Re: New "improved" WEEI signal

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

>Dan Strassberg wrote:
>>
>But it would not be unreasonable for them to be using only one tower. And if
>they are, it might just be too inconvenient to switch back to directional
>operation at night. If the FCC doesn't mind, and the co-channel stations
>don't complain (which they might not do if they know that the situation will
>last only a couple of weeks), it might just be the easiest way to handle the
>situation. BTW, 10 kW-ND would produce about the effect you've reported and
>would also produce the lousy nighttime reception on the South Shore that you
>or someone else reported here. So it looks as if we have two data points
>that suggest they are indeed running only one tower.

        If it's running 10 kW, non-DA, why would the signal go so much
farther west than southeast? West also is closer to Montreal, where the
main interfering signal is coming in from. Listening on the South Shore,
the Canadian station was on top of WEEI. And there's a station in
Cleveland, also, I believe. I understand that there probably would be some
locations where 10 kW would be more signal than the DA generates (like
whatever location prompted someone to start this thread). And west would be
one of  them, probably. But it's the comparative signal strength in the two
directions that has me wondering about your comment.

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