Re: Expanded Band questions

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

At 12:31 PM 2/15/99 -0500, you wrote:

>WBAH (the new calls for the ex-WJDM) on 1660 has a weird directional
>array.

Nope. The FCC does not allow DAs on ex-band, although WGNY (which is not
currently on ex-band) has applied to move to ex-band and to operate
directionally. Besides power, the reason for the difference in WBAH's day
and night coverage is the use of different sites. The day site is shared
with WKDM and is maybe 15 miles north of Elizabeth. The night site is the
old 1530 site in the center of Elizabeth with a tower only 90' or so high.
The reason that a station that operates ND-U requires two sites is that with
1 kW from the WKDM site, WBAH could not meet the COL signal requirements.
There are two reasons: lower night power makes the night signal is weaker,
and there is more interference at night. Given the superb soil conductivity
of the Jersey Meadowlands and 10 kW, WBAH can put 5 mV/m over Elizabeth from
the WKDM site during the day--even at 1660.

As for Garrett's argument (which is also the FCC's argument) for limiting
ex-band stations to 1 kW ND at night, it's correct as far as it goes, but it
doesn't go far enough. With more night power, ex-band stations would be able
to compete better against flourescent lamps, light dimmers, personal
computers, and all of the noise sources that play havoc with nighttime AM
reception. The 1-kW limitation is not appropriate for current conditions.
And although many people assert that skywave interference is more than
proportional to station power, there is no credible evidence that this is
so. Indeed, if it were so, ionospheric reflections would produce mixing
products and the AM band would be a lot more unlistenable at night than it
already is.

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

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