Sorry if this is O/T.

Has anyone noticed the dreadful interference either side of Radio5 - 909
metres.

I'm in Crosby, north of Liverpool

Dave.

David Leadbetter wrote:
Sorry if this is O/T.

Has anyone noticed the dreadful interference either side of Radio5 - 909
metres.

909kHz, not metres. Divide by 300 to get wavelength from frequency in kHz.

I'm in Crosby, north of Liverpool

Have you tried 693kHz?

--
Now Playing: The Lost Brothers feat. G Tom Mac - Cry Little Sister (I Need
U Now) [128kbps mp3]

In article ,
nsj wrote:
David Leadbetter wrote:
Sorry if this is O/T.

Has anyone noticed the dreadful interference either side of Radio5 - 909
metres.

909kHz, not metres. Divide by 300 to get wavelength from frequency in kHz.

The above wording seems misleading to me as it seems to say that

wavelength = freq/300

which cannot be correct as it implies the wavelength scales with the
frequency. Should be that one varies in inverse proportion with the other.
Higher frequency means smaller wavelength. The '300' may be wrong as well -
depends on the units you require for both parameters.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Jim Lesurf wrote:

In article ,
nsj wrote:

David Leadbetter wrote:

Sorry if this is O/T.

Has anyone noticed the dreadful interference either side of Radio5 - 909
metres.


909kHz, not metres. Divide by 300 to get wavelength from frequency in kHz.


The above wording seems misleading to me as it seems to say that

wavelength = freq/300

which cannot be correct as it implies the wavelength scales with the
frequency. Should be that one varies in inverse proportion with the other.
Higher frequency means smaller wavelength. The '300' may be wrong as well -
depends on the units you require for both parameters.

I wish I could have used the "it was late" response. Sadly, that doesn't
carry much weight for a post made at 17:26

c = fl
l = c/f
l = 3x10^8/909x10^3
l = 3x10^8/9.09x10^5
l = 3x10^3/9.09
l = 330m

grin

That'll teach me to be a smart-arse.

--
Now Playing: something else

In article , nsj
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
[snipped]

I wish I could have used the "it was late" response. Sadly, that
doesn't carry much weight for a post made at 17:26

I seem to make much the same number of mistakes at all hours of day or
night. :-) Hence if I wanted to use "late" as a reason, in my case it
would mean "I'm getting too old". ;-

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html