Dave Braun, dcbraun@delanet.com, 863 Allabands Mill Road, Camden Wyoming DE 19934-2132

Welcome back. We begin this time with a slightly different topic, then return to the regulars...

John Callarman <jcallarman@register-news.com>: "Doing this solely for the purpose of a 'DX test' is probably beyond the intent of the rules," Patrick Griffith says of the idea of a daytimer scheduling a program during the midnight-to-six testing period. Veteran NRC'ers will recall that this was one of the issues that caused the schism that resulted in the formation of IRCA. Marv Robbins, extremely active with the NRC CPC in 1959-60, had arranged a large number of DX tests from daytimers. The FCC, which subscribed to DX News, one year decided to notify daytimers scheduling tests that they were doing so in violation of FCC rules and could be jeopardizing their licenses. Ray Edge, NRC executive secretary, publisher and a Buffalo, N.Y. police officer, considered the possibility that a station would schedule a DX test, get burned by the FCC, sue the NRC and, as the club was loosely constructed back then, test Edge's personal liability. Edge ruled there would be no more DX tests from daytimers. It wasn't the only issue, but it played a major role in Robbins' motivation to form the new club... and it was only that one year, in my recollection, that the FCC questioned the practice. In 1967, Pete Taylor and I had no qualms about doing a post midnight DX Test from WCAS-740, 250-watts daytime, complete with music and special phonetic IDs, such as "Weselowski-Critchett-Alisauskas-Seaver." I had by then become executive secretary of the club and thus was in double jeopardy!! The most important thing I learned from the '60s was to take neither my hobby nor myself too seriously. Henry Kaiser, industrialist and founder of Kaiser Broadcasting, had a slogan, "Find the need and fill it." My slogan has become "Find the fun and have it."

Russ Edmunds <wb2bjh@hotmail.com>: Which is quite similar to a couple of current advertising slogans.

John D. Bowker <wa2wen@juno.com>: Russ..The fun you are trying to find is in Florida. I write this as a former New Englander (22 years) and New Jerseyite (38 years). Details on request.

Bruce Conti <BACONTI@aol.com>: Hallelujah! I whole-heartedly agree with J. Callarman's statement, "Find the fun and have it!" Some DXers are sucking the fun out of this hobby with their constant whining about radio stations staying on too late, using too much power, scheduling tests at odd hours, etc. Rather than complain, have some fun! For example, let DXers know when your local is operating beyond license parameters so they have an opportunity for a rare catch. Experiment with notch filters to reduce interference from locals. Invest in a high quality communications receiver like a Drake R8B to deal with local interference problems. Try different antenna designs, wire and loop, and report your failures and successes to DX News and the DXAS. Rather than quit because of electrical noise, go on a mini-DXpedition to a quiet location. In other words, instead of getting stressed out, "find the fun!" If you find DXing to be too stressful, then maybe it's time to find another hobby. After all, as many have said before, "It's only a hobby!" Let's get off the station bashing, and into some healthy DX discussions.

<Rklinger97@aol.com>: I agree with you whole heartily!

Fred Vobbe <fredv@nrcdxas.org>: Very true, John. I remember in the early 80s there were some fellows that agonized on the 25 mile rule from home QTH on counting DX. Roughly, the rule was that you could only go 25 miles from the radius around you house to count DX, else it's not counted. There was heavy debate, anger, and even some resentment on various statements. Personally, if I'm here in Lima and hear 1530-Lapeer MI, that is DX. If I'm visiting my father in Lapeer County MI, and I hear WIMA-1150 Lima, that too is DX. Same goes for airchecking, of which I've had some rather heated discussions over what should be recorded, and even the way to document it. (See http://nrcdxas.org/articles/ac.html for a summary of the argument). The hobby is what you make it. A club may establish "guidelines" to follow in order to report to a column or qualify to their contests/lists. However, what you make of your hobby is your own business. Anyone who tries to impose their "standards" upon you outside of a club guideline is only performing a power play.

John D. Bowker: Yes...the 25-mile rule you mentioned is typical of a rule that needed clarification. Of course, as you know, my residence is near Tampa, Florida...and from the little boombox radio in my bedroom I made taped of every station in Bangor, Maine, Bellingham, Washington and points in between. So what if my bedroom was in a motorhome. The rule didn’t mention that!;-)

We now return to the continuing saga of station IDs:

Neil Kazaross <neilkaz@interaccess.com>: I'll seconds RJE's opinion and methods here 100% as it's simply, in today's non ID radio world, silly IMHO not to count a station when you have conclusive eveidence that you've heard it. For example, on 960 with great CX to the west I heard a HS SX event with Baker playing a neighboring city and an add for a Body Shop on a street in Baker..thus into my log went KFLN. etc.

Patrick Martin <mwdxer@webtv.net>: On IDs, I don't think the call letters at the top of the hour are that important. However, as with Latins and also Canadians, they do use slogans a lot to ID what station you are listening. What happened to the days when the station wanted to ID often so the listener knew what station they were listening to. Stations had pride in what they ran. Why listen to the local station then? I think many stations are really missing the boat.

Russ Edmunds: "Does anyone remember the concept of PICAN (Public Interest, Convenience, and Necessity) as taught in almost every college communications course? What ever happened to it?" I remember it, from the same source you mention. Like many other things, it's been redefined. I think the acronym now uses the word "proprietor" instead of "public". Just follow the trail of the money.....

Russ Edmunds: "What happened to the days when the station wanted to ID often so the listener knew what station they were listening to. Stations had pride in what they ran." It still happens. Many of them are called "slogans" or "station names" or by some in our own community, "non-ID's". For others, as I think I mentioned before, if a station is the only ESPN Radio in the area, people there know who it is and any further identification is, to both broadcaster and listener, probably unnecessary.

Randy Stewart <jrs555t@mail.smsu.edu>: Some thoughts on this thread...I'm glad to see that there are other people who don't always feel obligated to hear the standard "legal ID"--call letters and city of license--in order to be sure enough they're hearing a specific station to enter it into the logbook. As long as I hear not just call letters (which can be MISheard pretty easily as we all know) but other clues as to a station's identity--county references, city or town mentions in ads, station slogans--then no, I don't feel I HAVE to hear the magic "call + city of license" formula every time. After all, that's why we all utilize information sources like atlases, county lists and station slogan lists. As John Bowker said, "DXers will adapt." We have to adapt as the nature of the broadcast medium itself changes due to deregulation and market forces. Otherwise, why even turn on the radio and make the effort? Unfortunately, as has been mentioned in the course of this thread, so many commercial AMs run automated or even unattended much of the time, and if nobody's minding the store and the canned breaks don't run... well, it's like a tree falling in an empty forest--does it make a sound if nobody hears it? And it's NOT illegal to run "unattended" anymore, as long as you build in certain safeguards, like automated phone alert of station personnel when something goes wrong, etc....the kind of stuff that's relatively easy to do these days with computers. For what it's worth, we do still insist on hourly legal IDs at my station (KSMU-FM), and full translator IDs 3 times a day (8am, 1pm, 5pm). But since much of what we air these days is off satellite (NPR news programming, the "Classical 24" service, BBC overnight), it's easy to ensure that top-of-the-hour IDs play (if the automation's working properly that is!) But we also do local music programming, like a weekly opera. When, for example, I program an opera like Mozart's "Don Giovanni," where act 1 is an hour and a half and act two an hour and 20 minutes, the student jock running the show better NOT interrupt the music with a TOH ID, or he/she will have ME to answer to!!

Doug Smith <w9wi@bellsouth.net>: And you're citing *EXACTLY* the reason why the regulation provides the exception for when a TOH ID would interrupt the program continuity. There's a huge difference between airing an ID in the middle of an act of an opera, and airing one in the middle of a batch of commercials!

Doug Smith: "without hourly legal IDs. Let's move on to discussing something more positive than bashing non-IDers." Of course, the other side of that is: "the law *is* the law". While I agree that the concept of a legal ID is obsolete, one also has to see this failure to ID as yet another example of stations ignoring the rules when they feel like it..

Doug Smith: "So let the FCC work with File Numbers.. and do away with the hourly ID requirement. Let the stations operate and identify themselves in the way that maximizes their identity and competition." I realize DXers won't want to hear this, but I think John is absolutely right. Call letters really date back to the days before broadcasting, when virtually all radio was either ham or ship-to- shore. Callsigns were necessary in order to avoid the inefficiency of having to send "Coast Guard Station New York City, this is HMS Titantic calling" in Morse Code over & over again. Chances are, the only reason broadcast stations have call letters today is because the first broadcasters were licensed as "special land stations" which could theoretically talk to ships. The vast majority of the world's broadcast stations get by without call letters; there's no good reason why the USA can't do likewise. Assign a set when the station is first licensed (so the FCC has a "handle" to attach to the station's record), and let them ID however they want.

Patrick Martin <mwdxer@webtv.net>: Yes, IDing a station can be done in many ways without a "legal" ID. Now with the internet it easier. Some things have improved!

Patrick Martin: IDs can be done in different ways, slogans, etc. I just feel stations should let their listeners know who they are.

Russ Edmunds: Absolutely! I have used the internet on occasion to try to firmly ID an advertiser via a search on the name, and I've repeatedly used the map locate functions to try to identify towns and even roadnames or routes. PLus I've recently discovered the site for the names of the state governors to narrow down state news items. Sometimes even verifying the weather report against the suspected locale can rule something out. I'm sure that there are others I've not used, too.

Russ Edmunds: "Assign a set when the station is first licensed (so the FCC has a "handle" to attach to the station's record), and let them ID however they want." Sounds like the discussions a couple of months ago about reconciling calls and slogans and networks and XR's in Cuba, where many stations have two sets of calls and often uses neither. Trying to ID what Cuban you're hearing unless you're in the deep South and are on top of the situation is next to impossible. But here, we have traffic reports, and many commercials to use to ID things - which don't apply in Cuba.

Jim Wiskow <jcwiskow@win.bright.net>: Hi Bruce: While I will agree with you that the FCC does have other things to do with our money, I can also remember back to the days when I started in the business and my boss said, " noone will keep listening to our station if they don't know exactly who and where we are." You cannot get any idea who or where a station is by some dumb slogan like y97 or q102. When I hear something like that, it means nothing to me. It doesn't tell me who or where the station is and unless I know this, I won't keep listening even if the format might be a good one. Let's cut the cuty slogans and stupid filtered liners and go back to basics. What's wrong with hearing a stations callsign at least every 15 minutes. It doesn't need to be a legal id, but at least we'd have some idea to whom we were listening.

Russ Edmunds: Today, they do tell people *who*. Most people can remember those more easily than the FCC-assigned call letters. And as to *where*, if the signal is strong, and solid, that's all they care about. And similarly, if they like the sound or format, that's also good enough for most folks. This is a different world...

Bruce Conti: Jim: I disagree. Ask anyone in the Boston area about "Kiss 108," "Jam'n 94.5," "Mix 98.5," or the new "96.9 FM Talk," and that's how they identify the station. Ask the same people what WXKS, WBMX, or WTKK are, and they'll likely draw a blank. The slogans are better identifiers than call letters. They are easier to remember, often include the frequency, and are a part of each station's distinct personality, and thus carry more meaning to the average listener than a bland set of call letters all starting with W (or K). Slogans on Boston AM radio such as "J-Light 1060," "Amor 890," "Radio Internacional, el corazon de la ciudad," and "La Mega" are also more meaningful to the average listener than identification as WJLT, WBPS, WUNR, and WAMG. That doesn't mean that call letters should be abandoned. Some radio stations do use their call letters, in most cases because of the historical significance that is a part of the station's personality, such as WBZ Newsradio 1030 and News/Talk 1060 WMEX. But it should be left up to the station to decide how they want to identify. If a station doesn't identify period, then that's their problem in terms of lost revenue/sales, not ours.

More on this next time...now more from the antenna discussion to close out this visit to the Notebook...

Robin G. Plitt <plittr@juno.com>: HI Fred, I, for one, would appreciate any articles on antennae. I seem to be constantly searching something that can get me English Language AM radio at night in South Florida. I have tried random-wire antennae, but my results haven't been good. I''ve also tried, and used, both the Select-a-tenna loop and the Kiwa Pocket Loop with better results, but they don't seem to be consistant (or maybe I am not consistant). BTWS, anyone try the new Select-a-tenna Super (I think that's what Ccrane calls it) It is like the original tuned loop in a sealed plastic box, but has some kind of amplifier which runs on a 9-volt battery. Personally, I find that my *best* antennas are the folded dipoles.

Russ Edmunds: What type of receiver are you using? That could be a part of the problem.

Ragnar Danneskjold <lwdxer@juno.com>: Robin, Sounds like you have the same issues I have here in Arizona. Lots of SS. The only answer is a loop of some kind or you may have to try SWL...Naaaaah.

Robin G. Plitt: Hi, The reciever I try to DX with is a GE Super Radio III.Ragnar Danneskjold: Well, looks like that you have a good enough portable to get the job done. The SAT helps with that rig. I have the same setup I use often. Looks like you have too many Cuban stations to deal with and I have too many Mexicans. The only other option is to get a communications receiver and a beverage. I have found long antennas quite directional. The longer the better.

Fred Vobbe: Sounds like Robin would benefit from either the loop you got from me, or building the 4-foot box loop. Each have their pros and cons. I have heard that the Radio Shack loop does a pretty fair job, and that might be something to consider.

Robin G. Plitt: Actually, I have a Select-A-tenna and it does work well sometimes. Other times, I have so much interfrerence from jocal power lines that I don't think I coulod hear a radio station if I had it on hold. ;. I've also tried the Kiwa Pocket Loop, which is a printed circuit amplifier and loop combo. I actually think they are about equal. CCrane has a Super Select-a-tenna, which sounds like it has a battery-powered amp in it. Anyone know anything about this one? Thanks.

Larry Van Horn (Monitoring Times) <larry@grove-ent.com>:Hello Robin and the group, Word of caution about amplified antennas. If noise is a problem in your existing passive antenna device, then it will still be a better problem in your amplified antenna device. Yes, the stations you receive will be amplified (hopefully not to the point of desensing the radio), but noise will also be amplified at the same rate. In your email Robin, you state you already have noise problems. I wouldn't compound those problems by adding an active amplifying device to your setup until the noise problems have been cured at the source.

Russ Edmunds: "Other times, I have so much interfrerence from jocal power lines that I don't think I coulod hear a radio station if I had it on hold. CCrane has a Super Select-a-tenna, which sounds like it has a battery-powered amp in it. Anyone know anything about this one?" I doubt that more amplification is what you need! The more amplification, particularly when connecting to a high-gain portable such as you are will only increase your problems. It sounds as if you may simply have a location which is too noisy to get around the Cubans. Have you tried using an unamplified loop? Not long ago, I posted some tips on how to indirectly connect one to a portable - if you didn't see or save that, I can forward you a copy if you wish.

Fred Vobbe <fredv@nrcdxas.org>: "Can I change the subject just a bit? I am thinking about building a four-foot box loop for MW. Rather than using a 325pf capacitor, can I effectively tune it with my Ameco tunable preamp-antenna? It's an active antenna that accepts an RCA plug from an external antenna input, and it tunes from 22kHz to 30mHz. The preamp can be (and usually is) switched off." The Q of the loop will be off, thus you're going to have gain problems at certain frequencies. What you might want to do is feed some DC control lines out to the loop and use relays to take different capacitances in and out. That way you could have a fix value for a segment of frequencies. Then again, if you don't mind playing with servos, you can tune it remotely.

Russ Edmunds: "The Q of the loop will be off, thus you're going to have gain problems at certain frequencies. What you might want to do is feed some DC control lines out to the loop and use relays to take different capacitances in and out. That way you could have a fix value for a segment of frequencies." Most amplified box loops to date use balanced amplifiers in order to equalize (to the extent possible) pickup from one side to the other, and to match up to a communications receiver. If you try the combination, and if you notice a range of frequencies (likely at one end of the band or the other) where you either have comparatively reduced gain and/or your tuning becomes marginal, then you'll need to compensate. If the're having problems at the low end of the band and the high end seems ok, you need to be able to switch in some additional capacitance. On the other hand, if it's the high end that's off, you'll likely need to find a way to remove some capacitance, on the assumption that either you can't add inductance or that doing so will throw something else off, which is likely. The original NRC 4' loop called for a range-extension capacitor to enable it to cover the low end, as this was the more common problem. In some cases, I've found it necessary to add still more.

David Hogg<NEMCO99@aol.com>: Fred Vobbe -- You asked about specs for Balun to mach with longwire antennas. I found one in the UNIVERSAL Radio Catalog '98 issue - page 28 mfg by R F Systems called Magnetic Longwire Balun. Receive only - up to 40 Mhz. For use with all forms of longwire, T-forms or other types of wire antennas. Provides 50 ohm output Z for coax connection to your receiver. I have always thought R F Systems put out great products - so I bought one last year and put it up on a temporary 40 ft piece of wire and made a very simple solder connection in the middle (20 ft from each end) and connected the model MLB Balun and used coax into Drake R8B. It worked - and I seemed to get improved reception off the broad side of the wire. Unlike other "temporary" antennas --- I actually took this one down after a few months. QUESTION -- Does anyone have any real field experience with this RF Systems # MLB Longwire balun??? The catalog price is $60 with NO specs on what is inside. It is a cylinder 1 1/2" D and 2 1/2" long including all connecters. It looks like it is waterproof. If anyone has any info or related data on this product - perhaps it might be useful to some of the listeners on this net. Thanks.

Fred Vobbe: Interesting. Does it state an impedance on the antenna side? I've made baluns for 1:1 up to 4:1, but working out the math it seems that with a 100 foot dipole I'll need something on the order of a 26:1 or greater. I do know that for a 90 foot, folded dipole for 1610 you need a 12:1 with a 300 ohm balancing network on the back side of the fold.... uh, well, better not ask how I know that. <grin>

Bruce Conti: I use Mini-Circuits RF transformers for impedance matching. Models T4-1 and T4-6 are spec'd for 0.2-350 and 0.02-250 MHz respectively. These are the same type of RF transformers that Mark Connelly uses in his phasing unit designs. For more info, this method of noise-reduction was written up in the February 1999 Broadcast DXing column of Popular Communications magazine. I also wrote a Target DX column describing the installation sometime ago in DX News.

Fred Vobbe: I'll go look at mini-circuits web pages, but how do you keep them dry outside, or are they on the inside of the shack.

Bruce Conti: The matching transformer is outdoors at the antenna wire, about 20-ft from any noise source such as a house. The matching xfmr is mounted in a water-tight chassis (a Tupperware container will do). A coax connector and binding posts are mounted to the chassis to make the external connections.

Fred Vobbe: Is that TP-4 the actual number of the product? I searched their site today and could not find the product. If not on the mini-circuits site, can you point me to another or just a place to order one? You have me interested now, Bruce!

Bruce Conti: Fred: The model numbers of the Mini-Circuits RF transformers are T4-1 and T4-6. Ask for an RF/IF Designer's Guide from Mini-Circuits to get the specs on all their models. It might be easier to use than the Internet.

Bruce Conti: The buried coax of a noise-reduced installation only has to be a few inches underground. Rather that dig up the lawn, I just pry a shovel under the grass and stuff the coax underneath. The coax can actually just rest on the ground, but burying it helps to prevent the shield from picking up any noise currents, at least in theory.

Russ Edmunds: That might be doable, although then it runs the risk of getting 'gardened' to death, hi. And where, physically, is the transformer located - above ground, below gorund, inside, outside?

Bruce Conti: The xfmr is mounted outside, above ground, connecting (matching) the unbalanced antenna wire to the balanced coax. See the February 1999 Popular Communications magazine, or Target DX in DX News some years ago. (When I find it, I'll let you know which DX News it was in.) I also did a DXAS program segment demonstrating the difference between a noise-reduced wire and one without noise reduction sometime ago. The difference can be quite dramatic, especially in noisy households.

Fred Vobbe: This sounds like what I need, especially with all the computer QRM here in the shack.

Russ Edmunds: After re-reading my prior answer to Michael Shaw's question on this subject, I realize that I didn't really provide a usable answer, inasmuch as the tuing capacitor is a built-in with the antenna, and it would therefore be more difficult to make adjustments to the total capacitance in the circuit. Given that the existing tuner is extremely broadband, that probably wouldn't make a great deal of difference in any event. My guess is that either the combination would work reasonably well but without as much tuning (peak) sharpness or else the tuner would be pretty much ineffective because only a very small portion of it's range would match up with the loop. It's probably still worth trying, as if it doesn't work, you can always add the 325 pf. variable later.

Bruce Conti: The noise-reduction technique using the Mini-Circuits 4:1 RF xfmr and buried coax is described in the Target DX column of DX News, V64 #30 (September 22, 1997).

That’s all for this time, see you in two weeks (the weeklies are over already?).