Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [coldwarcomms] Re: GWEN

Expand Messages
  • hritz
    Folks: The egg beater type LF receiving antenna at the GWEN sites is a standard Naval shipboard design from the number I was able to read off the antenna at
    Message 1 of 30 , May 4, 2002
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Folks:

      The egg beater type LF receiving antenna at the GWEN sites is a standard
      Naval shipboard design from the number I was able to read off the antenna at
      the Hawk Run (Phillipsburg, PA) site. This antenna is used to receive the
      178kHz signals from other GWEN nodes. This site also had the UHF omni
      antenna mounted on a telephone pole. There are two equipment bays, which are
      standard military connex design. One contains a Diesel backup generator and
      fuel tank, and the other contains the radio/electronics suite. The small hut
      near the base of the 299' vertical is a tuning unit.

      At the Gettysburg, PA GWEN site the UHF antenna is actually a log-periodic
      beam antenna mounted on a 40ft. tower and pointed at Site-R.

      Back in the early 1990's I just happened to to be going by the Phillipsburg,
      PA site when I saw a service truck parked inside the fence. I stopped an
      talked with the tech, who worked for Contel, but I could not talk him into
      letting me look inside the equipment bays. Bummer! He was very tight-lipped
      in answering my questions, and was surprised I knew so much about the
      system.

      I've also visited the Harborcreek, PA site (near Erie) which is now
      completely torn down, tower and all, and the Pine Valley site(near Elmira,
      NY)

      Regards:

      Kevin J. Hritz, W3QD



      ----- Original Message -----
      From: <hooligan@...>
      To: <coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 8:04 PM
      Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] Re: GWEN


      > In a message dated 5/3/2002 7:54:14 PM Eastern Standard Time,
      > jks19714@... writes:
      >
      >
      > > --- In coldwarcomms@y..., "KD7JYK" <kd7jyk@r...> wrote:
      > > > I checked out the GWEN Site near Austin Nevada yesterday...
      > > Impressive though to those who don't know what they are looking at,
      > > it is the same design and layout as any AM broadcast station
      > > throughout the US. There are two antennas, the longwave whip, and a
      > > smaller control antenna near a pair of enclosures, one for
      > > electronics, the other a generator. The control antenna is mounted
      > > on top of a stainless steel light post, the same type of post used
      > > for streetlights, and there is a light on the post to illuminate the
      > > area around the enclosures. The antenna is about seven feet high and
      > > six inches thick. It is Olive Drab in color. The site is
      > > immaculate, very well taken care of, it looks brand new. I was
      > > shocked to find that some jack-ass left the site unlocked! Any idea
      > > who is operating these sites now? Any idea on what frequency the
      > > remote control operates? I have recordings of what comes out of
      > > these stations, I am curious as to what goes in.
      > > >
      > > > Kurt
      > >
      >
      > The "control antenna" sounds like the standard 225-400MHz band
      > omnidirectional, which was at some of the GWEN nodes to allow for GWEN
      > message injections from airborne command post aircraft. At the sites I've
      > been to (5 or 6), the antenna has been mounted atop a wood pole. I'm not
      > sure what a longwave whip would have been doing at the site, unless it's
      got
      > something to do with the DOT's Differential GPS system. I'd be kind of
      > surprised if a GWEN site near Austin, NV would be converted over to DGPS
      use.
      > You didn't see a LF loop/eggbeater style antenna there?
      >
      > Do you have the coords or driving directions for the site?
      >
      >
      > Tim
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
    • cryptospec5
      I must have missed a post or two, but does anyone have the frequency that the gwen sites use or used, because I have one I can see from my house and I am
      Message 2 of 30 , Jun 18, 2011
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        I must have missed a post or two, but does anyone have the frequency that the gwen sites use or used, because I have one I can see from my house and I am curious if it is still transmitting any type of signal.
      • Dexter W4DEX
        ... I recall hearing the GWEN transmissions around 160 to 170 kHz but the exact frequency I don t know. After the system was turned down it sure was nice to
        Message 3 of 30 , Jun 18, 2011
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          cryptospec5 wrote:
          >
          >
          > I must have missed a post or two, but does anyone have the frequency
          > that the gwen sites use or used, because I have one I can see from my
          > house and I am curious if it is still transmitting any type of signal.
          >
          I recall hearing the GWEN transmissions around 160 to 170 kHz but the
          exact frequency I don't know. After the system was turned down it sure
          was nice to once again receive longwave broadcast from Europe.

          Dex
        • blitz716
          170 sounds reasonable, as its a freeband now. Lots of low power experimentation there. ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Message 4 of 30 , Jun 18, 2011
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            170 sounds reasonable, as its a freeband now. Lots of low power
            experimentation there.

            Dexter W4DEX wrote:
            > cryptospec5 wrote:
            >
            >>
            >>
            >> I must have missed a post or two, but does anyone have the frequency
            >> that the gwen sites use or used, because I have one I can see from my
            >> house and I am curious if it is still transmitting any type of signal.
            >>
            >>
            > I recall hearing the GWEN transmissions around 160 to 170 kHz but the
            > exact frequency I don't know. After the system was turned down it sure
            > was nice to once again receive longwave broadcast from Europe.
            >
            > Dex
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Facility 406 DM09
            use or used, because I have one I can see from my house and I am curious if it is still transmitting any type of signal. You re a couple decades too late.
            Message 5 of 30 , Jun 18, 2011
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              "use or used, because I have one I can see from my house and I am curious if
              it is still transmitting any type of signal. "

              You're a couple decades too late. I don't recall the old frequencies, might
              be able to find something online, most GWEN sites have been converted to
              DGPS, Differential Global Positioning System correction signals around 300
              KHz. I can hear the quite well in Nevada and can offer up a recording of
              the DGPS signals for those interested. There are also several DGPS signals
              just above the AM broadcast band, those are transmitted by Cochrane
              Industries staions in the US Gulf area, but can be heard throughout the US.

              Kurt
            • Facility 406 DM09
              ... 170 doesn t seem right, it was a freeband back in the 60 s, Downey ARC in SoCal had a group operating LowFER there in the early 60 s, that s how I learned
              Message 6 of 30 , Jun 18, 2011
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                : 170 sounds reasonable, as its a freeband now. Lots of low power
                : experimentation there.

                170 doesn't seem right, it was a freeband back in the 60's, Downey ARC in
                SoCal had a group operating LowFER there in the early 60's, that's how I
                learned of LowFER.

                Kurt
              • cryptospec5
                Ok, Thank you for the info, in the 80 s they told us it was a USAF homing beacon for our local ANG , but it is still well taken care of and the strobe light
                Message 7 of 30 , Jun 18, 2011
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Ok, Thank you for the info, in the 80's they told us it was a USAF homing beacon for our local ANG , but it is still well taken care of and the strobe light still flashes 24/7

                  --- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, "Facility 406 DM09" <facility_406@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > "use or used, because I have one I can see from my house and I am curious if
                  > it is still transmitting any type of signal. "
                  >
                  > You're a couple decades too late. I don't recall the old frequencies, might
                  > be able to find something online, most GWEN sites have been converted to
                  > DGPS, Differential Global Positioning System correction signals around 300
                  > KHz. I can hear the quite well in Nevada and can offer up a recording of
                  > the DGPS signals for those interested. There are also several DGPS signals
                  > just above the AM broadcast band, those are transmitted by Cochrane
                  > Industries staions in the US Gulf area, but can be heard throughout the US.
                  >
                  > Kurt
                  >
                • Facility 406 DM09
                  in the 80 s they told us it was a USAF homing beacon for our local ANG , but it is still well taken care of and the strobe light still flashes 24/7
                  Message 8 of 30 , Jun 18, 2011
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    "in the 80's they told us it was a USAF homing beacon for our local ANG ,
                    but it is still well taken care of and the strobe light still flashes 24/7"

                    Specifically the GWEN tower? It wasn't a beacon and not for the ANG,
                    someone pulled your leg. The "still well taken care of and the strobe light
                    still flashes 24/7" is for other reasons. If it's not well taken care of,
                    it degrades and falls down and risks life and property, so until the day it
                    is decided to be demolished, it will remain in excellent condition and
                    probably inspected and serviced at least once a year. The strobes are
                    required by the FAA for towers above 200' (199.9' is exempt, because it's
                    not 200), so until it shrinks to under that, or aircraft cease to fly in the
                    US, it will have strobes 24/7 unless they fail.

                    Kurt
                  • Hritz Family
                    Back in the ‘80s, I had a Kenwood TS-430 HF radio (w. 100kHz – 30 MHz rcv. capability) installed in my car for amateur radio purposes. I was captivated by
                    Message 9 of 30 , Jun 19, 2011
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Back in the ‘80s, I had a Kenwood TS-430 HF radio (w. 100kHz – 30 MHz rcv. capability) installed in my car for amateur radio purposes. I was captivated by the GWEN system concept (via Longwave Club of America) and all the Armageddon intrigue it entailed, so I decided to do a little detective work.
                      The general locations of various site in the NY / PA area were known at the time, so with the receiver tuned to the 173 – 175 kHz range, I took some weekend trips and listened for the squawks of the packet transmissions until the S meter on the –430 was pegged, and the 299 foot, strobe-adorned tower was seen. Using this technique, I visited the Harborcreek (off of US-20 East of Erie, PA – now decommissioned), the Hawk Run (on RT-322 South of Phillipsburg, PA), Pine Valley (North of Horseheads, NY), and Gettysburg (this site had a log periodic on a self-supporting tower pointed at Site-R).
                      All the sites I visited with the exception on Gettysburg were equipped with a hardened UHF verticals mounted on telephone poles for the airborne UHF links. The LF receive antennas were of a mil-spec maritime crossed loop type. The myriad ground bonding jumpers on the enclosures and special filter type cable glands were consistent with the descriptions in open literature of the EMP-hardened design of the system.
                      The last time I drove through the Gettysburg, PA, I couldn’t find the site, so it may have been decommissioned. One other anecdote: On a trip to State College, PA back in the early ‘90s, I saw a van parked at the Hawk Run site, do I drove up to the gate. A tech was there doing some maintenance, so I tried to get him to let me see inside the equipment enclosure, to no avail – highly classified, you see. The van had Contel logo on the side, so that company probably had the maintenance contract for the sites. The guy was talking on a wired telephone at the time of my visit, so it looks like the sites were equipped with a POTS line.
                      Somewhere I have notes on the specific transmit frequencies of the sites I visited. I’ll have to dig this information up and post it later.
                      Regards,
                      Kevin J. Hritz, W3QD



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • cryptospec5
                      Yes, I agree, they were telling us what we wanted to hear in the local paper, I will take some pictures of it and post and it s on state property, probably why
                      Message 10 of 30 , Jun 19, 2011
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Yes, I agree, they were telling us what we wanted to hear in the local paper, I will take some pictures of it and post and it's on state property, probably why it is well taken care of, Thanks for the reply.

                        --- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, "Facility 406 DM09" <facility_406@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > "in the 80's they told us it was a USAF homing beacon for our local ANG ,
                        > but it is still well taken care of and the strobe light still flashes 24/7"
                        >
                        > Specifically the GWEN tower? It wasn't a beacon and not for the ANG,
                        > someone pulled your leg. The "still well taken care of and the strobe light
                        > still flashes 24/7" is for other reasons. If it's not well taken care of,
                        > it degrades and falls down and risks life and property, so until the day it
                        > is decided to be demolished, it will remain in excellent condition and
                        > probably inspected and serviced at least once a year. The strobes are
                        > required by the FAA for towers above 200' (199.9' is exempt, because it's
                        > not 200), so until it shrinks to under that, or aircraft cease to fly in the
                        > US, it will have strobes 24/7 unless they fail.
                        >
                        > Kurt
                        >
                      • Tim
                        Sounds like BS to me, USAF never really tried to hide what GWEN was & seemed to go through the usual environmental impact hoops for the sites, so any local
                        Message 11 of 30 , Jun 19, 2011
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Sounds like BS to me, USAF never really tried to hide what GWEN was &
                          seemed to go through the usual environmental impact
                          hoops for the sites, so any local newspaper or nefarious "they" entities
                          trying to provide an OPSEC cover for the sites were
                          doing so out of sheer ignorance or stupidity.

                          On 6/19/2011 9:56 AM, cryptospec5 wrote:
                          > Yes, I agree, they were telling us what we wanted to hear in the local paper, I will take some pictures of it and post and it's on state property, probably why it is well taken care of, Thanks for the reply.
                          >
                          > --- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, "Facility 406 DM09"<facility_406@...> wrote:
                          >> "in the 80's they told us it was a USAF homing beacon for our local ANG ,
                          >> but it is still well taken care of and the strobe light still flashes 24/7"
                          >>
                          >> Specifically the GWEN tower? It wasn't a beacon and not for the ANG,
                          >> someone pulled your leg. The "still well taken care of and the strobe light
                          >> still flashes 24/7" is for other reasons. If it's not well taken care of,
                          >> it degrades and falls down and risks life and property, so until the day it
                          >> is decided to be demolished, it will remain in excellent condition and
                          >> probably inspected and serviced at least once a year. The strobes are
                          >> required by the FAA for towers above 200' (199.9' is exempt, because it's
                          >> not 200), so until it shrinks to under that, or aircraft cease to fly in the
                          >> US, it will have strobes 24/7 unless they fail.
                          >>
                          >> Kurt
                          >>
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > ------------------------------------
                          >
                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        • Tom
                          We lived in Traverse City, MI during the GWEN days...the Record-Eagle did a few articles on the one just southeast of TC - no hint of bias either way, just
                          Message 12 of 30 , Jun 20, 2011
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            We lived in Traverse City, MI during the GWEN days...the Record-Eagle did a few articles on the one just southeast of TC - no hint of bias either way, just good reporting on what its purpose was. Don't remember any local opposition or demonstration against it whatsoever. That area also hosted Empire AFS, an AC&W/Radar station, and were very supportive of it. But, its a very conservative area, or should I say WAS that way in the 80's!
                            I'm also retired USAF, and my wife is a 3rd generation TC native, so I'm a little biased!

                            Tom Scanlan

                            --- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, Tim <polohat@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Sounds like BS to me, USAF never really tried to hide what GWEN was &
                            > seemed to go through the usual environmental impact
                            > hoops for the sites, so any local newspaper or nefarious "they" entities
                            > trying to provide an OPSEC cover for the sites were
                            > doing so out of sheer ignorance or stupidity.
                            >
                            > On 6/19/2011 9:56 AM, cryptospec5 wrote:
                            > > Yes, I agree, they were telling us what we wanted to hear in the local paper, I will take some pictures of it and post and it's on state property, probably why it is well taken care of, Thanks for the reply.
                            > >
                            > > --- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, "Facility 406 DM09"<facility_406@> wrote:
                            > >> "in the 80's they told us it was a USAF homing beacon for our local ANG ,
                            > >> but it is still well taken care of and the strobe light still flashes 24/7"
                            > >>
                            > >> Specifically the GWEN tower? It wasn't a beacon and not for the ANG,
                            > >> someone pulled your leg. The "still well taken care of and the strobe light
                            > >> still flashes 24/7" is for other reasons. If it's not well taken care of,
                            > >> it degrades and falls down and risks life and property, so until the day it
                            > >> is decided to be demolished, it will remain in excellent condition and
                            > >> probably inspected and serviced at least once a year. The strobes are
                            > >> required by the FAA for towers above 200' (199.9' is exempt, because it's
                            > >> not 200), so until it shrinks to under that, or aircraft cease to fly in the
                            > >> US, it will have strobes 24/7 unless they fail.
                            > >>
                            > >> Kurt
                            > >>
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > ------------------------------------
                            > >
                            > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            >
                          • cryptospec5
                            I can only figure that they wanted to hide this because I live in the Triangle of Corkscrew, Cannonball and Site R and a AT&T hardened site
                            Message 13 of 30 , Jun 20, 2011
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I can only figure that they wanted to hide this because I live in the Triangle of Corkscrew, Cannonball and Site R and a AT&T hardened site

                              --- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, Tim <polohat@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Sounds like BS to me, USAF never really tried to hide what GWEN was &
                              > seemed to go through the usual environmental impact
                              > hoops for the sites, so any local newspaper or nefarious "they" entities
                              > trying to provide an OPSEC cover for the sites were
                              > doing so out of sheer ignorance or stupidity.
                              >
                              > On 6/19/2011 9:56 AM, cryptospec5 wrote:
                              > > Yes, I agree, they were telling us what we wanted to hear in the local paper, I will take some pictures of it and post and it's on state property, probably why it is well taken care of, Thanks for the reply.
                              > >
                              > > --- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, "Facility 406 DM09"<facility_406@> wrote:
                              > >> "in the 80's they told us it was a USAF homing beacon for our local ANG ,
                              > >> but it is still well taken care of and the strobe light still flashes 24/7"
                              > >>
                              > >> Specifically the GWEN tower? It wasn't a beacon and not for the ANG,
                              > >> someone pulled your leg. The "still well taken care of and the strobe light
                              > >> still flashes 24/7" is for other reasons. If it's not well taken care of,
                              > >> it degrades and falls down and risks life and property, so until the day it
                              > >> is decided to be demolished, it will remain in excellent condition and
                              > >> probably inspected and serviced at least once a year. The strobes are
                              > >> required by the FAA for towers above 200' (199.9' is exempt, because it's
                              > >> not 200), so until it shrinks to under that, or aircraft cease to fly in the
                              > >> US, it will have strobes 24/7 unless they fail.
                              > >>
                              > >> Kurt
                              > >>
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > ------------------------------------
                              > >
                              > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              >
                            • Sheldon Daitch
                                Minor technical note, strobes are not required on towers over 200 feet.    Strobe lighing is not the only permitted form of tower lighting.  Regular red
                              Message 14 of 30 , Jun 21, 2011
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                 
                                Minor technical note, strobes are not required on towers over
                                200 feet. 
                                 
                                Strobe lighing is not the only permitted form of tower lighting. 
                                Regular red obstruction lighting systems are also permitted.
                                 
                                Towers which use approved strobe lighting systems for daytime lighting
                                operation do not have to be painted with the aviation orange and
                                aviation white color bands.  A tower owner can opt for the painting
                                and use only red lights overnight.
                                 
                                The tradeoff is the extra costs of installation, operation and maintenance
                                of approved strobe lighting systems vs the traditional red lighting systems
                                with paint.
                                 
                                Far more reading is available on tower lighting at:
                                 
                                http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/fs/alaskan/towers/obstruction/media/AC70_7460_1K.pdf
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 

                                 





                                 
                                . The strobes are
                                > >> required by the FAA for towers above 200' (199.9' is exempt, because it's
                                > >> not 200), so until it shrinks to under that, or aircraft cease to fly in the
                                > >> US, it will have strobes 24/7 unless they fail.


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Dexter W4DEX
                                ... 160 to 190 kHz has been a license free FCC Part15 segment since at least the mid 60s when I first started experimenting on the band. Initially the Part15
                                Message 15 of 30 , Jun 21, 2011
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  blitz716 wrote:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > 170 sounds reasonable, as its a freeband now. Lots of low power
                                  > experimentation there.
                                  >
                                  160 to 190 kHz has been a license free FCC Part15 segment since at least
                                  the mid 60s when I first started experimenting on the band. Initially
                                  the Part15 rules specified a max power of 1 watt DC input to a 50 foot
                                  antenna. That was later changed to the same power to a 15 meter
                                  antenna. I was inactive on the band from about 67 until the late 80s.
                                  When my interest in LF was rekindled in the late 80s I found the low end
                                  of the band full of packet type data which I learned was from the GWEN
                                  stations. I operated a beacon at 177.777 kHz for a few years then moved
                                  on up to 185 kHz where most all the Part15 operators now experiment. I
                                  believe the last GWEN transmissions I heard was in the mid 90s. Now LF
                                  BC from Europe can be received in NA where GWEN once occupied. A few
                                  samples:

                                  http://www.w4dex.com/lf/bc/162khz_0000hrs_11jan11_FranceInternational.mp3

                                  http://www.w4dex.com/lf/bc/171khz_0104z_14jan11_Morocco.mp3

                                  Dex
                                • Albert LaFrance
                                  And from the aesthetic standpoint, nothing beats a tower with a fresh red-and-white paint job and classic incandescent red lighting - and a full load of KS
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Jun 21, 2011
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    And from the aesthetic standpoint, nothing beats a tower with a fresh
                                    red-and-white paint job and classic incandescent red lighting - and a full
                                    load of KS horns, of course!



                                    Albert



                                    From: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com [mailto:coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com] On
                                    Behalf Of Sheldon Daitch
                                    Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 6:18 AM
                                    To: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: [coldwarcomms] Tower Lighting and strobes






                                    Minor technical note, strobes are not required on towers over
                                    200 feet.

                                    Strobe lighing is not the only permitted form of tower lighting.
                                    Regular red obstruction lighting systems are also permitted.

                                    Towers which use approved strobe lighting systems for daytime lighting
                                    operation do not have to be painted with the aviation orange and
                                    aviation white color bands. A tower owner can opt for the painting
                                    and use only red lights overnight.

                                    The tradeoff is the extra costs of installation, operation and maintenance
                                    of approved strobe lighting systems vs the traditional red lighting systems
                                    with paint.

                                    Far more reading is available on tower lighting at:

                                    http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/s
                                    ystemops/fs/alaskan/towers/obstruction/media/AC70_7460_1K.pdf









                                    . The strobes are
                                    > >> required by the FAA for towers above 200' (199.9' is exempt, because
                                    it's
                                    > >> not 200), so until it shrinks to under that, or aircraft cease to fly
                                    in the
                                    > >> US, it will have strobes 24/7 unless they fail.

                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • David
                                    ... Generally, it s far cheaper to use strobes than paint. There s some controversy in the aviation community re: if strobes really are a good substitute. Also
                                    Message 17 of 30 , Jun 21, 2011
                                    View Source
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      On 6/21/11 6:17 AM, Sheldon Daitch wrote:

                                      > The tradeoff is the extra costs of installation, operation and maintenance
                                      > of approved strobe lighting systems vs the traditional red lighting systems
                                      > with paint.


                                      Generally, it's far cheaper to use strobes than paint. There's some
                                      controversy in the aviation community re: if strobes really are a good
                                      substitute.

                                      Also note it's not just towers; smokestacks on powerplants have the same rules.
                                    • Sheldon Daitch
                                      And best seen on a lovely summer afternoon, towers in front, sun behind, and the sky behind the towers is dark from cloud buildups! ...   And from the
                                      Message 18 of 30 , Jun 21, 2011
                                      View Source
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        And best seen on a lovely summer afternoon, towers in front, sun behind, and the
                                        sky behind the towers is dark from cloud buildups!

                                        --- On Tue, 6/21/11, Albert LaFrance <albert.lafrance@...> wrote:


                                         



                                        And from the aesthetic standpoint, nothing beats a tower with a fresh
                                        red-and-white paint job and classic incandescent red lighting - and a full
                                        load of KS horns, of course!

                                        Albert



                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • Sheldon Daitch
                                        Generally, yes, but in every instance, maybe not?    We ve had towers in locations where we had to paint, simply to reduce the effects of salt deposits from
                                        Message 19 of 30 , Jun 21, 2011
                                        View Source
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Generally, yes, but in every instance, maybe not? 
                                           
                                          We've had towers in locations where we had to paint, simply to reduce the
                                          effects of salt deposits from ocean water or the erosion effects of blowing
                                          sand.  OK, these aren't typical situations but real world, none the less.
                                           
                                          I will agree with you on the aviation aspect.  I knew of one tower location
                                          which had only one strobe.  While it looked rather impressive from ground
                                          level, I know that from the air, it was almost impossible to separate from the
                                          many surrounding white lights on the ground.  Granted, this observation was
                                          from an altitude at which it would be impossible to hit the tower.  I never flew
                                          toward the tower at a much lower altitude, so I can't quite tell you what it looked
                                          like, say flying at 400 feet above ground level.
                                           
                                          One little quirk about the information contained in AC 70/7460-1K.  The information
                                          in this FAA advisory circular, or for that matter, every other FAA advisory circular, is
                                          advisory, not regulatory in nature, unless required in other Federal legislation. 
                                          For instance, see paragraph 2(b), 6, 24 and 25, the references to the FCC.  Also, if
                                          one reads this advisory circular, notice the numerous uses of "should."  The word
                                          "must" is never found in relationship with how tower structures are to be marked,
                                          painted or lit. 
                                           
                                          With all that said, the system works, because 99.44% of the towers in the US have
                                          radio equipment licensed by the FCC and in general, the FCC has cited tower
                                          lighting requirements in the license document. 
                                           
                                           


                                          --- On Tue, 6/21/11, David <wb8foz@...> wrote:






                                          Generally, it's far cheaper to use strobes than paint. There's some
                                          controversy in the aviation community re: if strobes really are a good
                                          substitute.

                                          Also note it's not just towers; smokestacks on powerplants have the same rules.


                                           






                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Jake
                                          Although unlit in this shot and strobe obscured, this would be a perfect example:
                                          Message 20 of 30 , Jun 21, 2011
                                          View Source
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Although unlit in this shot and strobe obscured, this would be a perfect example:

                                            <https://ftptower.americantower.com/SiteDocs2/373/Photos/88103-2-1-Entire%20tower.jpg>


                                            It is one of my top 5 favorite photos of towers and the background on my iPhone. Oh the irony....



                                            On Jun 21, 2011, at 1:20 PM, Sheldon Daitch wrote:

                                            And best seen on a lovely summer afternoon, towers in front, sun behind, and the
                                            sky behind the towers is dark from cloud buildups!

                                            --- On Tue, 6/21/11, Albert LaFrance <albert.lafrance@...> wrote:



                                            And from the aesthetic standpoint, nothing beats a tower with a fresh
                                            red-and-white paint job and classic incandescent red lighting - and a full
                                            load of KS horns, of course!

                                            Albert



                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • blitz716
                                            I havent been able to hear anything but urban noise there for years now. Thanks for the update. ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            Message 21 of 30 , Jun 21, 2011
                                            View Source
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              I havent been able to hear anything but urban noise there for years now.
                                              Thanks for the update.

                                              Dexter W4DEX wrote:
                                              > blitz716 wrote:
                                              >
                                              >>
                                              >>
                                              >> 170 sounds reasonable, as its a freeband now. Lots of low power
                                              >> experimentation there.
                                              >>
                                              >>
                                              > 160 to 190 kHz has been a license free FCC Part15 segment since at least
                                              > the mid 60s when I first started experimenting on the band. Initially
                                              > the Part15 rules specified a max power of 1 watt DC input to a 50 foot
                                              > antenna. That was later changed to the same power to a 15 meter
                                              > antenna. I was inactive on the band from about 67 until the late 80s.
                                              > When my interest in LF was rekindled in the late 80s I found the low end
                                              > of the band full of packet type data which I learned was from the GWEN
                                              > stations. I operated a beacon at 177.777 kHz for a few years then moved
                                              > on up to 185 kHz where most all the Part15 operators now experiment. I
                                              > believe the last GWEN transmissions I heard was in the mid 90s. Now LF
                                              > BC from Europe can be received in NA where GWEN once occupied. A few
                                              > samples:
                                              >
                                              > http://www.w4dex.com/lf/bc/162khz_0000hrs_11jan11_FranceInternational.mp3
                                              >
                                              > http://www.w4dex.com/lf/bc/171khz_0104z_14jan11_Morocco.mp3
                                              >
                                              > Dex
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > ------------------------------------
                                              >
                                              > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >


                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            • Bill Smith
                                              It s not that advisory.The FCC can and will specify how a tower must marked and lighted. Usually they will just state that it must be marked and lighted in
                                              Message 22 of 30 , Jun 21, 2011
                                              View Source
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                It's not that advisory.The FCC can and will specify how a tower must marked and
                                                lighted. Usually they will just state that it must be marked and lighted in
                                                accordance with 7460. And they will come after you:
                                                http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-305847A1.html

                                                Bill



                                                ________________________________
                                                From: Sheldon Daitch <sheldondaitch@...>
                                                To: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
                                                Sent: Tue, June 21, 2011 1:01:19 PM
                                                Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] Tower Lighting and strobes

                                                 
                                                Generally, yes, but in every instance, maybe not? 
                                                One little quirk about the information contained in AC 70/7460-1K.  The
                                                information
                                                in this FAA advisory circular, or for that matter, every other FAA advisory
                                                circular, is
                                                advisory, not regulatory in nature, unless required in other Federal
                                                legislation. 
                                                For instance, see paragraph 2(b), 6, 24 and 25, the references to the FCC. 
                                                Also, if
                                                one reads this advisory circular, notice the numerous uses of "should."  The
                                                word
                                                "must" is never found in relationship with how tower structures are to be
                                                marked,

                                                painted or lit. 


                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              • Sheldon Daitch
                                                Yes, generally, it works that way.   If the tower has no FCC licensed equipment on the tower, the FCC doesn t have jurisdiction.   It is true:      47
                                                Message 23 of 30 , Jun 21, 2011
                                                View Source
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Yes, generally, it works that way.
                                                   
                                                  If the tower has no FCC licensed equipment on the tower, the FCC doesn't
                                                  have jurisdiction.
                                                   
                                                  It is true:
                                                   
                                                     47 C.F.R. S: 17.21: "Antenna structures shall be painted and lighted when
                                                     . . . [t]hey exceed 60.96 meters (200 feet) in height above ground or they
                                                     require special aeronautical study."
                                                   
                                                  If the structure is not an antenna, these rules don't apply.  Full text:
                                                   
                                                   

                                                  TITLE 47 - TELECOMMUNICATION

                                                  CHAPTER I - FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                                                  SUBCHAPTER A - GENERAL

                                                  PART 17 - CONSTRUCTION, MARKING, AND LIGHTING OF ANTENNA STRUCTURES

                                                  subpart c - SPECIFICATIONS FOR OBSTRUCTION MARKING AND LIGHTING OF ANTENNA STRUCTURES

                                                  17.21 - Painting and lighting, when required.

                                                  Antenna structures shall be painted and lighted when: (a) They exceed 60.96 meters (200 feet) in height above the ground or they require special aeronautical study.

                                                    (b) The Commission may modify the above requirement for painting and/or lighting of antenna structures, when it is shown by the applicant that the absence of such marking would not impair the safety of air navigation, or that a lesser marking requirement would insure the safety thereof.

                                                  [32 FR 11269, Aug. 3, 1967, as amended at 42 FR 54824, Oct. 11, 1977]

                                                   
                                                   
                                                  The link you supplied indicated the notice of violation was for antenna structure
                                                   # 1270072 located at 142 Maple Avenue,   Rockville Centre, New York and the
                                                  notice of violation was issued by the FCC, because the FCC had jurisdiction over
                                                  the radio equipment installed with and associated with that antenna structure.
                                                   
                                                  From the notice of violation:
                                                   
                                                  "The lighting specifications for antenna structure number 1270072 require
                                                  that the structure comply with FAA Chapters 4, 8, and 12 in accord ance with
                                                  FAA Circular Number 70/7460-1K. "   
                                                   
                                                  The lighting specifications do not come from the FAA and the advisory circular,
                                                  but from an FCC requirement which references the FAA advisory circular.
                                                   
                                                  If you can find an FCC notice of violation regarding the lighting and painting of
                                                  a structure which does not have and never had any FCC licensed radio equipment,
                                                  I'd be very surprised.  
                                                   
                                                  I will admit, there could be a gray area as to a structure which
                                                  was used for an FCC licensed operation and that licensee has gone dark. 
                                                   
                                                  Picture a 250 foot tower used by an AM broadcaster who has gone out of business,
                                                  turned the license for the frequency back over to the FCC and abandoned the
                                                  tower.   The corporation has been dissolved and the principles are not personally
                                                  responsible for the actions of a defunct corporation.  The FCC could possibly claim jurisdiction, since it was a formerly licensed facility, but the rules aren't quite that
                                                  clear on the subject.   On to whom does the FCC force the burden of tower painting
                                                  and tower lighting?   I can't imagine someone walking away from a few acres in
                                                  downtown Dallas, but I could see someone walking away from land in some localities,
                                                  where land still isn't very expensive.
                                                   


                                                  In my casual reading of both the FAA rules and the FCC rules, it appears that I
                                                  could erect a 250 foot flagpole at my house, and not have to light it.  Yes, no doubt
                                                  I would have to determine if there are any zoning issues and I would have to do
                                                  an FAA determination to see if there is a hazard to navigation.  If the FAA says there
                                                  is no issue with airway navigation, I can put up the 250 foot flagpole and not light it. 
                                                  In fact, the FAA might even recommend that I light the flagpole, but the FAA doesn't
                                                  have regulatory authority to require it. 
                                                   
                                                  No radio equipment is associated with the flagpole, so there is no FCC jurisdiction,
                                                  so no tower lighting requirements from the FCC.
                                                   
                                                  Look, the system works, because that vast majority of skeletal structures as discussed
                                                  in the FAA AC 70/7460-1K are towers with radio equipment licensed by the FCC.  Very
                                                  few people can afford to erect towers of this height simply because they want to erect
                                                  a tower, but do so because are going to use it for radio operations. Very few people
                                                  also put up 250 foot flag poles, just so they can test the system.
                                                   
                                                  Also, think about it.  There are numerous building in the US which exceed 200 feet in
                                                  height, a few upwards of a thousand feet, but none of them are marked in the same
                                                  way a tower of equal height is marked.  Compare the tower lighting and painting
                                                  requirements of a 750 foot tower with the lighting and painting of a 750 foot high
                                                  office building.   I've never seen a 750 foot high office building with aviation orange
                                                  and aviation white paint bands, but I've seen many towers of that height with the
                                                  paint bands.
                                                   
                                                  The FCC regulations don't apply to the buildings.  Yes, there does seem to be a compromise where FCC licensed facilities are mounted on the roof structure of tall buildings, where only the tower portion is marked but not the building itself.  
                                                   
                                                  73
                                                  Sheldon
                                                   
                                                   
                                                   
                                                   
                                                   
                                                   
                                                   
                                                   
                                                   
                                                   
                                                   
                                                   


                                                  --- On Wed, 6/22/11, Bill Smith <brscomm@...> wrote:


                                                  From: Bill Smith <brscomm@...>
                                                  Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] Tower Lighting and strobes
                                                  To: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
                                                  Date: Wednesday, June 22, 2011, 5:44 AM


                                                   



                                                  It's not that advisory.The FCC can and will specify how a tower must marked and
                                                  lighted. Usually they will just state that it must be marked and lighted in
                                                  accordance with 7460. And they will come after you:
                                                  http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-305847A1.html

                                                  Bill

                                                  ________________________________
                                                  From: Sheldon Daitch <sheldondaitch@...>
                                                  To: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
                                                  Sent: Tue, June 21, 2011 1:01:19 PM
                                                  Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] Tower Lighting and strobes

                                                   
                                                  Generally, yes, but in every instance, maybe not? 
                                                  One little quirk about the information contained in AC 70/7460-1K.  The
                                                  information
                                                  in this FAA advisory circular, or for that matter, every other FAA advisory
                                                  circular, is
                                                  advisory, not regulatory in nature, unless required in other Federal
                                                  legislation. 
                                                  For instance, see paragraph 2(b), 6, 24 and 25, the references to the FCC. 
                                                  Also, if
                                                  one reads this advisory circular, notice the numerous uses of "should."  The
                                                  word
                                                  "must" is never found in relationship with how tower structures are to be
                                                  marked,

                                                  painted or lit. 

                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







                                                   
                                                   
                                                  In my casual reading of both the FAA rules and the FCC rules, it appears that I
                                                  could erect a 250 foot flagpole at my house, after receiving
                                                   
                                                   
                                                   
                                                   
                                                   


                                                  --- On Wed, 6/22/11, Bill Smith <brscomm@...> wrote:


                                                  From: Bill Smith <brscomm@...>
                                                  Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] Tower Lighting and strobes
                                                  To: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
                                                  Date: Wednesday, June 22, 2011, 5:44 AM


                                                   



                                                  It's not that advisory.The FCC can and will specify how a tower must marked and
                                                  lighted. Usually they will just state that it must be marked and lighted in
                                                  accordance with 7460. And they will come after you:
                                                  http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-305847A1.html

                                                  Bill

                                                  ________________________________
                                                  From: Sheldon Daitch <sheldondaitch@...>
                                                  To: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
                                                  Sent: Tue, June 21, 2011 1:01:19 PM
                                                  Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] Tower Lighting and strobes

                                                   
                                                  Generally, yes, but in every instance, maybe not? 
                                                  One little quirk about the information contained in AC 70/7460-1K.  The
                                                  information
                                                  in this FAA advisory circular, or for that matter, every other FAA advisory
                                                  circular, is
                                                  advisory, not regulatory in nature, unless required in other Federal
                                                  legislation. 
                                                  For instance, see paragraph 2(b), 6, 24 and 25, the references to the FCC. 
                                                  Also, if
                                                  one reads this advisory circular, notice the numerous uses of "should."  The
                                                  word
                                                  "must" is never found in relationship with how tower structures are to be
                                                  marked,

                                                  painted or lit. 

                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]








                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                • widebandit
                                                  Except for the fact that towers are never painted red and white. The FAA approved color is aviation orange - also known as international orange - as describe
                                                  Message 24 of 30 , Jun 22, 2011
                                                  View Source
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Except for the fact that towers are never painted red and white.

                                                    The FAA approved color is aviation orange - also known as international orange - as describe in paragraph 31 of the FAA circular.

                                                    Aviation orange appears reddish-orange at close range, but more red at a distance due to atmospheric scattering of the shorter-wavelength components of the color.

                                                    If your digital camera portrays tower colors as red - you need to be checking the color balance.

                                                    - waw -
                                                    >
                                                    > And from the aesthetic standpoint, nothing beats a tower with a fresh
                                                    > red-and-white paint job and classic incandescent red lighting - and a full
                                                    > load of KS horns, of course!
                                                    >
                                                    > Albert
                                                    >
                                                    > Minor technical note, strobes are not required on towers over
                                                    > 200 feet.
                                                    >
                                                    > Strobe lighing is not the only permitted form of tower lighting.
                                                    > Regular red obstruction lighting systems are also permitted.
                                                    >
                                                    > Towers which use approved strobe lighting systems for daytime lighting
                                                    > operation do not have to be painted with the aviation orange and
                                                    > aviation white color bands. A tower owner can opt for the painting
                                                    > and use only red lights overnight.
                                                    >
                                                    > The tradeoff is the extra costs of installation, operation and maintenance
                                                    > of approved strobe lighting systems vs the traditional red lighting systems
                                                    > with paint.
                                                    >
                                                    > Far more reading is available on tower lighting at:
                                                    > http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/s
                                                    > ystemops/fs/alaskan/towers/obstruction/media/AC70_7460_1K.pdf
                                                    >
                                                    > . The strobes are
                                                    > > >> required by the FAA for towers above 200' (199.9' is exempt, because
                                                    > it's
                                                    > > >> not 200), so until it shrinks to under that, or aircraft cease to fly
                                                    > in the
                                                    > > >> US, it will have strobes 24/7 unless they fail.
                                                    >
                                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.