wrote:


KFI in Los Angeles (actually La Mirada) has been on 640 since 1922 and
running 50 KW since 1931.

http://www.oldradio.com/archives/stations/LA/kfipix.htm


Thats what I mean about VERY vacant. Look and see what else was on 640
back in the 50s/60s compared to other frequencies.

Richard Kn

I'm afraid that 640khz _is_ the correct lower frequency.
Somewhere, buried in some archive, the developmental
documents for Conelrad may still exist and may explain the
choice of frequencies. I think mostly it was to have a
frequency that would be usable for any BC station. I also
don't remember (if I ever knew) the power stations were
supposed to use, I think quite low, perhaps a couple of
hundred watts.



You are right. That's what happens when you depend on memory. Sorry for
the error.

Dave

Bill M wrote:
wrote:


KFI in Los Angeles (actually La Mirada) has been on 640 since 1922 and
running 50 KW since 1931.

http://www.oldradio.com/archives/stations/LA/kfipix.htm


Thats what I mean about VERY vacant. Look and see what else was on 640
back in the 50s/60s compared to other frequencies.

Since at that time, it was a clear channel station, one wouldn't expect
any other stations.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Richard Knoppow wrote:
There was, I think, only one nationwide test, and a few
local tests. It was quite possible to identify some of the
individual stations by their sound and the key station could
be identified by the higher audio quality. The system was a
failure but contributed to the general panic about a
possible Russian neucular attack.

How was it a failure? The reason it was dropped, IMHO, was that by November
of 1962, it became obvious that the Soviet Union was no longer dependent
upon bombers to attack the U.S.

Missiles had replaced bombers, and they don't need local radio stations
to navigate.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM

wrote in message
...
Bill M wrote:
Richard Knoppow wrote:


I'm afraid that 640khz _is_ the correct lower
frequency.
Somewhere, buried in some archive, the developmental
documents for Conelrad may still exist and may explain
the
choice of frequencies. I think mostly it was to have a
frequency that would be usable for any BC station. I
also
don't remember (if I ever knew) the power stations were
supposed to use, I think quite low, perhaps a couple of
hundred watts.

640 was VERY vacant in those days and 1240 was very full.
I think the
mindset was to cover both extremes but thats only a guess
on my part.

Depends on where you were.

KFI in Los Angeles (actually La Mirada) has been on 640
since 1922 and
running 50 KW since 1931.

http://www.oldradio.com/archives/stations/LA/kfipix.htm


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

KFI was a Class 1-A clear channel, not duplicated at
night and with few daytime only stations on the same
frequency and those located in the East.
KFI was the key CONELRAD station in LA. It is one of the
very few stations to operate on the same frequency as it
started on. KFI's original studios and transmitter were in
the Earl C. Anthony Packard dealership at 1000 S. Hope St.
(10th and Hope) this had the original flat top antenna on
top and I believe the original 5KW transmitter was
maintained as an emergency transmitter until ECA's death.
La Mirada is a fairly recently established city. The
transmitter location used to be given as "near" Buena Park.
I it when it was in the sticks, mostly dairy and truck
farms.


--

--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL

"David G. Nagel" wrote in
message ...
Richard Kn

I'm afraid that 640khz _is_ the correct lower
frequency. Somewhere, buried in some archive, the
developmental documents for Conelrad may still exist and
may explain the choice of frequencies. I think mostly it
was to have a frequency that would be usable for any BC
station. I also don't remember (if I ever knew) the power
stations were supposed to use, I think quite low, perhaps
a couple of hundred watts.



You are right. That's what happens when you depend on
memory. Sorry for the error.

Dave

Memory? What's that?


--

--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL

Richard Knoppow wrote:
"David G. Nagel" wrote in
message ...
Richard Kn
I'm afraid that 640khz _is_ the correct lower
frequency. Somewhere, buried in some archive, the
developmental documents for Conelrad may still exist and
may explain the choice of frequencies. I think mostly it
was to have a frequency that would be usable for any BC
station. I also don't remember (if I ever knew) the power
stations were supposed to use, I think quite low, perhaps
a couple of hundred watts.


You are right. That's what happens when you depend on
memory. Sorry for the error.

Dave

Memory? What's that?


I dunno. The other half says it's the second shortest thing I have. I
forget what the other thing is....

"George McLeod" wrote in message
...
Would anyone have a circuit, or know where to find one, for the Conelrad
device as marketed by Motorola and Heathkit.

Monumental failure? Easy conclusion, evidently. However there are still
WMD's pointed
at us, and we still have them pointed at others. Of course CONELRAD is not
an effective scheme any longer, but when WMD's traveled by airplane, and
came from
known geographical spots, CONELRAD was a pretty effective at denying
precision
target identification using simple navigation instruments.
I was always dismayed by having to have our radio or TV turned up so
loud that
it could be heard back in the hall closet that was my "shack". When Wife was
home, the
volume could be turned down, and she was to tell me if the station went off
the air.
(and it did, occasionally, sending a little chill, until determining that it
was not an alert,
but a "technical problem")

Old Chief Lynn, W7LTQ (then and now)

Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
Richard Knoppow wrote:
There was, I think, only one nationwide test, and a few
local tests. It was quite possible to identify some of the
individual stations by their sound and the key station could
be identified by the higher audio quality. The system was a
failure but contributed to the general panic about a
possible Russian neucular attack.

How was it a failure? The reason it was dropped, IMHO, was that by November
of 1962, it became obvious that the Soviet Union was no longer dependent
upon bombers to attack the U.S.

That's part of why it was a failure. The US invested a huge amount of money
in defending against a bomber attack, and they continued investing that money
years after it became clear that missiles were a more pressing threat.

Missiles had replaced bombers, and they don't need local radio stations
to navigate.

Well, for that matter neither do bombers, if they are equipped with INS
systems much like the missiles would be. In fact, bombers were probably
more effective in an RF blackout, seeing as how they were navigated by
human beings with maps and pilotage as well as by electronic systems.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:
That's part of why it was a failure. The US invested a huge amount of money
in defending against a bomber attack, and they continued investing that money
years after it became clear that missiles were a more pressing threat.

That to me does not make any sense. In an arms race, you pay (or invest)
in something that protects you NOW in the hope that it works while you
invest in something that will protect you in the future.

I'm not fond of the whole concept of an arms race, but sometimes we have
one forced upon us.



Well, for that matter neither do bombers, if they are equipped with INS
systems much like the missiles would be. In fact, bombers were probably
more effective in an RF blackout, seeing as how they were navigated by
human beings with maps and pilotage as well as by electronic systems.

They may not of had good maps, etc at the time. The Soviet Union was not
as well equipped as the USAF.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM