You're always going to have trouble receiving AM radio stations because they're not designed to be received much more than a couple of hundred miles or so away. "Fading" can be combatted to some degree. If you can listen when weather is cold and clear, signals travel further under those conditions. Also, most portable radios have a built-in antenna which receives best when the radio is at right angles to the signal. (So if the signal comes from the east, the radio should be aligned North/south. Twist the radio around until the signal is strongest.
I don't know where you are but you may care to look at installing a Free to Air satellite TV receiver which enables you to receive (radio programmes) signals on your TV. Here in the UK I can receive radio stations from all over the world on my TV. About 380 of them. Loud and clear.
Both FM signals and satellite broadcasting were introduced to try to overcome the kinds of problems you are experiencing. Another factor which I can only SUSPECT is that broadcasters reduce the power of their transmission signals in the evenings (fewer listeners) to save on power costs.
Oddly enough, car radios give the best AM radio reception. Try listening to your favourite distant stations on the car radio, moving the car to high ground if need be.
But I have to admit that that is quite an expensive "portable" radio.
Oh, I almost forgot to mention a most important factor in radio reception. SOLAR SUNSPOT ACTIVITY. Over an 11 year cycle interference from the sun strengthens and weakens its effect on radio signals. Presently the sun's activity is at an extraordinary " high" and there is even talk about a solar explosion which will destroy all of Earth's electronic systems in a split second.
Which will make your present problem seem very small meat indeed.
i don't need to WISH for an old car, I've already got one.
A 1990 Volvo 240 estate. It's a crude thing, mechanically, but the simplicity is its virtue. Solid, sturdy, simple to maintain, if a trifle greedy (25mpg).........seemingly immortal (fingers crossed). At twenty-one years old, my friendly garageman reckons it will reach its quarter century with ease.
I notice that other answerers seem to hanker after very complicated cars. Doesn't anyone want a return to simplicity in cars?
It's about 125 miles; take the M4 motorway; easiest; driving timeabout 2.5 hours.
Veteran 1 is more than somewhat behind the times; the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) no longer exists so Russia cannot be thought of as being one country.
The Russian Federation (Not the same as USSR) is largest in area, being 17million sq. kms against Canada's 9 million sq kms.
There's a very useful website to answer this kind of question;
It even tells you how long the journey should take and how much it will cost in a car, on a motorbike, etc.
I notice that not one of the answerers has addressed the point I made that this country charges old people for their accommodation in old folks homes, while William gets his pilot training paid for by the tax-payer.
It is very doubtful if the RAF (ie the taxpayer) will get value out of this man's very expensive training. How can he truly be a serving RAF pilot, swanning around on his honeymoon tour in Canada and the USA, when other RAF pilots are facing daily danger in Afghanistan?
On the subject of my own RAF service; I was not an officer, I was a National Service Other Ranker. National Service was COMPULSORY. "Peoplelove" asks what training the RAF gave me. I received no training whatsoever...........in fact the RAF stole two years out of my life , and gained the benefit of my civilian skills and used me for two years for a derisory few quid a week. After two years of theft of one's time, National Servicemen received no thanks whatsoever from the country.
Many 18 year old National Service men died in action propping up the Royal Family. At that time 18 year olds had no right to vote, could not sign credit agreements, could not rent their own accommodation. In fact and in law they were children., without any legal rights whatsoever.
As to having a "Bee In my Bonnet" about Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, no doubt Earl of This, Lord That, Viscount whatsoever, heir to the throne of the United Kingdom and The British Empire, yes I DO. I certainly DO and make no apology for that.
No amount of cleverly manipulated publicity "spin" about their marriage can conceal the fact that those two represent the disgusting inequality of Royalty versus the rest of us . They are unelected , their popularity is very dubious. And the fact that William got his pilot's wings and RAF officer rank very quickly at a time when 100 other trainee pilots got the sack should point up that inequality.
The whole point of my rant is that Royalty should be abolished in an adult, democratic society. No need for guillotines or public executions. A civilised way to do this would be for Parliament to decree that the whole institution should end upon the death of our present Queen.
By common agreement she has done a good job of being Queen.
But then HOW HARD CAN IT BE?