Re: Doin' the Montreal Shuffle

[Dan Strassberg <dan.strassberg@worldnet.att.net>]

At 01:28 PM 11/6/98 -0400, you wrote:

>>Garrett Wollman wrote:
><snip>
>>940: proposed as modified CKVL, to operate 50 kW DA-2 from Ste-Catherine.
>>        (2 towers; RMS field 1.9 V/m)
>
I wonder whether the Canadian rules allow the specification of ATTENUATED
instead of unattenuated fields. The tower heights shown at John Kodis's Web
site are great enough for an unattenuated field strength greater than the
1863 mV/m that Kodis shows for 940 and the 2000 mV/m that he shows for 690.
They are 66.<something> degrees for CKVL (193') and 73.<something> degrees
(under 300') for CIQC. The patterns are similar but are oriented
differently. All four are figure-eights with very shallow nulls more-or-less
to the north and south. For 940. the axis is north-northwest to
south-southeast. For 690, the axis is north-northeast to south-southwest.
Many US stations operating on 690 (such as the one on 690 in Ansonia CT) and
940 (WGFP, for example) would benefit because the nighttime interference
would be reduced. I haven't figured out whether the AM 940 in Des Moines
would receive more or less interference, though.

An interesting feature is that although both stations are shown with
separate day and night patterns, the two patterns for each station are
identical. This is the same situation that has applied to CBM. I don't know
why the DA-2 listing is preferable to DA-1. Perhaps it makes changes simpler
from an administrative standpoint.

- -------------------------------
Dan Strassberg (Note: Address is CASE SENSITIVE!)
ALL _LOWER_ CASE!!!--> dan.strassberg@worldnet.att.net
(617) 558-4205; Fax (617) 928-4205

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