Re: Speaking of WLLH...

["Bill O'Neill" <billo@erols.com>]

>I have a feeling that WLLH may still be planning to shut down the Lawrence
>TX. I saw an application for a power increase for Lowell in the FCC actions
>about a week ago. Now, at the Kodis site, the power of both TXs is listed
as
>1 kW. However, the Lowell stick, despite using a 90-degree antenna, is
>listed as having minimum efficiency for a Class C station. This suggests
>that WLLH is using a series resistor to limit the signal strength. If they
>remove the resistor, the effective power of the Lowell stick will increase
>by about 40%. That change might allow shutting down Lawrence at least
during
>daytime hours. The Lawrence stick would probably still be necessary to get
a
>decent signal into Lawrence and the nearby towns at night.
>
>-------------------------------
>Dan Strassberg

I recall that when WLLH moved its Lowell XMTR from 4 Broadway rooftop to
its current river-side location near the Aiken Street Bridge, the actual
output of the Lowell site was 640W.  That may explain the 40% resistance.  I
(barely) recall engineering discussions to the effect that the move near the
river increased the effective signal coverage, that to protect the Lawrence
signal, they needed to drop Lowell's output.  If you discard the Lawrence
signal altogether, how much could the Lowell signal increase without going
out of other interference tolerances?  Could it max at 1 kW?  Relatedly, is
1400 kHz one of those frequencies that the FCC puts a set value to in terms
of output or does it vary by community?

Bill O'Neill

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