Weather radios may need an upgrade as National Weather Service gets new transmitter

Status
Not open for further replies.

N3KGD

Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2007
Messages
305
Location
Erie, PA
Yeah, I know. There constantly making mistakes too. Just voice record the forecast and loop it. It's actually a lot longer to make the mp3 file of the computer voice. You have to make sure everything's correct, and it's just a pain.

How about those voice on Windows, those are just as worse.
 

mikey60

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2003
Messages
3,543
Location
Oakland County Michigan
DonS said:
He removed all ambiguity when he said "increasing the signal power by 300 percent".

Power is expressed in watts, and has little or nothing to do with "range" or "apparent signal strength". The transmitter's power increased from 100W to 300W - an increase of 200%.

The NOAA employee needs a refresher course in one or more of: a) elementary school mathematics, b) English grammar, or c) the definition of "power" and how that term is used when discussion radio frequency transmitters.


Sorry Don, I think you're incorrect here... It was an Increase of 200watts, but a power increase of 300%

100W * 300% = 300W...

That equates to

100 * 300% 0r
100 * (300/100) or
100 * 3.00 or
300W

Looks like the NOAA guys was right to me...

Mike
 

Don_Burke

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
1,184
Location
Southeastern Virginia
mikey60 said:
Sorry Don, I think you're incorrect here... It was an Increase of 200watts, but a power increase of 300%

100W * 300% = 300W...

That equates to

100 * 300% 0r
100 * (300/100) or
100 * 3.00 or
300W

Looks like the NOAA guys was right to me...

Mike
I have to go with Don on this one.

By your math, a 100% increase in power would be no increase at all..
 

mikey60

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2003
Messages
3,543
Location
Oakland County Michigan
Don_Burke said:
I have to go with Don on this one.

By your math, a 100% increase in power would be no increase at all..

Fair enough. I can see both sides on this, it's all in how you look at it and approach it. I can see both the 300% and 200% in there. Which is right? Depends on who's looking at it and their thought process.

Mike
 

Don_Burke

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
1,184
Location
Southeastern Virginia
mikey60 said:
Fair enough. I can see both sides on this, it's all in how you look at it and approach it. I can see both the 300% and 200% in there. Which is right? Depends on who's looking at it and their thought process.

Mike
I can also see both sides.

Your side is incorrect.

The number is defining the increase, which means 300 is the wrong answer.
 

jpryor

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2001
Messages
633
Location
Nashville / Green Hill TN
A percent change is calculated by taking the amount of change (200 watts) divided by the original amount (100 watts) times 100. This is a 200% increase.

From an actual reception standpoint, the signal is stronger and the broadcast comes in better on my weather radio. A Winter Storm Watch went out at Noon on the new frequency and my weather radio worked ok. I'd be curious to hear signal reports from others, especially those farther away from the city.

Also the callsign is still WXL51. The broadcast just after the switch was still saying "162.55 Mhz" for while, but it has since be updated to the say the correct new frequency.
 

Don_Burke

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
1,184
Location
Southeastern Virginia
mikey60 said:
Ok, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that then.

Mike
I can not do that, since I do not concede that you have anything valid there.

This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of mathmatics.

I could not agree to disagree if you contended that 2+2=5. This is a similar case.

Let us just stop right here.

Have a nice day.
 

mikey60

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2003
Messages
3,543
Location
Oakland County Michigan
Don_Burke said:
I can not do that, since I do not concede that you have anything valid there.

This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of mathmatics.

I could not agree to disagree if you contended that 2+2=5. This is a similar case.

Let us just stop right here.

Have a nice day.

Sounds like a plan, you have a nice day as well.

Mike
 

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
0
Location
Virginia
rcvmo said:
I hear 162.400 L&C in the farmfields of Northern Monroe county!!
rcvmo

Is Monroe County near Lafayette County? My Dad's side of the family are all from Argyle. It is a very rare event when I mention Argyle, Wisconsin and have someone say they know where it is. One of my uncles used to own a Dodge dealership in Darlington, the county seat.

We used to spend two weeks in Wisconsin every summer and on hot evenings used to drive to Monroe to the A & W to get root beer floats. This was in the 50's before the widespread use of air conditioning. Last time I was back for a visit was in 1991.

Now if Monroe County is not near the town of Monroe, then never mind.

If you live where I think you live that reception is remarkable.

***EDIT*** Darn, I just checked your post and you are in Monroe County, Michigan, not Wisconsin. My mistake. There are so darn many counties east of the Rockies that it is hard to keep track!
 
Last edited:

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
0
Location
Virginia
Moving on past the argument on the increase in power and my old home week post above, I'm wondering something. Who was the first person to conceive of the NWS weather broadcast network? I can't imagine they could have imagined its widespread use for all hazard warnings (a replacement of the 1950's air raid sirens I used to hear being tested when I was a kid growing up in southern California) with SAME coding and the less than welcomed, automated voice.

Knowing how things go in the federal government and large corporations someone had to not only think this up, but also had to champion it for many years, perhaps a substantial part of their career. It is a far better system than the one it replaced, the air raid sirens and CONELRAD (sp?). The latter was a "system" whereby you were instructed to tune your AM radio to one of two frequencies, marked on all radios with a funky little triangle logo, for important civil defense type information. In reality it was a forerunner to the Emergency Broadcast System and relied on existing radio stations to turn to all news, all the time back before this became a "requirement" of broadcasting on AM as it seems it has become.

I suppose I should Google all of this, but won't as I'm not sure I have any more brain memory capacity for still more trivia.
 

joetnymedic

Member
Feed Provider
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
761
Location
West Haven, CT
hey if anyones interested the nws is selling one of their old transmitters on gsa's aution website covers 140-174 per the desription
 

ProducerGuy

Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2003
Messages
64
Location
Cumming, GA
icom1020 said:
Probably if you have one of these.

Doesn't this scream 1970's as in avocado green appliances?

Hey ! I still have one of those, working just fine, like it was 1980 all over again. At least that's when I got mine. We've come a long way since then. Ugh....avocado green !
 

ProducerGuy

Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2003
Messages
64
Location
Cumming, GA
Exsmokey said:
Moving on past the argument on the increase in power and my old home week post above, I'm wondering something. Who was the first person to conceive of the NWS weather broadcast network? I can't imagine they could have imagined its widespread use for all hazard warnings (a replacement of the 1950's air raid sirens I used to hear being tested when I was a kid growing up in southern California) with SAME coding and the less than welcomed, automated voice.

Knowing how things go in the federal government and large corporations someone had to not only think this up, but also had to champion it for many years, perhaps a substantial part of their career. It is a far better system than the one it replaced, the air raid sirens and CONELRAD (sp?). The latter was a "system" whereby you were instructed to tune your AM radio to one of two frequencies, marked on all radios with a funky little triangle logo, for important civil defense type information. In reality it was a forerunner to the Emergency Broadcast System and relied on existing radio stations to turn to all news, all the time back before this became a "requirement" of broadcasting on AM as it seems it has become.

I suppose I should Google all of this, but won't as I'm not sure I have any more brain memory capacity for still more trivia.

Ah yes CONELRAD. Either 640 or 1240 wasn't it ? Wasn't a bad system, but I'm quite partial to my SAME stuff. Wouldn't mind a Hamtronics RWX rock-bound box either.

My current WX-SAME radio is one of those Jensen/Thomson marine jobs that uses 4-C cells. Target sold them online for $39 for a time. Sensitivity is good, with a little scratchiness in the RX on WX, but a little DeOXIT and a little tightening on the innards will take care of that.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Messages
996
Location
Ohio
Pictures Of The Radio(s)!!!!

ProducerGuy said:
Ah yes CONELRAD. Either 640 or 1240 wasn't it ? Wasn't a bad system, but I'm quite partial to my SAME stuff. Wouldn't mind a Hamtronics RWX rock-bound box either.

My current WX-SAME radio is one of those Jensen/Thomson marine jobs that uses 4-C cells. Target sold them online for $39 for a time. Sensitivity is good, with a little scratchiness in the RX on WX, but a little DeOXIT and a little tightening on the innards will take care of that.

Do you have any pictures of the radidios with
the little traingle thingys on them that you were
required to tune to 640 or 1240 A.M.?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top