RE: WBZ Reception Is Worsening

[EM1 GITCHIER <RGITSCHIER@doyle.navy.mil>]

I don't think that WBZ would want 50kw of RF coming out of that wire. That
would be a lot of electrical potential (arc-over?), even if it was of
sufficient gauge for the job. The RF intrusion into the studio, equipment,
etc, neighborhood would be a bear to eradicate, I'm sure. I'd think that
they sell enough spots in a day or two to cover the expense of a xmtr, but
this is just a temporary-use transmitter.

Speculation about what's the tower is for also caused me to recall the
aircheck I have from Hurricane Carol, where the Annr's on the air (Carl De
Suze among them) said that the tower outside that crumpled onto the WBZ
studio bldg was a 680 (wow, a significant number in Boston...) foot (WBZ)
television tower. I've forgotten the year... 1952? Great aircheck... got it
at home, so I can't draw the exact details from it.  

I know that for example WGN 720 in Chicago has a smaller self supporting
tower and 10kw and down the road a bit south from that is the ex-WMAQ 670
which has the same-looking set up, a seperate, smaller self supporting tower
and 10kw backup power. Both these stations are nondirectional day and night.
So I'd surmise from the peanut gallery that this is very typical a power
level for the (ex) clears to use. And that makes sense that WBZ could be
held to whatever power level is in thier directional facility null... 

Thanks also for the folks inside the business for joining in the discussion.
I for one appreciate whatever you can offer to the group.... 

Ron Gitschier
US Navy.... at sea
Atlantic Ocean



> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Sid Schweiger [SMTP:sid@wrko.com]
> Subject:	Re: WBZ Reception Is Worsening
> 
> >>The "Technical Parameters" listed there seem to imply that the backup
> 10 kW Tx feeds the tower directly; there's no mention of a long-wire.
> Scott and Garrett are usually pretty thorough with details like that...<<
> 
> Gee.  Silly me.  I actually went and looked at it.  Whatever was I
> thinking?
> 
>