| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Stop wasting time looking for files and revisions. Connect your Gmail, DriveDropbox, and Slack accounts and in less than 2 minutes, Dokkio will automatically organize all your file attachments. Learn more and claim your free account.

View
 

Site Info

Page history last edited by PBworks 12 years, 9 months ago

The purpose of this site

and acceptable uses.

 

 

Proprietary data worked out by the author of this site is copyright. You may use that data in other sources but must credit the author, example, Field Strength Calculations herein this site, etc. This applies to all technical math expressions that appear in this site that are demonstrated as being original works of the author.

 

My name is Daniel Jackson, a radio tech and enthusiast. As far back as 1998, I became interested in the views of hundreds of people regarding LPAM. Those views were being expressed mostly over the shortwave radio broadcast. And as far as I know the current LPAM interest at various On Line groups are not aware of the prior interest by shortwave listeners in LPAM. So there are other interest in LPAM than those I currently communicate with.

 

The prior ideas for LPAM that have been submitted for FCC review in the Localism Task Force and a previous rule making petition, have some good ideas in them. And there are some points at which the ideas offered for a LPAM Service appear to contradict. And so, this site offers up ideas that are not designed to contradict and be at odds with each other in the Administration of the Proposed LPAM Service.

 

The proposed antenna system for LPAM use is derived from the interest of the majority of people consulted. And is a matter democratic of selection. Also, the transmitter power output is also a matter of democratic selection. Likewise the introduction of thoughts upon low pass rf filtering of the output and the filtering of the audio input where ideas that I submitted for peer review and thus seemed acceptable and reasonable in the views of those consulted.

 

Once the particulars of interest by the people where defined for the vision of LPAM. The technical foundation upon which the radio service must operate was able to be defined. Since the service being proposed is similar in power level and antenna height to that of the Traveler's Information Radio Service utilized on the Medium Wave Broadcast Band, the technical data was compared to the TIS radio service for a reference. Particularly in terms of the mV/m @ 1 mile of the TIS service as compared to the LPAM antenna system vision. From which also, such things as the average broadcast radius is derived and the co channel separation data.

 

Once the view of the technical foundation was formulated, the LPAM Service vision could be defined in terms of rules and regulations that make the service work as it should. The rules and regulations are devised to work in and around the vision of the technical foundation. And are not designed to contradict one another on any point but to support and uphold each other.

 

To make modifications to a station to resolve co channel conflicts with other LPAM stations in denser populated areas. Such things as lowering a station's power as required and antenna modifications are recommended to resolve such matters.

 

The data at this site can be used in future rule making works if required. And it is hoped that those who are interested in the vision of LPAM will want to pick up the Rule Making petition here at the site when it is ready and submit it in a FCC Rule Making session for LPAM. As individuals or as interested groups.

 

Other References:

 

Mr. Frederick M. Baumgartner drafted a LPAM rule making petition in June 2003 filed by Nickolaus E. Leggett

 

Filed with the FCC Localism Task Force. Note filing this with the Localism Task Force was not the proper place to file the Baumgartner Rule Making Petition. Yet, being filed then as such it is a reference. Filing the petition in the Localism Task Force only provides the FCC with a view and not a motion for rule making.

 

In this petition by Mr. Baumgartner there are some fairly good ideas. However there ae several points he makes that are not explained and need to be reviewed and better defined. And so rather than borrow from the Baumgartner Petition a newly formulated petition is being drafted herein.

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.