There was a time when people, let's say a young kleinbl00 growing up in rural New Mexico, had to rely on radio from distant cities to hear anything remotely current or relevant. AM has a stronger signal and therefore, it can reach more people, so I can see the desire to save it. But if reaching more people in rural areas is the goal, shouldn't we focus the govt's attentions on providing free internet access in those parts of the country? Granted, an AM radio is FAR cheaper and easier to come by in rural America, but it seems like an antiquated fix to a problem with more modern solutions. I dig AM though. When I travel by car, and I do often, I will check out the AM dial but I almost NEVER check out FM.
It's not the stronger signal that makes AM carry farther. There are plenty of 50kw FM stations and AM stations: same power, different range. It has to do with Earth's atmosphere. The ionosphere acts like a pool of water high in the sky: frequencies lower than 30 MHz bounce back to Earth, while those above go through. Thus if we had FM stations at 20 MHz, we'd probably be able to hear them over longer distances. The result for AM is that it goes up, bounces down -- and bounces even more over bodies of water. The old definition of a clear channel station (before that became a brand) was an AM station audible up to 750 miles away at night.
No problem! By the way, this page explains critical frequencies and the ionosphere a lot better.
Yes, and that kind of radio is wildly amusing.... until it starts making sense. -At this point turn it off! Hope the move is going well.