Re: WTIC (AM) anniversary broadcast

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

In fact, if the towers were designed to be half wave at 1040, they'd be
_more_ than half wave at 1080. 500' would be a nice round number, but they
aren't that tall--more like 433'. And the optimum height is generally
thought to be between 200 and 210 degrees. I wonder if the towers might at
one time have been top loaded. The top loads could have been removed when
the station moved up the dial.

--

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
To: Martin J. Waters <mwaters@mail.wesleyan.edu>
Cc: Pete Kemp <kempp@bethel.k12.ct.us>;
boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org
<boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org>
Date: Sunday, February 13, 2000 4:26 PM
Subject: RE: WTIC (AM) anniversary broadcast


><<On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 16:02:19 -0500, mwaters@mail.wesleyan.edu (Martin J.
Waters) said:
>
>> it is now. They both moved to 1080 in 1941 with NARBA. The WTIC towers
are
>> an odd height, 171 and a fraction degrees, which suggests maybe they were
>> built for 1040, as someone who knows how to do the math could figure out.
>
>171 degrees is 0.475 wave, which at 1080 kHz is about 132 m.  That's
>0.458 wave at 1040, or 164 degrees.  Neither of these numbers work out
>to convenient, commonly-used fractions; either way is between 7/16
>and 1/2 wave.
>
>-GAWollman