Right after Tropical Storm Irene, it was noted that the STL signal strength at the WHUD transmitter site was low. Normally it was 300+ µV, but now reading around 100 µV, which is a problem. Upon further investigation, it was revealed that the STL transmitter on the intermediate hop had higher than normal reflected power.
Time to call the tower crew.
The STL transmit antenna for WHUD’s STL (WPOU464) hop is a Scala Paraflector (PR-950), mounted at the 280-foot level on this tower:
Scala PR-950 on a guyed tower
The fact that it happened after a major storm and the transmitter was showing higher than normal reflected power indicates a problem with either the antenna or the jumper between the 7/8″ Cablewave coax and the N connector on the antenna. A measurement with a spectrum analyzer shows very high return loss:
WHUD STL antenna return loss
This shows the distance to fault 413 feet, with a return loss of -7.4 dB. That distance is either near or at the antenna and -7.4 dB indicates a lot of reflected power. We had the tower climber take apart the jumper connections and terminate the jumper with a known good 50-ohm load. The return loss did not change. We then had him swap out jumpers and reconnect to the antenna. That did the trick:
WHUD STL antenna with new jumper
Much better, most of the power is now being radiated by the antenna, the VSWR is 1.02:1. The impedance bump at 51 feet is a sharp bend in the coax where it is attached to an ice bridge. Reconnecting the transmission line to the transmitter and turning it on confirms that all is normal again. The problem with the jumper was found in one of the connectors, it was full of water.
Water-contaminated Andrew flexwell connector
I cut away the boot, water had entered the connector from the back because waterproofing and tape was not applied all the way to the coax. This was installed in 1998 when the station moved from Peekskill to its current location in the town of Fishkill. The fact that it happened now in the nice weather when Mt. Beacon is still accessible and not in the middle of winter means the radio gods are smiling on us.
Alternate title: “I love Stupidity,” somebody else’s, usually not my own. It’s a bit hard to reconcile the NAB’s desire for translators against the need and strong community support for local radio. The original intent of translators was to fill in coverage areas of existing FM licenses within the parent stations’ protected contour. Very few translators are actually used for that purpose today. They have, instead, morphed into vast over-the-air relay networks for NPR and religious stations or are relaying programming of HD-2 channels that would otherwise not be heard. Why we would need more of that, I don’t know.
The unfortunate part of all that stupidity is the side effects. Think of the stupid driver who cuts off a tractor-trailer on the interstate and causes a big pile-up. There are potential injuries to those involved in the accident but also the inconvenience to all those stuck in miles of backed-up traffic. That is a fairly minor occurrence.
With big corporate government, the size and scale of stupidity can reach epic proportions. To wit: During the natural disasters that overtook the northeast, indeed other areas of the country as well, local radio was proven to be a reliable, sometimes life-saving means of communication time and time again. Yet, in spite of all that, the NAB seems to think that LPFM stations (community radio) should be second to cross-band translators broadcasting AM stations and HD-2 channels. Regarding FM translators on AM stations, the NAB says:
NAB first commends and supports the Commission’s proposal to eliminate the restriction on the use of FM translators by AM stations to translators that were authorized as of May 1, 2009. FM translators enable AM stations to overcome inherent technical disadvantages that limit audio quality compared to other services, thus limiting their service to the public and even threatening their economic viability.
Oh where to begin? First of all, AM stations do not have inherent technical disadvantages, that is a myth. Off-the-shelf AM receivers are of inferior quality and make a well-designed, well-executed AM station sound like a telephone. If one were to listen to an older AM radio or AM on a receiver with variable bandwidth IF, one would find that it can sound quite good, if not very good. The problem is that the receiver manufacturers never carried through with the promise to open up the bandwidth following the implementation of NRSC-2 in 1991. One should wonder why.
Second, there are many AM stations out there that are economically viable. Those stations have local programming and serve the community of license and have not been neglected or turned into an automated syndicated radio repeater. Now, could a class C or class D AM station benefit from a translator at night, sure? That may not be a bad distinction to draw, especially for those class D stations with no nighttime operating authority.
Regarding more translators in general, it is difficult to imagine what all those new signals will be used for, other than more of the same (relaying distant, out-of-market religious stations, NPR stations, or HD-2 programming which nobody cares about). The FM band is already full of such things and could actually use less, not more.
While unfortunate, the NAB’s position is not surprising. They do the bidding of their dues-paying members, after all. The anti-competition we are a monopoly stance of the NAB members is not new either. Remember the required economic impact study required by the LCRA on the LPFM vs full power commercial FM stations. To think that a 100-watt LPFM could significantly impact the business of a class A, B or C FM station is laughable. Yet, it was a requirement stuck into the bill at the behest of the NAB.
It is up to the broadband-minded FCC to see how to slice the remaining FM spectrum up and whether the corporatist NAB’s argument holds water or the rising call of the people who want a return of local radio and local community service will be heard.
This is a video of what happened during Tropical Storm Irene in Ulster County, where I live:
We are truly fortunate that no one here was killed. In the mean time, the waters around here are still receding, we had some additional flooding Wednesday (9/7) with another 6 inches of rain from Tropical Storm Lee with flood warnings still in effect for several local creeks.
In my neck of the woods, we have nine radio stations licensed within about a 16 mile radius. One is religious, one is a college station, the other is a classical music format programmed from Albany, 90 miles away, one is a LPFM run by a local high school and two are commercial AM or FM station. The commercial stations used to be located in downtown Ellenville but moved to Poughkeepsie, about 30 miles away in 1999. The religious, college, and classical stations are small and have no backup systems or interest in emergency programming. That leaves the high school LPFM, WELV-LP.
In the height of the storm, 11.53 inches of rain had fallen in the previous 8 hours, the power was out, cable was out, the internet unavailable, the Verizon telephone company office in town was almost underwater, we had two sources of local Ulster county information; WDST (100.1 MHz, class A) in Woodstock and WELV-LP in Ellenville. WDST studios are located in Bearsville, which is about 25 miles north of here. They are a locally owned, locally programmed station with a good record of community support. They did a good job updating emergency information, flooded roadways, emergency shelter information, power restoration information, dry ice, alternate emergency numbers in case 911 went out, rallying points for local fire departments, etc. Ellenville Central School district’s WELV-LP also did a good job, although much more confined to the local area around Ellenville and have a much smaller coverage area. Still, they were live on the air with up to date information. Thankfully.
This transmitter is found at WBEC in Pittsfield, MA. It is still in operation as a standby transmitter for that station and has a manufacture date of 1955. The Broadcasting Yearbook places WBEC first on air in March of 1947. This would be the second transmitter the station installed.
Gates BC1J in service as a backup at WBEC, September 2011
The transmitter has been in service for 56 years, which is remarkable. This was made back when Gates was just Gates (no Harris) and AM radio was still king of the airwaves. TV was coming of age, FM radio still had a ways to go until widespread acceptance by the general public.
This transmitter doesn’t get to run very much, the third transmitter installed at WBEC is a Nautel AMPHET-1.
As Google can verify. According to the NYT piece: Google Details Electricity Usage, Google said its operations draw approximately 260 million watts continuously to run its online services and office buildings. That figure includes all of the e-mail applications, Youtube videos, Google searches, Google documents, etc. That works out to be about 6.24 million KWh per day or 21,292,752,000 BTU per day. Here are some of the amounts and costs for other fuels:
Fuel
Unit
Amount
Average cost $
Cost per day
Electricity
KWh
6,240,000
0.05
312,000
Gasoline
Gallon
185,963
3.61
671,326
Diesel
Gallon
170,342
4.05
689.885
Coal
Ton
819
156.40
128,091
Natural Gas
CCF
211,868
2.335
494,712
Propane
Gallon
231,443
3.02
698,957
Those figures do not take into account the efficiency of the generation process. For example, the average coal fired power plant is 32% efficient, thus the actual tonnage of coal needed to produce 6.24 million KWh is 1,376 at a cost of $215,194. Other fuels have similar electrical conversion efficiency, with the internal combustion engine being about 19% efficiency for any given fuel.
Some other interesting tidbits from the article:
Each Google search uses about 0.3 Watt-hours of electric
The average user uses 180 Watt-hours per month
Approximately 12.5 million Watts or 30,000 kWh per day are used by search engine traffic
25% of Google’s energy is supplied from renewables
Google designs and builds its own data centers using energy-efficient technology
One can assume that other data centers are not as efficient as Google’s. It would be interesting to do a comparison between the electrical use by AM and FM broadcast transmitter sites and the energy used by data centers that stream radio content. Right now the data center’s electrical costs are still relatively low because over the air radio listenership far out strips on line listenership. Eventually, those numbers will flip and I’d think the increased costs associated with greater streaming will be paid by somebody, likely the content generator.
All those webstreams, videos, and search engine queries are not free.