WBZ's new towers

[mwaters@wesleyan.edu (Martin J. Waters)]

>On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, Scott D Fybush wrote:
>> > a slight calculational error in the 1940s.  Perhaps when they replace
>> > their towers this summer they'll fix it somehow.
>>
> Someone else (Joe Ross, I think) wrote:
>>> They're going to replace their towers?  Are they finally going to put up
>>> towers made for transmission at 1030?  If they change their pattern, don't
>>> they need FCC approval?
>>
> Scott wrote:
>>From what I was told before I left the place, the WBZ towers are in
>pretty rough shape after 57 years out in the salty swamps.  We were
>on the backup tx for a few days last fall while they did an emergency
>fix to shore up one of the tower bases.  In any event, the plan was to
>take 'em down this summer and put up two new ones.
>
>They can't make any major changes and stay at 50kw, but I'm sure they
>can very quietly correct some of the little goofs that were made last
>time 'round.  I won't tell. :-)
>
>Kevin Vahey wrote:>
>  As if the FCC really cares anymore......using Radio Free Alston as an
>example......

        First of all, if  I phone in the latitude and longitude of my house
out here in far Connecticut, do you think WBZ will tweak the antenna so
it's aimed more directly at me? Maybe then I won't get daytime skywave
interference from the 50kW daytime station in Maryland at 8:45 a.m. on a
winter morning and six or eight stations of garbage on the signal every
night from around sunset until three hours later.
        I wonder if they can adjust the pattern to improve the  signal into
the outer Cape, since there can't be any stations in that direction to
protect.

        As far as the FCC not caring, apparently one of the ONLY things it
cares about, as evidenced by the last 35 years, is diminishing the coverage
areas of Class A AM stations. The chief transmitter operator of WCCO told
me an interesting story last year about his station's now-shelved plans to
install a Franklin antenna (basically two half-wave antennae, one on top of
the other, insulated from each other; about 1,200 feet total height for
WCCO). The purpose is to reduce the distortion zone at night where the
groundwave signal and skywave signal interfere with each other. Ultimately,
the local zoning board at the new antenna site (already purchased; C.P.
already  taken out) rejected the proposal. But, WCCO was going to have to
reduce power to 46 kW to do this. Because the antenna would be moved,
running 50 kW necessarily would increase the signal in some direction(s).
Of course, it would be decreased in others. But that didn't matter.

        Speaking of Franklin antennae, the FCC database has this notation
for WTAM, 1100, Cleveland (typo is theirs):

PRIROITY HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR OPER WITH FRANKLIN ANT WITH
ND-290 MV/M.

        Does anyone know whether any Class A stations currently use a
Franklin antenna?
        The "AM is not dead" thread should be pleased. Going to all the
expense to install one of these antennas seems to indicate a faith in the
future of AM. As I understand it, these antennas only help the signal out
around 100-150 miles, where the skywave first comes down.

------------------------------