds. They've updated the announcement
> today carried on 198 LW to, 'Separate Programmes will cease after March
> 31 2024.
>
> Last week they were saying all programmes on LW would cease before March
> 31st 2024
>
>
The switch off date depends on how long the electricity suppliers need
the signal to transmit their switching codes, (They use it for a lot
more than just dual tariff meter switching) and how much they are
willing to pay towards the cost of running the transmitters. The only
problems for the BBC are the programme licencing deals and their
percentage of what Arqiva are charging.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 03/10/2023 16:42, John Williamson wrote:
> On 03/10/2023 16:32, Mark Carver wrote:
>> On 03/10/2023 13:28, Marco Moock wrote:
>>> Am 03.10.2023 um 12:13:35 Uhr schrieb Brian Gaff:
>>>
>>>>   I thought the Radio 4 was going?
>>>
>>> There are plans, current rumor is March 2024.
>>>
>>
>> The BBC keep changing their minds. They've updated the announcement
>> today carried on 198 LW to,  'Separate Programmes will cease after March
>> 31 2024.
>>
>> Last week they were saying all programmes on LW would cease before March
>> 31st 2024
>>
>>
> The switch off date depends on how long the electricity suppliers need
> the signal to transmit their switching codes, (They use it for a lot
> more than just dual tariff meter switching) and how much they are
> willing to pay towards the cost of running the transmitters. The only
> problems for the BBC are the programme licencing deals and their
> percentage of what Arqiva are charging.
>

There's a school of thought that the BBC will simply hand the 198 LW
transmitters over to the electricity industry on March 31, in which case
all audio broadcasting will cease, and there will just be a silent phase
modulated carrier.

Similar to the 162 LW Tx in France

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALS162_time_signal

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 17:32:51 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 03/10/2023 16:42, John Williamson wrote:
>> On 03/10/2023 16:32, Mark Carver wrote:
>>> On 03/10/2023 13:28, Marco Moock wrote:
>>>> Am 03.10.2023 um 12:13:35 Uhr schrieb Brian Gaff:
>>>>
>>>>>   I thought the Radio 4 was going?
>>>>
>>>> There are plans, current rumor is March 2024.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The BBC keep changing their minds. They've updated the announcement
>>> today carried on 198 LW to,  'Separate Programmes will cease after March
>>> 31 2024.
>>>
>>> Last week they were saying all programmes on LW would cease before March
>>> 31st 2024
>>>
>>>
>> The switch off date depends on how long the electricity suppliers need
>> the signal to transmit their switching codes, (They use it for a lot
>> more than just dual tariff meter switching) and how much they are
>> willing to pay towards the cost of running the transmitters. The only
>> problems for the BBC are the programme licencing deals and their
>> percentage of what Arqiva are charging.
>>
>
>There's a school of thought that the BBC will simply hand the 198 LW
>transmitters over to the electricity industry on March 31, in which case
>all audio broadcasting will cease, and there will just be a silent phase
>modulated carrier.

Would this reduce power consumption?
>
>Similar to the 162 LW Tx in France
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALS162_time_signal

On 03/10/2023 17:58, Scott wrote:

>> There's a school of thought that the BBC will simply hand the 198 LW
>> transmitters over to the electricity industry on March 31, in which case
>> all audio broadcasting will cease, and there will just be a silent phase
>> modulated carrier.
>
> Would this reduce power consumption?

Not really, no. However, they might consider reducing the power, as the
RX detection required is PM rather than AM ?

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

In message <8vhohi1bim96dbf5in1st835jlkc1ghpd3@4ax.com> at Tue, 3 Oct
2023 17:58:02, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
>On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 17:32:51 +0100, Mark Carver
><mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
[]
>>There's a school of thought that the BBC will simply hand the 198 LW
>>transmitters over to the electricity industry on March 31, in which case
>>all audio broadcasting will cease, and there will just be a silent phase
>>modulated carrier.
>
>Would this reduce power consumption?
[]
Slightly, if the power radiated is the same as that which was radiated
when the audio modulation was silent. I figure this thus - please
challenge me - it's a _long_ time since I did this sort of theory:

Assuming 100% audio modulation, you'd have RF going out from twice the
voltage (at the peaks of the audio) down to zero (at the troughs of the
audio). Twice the voltage is four times the power. Thus you'd always use
more on the positive (modulation sense) audio excursions than you'd save
on the negative excursions.

In spectrum terms, unmodulated carrier is a peak at the nominal power;
modulation adds two sidebands at (if a pure sine tone modulation, 100%
modulation depth) half the amplitude, without removing the carrier -
thus representing power that has to come from somewhere.

In practice, (a) 100% modulation is avoided because of the danger of
clipping (which as well as distorting the audio as received, tends to
generate out-of-band products), and (b) even if it was, the programme
material - especially Radio 4, which is mostly speech with its
consequent gaps - is far from anywhere near whatever maximum modulation
_is_ used anyway for most of the time.

So - _if_ the unmodulated carrier used is the same power as that used
now when the audio is silent - yes, removing the modulation _will_ use
less power - though by quite a small proportion. (Though of hundreds of
kW, probably still noticeable!)

If they decide to up the power to what it was at peak positive
modulation, we're in a different game - but since it works at the
present level, they'd need a very good justification to do so.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If it jams - force it. If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

> In message <8vhohi1bim96dbf5in1st835jlkc1ghpd3@4ax.com> at Tue, 3 Oct
> 2023 17:58:02, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
> >On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 17:32:51 +0100, Mark Carver
> ><mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> []
> >>There's a school of thought that the BBC will simply hand the 198 LW
> >>transmitters over to the electricity industry on March 31, in which case
> >>all audio broadcasting will cease, and there will just be a silent phase
> >>modulated carrier.
> >
> >Would this reduce power consumption?
> []
> Slightly, if the power radiated is the same as that which was radiated
> when the audio modulation was silent. I figure this thus - please
> challenge me - it's a _long_ time since I did this sort of theory:
>
> Assuming 100% audio modulation, you'd have RF going out from twice the
> voltage (at the peaks of the audio) down to zero (at the troughs of the
> audio). Twice the voltage is four times the power. Thus you'd always use
> more on the positive (modulation sense) audio excursions than you'd save
> on the negative excursions.
>
> In spectrum terms, unmodulated carrier is a peak at the nominal power;
> modulation adds two sidebands at (if a pure sine tone modulation, 100%
> modulation depth) half the amplitude, without removing the carrier -
> thus representing power that has to come from somewhere.
>
> In practice, (a) 100% modulation is avoided because of the danger of
> clipping (which as well as distorting the audio as received, tends to
> generate out-of-band products), and (b) even if it was, the programme
> material - especially Radio 4, which is mostly speech with its
> consequent gaps - is far from anywhere near whatever maximum modulation
> _is_ used anyway for most of the time.
>
> So - _if_ the unmodulated carrier used is the same power as that used
> now when the audio is silent - yes, removing the modulation _will_ use
> less power - though by quite a small proportion. (Though of hundreds of
> kW, probably still noticeable!)
>
> If they decide to up the power to what it was at peak positive
> modulation, we're in a different game - but since it works at the
> present level, they'd need a very good justification to do so.

For a long while, I seem to remember, Docherty modulation was used,
which was a lot more efficient than using a Class-B audio amplifier.
Nowadays they probably use something similar but with switching, so the
modulator losses are even lower. If the modulator is a separate unit
and they switch it off altogether, there will be no modulator losses at
all.

There will also be a saving in the cost of running the audio links to
the transmitter site.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

In message <1qi1o36.twwkh4rxiyusN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> at
Tue, 3 Oct 2023 21:47:47, Liz Tuddenham
<liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> writes
>J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
[]
>> So - _if_ the unmodulated carrier used is the same power as that used
>> now when the audio is silent - yes, removing the modulation _will_ use
>> less power - though by quite a small proportion. (Though of hundreds of
>> kW, probably still noticeable!)
>>
>> If they decide to up the power to what it was at peak positive
>> modulation, we're in a different game - but since it works at the
>> present level, they'd need a very good justification to do so.
>
>For a long while, I seem to remember, Docherty modulation was used,
>which was a lot more efficient than using a Class-B audio amplifier.
>Nowadays they probably use something similar but with switching, so the
>modulator losses are even lower. If the modulator is a separate unit
>and they switch it off altogether, there will be no modulator losses at
>all.

I was assuming perfect efficiency of the modulator: basically, just
looking at what was (is) radiated. If the unmodulated signal they
eventually radiate (other than the phase modulation, which is there now)
is not any stronger than the modulated signal is now when there is a
pause in the audio, then yes, removing modulation will represent a
(small in practice) reduction in power, since no sidebands will be
present/radiated.
>
>There will also be a saving in the cost of running the audio links to
>the transmitter site.
>
And many other _administrative_ savings. I was answering the question of
_power_. (OK, the power to run the distribution links enters into it,
but compared to the radiated power, pretty small.)
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

When I went to see Biddy Baxter [Blue Peter's editor] and told her I was
pregnant, her first reaction was 'Oh good, another viewer'. - Janet Ellis, RT
2016/2/27-3/4

On 03/10/2023 23:44, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> And many other _administrative_ savings. I was answering the question of
> _power_. (OK, the power to run the distribution links enters into it,
> but compared to the radiated power, pretty small.)

I suppose it depends on whether the sites would continue to be used for
other services.

If the sites can be closed then there would be huge savings.

On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 10:23:46 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 03/10/2023 23:44, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> And many other _administrative_ savings. I was answering the question of
>> _power_. (OK, the power to run the distribution links enters into it,
>> but compared to the radiated power, pretty small.)
>
>
>I suppose it depends on whether the sites would continue to be used for
>other services.
>
>If the sites can be closed then there would be huge savings.
>
Even better, I think the site at Droitwich could be sold at a massive
profit for housing development.

Does anyone know if Arqiva owns the site outright or occupies it on a
long lease. If the latter, does the BBC retain ownership? It could be
owned by almost anyone, I suppose, these days.

In article <ufjav2$3fn0$1@dont-email.me>,
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 03/10/2023 23:44, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> > And many other _administrative_ savings. I was answering the question
> > of _power_. (OK, the power to run the distribution links enters into
> > it, but compared to the radiated power, pretty small.)

> I suppose it depends on whether the sites would continue to be used for
> other services.

> If the sites can be closed then there would be huge savings.

I understood that when Castle bought the BBC sites, they thought they were
getting development land. Maybe that dream is coming true.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

> In message <1qi1o36.twwkh4rxiyusN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> at
> Tue, 3 Oct 2023 21:47:47, Liz Tuddenham
> <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> writes
> >J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> []
> >> So - _if_ the unmodulated carrier used is the same power as that used
> >> now when the audio is silent - yes, removing the modulation _will_ use
> >> less power - though by quite a small proportion. (Though of hundreds of
> >> kW, probably still noticeable!)
> >>
> >> If they decide to up the power to what it was at peak positive
> >> modulation, we're in a different game - but since it works at the
> >> present level, they'd need a very good justification to do so.
> >
> >For a long while, I seem to remember, Docherty modulation was used,
> >which was a lot more efficient than using a Class-B audio amplifier.
> >Nowadays they probably use something similar but with switching, so the
> >modulator losses are even lower. If the modulator is a separate unit
> >and they switch it off altogether, there will be no modulator losses at
> >all.
>
> I was assuming perfect efficiency of the modulator: basically, just
> looking at what was (is) radiated. If the unmodulated signal they
> eventually radiate (other than the phase modulation, which is there now)
> is not any stronger than the modulated signal is now when there is a
> pause in the audio, then yes, removing modulation will represent a
> (small in practice) reduction in power, since no sidebands will be
> present/radiated.

Yes - and for the reason you explained, that power depends on volatage
squared, so equal increases and decreases in voltage are unequal
increases and decreases in power. I was just taking it one stage
further and saying that if you don't need modulation, you can switch off
the modulator altogether.
> >
> >There will also be a saving in the cost of running the audio links to
> >the transmitter site.
> >
> And many other _administrative_ savings. I was answering the question of
> _power_. (OK, the power to run the distribution links enters into it,
> but compared to the radiated power, pretty small.)

They are gaining on the financial side, but they are losing the ability
to contact people over a wide area in the event of an emergency which
shuts down the internet. The problem is that the 'they' who save money,
and the 'they' who need to deal with an emergency, aren't the same
people.

In the past, a shutdown of the entire internet was seen as a very remote
possibility, but Russia has shown that it isn't so unlikely after all.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On 04/10/2023 10:59, Scott wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 10:23:46 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On 03/10/2023 23:44, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> And many other _administrative_ savings. I was answering the question of
>>> _power_. (OK, the power to run the distribution links enters into it,
>>> but compared to the radiated power, pretty small.)
>>
>>
>> I suppose it depends on whether the sites would continue to be used for
>> other services.
>>
>> If the sites can be closed then there would be huge savings.
>>
> Even better, I think the site at Droitwich could be sold at a massive
> profit for housing development.
>
> Does anyone know if Arqiva owns the site outright or occupies it on a
> long lease. If the latter, does the BBC retain ownership? It could be
> owned by almost anyone, I suppose, these days.

The site was definitely green belt land 10 years ago. Has that changed?

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:

> On 04/10/2023 10:59, Scott wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 10:23:46 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 03/10/2023 23:44, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> >>> And many other _administrative_ savings. I was answering the question of
> >>> _power_. (OK, the power to run the distribution links enters into it,
> >>> but compared to the radiated power, pretty small.)
> >>
> >>
> >> I suppose it depends on whether the sites would continue to be used for
> >> other services.
> >>
> >> If the sites can be closed then there would be huge savings.
> >>
> > Even better, I think the site at Droitwich could be sold at a massive
> > profit for housing development.
> >
> > Does anyone know if Arqiva owns the site outright or occupies it on a
> > long lease. If the latter, does the BBC retain ownership? It could be
> > owned by almost anyone, I suppose, these days.
>
> The site was definitely green belt land 10 years ago. Has that changed?

Wasn't there some change in the planning laws recently, that weakened
the status of Green Belts to the point where Councils can now give
planning permission to build on them? ...was it 'fake news' or have I
mis-remembered hearing it?

Certainly, around this area, large housing estates are being built on
land that was generally considered sacrosanct (although I cannot swear
it had Green Belt status).

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 11:10:20 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

>They are gaining on the financial side, but they are losing the ability
>to contact people over a wide area in the event of an emergency which
>shuts down the internet.

They couldn't contact people on long wave anyway if nobody is
listening. How many people have long wave radios now?

Rod.

On 04/10/2023 13:12, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> On 04/10/2023 10:59, Scott wrote:
>>> On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 10:23:46 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 03/10/2023 23:44, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>>> And many other _administrative_ savings. I was answering the question of
>>>>> _power_. (OK, the power to run the distribution links enters into it,
>>>>> but compared to the radiated power, pretty small.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I suppose it depends on whether the sites would continue to be used for
>>>> other services.
>>>>
>>>> If the sites can be closed then there would be huge savings.
>>>>
>>> Even better, I think the site at Droitwich could be sold at a massive
>>> profit for housing development.
>>>
>>> Does anyone know if Arqiva owns the site outright or occupies it on a
>>> long lease. If the latter, does the BBC retain ownership? It could be
>>> owned by almost anyone, I suppose, these days.
>>
>> The site was definitely green belt land 10 years ago. Has that changed?
>
> Wasn't there some change in the planning laws recently, that weakened
> the status of Green Belts to the point where Councils can now give
> planning permission to build on them? ...was it 'fake news' or have I
> mis-remembered hearing it?
>
> Certainly, around this area, large housing estates are being built on
> land that was generally considered sacrosanct (although I cannot swear
> it had Green Belt status).
>

Green Belt land is not sacrosanct. But the National Planning Policy
Framework says "exceptional circumstances" are needed before Green Belt
boundaries are changed and that inappropriate development should be
approved only in “very special circumstances”.

The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill proposes changes to planning but
on the Green Belt HMG states "we propose to make clear that local
planning authorities are not required to review and alter Green Belt
boundaries if this would be the only way of meeting need in full
(although authorities would still have the ability to review and alter
Green Belt boundaries if they wish, if they can demonstrate that
exceptional circumstances exist)."

Key question is: what makes anyone think it'd be easier to get planning
permission for the transmitter site than for other land in the green
belt thereabouts? It doesn't strike me as much if any more "brownfield"
than a modern farm.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In article <1qi2v47.73t5u81rc1s0N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>,
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:

> > On 04/10/2023 10:59, Scott wrote:
> > > On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 10:23:46 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 03/10/2023 23:44, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> > >>> And many other _administrative_ savings. I was answering the question of
> > >>> _power_. (OK, the power to run the distribution links enters into it,
> > >>> but compared to the radiated power, pretty small.)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I suppose it depends on whether the sites would continue to be used for
> > >> other services.
> > >>
> > >> If the sites can be closed then there would be huge savings.
> > >>
> > > Even better, I think the site at Droitwich could be sold at a massive
> > > profit for housing development.
> > >
> > > Does anyone know if Arqiva owns the site outright or occupies it on a
> > > long lease. If the latter, does the BBC retain ownership? It could be
> > > owned by almost anyone, I suppose, these days.
> >
> > The site was definitely green belt land 10 years ago. Has that changed?

> Wasn't there some change in the planning laws recently, that weakened
> the status of Green Belts to the point where Councils can now give
> planning permission to build on them? ...was it 'fake news' or have I
> mis-remembered hearing it?

> Certainly, around this area, large housing estates are being built on
> land that was generally considered sacrosanct (although I cannot swear
> it had Green Belt status).

and round here in Surrey. Elected on a "We will protect the Green Belt"
ticket, they forgot to add "after we've removed lots of it"

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 04/10/2023 14:02, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 11:10:20 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
>
>> They are gaining on the financial side, but they are losing the ability
>> to contact people over a wide area in the event of an emergency which
>> shuts down the internet.
>
> They couldn't contact people on long wave anyway if nobody is
> listening. How many people have long wave radios now?
>
> Rod.
>
<Holds hand up> Me, sir! (It may well have died of old age, though, as
it's not been turned on in this Century.)

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 04/10/2023 14:02, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 11:10:20 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
>
>> They are gaining on the financial side, but they are losing the ability
>> to contact people over a wide area in the event of an emergency which
>> shuts down the internet.
>
> They couldn't contact people on long wave anyway if nobody is
> listening. How many people have long wave radios now?
>
> Rod.
>
I have several, even the audio in my 2020 car has LW.

On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 14:59:20 +0100, MikeS <MikeS@fred.com> wrote:

>On 04/10/2023 14:02, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 11:10:20 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
>>
>>> They are gaining on the financial side, but they are losing the ability
>>> to contact people over a wide area in the event of an emergency which
>>> shuts down the internet.
>>
>> They couldn't contact people on long wave anyway if nobody is
>> listening. How many people have long wave radios now?
>>
>> Rod.
>>
>I have several, even the audio in my 2020 car has LW.

I think the advice is to remain in basement under a table :-)

On 04/10/2023 14:02, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> They couldn't contact people on long wave anyway if nobody is listening.
> How many people have long wave radios now?

Even Medium Wave radios must be getting rarer.

Even if people can find a MW or LW radio, they quite likely would not
know where to listen or the need to peak the signal on a ferrite rod and
probably expect it to work properly indoors.

On 04/10/2023 16:52, JMB99 wrote:
> On 04/10/2023 14:02, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> They couldn't contact people on long wave anyway if nobody is
>> listening. How many people have long wave radios now?
>
>
> Even Medium Wave radios must be getting rarer.
>
> Even if people can find a MW or LW radio, they quite likely would not
> know where to listen or the need to peak the signal on a ferrite rod and
> probably expect it to work properly indoors.

My car had LF and MF removed when the 'ECU' etc received an upgrade at
the first service in 2022.

In another 20 years, I suspect no one will be using a radio of any kind
in the conventional sense.

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.