Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A ghostly radio station that no one claims to run

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 72 posts

Re: A ghostly radio station that no one claims to run

#21

Post by westbywest »

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #10

Any speculation that it's as mundane as a test tone for a specific radio device? Is your radio working, is it calibrated properly...

As mentioned in the below comment, the author buried the probable lede: most of the time transmission is a placeholder to discourage others from using the band. During exceptional circumstances (as defined by the station's operator), it will transmit coded messages to global/regional operatives. E.g., to coordinate espionage when conventional communications are offline.

Re: A ghostly radio station that no one claims to run

#23

Post by eeZah7Ux »

criddell wrote: post #13
squarefoot wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Night hours are best for shortwave reception. You could also need an external antenna depending on how far you are listening from. Another problem, probably the biggest one today, which affects reception on these frequencies (and generally on the HF bands) is the radio noise generated by many bad designed switching power supplies and appliances. Switching regulators (power supplies, converters, chargers etc.) for eff…

Thanks for the information. The shortwave frequencies still feel very underutilized. When I scan the FM (88 - 108 MHz) and AM (540-1600 kHz) radio frequencies, I pick up a lot of stuff. The shortwave band is relatively vast and feels very sparse. Considering how valuable spectrum is these days, it's hard to believe that we couldn't find a better use for it. Is it because it is so prone to noise that it's less valuabl…

Bandwidth is key. Transmitting digital signals at high rate would eat up most of the spectrum.

Re: A ghostly radio station that no one claims to run

#25

Post by crispyambulance »

criddell wrote: post #4

I read this article last weekend and after reading it, I put batteries in my shortwave radio to see what was out there. Turns out, there's pretty much nothing. I couldn't hear anything on 4625 kHz. I let my receiver scan and when it was done I checked out what it detected and found absolutely nothing interesting. The most powerful signals were Christian broadcasts that had a kind of doomsday feeling about them. It se…

    > The most powerful signals were Christian broadcasts that had a kind of doomsday feeling about them.
Perhaps WMLK? Weird stuff coming from Berks County PA!

Here's the antenna:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4793923,-76.279183,3a,44y,28...

Re: A ghostly radio station that no one claims to run

#26

Post by criddell »

crispyambulance wrote: post #25
criddell wrote: post #4

I read this article last weekend and after reading it, I put batteries in my shortwave radio to see what was out there. Turns out, there's pretty much nothing. I couldn't hear anything on 4625 kHz. I let my receiver scan and when it was done I checked out what it detected and found absolutely nothing interesting. The most powerful signals were Christian broadcasts that had a kind of doomsday feeling about them. It se…

> The most powerful signals were Christian broadcasts that had a kind of doomsday feeling about them. Perhaps WMLK? Weird stuff coming from Berks County PA! Here's the antenna: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4793923,-76.279183,3a,44y,28...

That sounds familiar. I think I was also getting something from somewhere near Scottsdale, AZ.

Re: A ghostly radio station that no one claims to run

#27

Post by criddell »

eeZah7Ux wrote: post #23
criddell wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the information. The shortwave frequencies still feel very underutilized. When I scan the FM (88 - 108 MHz) and AM (540-1600 kHz) radio frequencies, I pick up a lot of stuff. The shortwave band is relatively vast and feels very sparse. Considering how valuable spectrum is these days, it's hard to believe that we couldn't find a better use for it. Is it because it is so prone to noise that it's less valuabl…

Bandwidth is key. Transmitting digital signals at high rate would eat up most of the spectrum.

How were they able to pack so many digital radio stations on FM? Is it because it's higher frequency?

Re: A ghostly radio station that no one claims to run

#28

Post by Qworg »

criddell wrote: post #27
eeZah7Ux wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bandwidth is key. Transmitting digital signals at high rate would eat up most of the spectrum.

How were they able to pack so many digital radio stations on FM? Is it because it's higher frequency?

Yes, definitely.

You can think of the trade off roughly as "frequency increases increase bandwidth and decrease penetration/range"

Re: A ghostly radio station that no one claims to run

#29

Post by PappaPatat »

tuxxy wrote: post #6
criddell wrote: post #4

I read this article last weekend and after reading it, I put batteries in my shortwave radio to see what was out there. Turns out, there's pretty much nothing. I couldn't hear anything on 4625 kHz. I let my receiver scan and when it was done I checked out what it detected and found absolutely nothing interesting. The most powerful signals were Christian broadcasts that had a kind of doomsday feeling about them. It se…

Were you in a good spot? I can hear a lot of stuff with my shortwave receiver and I'm in SLC, Utah. Occasionally, I get to hear pirate transmissions and whatnot.

"pirate transmissions" I am surprised. Only a month ago I met a guy who (as an "art project") has actually started to transmit on the shortwave. Bought an old army radio and was now jumping all over the country with the installation and transmitting... well, arty stuff. He claimed he got responses every now and then, now I think he might be right. Is that a thing? I bailed out of the radio waves 30 years ago when I got access to data links...

Re: A ghostly radio station that no one claims to run

#30

Post by khedoros1 »

gregmac wrote: post #14

This reminds me of a numbers station. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_station

It reminds me of a number station because the article had a long section talking about numbers stations, and speculating on where "the Buzzer" fits in, given the assumed typical uses for those stations.
Post reply on HN