Re: Question

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

In my last message, I think I overlooked what may be the most famous case of
all--1500 in Detroit. In the early 1950s, the then WJBK moved from 1490 250W
ND-U to 1500 with a CP for 10 kW-D/5 kW-N DA-2, using an almost
unprecedented (at the time) nine-tower array. This was a complicated deal to
begin with, involving a frequency swap with WLEW, Bad Axe MI, then a 250W
daytimer on 1500. No sooner did WJBK start operating (under PTA) on 1500,
than KSTP protested, and was soon joined by WTOP. I won't go into all of the
intermediate steps and call-sign changes, but I'm not sure that what is now
WLQV has _yet_ received a license for its 5 kW nine-tower nighttime
operation. The station operated for several decades with 1 kW-N. This
operation required a waiver, because with 1 kW, the night signal did not
adequately cover the COL. WJBK et al did have a license for that operation.

What finally broke the log jam for WLQV's 5 kW nine-tower night operation
(only six of the nine towers are ones that were part of the original
nine-tower array) was an agreement between WTOP and KSTP that allowed both
to relax their night patterns somewhat to improve their nighttime suburban
coverage. Each now receives more interference from the other than it used
to, and WLQV was able to demonstrate that the additional interference from
WLQV would not materially reduce the nighttime coverage of either WTOP or
KSTP. Moreover, WLQV was able to have the critical array classification
removed from its license, allowing unmanned operation of the TX at night,
which resulted in a considerable cost savings.

As for WGTR, the night pattern didn't _look_ unrealistic, if you compare it
with the patterns produced by some other five-tower arrays. The rms was 418
mV/m/kW at 1 km. The standard pattern showed an inverse-distance field of
about 20 mV/m at 1 km at the deepest point in the nulls. That's the
equivalent of 2.2W, or a little more than 30 dB below the nominal
antenna-input power of 2.5 kW. I don't know how much additional radiation
KYW might have accepted in the augmented pattern, or how much power WGTR
could have used and still met those requirements. Of course, KYW also
alleged that WGTR's array was unstable, which further complicated the
discussion.

An interesting and strongly related question is how much pre-sunrise and
post-sunset power WMEX will be granted, assuming that it receives a license
to cover. Because local sunrise here is 6:00 AM or earlier between March 1
and August 31, pre-sunrise won't be an issue until September 1, but
post-sunset is an issue year round. Where I live (Arlington Heights) I can
hear WMEX pretty well between Framingham and Philadelphia sunset, but after
Philadelphia sunset, WMEX reduces power sharply, and even on my Super Radio
III with a Select-A-Tenna passive loop, the signal is not really
listenable--even when it isn't buried under KYW. The issue of whether the
station is granted worthwhile pre-sunrise and post-sunset power has a _lot_
to do with its economic viability. The time between 6:00 AM and 7:15 AM and
between 4:30 PM and 6:15 PM in December covers most of the highest-billing
hours in the highest-billing month.

--

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

-----Original Message-----
From: umar@nerodia.wcrb.com <umar@nerodia.wcrb.com>
To: Dan Strassberg <Dan.Strassberg@worldnet.att.net>
Cc: lglavin@lycosmail.com <lglavin@lycosmail.com>;
boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org
<boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org>
Date: Sunday, March 12, 2000 12:11 AM
Subject: Re: Question


>
>
>On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, Dan Strassberg wrote:
>
>> Bob Bittner said the same thing to me. As far as I know, you are both
>> _quite_ wrong....
>
>> WGTR Natick, MA.
>
>This is the only one of the cases you mention that I know anything about.
>The 25 kW version of WGTR operated under special temporary authority (STA)
>pending the submission of a proof-of-performance showing that the station
>conformed to the directional pattern specified in its construction permit.
>Despite several attempts (in one of which I was a participant), the
>station never succeeded in achieving the desired pattern; I was
>subsequently told that the pattern was hopelessly unrealistic. This is
>certainly a special case; applications to cover are normally routine (I
>have filed three of them in the last two years).