Federal Communications Commission OffiCE Of CHIEf ENGINEER RESEARCH DIVISION REPORT NO. R-6602 DEVELOPMENT OF VHF AND UHF PROPAGATION CURVES FOR TV AND FM BROADCASTING DEVELOPMENT OF VHF FOR UHF PROPAGATION CURVES BROADCASTING a Wa 3 R 1966 May, 1970 May,!2Z!t _ SUMMARY New propagation curves for use in television and frequency modulation broadcasting were developed from an extensive analysis of data accumulated since these broadcasting services were es tablished. A new method of applying terrain roughness factors for improving the accuracy of field strength predictions was developed for use with the new curves 4> The new curves apply for both the median and the field strength exceeded 10% of the time. At distances out to about 15 or 20 miles from the transmitter, the new VHF and UHF curves are nearly the same as those presently in the FCC Rules. At further distances, out to about 60 miles, the field strengths indicated by the new 500 foot VHF curves are within + 2 dB of the present curves. The new 1000 and 2000 foot VHF curves are up to 6 dB lower than their existing counterparts out to 86 and' 106 miles respectively for Channels 2-6, and out to 73 and 89 miles respectively for Channels 7-13, beyond which dis tances the new curves run up to 14 dB higher than the existing curves. For UHF the field strengths are somewhat lower than indi cated by the present curves, reaching a maximum change at dis tances in the order of 60 miles. There is very little change for average UHF antenna heights for distances beyond 110 miles. CONTENTS Summary Introduction Terrain Roughness Table I, RMS Deviations Diurnal & Location Bias Corrections General Development Procedures Table II, Low Band VHF Data Table III, High Band VHF Oata Table IV, UHF Data Table V, List of Mobile Surveys Development of the VHF Propagation Curves Development of the UHF Propagation Curves Conclusions Acknowledgments References FIGURES I. Terrain Roughness DefinitIon 2. Roughness Correction Measurements 3. Terrain Roughness Correction Curves 4. Measurement data, 50%, (D - DLS) , VHF 5. Measurement data, 10,%, (D - DLS), VHF 6. Mobile data, Low VHF 7. Mobile data, High VHF 8. F(50,50)v~.Distance, Low VHF 9. F(50,50) vs. Distance, High VHF 10. Fading Ratios, VHF II. F(50,10) vs. Distance, Low VHF 12. F(50 , 10) vs • Distance, Hi gh VHF 13. F(50,50), 500, 1000 and 2000 ft. Curves, Low VHF 14. F(50 1 50), 500, 1000 and 2000 ft. Curves, High VHF 15. F(50,10), 500, 1000 and 2000 ft. Curves, Low VHF ,16. F(50,10), 500, 1000 and 2000 ft. Curves, High VHF 17. F(50,50) vs. Antenna Height, Low VHF! 18. F(50,10) vs. Antenna Height, Low VHF 19. F(50,50) vs. Antenna Height, High VHF 20. F(50,10) vs. Antenna Height, High VHF 21.Within-the-ho~izonData, UHF 22. Measurement Data, 50,%, (D - DU3) , UHF 23. F(50,50) vs. Distance, UHF 24. Measurement Data, 10%, (D - DLS) , UHF 25. F(50,10) vs. Distance, UHF 26. Fading Ratios, UHF 27. F(50,50), 500, 1000 and 2000 ft. Curves, UHF 28. F(50,10), 500, 1000 and 2000 ft. Curves, UHF 29. F(50,50) vs. Antenna Height, UHF 30. F(50,10) vs. Antenna Height, UHF - 2 - Page 1 3 4 5 '6 6 8 H ' 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 INTRODUCTION This revision of the FCC Report No" R-6502 (Ref. 1) presents the data and background material leading to the development of improved field strength propagation curves in the VHF and UHF bands, as proposed for use in television and frequency modulation broadcasting services by the Federal Communications Commission. The existing FCC rules contain VHF and UHF propagation curves developed in thel~te1940'$ as a result of studie's made by the Ad Hoc Committee for the ev'aluation of the radio ' propagation factors concerning television and frequency modulation broad casting services in the frequency range 50-250 Mc/s,FCC Docket Nos. 8736, 8975, and 9175 (Ref. 2). Since then, additional field strength data. have, become available to the Commission and studies have been made to improve the accuracy of the existing curves. The first major step in this direction was taken in 1960 by the Radio Propagation Advisory Committee (RPAC) composed of engineers from the industry, the FCC, and other government agencies. Results of the RPAC efforts proved helpful in the subsequent work of the Commission's engineers in developing complete sets of VHF and UHF propa gation curves,culminatin~in rule-making proceedings in Docket No. 16004 proposing the incorporation of the new curves in the FCC rules. Subsequently, the Association of Federal Communications Consulting Engineers (AFCCE) filed a "Petition for Extension of Time for Filing Commerits," indicating that the AFCCE could furnish additional measurement information, and requesting the C9mmission to call an Engineering Con ference to consider the proposed new curves. This Conference was held on September 16, 1965. After reviewing the information available~tthe time, the Engineering Conference agreed to the formation of a Working Group con sisting of arepresenta~iveof AFCCE, FCC engineers, and volunteers from the industry and from other government agencies. This group made extensive studies of all information available, and developed new curves which incorpo,; rated a method of correction for terrain roughness. These curves were pub lished in "Report of the Working Group for the Engineering Conference in Docket No. 16004, on the Development of New FMand TV Propagation Curves," dated April 12, 1966 (Ref. 3). This report also contained a nomogram for correcting the curves for other than average teirain, a brief description of the procedures used in developing the curves, and a recommendation that the curves and !terrain corrections be adopted by the G;ommission for incorporation in the Rules and RegulationsGo~erningRadio Broadcast Services. In the present report, curves are shown for median locations and for field strength levels exceeded for 50 percent and 10 percent of the time. Values of field strength exceeded for 90 percent of the time may be ob tained by assuming that the time fading follows the normal or Gaussian type of distribution, with symmetrical variation about the median level. In general, the fading ratios for VHF and UHF tend to follow the dB normal or Gaussian type of distribution, at least between the 10 percent and 90 percent levels. Throughout this report the median fields are in dicated as F(SO,50) fields and the interference fields as F(50,10) fields. - 3 - This nomenclature refers respectively to field strengths exceed d at 50 percent of the locations during at least 50 percent of the ,t me, and at 50 percent of the locations during at least 10 percent of th time, following the general notation F(L,T) where Land T are location and time percentages.., TERRAIN ROUGHNESS The new propagation curves are intended to be representative of propagation over average terrain in the United States. In order to make m'aximu~use of the available daia,which we're taken over terrain of vary ing r6ughness, thedataw~readjusted by applying the correction factor described below. Several terrain roughness correction techniques were consider-ed and ,the method described ,herein was found to be most readily adaptable to the job at hand. In this method the CCIR criterion for roughness (Ref. 4)twas lJsed to determine a terrain roughness factor for eachradial~ Using this crii terion for determining roughness, an analysi s was made of data from VHF and UHF surveys involving 118 radials, With path-lengths ranging from about 10 to 90 miles.. For each rac,lial, the deviation of field strength from the overall average for th,e 'pe:r;tinent frequency range (low VHF ,'FM, high VHF and UHF) was found. There was ,11osignificant variation af the correction factor'with distance from the transmitter. The deviations fOT all radialstwere plotted· to detefnttne the 'trends of field strength variations wi th wavelength and Ab. This analysis res01ted in the derivation of ,the following eq\,lation:, ......•', ,~.M.........~'~.•. , .~.. ,_~.O~\7:A IO.'.',.".-N .>¥ _ ...•.."~.__ ..'"",",.•...~~.~...,_, ..;:,••;.,'"., •.~~;.-.. where aiF o '= O.03ah = ,O.O:5P+~] AF. o is the chang,e in field strength due to ",aria't't'ons in terrain roughness, in dn, ~is the wavelength in meters, f is the frequency in Mc/s and Ah is the CCIR terrain roughness factor, i.e. the difference (meters) in elevation between the levels exceeded for 10 and 90 percent of the terrain along the radial in the rtange 10 to 50 kilome.ters (.6 to 31 miles) from the trans mitter. See Figure 1. This equation is plotted in Figure 2, along with the data used in deriving it. In the development of the final propagation curves it was assumed that a value of Ah equal to 50 meters was appropriate for average terrain roughness in the United States, and the data wereadjuste~ to this average using the above equation. After the final field strength curves were derived, the root-mean lsquares of the deviations of the mobile data from the F(SO,SO) curves, with andw~thoutthe terrain roughness correction, were calculated for the various frequency ranges. These values are shown in Table I. Also shown - 4 - in Table I are the root-mean-squares of the deviations forWHYN;-FM"and WHYN-TV, channel 40, Springfield, Massachusetts and channelB2, 7, and, 31 in New .York City. The Springfield data. ver,e included to shoW' the "effect of the roughness correction in areas where the terrain is extremelyrough~ The New York City data are of particular interest 'in, correlatiqg'frequeney with other parllmeters because measurements were made over the same,paths for all three stations. It should be kept in mind that the values for individual stations 'may be in error due to uncertainty indet~rmini~the effective radiated power in a given direction. . TABLE I Low ,VHF High VHF UHF N. Y.. Channel 2 N.. Y. Channel 7 N. Y.. Channel 31 ,WHYN-FM WHYN-TV Without terrain roughness correction dB 9.0 7.. 4 14.2 5.8 9.9 to.6 17.2 22.6 With terrain roughness correction dB 7.7 6.8 9.3 4.4 6.7 7.3 12.1 10.8 Difference dB 1.3 0.6 4.9 1.4 3.. 2 3.3 5.1 11.,8 The deviations used in calculating these values were for tbe average or median field strength over IO-mile radial'segments from 10 to 60 miles from the transmitter.. The relatively low values for high VHF, w.ere1argely due to the fact that nearly all these data were taken: over 'relatively smooth terrain. The curves in Figure 3 may be used for adjusting the new propagation curves (Figures 17, 18, 19, 20, 29 and 30) for terrain roughness. Where greater detail is required in determining variations due to frequency, the curves in Figure 3 may be applied by interpolation within the frequency ranges for which the propagation curves were designed.. This procedure would be especially useful for Channels l4to 83 curves, where terrain variations have greater inf.luence on proPagation as affected by frequency The new propagation curves were designed to represent approximate centers of the respective frequency bands at 75, 195 and 650 MC/S .. The corrections for terrain roughness are intended for application in estimating median (or average) field strengths over areas where the general character of the terrain is fairly uniform, or where there is no abrupt ' change in terrain roughness. It is not possible to accurately predict the field strength at any given receiver site. Useful predictions are possible when medians are required in describing the distributions of field strength over areas of appreciable extent.. The standard error of estimate for median values will diminish when the area under consideration is' increased. The data available in formulating the empirical equationfor~Fopro vided information for distances out to about 60 miles, and for values of ~hup to 400 meters. At distances beyond 60 miles, for both the F(50,50) and F(SO,lO) curves, the terrain roughness corrections should be used with caution pending the development of better information from measurements which may be accumulated later for these distances. - 5 - It is recognized that many considerations other than overall terrain roughness, such as obstructions ofhill~,trees, etc., antenna heights, local structural environment, inclination of the land, and weather condi tions over the propagation path, will all contribute toward variations of individual measurements of field strength. As further experience is gained in the study of these effects, greater accuracy in the prediction of field strength coverage will be possible. DIURNAL AND RECEIVER LOCATION BIAS CORRECTIONS A review of the available data indicated that the differential between the day and night field strengths was negligible in the VHF bands, insofar as any adjustment for mobile measurements taken in daylight hours was con cerned. In the UHF band, a diurnal correction was applied for adjusting the.daytime mobile measurements as follows: D - DLS in Miles Diurnal Correction in dB Less than -15 0 -15 to 5 +1 5 to 15 +2 15 to 35 +3 35 to 45 +2 45 to 55 +1 More than 55 0 Most of the fixed-point, long-term measurements were made at sites which were engineered to take advantage of the surrounding terrain, thus making them in effect, "preferred" locations, while all other measurements were adjusted to conform with average terrain conditions in the derivation of the ,new curves. An examination of measurements taken at randomly selected locations at 85 and 125 miles from FM stations in Ohio (1959 TASO Report, Page 313; Ref. 5) provides information applicable to the correction of long term measurements made at "preferred lt locations. From this study it was estimated that the fixed-location, long-term data should be corrected by -4 dB on VHF, and by -6 dB on UHF. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES The development of the curves was divided into three major parts: (1) Low.band VHF, including the FM band, 54 to 108 MC/s; (2) high band VHF, 174 to 216 MC/s; and (3) UHF, 470 to 890 MC/s. Examination of the available information and data in each of the three frequenGY ranges resulted in the determination of antenna height-gain relationships, of terrain correction factors, of fading ratios for the F(50,10) curves, and of frequency effects. The various curves for all these parameters were drawn and redrawn until the smoothest possible coherence was obtained, and until the best possible fit with the data was shown, considering the natural correlations between all these variable factors. - 6 - In this report the transmitter antenna height was considered to be the height of the electrical center of the antenna above the average of all elevations within the range from 2 "to 10 miles from the antenna. When sufficient information was available, these elevations were taken along the radial in the direction of the receiver. The details of the development of the VHF and UHF curves~retreated separately later in this report. 'However, the general procedure was the 'same, namely, the derivation of,a base curve through the corrected data and derivatlonof a family of curves from this base curve. These deri-, vations were made in tWQ steps; wi thin-the-horizon 'curves" and beyond-the"':" horizon curves, with the two merged together near theradio;horizon. For ,transmitting antennas within the radio horizon, linear hei.ght gainw9-s, assumed. For height gains beyond the horizon, a D - DLS relationship de scribed below was applied. Departure fromlinearh~ightgainoccuis~close in where the curves are restricted from exceeding free-space fields, and near the horizon where one antenna is wi thin line-of-sight and other, lower antennas are beyond the line-of-sight. For distances beyond the horizon, heightg~~nwas based on studies made by the Radio Propagation Advi so,ry Commi ttee', and by the Nation.a.! Bure 1 au of Standards, which indicate "that field strength isa function of distance between horizons (Refs. 5, 6,7,8). Using this .concept, the attenuation of field streng:th well beyond the radio horizon can be rep resented as the result of two trends: a trend Df 10 log b{D = trans"':" mitting distance} plus a trend with distancesbeJ'/ond the horizon, D',- D LS ' whe're DLS is the line;"of-sight distance. All of the pertinentbeyo'nd- ' the-horizon data adjusted by 10 log Dwere plotted versus the appropriate: D - DLS values, with best fit base curves drawn through such data (Figures 4, 5, 22 and 24).. The long-term fixed-location data used in this project are listed in TablesI~,III and IV. The relativi: weights indicated in these tables were aS,signed according to the degree 'in which the measurements were likely to contain seasonal or diurnal bias, ranging from 1 for little or no bias to 4 for heavily biased data. For each frequency range, families of beyond-the-horizon field, strength versus distance 6urves were 'derived from the appropriate best fit base curves for various heights of transmitting antennas in the following manner. For a given transmitting antenna height, the field strength at a distance D can be determined by reading the F + 10 log D value from the best fit base curve at a distance equal to D - DLS, and subtracting 10 log D, where = field strength in dB above 1 microvolt/meter, =~+ J2"H; (miles), and H t , H r are the transmitting and receiving antenna heights respectively in feet. The mobile measurements were made along radials at intervals of about two miles, using the, technique described by TAsa (Ref. 5). At each of these road segments the mobile field strength measuring vehicle was driven slowly for a distance of about lOOfeet with the antenna extended to a height of 30 feet above ground. Chart recordings were made for each~f these runs. The sources of these data are shown in TableV~ - 7 - I 00 I .' TABLE II - Low Band VHF Data Pt. Call n.ecording Period Distance Frequency H t l\ D-D rs F (1) F (10) F (50) heJ<::tive No. Transmitter Location Receiver Location Letters Source References From To (miles) HC/s (feet) (feet) (miles) (dB'.lV/m (dBuV/m (dBuV/m Height for 1 kw) for 1 )r<,I) :or 1 hI) 1 Chicago. Ill.. Urbana Ill. WNBO CRPL 10150 !'. 51 126.j 81 75 595 110 77.0 33.7 25.3 14.0 2 2 OmalJ.a, Neb. Gr. Island. Neb. WOW CRPL 4 51 6 51 130.7 81.75 570 30 89.2 10.6 5.3 0.5 3 3 Oreaha, Neb. Gr. Island, Neb. Kr-lTV FCC 7 51 12 51 131.4 65.75 590 30 94.7 17.:: 9.1 0.2 2 4 Houston. Texas Austin. Texas KPRC CRPL 3i51 12 53 l.42.7 59.75 500 32 105.7 18.7 13.0 3.9 1 . 5 Detroit Mich. Alle!re.n l.fich. WJBK CRPL 10 52 4 53 144.1 59.75 485 30 107.5 8.2 -0.5 -8.4 2 6 Chicago Tll Urbana III i.JBKB U of'Ill 1 / 52 1/53 126.6 71.75 650 90 75.8 28.4 19.4 9.8 1 7 Phila. Fa. Laurel Mi. i-IPTZ FCC TID 2.4.6 3/44 7/44 108.0 71.75 286 30 76.4 23.7 11.9 '2 .I (3 New York, N. Y. Princeton. N. J. i-lABD FCC TID 2.4.6 845 9/45 46.0 83.75 647 30 2.4 51.8 44.3 39.0 4 9 New York 1'1 Y Anda-lu.Clfa Fa WABD FCC TID 2.4.6 845 9/L,5 71.0 83.75 647 30 27.4 41,.6 30.1 17.6 4 10 New York. N. Y. Laurel Mi. i-IABD FCC TID 2 1, 6 8 L,5 9!L5 187 0 8"37'5 647 50 141.1 26.1 12.1 4.1 4 11 Chicago. Ill. A11e!re.n 'l-tlch. WBKB FCC TID 2.4.6 10(41 1/42 10'3.0 65.75 '390 50 65.1 110 1 2 ':i 3.~ 12 Alpine. N. J. Laurel ill. W2XMN FCC TID 2.4.6 24j 1/44 198 42.8 800 30 150.3 3.9 4.9 -11.7 1 1"3 Fa:>..-ton, Hass. Laurel 1.fi. WGTR .. FCC' TID 2.4.6 243 11411- 337 44.3 737 30 290.9 -1I,.1, -22.0 -31.0* 1 1/. Phila. Pa. Laurel ill KYl,v-FH FCC TID 2.4 6 2h"3 9/4"3 10L. 45.7 346 30 70.0 21.6 12.1 7.6 2 15 ·Hilwaukee. Wis. Al1egan. 'l-tlch. H:t·:!FH FCC TID 2.4.6 10/43 8/41 122 45.5 711 50 74.:: 17.2 9.0 3.e 2 16 New York, N. Y. Andalusia. Fa. WABC-FH FCC TID 2.4.6 8/45 9/45 70 46.7 780 30 22.8 31.6 25.8 16.4 4 17 New York, N. Y. Laurel, Nd. HABC-FN FCC TID 2.4.6 8/45 9,45 186 46.7 780 50 1'06.'5 2'5.S 15.8 7.2 4 18 Mihlaulcee Wis Deerfield III 1JMTi1,f FCC rIID 2.4.6 8h5 9 4'5 76.3 45.5 390 30 40.7 35.3 30.5 19.2 4 19 New York. N. Y. Riverhead N Y W2XVlG FCC TID 2.4.6 2/n 642 70 45.1 1270 60 8.8 45.9 38.7 32.5 1 20 iiew York. N. Y. Princeton N. J. WEAH FCC TID 2.4 6 5/46 5(47 45 47.1 600 50 0.4 41.6 33.6 30.7 1 21 New York. N. Y. southampton Fa. WEAN FCC TID 2.4 6 '5/46 1l/46 68 L,7.1 600 30 25.7 31.5 25.:: 13.0 3 22 NevI York, N. Y. laurel. Hi. i-l'BAM FCC TID 2.4.6 5/46 5/47 186~.7.1 600 30 143.7 15.5 6.2 -6.1 1 2':l Alpine. N. J. . Riverhead N. Y. Iv2XHN FCC TID 2.4.6 6/47 IJ/47 66 44.1 770 60 16.0 L'l-5 o C 37.0 30.0 ':l ... U Alpine N. J. Riverhead N. Y. W2XNN FCC TID 2.4 6 6!L7 1l!L.7 66 44.1 770 30 19.2 33.0 30.0 22.0 3 25 Alpine N. J. vlesthampton Beach, N.J W2XMN FCC TID 2.4.6 9/47 10/47 67 44.1 770 40 18.9 38.2{} 35.22S~C'4 26 Alpine H. J Mt Hollv, N J W2XHN FCC TID 2.46 2/49 3/49 80 41,,1 800 40 31.0 24.1{} 17.5 12.5 4 27 Cheyenne 1>1tn S Favetteville Ark CRPL 8/52 2/53 617.7 100.0 2271 38 541.6 -1.,.9.3 4 28 Fresno, Cal. Livermore Cal. KARM-FH FCC Proc:-.Hpt#4 7/51 12/51 121.7 101.9 360 30 82.2 16.3 9.6 1.4 1 29 Chico Cal Livermore Cal KVCI-FH FCC II II II 7/"il 12 51 138.5 101.1 482 30 119.0 15.1 8.0 -2.1 2 '30 ChicaQ'o III Alle!re.n J:.tlch. WEl'ffi-FH CRFL 7/50 7 £::2 ll8n5 94.7 605 "0 76.3 27.7 18.1 S.6 1 31 Anderson S. C. Pm/der SprinQ's Ga i-ICAC-FN CF.PL 4/51 Q 52 127.5 101.1 "375 30 92.4 23.5 14.2 5.3 1 32 st. Louis. No. Urbana Ill. KXOK-F.t1 CRPL 1/51 6 52 146.5 93.7 550 90 99.9 19.0 12.0 5.0 1 3'3 Chicago. Ill. Urbana Ill. l:lMBI_FN CRFL 1/51 6 52 126.0 95.5 440 90 82.9 23.3 16.1 5.8 1 34 Columbus, Ind. Urbana. Ill. WCSI-FH CRPL 7/50 6/52 139.0 93.7 250 90 103.2 15.4 8.5 -0.6 1 , "3'5 YOUD0"stmm. Ohio Hudson Ohio vIABl:-FH CRFL 1/51 ll/52 41••9 98.9 592 30 2.7 43.7 37.9 35.0 1 36 YOUDPStOlID. Ohio Hudson Ohio iIDJJ-FH CRPL 11/52 6/53 45.7 105.1 395 30 9.8 40.6 36.2 33.1 2 - ,...-.' Ht - AveraQ'e 2-10 mile height "tranSl:n.L't.te Drs =lP-Ht I-'/2H r .. i F(l), F(lC ), F(50) - Field stre~gthin dB above 1 u~/mfor 1 k: CRPL - FC( Project P og. r.eport :'0. I, Hr = Heil!'.ht above[~ound.receiver exceeded for 1.10 and 50 per~entof til e. 10/1 tol~,'31, l'7::>,L * ; .•., - - TABLE ·11 - Low Band VHF Data ( Continued) ""~=,-~. R I H D-D F (1) ,; (10) r (50). . Pt. Gall Recoring Period Distance Frequency t r IS (dBuV/m (d:3uV!n (dDll,.r/mF(J'.)_F(5~D~e~at,~ve No. Transmitter Location Receiver Location Letters Source Reference From To (miles) Mc/s (feet) (feet) (mEes) for 1 kH) fOe' l l.c.d fer 1 bI) dB~le~ght. 37 Sacramento <4lif. Livermore, Calif. KXC'F.-Fl-l CRFL 8/53 6/54 62.0 107.9 187 30 34.9 27,; .' 16.: ;,9 2 33 Sacramento, Galif. Livermore Galif. KCRA-FN Cf\.PL 7/5" 6/54 63.6 96.1 392 30 27.9 i/o. 5 L,J,J 35.0 6.1 1 39 san Antonio, Texas Austin, Texas KTSA-FM CftPL 4/50 10/50 74.2 101.5 322 ;'2 40.8 27.5;~Lr;l3.B 7.2 3 40 San Antonio Texas Austin Texas K'iFV...FM CP:.PL 9/1,.9 4/50 78.1 101.5 472 32 39.1, >29.5 2/.,; 16.0 2.1 3 L.J ReadinQ' Fa. laurel Md. ;'!EEU-FH CfU'L 9/51 11/52 95.6 92.9 534 30 55.2 27.5 1\;,9 12.0 7.9 2 42 Pittsburg-h Fa RudEon Ohio KDYI1l-Fl-I CUL 2/52 6/53 96.7 92.9 736 30 50.6 23.1 1;.5 3.7 9.8 1 43 Fresno, Calif. Livermore Calif. KNJ-FH CliPL 1/53 6/5" 117.8 97.9 101,2 30 6l,.•4 1],2 = ., -0.4 5.7 1 44 Fresno, Calif. Livermore Calif. 1(RF'K-Fl·; CRPL 8/52 9/'52 1'>5.5 93.7 1925 30 65.7 26.9 23.8 19.4 4.4 I, 45 Detroit, l:ich. Allegan, Elch. WDET-FH CRPL 10/52 ::/53 139.5 101.9 320 30 106.5 C,5 -:).3 -:=),53.2 46 He,,! York, N. Y. l-lillis, NEtss. ':lEVD-FH CliPL 9/52 5 53 167.9 '1.97.5 3M) :;0 13/+011'1~2.': -8." 6.0 47 Tampa, Fla. Ft Lauderdale Fla. :lDAE-?H CliFL 3 52 9,5'3 185.7 100.7 390 "'0 150.1 .::0' lJ '0. 7.96.~ 48 Orlando. I'la Ft. Lauderdale. Fla. ',[:100-]<'1-1 CHL 10 52 7 53 135.3 96.5 1,,60 30 14:7.'32~~.::;J,2.7 J.6 9.1. L49 Clinmanls Pi{. N. C. POl,der Springs Ga. ',l}iIT-FH CHL 5 52 7 53 139.5 106.9 3613 30 96.7 13.1~),'7 -3,6 0.7 50 CI,eyenne Htn. B Kendriclc Colo. CRPL 12 52 7/53 49.4 92.0 1376 37 -11.7 50,? '7 .f,. /.5.3~.'. T 2 '51 Cheyenne Ntn. B Karval Colo. caPL 11 52 7/53 70.2 92.0 lU6 37 3.4 1}3. ' ,'·~.635.'1. :.5 I 2 52 Che;;renne l{tn. S Haswell. Colo. CHPL 2 52 3/53 96.6 100.0 2;271 19 23.0 L1,6 ';,'J 27,6 =. I I 1 'i, Cheyenne }vitn. B Haswell Colo. CRPL 2 52 '3/52 96.8 92.0 1482 37 3:.8 36, '.1 2",.1 15.7,,';' 1 2 54 Ch,,7enne Bn. S Garden City, Kans. CRPL 2 52 8/54 223.5 100.0 2271 19 152,9 -2.'< -11).7 <-J.7.1 6.4 I B 55 Cheyenne Xtn. S l>larble Colo. CRtL .2 5L S/5!,.l/~10 l'JO.O 2271 32 65.7 16.7 --- 3 ..0 B 56 Portland are. Seattle Hash. KOIN-PH CRPL 6/51 6/51 141.1 101 .1 131.2 94 79.5 l,,4 -C.l -_.. 1 I I 57 Ft. Carson Colo Garden Citv !Cans CRPL 8 52 2/53 223.5 100.0 40 19 203.5 -1.9 -e.9 7.0 4 I, 1"t., Carson, Colo. Ii.llthon", Kans. CHPL S/52 2/51 ,90,'7 100.0 40 39 372.9 -32.2 --- 4 Cheyenne Btn. S Anthony, Kans. C[(1'L 7/52 3/53 393.5 100.0 2271 39 317.3 -23.4 --- :2 tot. Carson Colo. Fa'rettevil1e. Ark CRPL 3 52 2/53 61/,,0 100.0 40 33 596.3 -52.!, --- 4 Ft. Carson, Colo. Kendrick, Colo. CRPL 8 52 2/53 46.6 100.0~O19'1.5 2'::.) 27.')).'::' Ft. Carson, Colo. Karval., Colo. CR1'L 2 54 3/54 63.0 10C.'J 40 19 52.9 2;," 2'1..8 ;.,5 Harrisburg, Fa. Laurel. Hi. WABX-FH FCC 7 51 8/51 75.8 100.9 52 30 57.9L,~--- 4 Ft. Carson, Colo. Haswell. Colo. CRPL 8/'52 1/5!" 93.8 100.'J 40 19 78.7 ;,.'J --- Nobile, iUa. P!idr. SprO's. Ga. '.ofABB-FH FCC 9/52 3/53 291.2 lJ2.1 285 :'0 260.':) -5 •.:, -1;3,7 -2'1.5 :'].8 1 Pittsbur'!h Fa laurel Md KDKA-FH FCC ISS.7 92.9 61,) :'0 W •• !' -5,7 _._-!, Cheyenne };tn. B Garden City, Kans. CHPL 2/52 3/5"- 226.6 9'..'] l/,82 37 103.6 -n.7 -16.S-.~O.!:L.!;. ;, Cheyenne Htn. S A..'1thony. Kans. CRPL 2/52 3/53 393.5 100.0 2002 39 321..', -:;7.3 --- 4 "leVi York, N. Y. Princeton, ;1 ••T. l;1B1u\f FCC TRR 2.4.1;; 5/1,6 5/47 45.0 106.5 ,.)00 50 n j :,2,') 47.'.. ;,3.'] 3.1 1 ;:eH York. N. Y. Southfu'11pton, Pa. HBA}! FCC TRf( 2.!:.1<.2.lJr9.. I~6;.0 106.5 Geo 30 25.7 L/;.1 ]::.6 26 9.6 2 6 .._.~ Hoc =Average 2-10 m: le heifTht,tra.'lSfi'itter DIS31')T$~.+,2H"r' _I- - -- 1"(1). F(lJ) F(50) = Field str ngth in dB aboove 1u' 1:!i1"0r 1 le'. Hr =;ieight above..£! ound. receiver exceeded for 1. 10 and 50 '::;6 cent of tjmo. * Bxtrapo ated r l ft ft I I I TABLE II - Low Band VHF Data (Continued) 4 9.5 1~J.Cl 21".03/}.: H, 'H D-D ;;(.1) '" , " (50) Pt: Call Recordhg Period Distance Frequency t, r IS (dBuV/m(d~ul/mIF(lC)-F(5C ,.elative ;'0 Transmitter LocatioJ,1 Receiver Location Letters Source Eeference From To (miles) ;.i-".Rep#L ii51 n/51 146 2 9£.9 1173 30 90.0 18. 1:).3 '3.2 1 7.6 T 2 9 Greem-rood, S. C. • Po\m.er Sprine:s Ga. HCRS-PH FCC Froe:.Re·)#4 8/48 1/49 145.0 95.7 1,09 30 108.4 12. 5.5 -4.5 'I le.O Cleveland Ohio • Detroit Hich Hb'l:IS-FH FCCrol" Tlen#/.10;/'>~'1!L.9 96.0 102.1 640 30 52.5 35. 2/,:-6 9.6 1 1},6 Cleveland. Ohio I Detroit, 1licn. il;f;'l-FH FCG Frog.ReP#4.10/48 1/49 97.0 104.1 730 30 51.1 36. .::6.9 15.3 -, 11.6 Cleveland Ohio Detroit. Hich. L, Boston :-Sass. Riverhead N. Y. 1 Boston. 11ass. Hauppauge, iI. Y. 1 96 I Easton. Pa. R state College. P8- l'IEST-FE I CRIL I Il~12/52 1 139.'3 I 107.9 150 -j 631 11S:1T 11.6 T n.O I -L0 I 7.0 I 1 97 Olean, N. Y. g state College, Pa. n UHDL-FH I CRFL I I5~U5?, I 90.8 195:'7-' 330 - I 57 I r 1!,.0 I I 1 93 I Pittsburgh, Fa. g State Coll",ge, Pa. II T,lJilS-FN I CRIL I I 6/51 I 4/53 , 117.1 199.7~11,70 1 63 -r 75.3 T 17.8 r E.I) In4,2 --jJ.'j I 3 IIIN Alpine,:i.J. Riverhead. N.Y. KE2XCC FCC FrN,:.Repf,'4 6/L9 12/5-0 67.? 93,1 795 I 30 19.7 46.6 I ;r.;-,l 26,3 9.;' 1 ...... D39 Houston, Texas Austin Texas KPRC-FH CHFL 1/50 6/51 lJ.7.i) 102.9 3L,2 ;2 113.6 >20.5 1.:.• 5 5.1 7.". 1 I' ft 90 Dallas. Texas Austin. Texas UFLA-FH CRFL 1l!L.0 8/50 174.2 97.9 525 32 133.8 7,8 -C',l, -4.4 4.(J 1 I 1191 Dallas. Texas Austin Texas KIXI-FH CRPL 1/'116/5~175.9 10".5 UO '17 138.2 >1).8 L.9 -2.7 7.6 1 92 Abilene, Texas Austin, TeXlO.s KRBC-:FH FCC 4/50 6/50 177.1 96.9 592 32 134,7 > 9.0 I.'? -,.3 5,7 L, 1 193 Columbus Ghio Hudson. Ohio ',.JHKC-F1·! CEFL 1/'1' 6/53 124.9 98.7 562 30 R3.6 24./, Ib.l 6.S' 9.2 1 I 9 1 Columous. Ohio Hudson Ohio I.fCOL-PH CRPL 1/51 6/53 121.2 92.3 330 ,0 86.9 27.5 19.7 9,7 1:),0 1 95 Detroit, l-lichigan Hudson. Ohio~1JR-FNCHFL 1/51 6/53 112.8 96.3 430 30 74.1 36,1 'e,~12,1 12,,2 1 99!~ashington,D. C. State Collese Pa. 3 I 100 Hashin'"ton D. C. State C0110<7e Fa 1 101 Houston. 'Texas Austin. Texas 1 h09 I Pittsbur,;h. Fa. I Laurel. Yd. I~IJAS-FHl~'CCI I 11/52 I 6/53 I 191.3 I 99.7 L 686_1~3()-----.L...:v.6.61 2.1 I -1.9 I -'.':; I I '" 05 SaIl Die>lo. Calif. Santa Ana Calif. I KFSD-FH I CliFL I I ,/51 I 6/53 34.7 9L.l /,25 :'0 1,7.8 4'.5 35.; 2;, 11.7 T 1 11.L06 Philadelnhia p,., Laurel~tl,H HIP-FH I CRPL I 13/51 I W/52 104.2 93.3 430 30 67. 1 35.1,':0.3 10,1~,5I 1 L07 Hartford. Conn. 1.lillis ]t,ass. I VITIC-FH I CRPL I I 1/52 T S/52 80,7 96.5 705 30 35.4 31.2 ::1,,1.. 15. 9.1 I 1 108 I,ihcoln, £lab. Grand Island, Heb. 1 KFGH-i"Hl CRPL 1 1 2/51 1 7/52 93.2 102.9 230 30 64.1 31.:' 1'),:; :'. 10.7 I 1 II 82 31'..reveport La. Austin, Texas 3 I' .LO.? Lon iew Te.xas Austin '!'exas 1. I 04 Seattle. Wash. Fortland. Ore"'- 1 - Ie heiD'ht, transmitter lUld receiver ft __ ! H ~ .' TABLE III - High Band VHF Data h I(f::t) F (1) ? (10) F (50) Ft. ; Call Recording Period DistanceFrequenc~ H t D-D IS (dBuV/m (dEu\,'/m (d3uV/m !F(10)-F(50DRelative No. !rallsmitter IJOCation Receiver Location Letters Source References From To (miles) HC/s (feet) (miles) for 1 ku) for 1 hi) for 1 k';{) Height 1 Birmincrham Ala Powder Snriili!s Ga I-TA.t"'H-TV FCC 7 "1 12 51 121.8 215.75 875 10 72. '>, 21.8 1"'.1 4.1 9.G 1 2 Cincinnati, Ohio Allegan Nich. \1KRC-TV FCC 4 51 6 53 2-52.620~.75 650 30 203.9 -4.0 -1'(.0 -32.8 15.8 1 ., San Diego, Calif• Santa Ana. Calif. KFNB-TV FCC 11 51 10 53 71.9 185.75 710 30 26.6 43.7 39.0 31.4 7.6 1 4~TilmingtonDel. laurel M1 vTDEL-TV FCC 6 53 7 51. 81.9 209.75 480~o43.2 49.0 3:.2 17.4 15.8 1 5 Chicago Ill. Urbana III vTENE-TV CRPL 7 51 6 5, 127 0 179 75 660 90 77.2 34.2 23.5 11.3 12.2 1 6 Chicago, Ill. Urbuna, Ill. HGN-TV CRPL 7 51 6 53 127.0 191.75 585 75 80.7 31.7 20.7 9.4 n.3 1 7 Chicago. Ill. Urbana III WGN-TV CRPL 7/1)1 6(1)", 127.0 191.75 585 100 78.8 38.5 26.0 13.2 12.8 1 (3 Chicago, Ill. Urbana Ill. WGN-TV CRPL 7 51 6 51 127.0 191.75 585 125 77.1 36.1 26.8 12.6 1/+0 2 1 9 Newark, N. J. Hillis Hass. I.fATV FCC 11 51 10 52 179.8 215.75 595 30 137.6 14.3 2.1 -9.4 11.5 1 10 Philadelphia,~a:.. Laurel M:l.. WCAU-TV FCC 3 51 2/52 103.9 197.75 670 30 59.6 23.1 6.0* - - - - 1 11 San Francisco Calif. Livermore Calif. KGO-TV CRFL 7 51 9/54 38.2 179.75 1261 30 ...... 45.5 '0.8 37.0 3.3 1 Detroit, Mich. Hudson Ohio WXYZ-TV CRPL 5 50 6/53 111.8 179.75 435 3.3 72.6 4.3.3 29.4 13.5 15.9 1 Dallas. Texas Austin Texas I.fFAA-TV CRPL L,. 51 6/51 175.1 185.75 350 32 UO.6 1.5 -3.3 -10.2 6.9 1 New York. N. Y. Riverhead N. Y. FCC TRR 2.4.1 8 (1,.6 11 1,.6 70 1 288 0 1260 70 S.l L,8.0 .:n.2 24.9 6.3 2 Colo. Snl'ZS Colo Haswell, Colo. CR?L 2/5.3 4 5.3 96.6 192.8 3050 17.5 12.6 1+2.,2 37.3 30.0 7.3 2 Colo. Spgs., Colo. Garden City. Kans. CRPL 2/52 2 51 226.') 192.8 3050 17,51/~,510.2 -4.5 -12.1 7.6 4- Colo, SpgS, Colo. F.aswe11 Colo. CRPL 1/52 4/52 96.6 210,L; 1700 36 29.9 3.3.2 26,0 17.5 8.5 4 Cheyenne Mtn. B Kendrick. Colo. CRPL 12/52 4/53 49.4 210.4 1396 36 -11.3 53.2 49.5 L6.3 3.2 J I hg Cheyenne Htn. B Kendrick, Colo. CRPL 2/54 8 54 49.4 2.36,0 1396 .36 -11.3 - - ...... t',9ll) 8 ... - 2 :::: 120 Cheyenne Mtn. B Karval. Colo. CRPL 1/51 L/53 70 2 210.4 1436 36 8.2 41;.6 41.0 37.0 4.0 L, I 121 Cheyenne Htn. B Karval Colo CHPL 2/54 8/54 70.2 2.36,0 11.36 36 8.2 - - 49.3/.l~!i-7.9 .3 22 Cheyenne l:tn. S Haswell Colo. CRPL 2/54 8/54 96.6 230.0 2321 18 22.6 U.O 35.9 32.9 ?O 4 23 Cheyenne Htn. B Has,ve1l Colo. CRFL 2/54 8 / 54 96.8 236,0 150? 36 33.4 ... - ... - 22.0 - - 2 II U Cheyenne i,itn. S Garden Citv. Kans CRPL 2 51 8/5L,. 226 52~00 2.321 18 152,5 - ... ... - -80 3 ...... .2 21) Chevenne Htn.B Garden Citv_ Kans. CRFL 12 52 4/53 226.6 210.4 1502 36 163.4 -1O,,7 -15.8 -:>..4.,5 3.7 .3 26 Cheyenne Htn. S Harb1e. Colo. CRPL 2 54 8/54 141 230 2.321 32 69.0 - - - ... 21.9 ... - I 3 Cheyenne Htn. S Carden Cit". Kans. CRPL 2.52 2/53 226.5 192.8 2321 18 152•.4- 7,0 -4,9 -11.0 6,1 1 Cheyenne !>ltn. B Anthonv, Kans. CRPL 2/5.3 .3/53 .39:.6 210.4 1/.0.3 39 3.31lJ:3 ... ... - ... -:7.4 - ... /. Cheyelme i';tn. B Anthon- r Ka:ns. CRPL 7/52 8/52 393.6 192 0 8 2321 39 316.5 - ... ... - -21,9 - ... 4 Rome Ga Pm'leer SprinR's Ga (,'ROM-TV FCC 6/57 12/57 38.8 191.75 720 30 -6,8 L2o :"'~0.?}3.0 2.: .3 Chattanoo'!a 'l'elU1, POi-rder SprinR's Ga. ({TVG-TV FCC Till, 2 L..12 2/58 1/59 86.0 191.75 1040 .30 32.3 26.5 :21.(\ 15.1 5.S' 1 [{earney, Heb. Grand Island. Neb, KHOl-TV FCC TEll. 2.4.12 11/56 7/57 48.6 21/..75 550 ':;;0 7.,:.;~B.lL:J..B :9.033~'1 Lincoln Neb. Gr<,nd Island Neb. KOLN-TV FCC TRR 2.L 18 6/55 7/57 66,2 197.76 lCOO .30 1.3.8 Ly5.9 .35.(. :;(•• 19.~1 Hutchinson Kans. Grand Island. Neb KTVH-TV FCC TRR 2.4.::W 2/55 9/56 198 209.75 810 30 150.1 70 5 -4.1 -15 0 C* lC.9* .2 r-- r-- Ht = Averaze 2-10mi11'-b..~httransmitter DIS =)l2Ht +-\:'2I!r F(1), F(10 , F(50) =TField st;;fngth in dBTabove 1~for1 k\. Hr = Height above croL;i. receiver exceeded for 1, 10J and 50 p'1-cent of t - e. I I*Extre.po1a ad TABLE IV - UHF Band Data p. r (f2Ct) D-~LSI £'(1) I F{lO) Ir(50) IF(lOH'(50/DRe::-ative (relIes~I~.fe~gr:T.. ~.\ ;'0. Transmitter Location Reccivcr 1,ocation (feet) , 1;.rC'~,Yor]:, H. Y. Princeton, il. J. 9(,'9 I 50 :2 ;;eii York, N. Y. Soutr.a"r',on, Pa.:'J2XC~'FCC 17,8 5/io/L.6 9/J.4/L;6 68 700 909 30 3 Ne\! York, N. Y. HauJlpauge, H. Y. RCll 21' 10 8/43 and 2/M. L,2.5 474, 1270 100 ~,I,. Y. Riverhead, N. Y. RCA 21,fo,13 8/43 and 2/L,,4 70.1 L,,74 1270 12L. 5 loans Hock, Mi. !;lure1, J.fi. FCC 18,8 4/14/49 10/31/1.9 115 400 2250 30 6 Icedar Rapids, Iowa I\'laukcn, Iowa I ICol1ins '11.18.e I Sunrncrl 19.4,8 I 98 I 412 I 40+ I 10 7 ICedar Rapids. Io\!U INitchellville, 10\18. I ICollins Ill,lS,8 I~Jinter11949-50 I 86.1 , 412 I 40+ I 10 -7.£. 17.6 -'1',,9 4.1 40.2 84.6 72.7 51.iT 73.1 63.0 2J.•9 50.::: 26.6 c, 3:.: j 70.7 .-."') (, lL5 ;:0.C' 1::-.4 J") r J.:~oC* 67.6 ::l-~_.J 1.2 '1.f n.2* 3.1 15.5 16.L" 1~ 12.2 4 2 4 L" 8 ICedar Rap:Lds, Iowa IQuincy, Illinois I ICollins 111.18,8 I SpringI 1950 I 133.9 I 412 I 40+ I 10 r Rapids, 10\18. INeH London, Iowa I I Collins 111,18,8 /8/16/L.8 I 8/21/L,3 I 225 I 412 I 40+ I 10 120.5 211.6 15.( 21l)9 ;_.7 o -0.5 7.2 4 61.8 69.5 56.7 '12.8 23.9 L -0 " ')'LI, ;,C).I 1,7.1 2 ? 1 hi, " lC, ? Q1 -2.7 12.1 1 82.5 13.2 ')6 ? -1.C'* /.7.1 'L.1 n.c J. 1 4 ~.1 7.1 36 0 2 -5a5* 17.2 -YoO -4.5 -26.0 4.2* -1:: .. 9 (} ? 55.6 21,4 "21~ ::1.3 -JJ,.6 shuy, J.fi.Ilaure~"HooC-TV I FCC I 22 1 3/55 I 9/56 I 85.4 I 4877/51 620 I 30 - I 42.5 I 43,5 orpus Cristi, TeXl?s fiKingsville, Texas B KVDO-'1'V I FOC I 22 I 5/57 '8/57 I 38.1' 523.75 I 310 I 30 I 5.5 pringfield, Ms.ss. It-allis, i·Jass. I HHYJ:I-TV I FCC I 22 I 6/54 1 6/55 I 67.5 I 721.75 I 900 I 30 I 17.4 da.7.s, J.Jass. IMillis, Nass, 1·1CDO-TV I FCC I 22 I 8/57 I 3/59 I 98.6 I 505.75 I 2120 I 30 I 25.9 I 32.5 ings. Colo. !Anthony Kan. I S1046-5 NBS 1 l/,.S i721/52 8126152 ?9'1.5 10.4,6 2226 1C 13212,2 pringfield ilass. ih.1illis Ms.ss. I :·;l·JLP-TV FCC 1 8 1O/S1 S/5/." 70 7 7'5S 700 -'0 I 2') 6 ·ie" Sritain. Conn l1'lillis. Ms.ss I \-!1iBC-'l'V FCr. I 22 'S/'i7 2/S9 Xl, 2 571.75 970 ';0 I 12.5 olumnus, Georgia 1!F01xler Sprihgs, Ga. I i.JDAK-TV FCC I 22 3/54 9/56 98.2 559.75 650 30 1 54.8 .l N I resno, Calif. ILivermore. Calif. I Kl':J-TV I FCC I 22 I 6/55 I 9/56 I 153.3 I 535.75 I 2290 I 30 I 78.0 I a IJ ~.J... 25 Ilsouth Bend. Indiana IAl1egan, Nichigan I WSBT-TV I FCC I 22 I 6/5$ I 5/59 I 69.4 I 523.75 I %0 I 30 I 28,8 I )0':' 2.0 / &: c." 6.0 4.7 I L".5 I 2 6.: 7.t. 1.5 5.0 20.7 52.5 35.C: 26. 1 -:;;.0 6:,.0 r; -)""; r .:-.. .... ~5.L,. 57.(' -2.1,' ...1..:.. 6.0 ~t')1 59.5 1/;>' .08.0 127.0 -11;..7 35~re'"York. ?1. Y. INesht.nic, N. J. I I Bel) I 15,19 1 8/U I10/U~I 40.1 I 715 r-SOO I 50 I -1_'i I 66.(' 36 t,Je.shjnp,ton, D. C.~BaltL'TIOre,H::l. II KG2XAL 1\'lestinf'hse! 16.19 12/21/1,9 16/]1/1,9 I 10 I 50S I 365+ I 47 I -6.7 37~le'.JYork, N. Y. lPrinceton, H. J. I \.JUHF I FOC I ** I 2/62 --r 10/62 I 41•• '3 I 573.25 I 1312 I 30 39 /kle" York, H. Y. llLaurel. loti. I HUHF I FCC I ** I 1/62 I 3/63 I 186 I 573.25 I 1312 I '30 3'0~;eVlYork, N. Y. lI()akford, Fa. • ,nJHF I FCC I ** I 3/62 I S/62 I 67 I 573.25 I 1312 I '30 26 Ilscranton Pa. laurel. M:i. WDAU-TV FCC 22 2/')9 8 60 17'lO S2?7/. l'l'iO 30 113.4 -'.L I 27 lr'resno, Calif. Livermore, Calif 10m-TV FCO 22 12/55 9 56 1'16. '< 671.75 1789 10 68.8 13.2 28 Harrisburg, Pac !;lure1, }:\:l. ,IHP-TV FCC 22 10/57 9 58 81.0 721,75 910 30 ?0.7 23.6 29 .li1kcs Barre Fa. -iillis ¥.ass.I~BRi:"TVFCC 22 6/')') 9/')6 21..1 7 ')')9 7'1 1220 '<0 184.6 -lCoCl' II 30 .Jilkes Barre Fa. laurel }:\:l. HBRE-TV FCO 22 'l/ss 7/56 150.C s')g 7') '1220 ?O 92.. 9 1'.6 I -4.0 I -1",0 I 9,0 ", I "31 ,Jilkes Barre. Fa. laurel, }:\:l. HILK-TV FCC 22 12/55 9 56 147.8 595.75 1095 30 91 L I,: I -I. 1 I - - I - - I 2 ft 32 York Pa. !;lure1. J.:\:l, WSBA-TV FCC 22 S/51 q ')S ,)'1 8 6/.9 7') 'it:.o '<:) 11 C ')1.2 1 ::. I - - I - - " 1 1133 IPeoria Ill. Allep"an ltich. vTEEK..TV FCC 22 8/')4 9/'i6 210.8 6L,Q.75 550 10 190.0_ll.~!l' II 34 Eattle Creek. Hich.~lleg;'/')1 1')1 _') 10L6 7708 12 18 6 666')~-~I.') 2 116 4 51 Fort Carson Colo Garden Citv. Kansas FC1046-k NBS 21 8 2')/')Lc 8 28/')4 223.6 1046 '35 9 211.2 -5 7 -C?6 -13,0 3.1 4 52 Cheyer.ne Htn. liS ". Cole C-arden City. Kansas 51046-4 NBS 23 3 1/53 4 9/53 226.5 '1046 2226 9 155.6 -9.8 -17.6 -2;,.!y 5.8 4 53 Cheyenne Htn. ItS". Cole Garden City. Kansas 51046-4 NBS 23 8 24/54 8 29/54 226.5 101,6 2226 I 26 152.5 20.2 -0.1.. -4.1 3.7 4 54 ChevenIle Htn liS II Cole Garden Citv. Kansas S1046-4 NBS 21 I 8/u15"- 8/29/5"- 226.5 1046 2226 1':l 151.7 -- 2<>1.. -5.4 7.8 4 55 ChAve"",e Mt:nlI~tI1:,,1 Garden City. Kansas S101,6-/ NBS 21 8/24/')/, 8/29/"'1 226.5 1046 2226 9 155.6 21,6 -0 /. -80 7 6 4 56 Cheyenne I1tn. tlS" ColeKendrick~Go1o~51046-1 nBS 2'3 2/15/52 8/30/53 49.3 1046 2226 43 -26",,7 72.9 70.9 68.4 2.5 1 57 Cheyenne Htn. "S" Cole fll.T';a1. Colo. S1046-2 NBS 23 2/1/54 3/2/54 70.2 1046 2226 5 0.3 56.1 52.5 49.7 2.8 L• 58 Cheyenne l1tn. 115 11 • Cole Karval, Colo. 51046-2 NBS 23 2/1/52 8/23/53 70.2 1046 2226 43 -5.8 72.0 68.8 65.3 3.5 1 59 Cheyenne Htn. "5". Cole lier <:P L:!.h i:iJ FCC-R-6602 DEFI NITION OF THE TERRAl N ROUGHNESS FACTOR L:!.h • o 6 Miles From Transmitter 31 1 FCC-R-6602 o II .c:: .8 « /Xl "'C o U"\ 40 o~ U"\ w... .J:::.~ ~30 ~ Vl "'C "C:i3 w:: FCC- R..- 6602 LOW VHF & FM F(50, 50) FIELD STRENGTHS Normalized to H T = 1000 ft., H R = 30 ft. Corrected for Terrain Roughness to Correspond to !::J. h = 50 meters FCC-R-6602 HIGH VHF F(50,50) FIELD STRENGTHS Normalized to H T = 1000 ft., H R 30 ft. Corrected for Terrain Roughness to Correspond to !::J.h = 50 meters 170 40 60 80 100 100 120 FIGURE 8 FIGURE 9 FCC-R-6602 VARIATION WITH DISTANCE OF THE FIELD STRENGTHS EXCEEDED FOR 50 PERCENT OF THE TIME ._--- TV CHANNELS 2- 6 & FM H T as Indicated HR· 30 ft. FCC- R-6602 VARIATION WITH DISTANCE OF THE FIELD STRENGTHS EXCEEDED FOR 50 PERCENT OF THE TIME TV CHANNELS 7-13 H T as Indicated H R • 30 ft. o Lt"\ o' Lt"\ w:: 7 I FCC-R-6602 FADI NG RATIOS vs DISTANCE FROM TRANSMITTER TV CHANNELS 2-13 H R =30 ft. FIGURE 10 VARIATION WITH DISTANCE OF THE FIELD STRENGTHS EXCEEDED FOR 10 PERCENT OF THE TIME TV CHANNELS 2- 6 & FM H T as Indicated H R 30 ft. 260240200120 140 180 Miles From Transmitter 10040 '.J, t. 20 '. i FIGURE 11 FIGURE 12 o Grades 1 &2 Long Term x Grades 3 &4 Long Term FCC- R-;6602 l:;..Mobile TASa and Other COMPARISON OF MEASURED F(50,50) FIELD STRENGTHS --WITH-- THE AVERAGE CURVES FOR TV CHANNELS 7-13 <::> It"\ ~. u... E \ s::.- 15> ~ VI "0 a; w: .-I '- .E '" .8 « !i§ FCC- R-6602 o Grades 1 &2 Long Term Data x Grades 3 &4 Lon'g Term Data l:;. Mobile TASa and Other Data COMPARISON OF MEASURED F(50,50) FIELD STRENGTHS --WITH-- THE AVERAGE CURVES FOR TV CHANNELS 2-6 Miles From Transmitter FIGURE 13 FIGURE 14 o Grades 1 &2 Long Term Data x Grades 3 & 4 Long Term Data FCC-.R-6602 COMPARISON OF MEASURED F(50,1O) FIELD STRENGTHS --WITH-- THE AVERAGE CURVES FOR TV CHANNELS 7-13 5';' u... ... .E E !4 j « ~ o Grades 1 & 2 Long Term Data x Grades 3 & 4 Long Term Data FCC-R-6602 COMPARISON OF MEASURED F(50,1O) FIELD STRENGTHS -WITH--· THE AVERAGE CURVES FOR TV CHANNELS 2-6 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 Miles From Transmitter E ~ j « ~ ...... ... .E ~ ~ 52 1i u... FIGURE 15 FIGURE 16 5000 F~C-R-6602 +r:o::w::J+l+l+l1m 500 1000 2000 Transmitting Antenna Height in Feet 200 90 l... (],) ~ "C 80 ~ ctJ :s ctJ 0:::: ;I::: ctJ 70S: .E:! ~ (],) c: 0 l... 60 .E l... (],) ii:) 2: l... (],) a.. 50 ....... '0 > 0 l... U ~ (],) 40 c: 0 (],) > .8 « VI 30 (j) .c .~ 0 c: w::: 20 .c I "5l :130 c: (],) \140 l... Vi 10 '150 "C 160 (j) u:: 170 I i 180 1190 )!200 iTiT 1111 " THEV ISION CHANNELS 2- 6 & FM ESTIMATED FIELD STRENGTH!~XCEEDEDAT 50 PERCENT OF THE POTENTIAL RECEIVER LOCATIONS FOR AT LEAST 50 PERCENT OF THE TIME AT A RECEIVING ANTENNA HEIGHT OF 30 FEET April 12,1966 FCC- R-6602 500 1000 Transmitting Antenna Height in Feet 200 80 20 70 ,30 "- Q,) 40 ~ §:. 60"0 Q,) ..- ro :.0 ro c::: ..- 15 ~ S2 Q,) c 0 "- .E "- (l) 1i> :: 110 "- (l) 30 c.. 120 ..- ~ 130 0 140 "- u ~150 20 (l) 160c 0 170(l) > 180 .8 S §? ~ 80 co :a co 0::: :;:: co ~ 70 Q a> c: 0 lo- 60 .E l0- a> Q) :E l0- a> 0.. 50 -I-' ~ e u ~ a> 40 c: 0 a> > .8 lo- -I-' 10V') '0 (j) i:i: 0 TELEV ISION CHANNELS 7 - 13 ESTIMATED FIELD STRENGTH EXCEEDED AT 50 PERCENT OF THE POTENTIAL RECEIVER LOCATIONS FOR AT LEAST 50 PERCENT OF THE TIME AT A RECEIVI NG ANTENNA HEI GHT OF 30 FEET Apri I 12, 1966 20 30 10 Miles 5000500 1000 2000 Transmitting Antenna Height in Feet 200 ! I 90~~~~~~~~S1±T1TITrm++:t::::==+tp:t:!tm:PrlmnmFnCm C - R- 6602 [y(50, 10)CHANNEL~-~~13 80 -20 _30•• -40 100 '- Q) ~ §!. ~ - (tJ :0 (tJ 0:: ; I ~ , I I (tJ , I I ~ 50 i i I I , , Ii :I- I , ~ ,I I Q) t= 80 0 '- .E 40 90 '- Q) a:; :100 :E '- Q) .110 0.. - :120 g e 130 u ~ 140- Q) 20 150 c: 0 160 Q) > 170 .8 « 180 V) 10 190 Q) .c .~ 200 0 210 .=: 220 u:: 0 230 .c: 240 tn 250 c: 260Q) '- - -10 270 V') "0 280 Q) 290 u: 300 TELEV ISION CHANNELS 7 - 13 ESTIMATED FIELD STRENGTH EXCEEDED AT 50 PERCENT OF THE POTENTIAL RECEIVER LOCATIONS FOR AT LEAST 10 PERCENT OF THE TIME AT A RECEIVI NG ANTENNA HEI GHT OF 30 FEET April 12, 1966 20 FCC- R-p602 UHF F(SO,SO) WITHIN THE HORIZON FIELD STRENGTHS COMPARED TO THE BASE SOO· CURVE { Each point represents the average value for one survey at given distances. Data o Mobile Data include corrections for height -gain to 500 ft., diurnal bias, and, terrain rough ness corresponding to .6h =50 meters. x ,Grades 1 &2 Long Term Data {All long term fixed location data include corrections for * Grades 3 & 4Long Term Data preferred location bias and height -gain to 500 ft. IGUR 21 FCC- R-6602 VARIATION WITH DISTANCE BEYOND LINE OF SIGHT OF FIELD STRENGTHS EXCEEDED FOR 50 PERCENT OF THE TIME 80 Radiated Power =I kW Frequency =400-1050 Mc's D= Miles From Transmitter DLs =line of Sight Distance u FCC- R-6602 VARIATION WITH DISTANCE OF THE FIELD STRENGrHS EXCEEDED FOR 50 PERCENT OF THE TIME TV CHANNELS 14-83 H T as Indicated H R = 30 ft. FCC- R-6602 VARIATiON WITH DISTANCE BEYOND LINE OF SIGHT OF FIELD STRENGTHS EXCEEDED FOR 10 PERCENT OF THE TIME Radiated Power 1 kW Frequency = 400-1050 Mc/s D= Miles From Transmitter D Ls = Line of Sight Distance 280240220200120 140 ffiO ffiO Miles Beyond Line of Sight (D-D Ls ) 10080604020 FCC- R-6602 VARIATION WITH DISTANCE OF THE FIELD STRENGTHS EXCEEDED FOR 10 PERCENT OF THE TIME TV CHANNELS 14-83 H T as Indicated H R 30 ft. URE FCC- R-6602 FADING RATIOS vs DISTANCE FROM.TRANSMITIER TV CHANNELS 14-83 H T as Indicated H R 30 ft. 120 Miles From Transmitter Miles From Transmitter FCC- R-6602 .. COMPARISON OF MEASURED F(50, 10 I FIELD STRENGTHS --WITH-- THE AVERAGE CURVES FOR TV CHANNELS 14-83 160 200 240 Miles From Transmitter 1208040 COMPARISON OF MEASURED F(50,501 FIELD STRENGTHS -_.WITH-- THE AVERAGE CURVES FOR TV CHANNELS 14-83 ~::=: ~ '" :;;;: ~ .-< o Mobile .Q '- .-< .e .e E Grades 1 & 2 Long Term Data ! '" * Grades 3 & 4 long Term Data .8 j 2: I- Q.) Cl- ...... "'0 > 0 I- U .~ Q.) c: 0 Q.) > .8 « Vl (i) :9 lrl 0 c: G:: :S O"l ~ I- ...... <:n "'0 (i) 0 u::: .100 200 500 1000 Transmitting Antenna Height in Feet TELEV ISION CHANNELS 14 - 83 ESTIMATED FIELD STRENGTH EXCEEDED AT 50 PERCENT OF THE POTENTIAL RECEIVER LOCATIONS FOR AT LEAST 50 PERCENT OF THE TIME AT A RECEIVING ANTENNA HEIGHT OF 30 FEET April 12, 1966 29 FCC- R-6602 ~...•..., .•..... 2000 -30l1li_ 80 10 Miles 0 70 :l0- CI,) ~ -c 60 CI,) -f-I ('\J :.c ('\J c:::: ~ ('\J 50 ~ ~ CJ.) c: 0 So- 40: ..E So- CJ.) ~ :z: So- CJ.) 300- ..... "0 > 0 S0- U ~ 20- CJ.) c: I 0 150 CJ.) [60 > .8 I « \170 VI 10 Ci)~80 ..c fI90 0g ~OOc c: ;210 0 1220 u::: 1230 .c: 240..... 01 '250c: CJ.) 1260s... -10 en 1270 "0 1280 Ci) 1290 u:: \300 -20 ESTIMATED OF THE POTENTIAL OF THE 14-83 AT 50 PERCENT FOR AT LEAST 10 PERCENT HE IGHT OF 30 FEET