Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: "Carlos E.R." Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: AM radio law opposed by tech and auto industries is close to passing Date: Sat, 4 May 2024 12:29:24 +0200 Lines: 32 Message-ID: <49fhgkxdv5.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net cSH3C74Vm/Z+mMJBenpnLAoKSFEOvbV5u7ApbYG65scFfw/H5T X-Orig-Path: Telcontar.valinor!not-for-mail Cancel-Lock: sha1:GG6QIs75tLGqiPXG3a0jC8U7A40= sha256:LwcSVjA2/sZsSdZ4/Hdd4pfHrBgyNPtrQ4QzJhq+32c= User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: es-ES, en-CA In-Reply-To: Bytes: 2185 On 2024-05-03 17:43, John Larkin wrote: > On Thu, 02 May 2024 05:24:08 GMT, Jan Panteltje > wrote: > >> AM radio law opposed by tech and auto industries is close to passing >> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/05/am-radio-is-a-lifeline-lawmakers-say-tech-and-auto-industries-disagree/ >> A recent test of the emergency alert system found only 1 percent got it via AM. >> >> Strange. most is FM these days, or digital? >> Something to do with Soros buying radio stations ;-) ? > > AM radio is a century-old technology. It makes more sense to push > microwatts of light over a fiber, or a few watts from a gen6 cell > node, than to spray tens or hundreds of kilowatts of RF out into the > universe. Heh. The power needed is not that related to being old technology, but to the frequency used. The lower the frequency, the more power is needed. > > I wonder what fraction of AM transmitter power winds up in receiver > front-ends. Surely way below 1e-9. Electricity keeps getting more > expensive so operating an AM station may be bad business. AM at MW can work without batteries, with a totally passive receiver and high impedance headphones. .... -- Cheers, Carlos.