Re: WNTN (was WPTR)

["Dan Strassberg" <Dan.Strassberg@worldnet.att.net>]

WNTN would have to protect Bloomfield and other US 1550s. However, the
stations in question already receive so much interference from CBE that the
additional interference from WNTN would most likely drop out of the RSS
calculations. The calculation of the interference is done by taking the
square root of the sum of the squares (RSS) of all of the interfering 10%
skywaves. When you square the numbers, any signal that is less than 10% of
the strongest one becomes so small you can ignore it. Moreover, Bloomfield
would be pretty much in a WNTN null anyhow. There is a similar null (of
course) in the pattern of the Boston 1150. That's how the 1150 in Middletown
CT was able to drop onto the channel. Remember the Dolan's and their
financial talk show (currently syndicated by WOR)? For a while after they
left WMCA and before they hooked up with WOR, they had a local show on
WMEX-1150, in one of its financial-talk incarnations. (Ken Dolan has a
Boston connection; he's a BC alum and has a brother who was a financial
advisor in Boston until the Commonwealth stripped his broker's license for
some rather egregeous transgressions.) One weekend, Ken and Daria went to
visit some friends in Middletown CT and, after their return, talked on the
air about their little trip--especially, how they listened to WMEX-1150 all
the way down. At that point I became pretty sure I didn't want to take any
of their investement advice too seriously.

--

Dan Strassberg, dan.strassberg@worldnet.att.net
Phone: 1-617-558-4205, eFax: 1-707-215-6367

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin J. Waters <mwaters@mail.wesleyan.edu>
To: Dan Strassberg <Dan.Strassberg@worldnet.att.net>
Cc: boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org
<boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org>
Date: Thursday, January 13, 2000 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: WNTN (was WPTR)


>        Wouldn't WNTN also have to protect the Hartford Disney station on
>1550 (COL is Bloomfield) as well as, perhaps, other U.S. stations on 1550,
>which would probably limit its night signal more than the limits needed to
>protect CBE?
>