Re: WGY's relatively poor signal

[Martin Waters <martinjwaters@yahoo.com>]

--- dan.strassberg@att.net wrote:
<snip> 
> I don't consider WGY's signal to be relatively poor.
> It's consistent with the soil conductivity around
> the TX 
> site, which isn't bad (between 4 and 8
> milliSiemens/m, 
> if memory serves). In eastern Mass, the conductivity
> is 
> generally between 1 and 2 mS/m, with the better
> values 
> found near the coast. In northwestern CT and Long
> Island 
> (particularly near the south shore), the number is 
> around 0.5. According to the soil-conductivity map, 
> that's about as bad as it gets anywhere.
<snip>

And to get to Conn., especially, and also really to
eastern Mass., the signal has to go across our local
ground-conductivity-from-hell zone. I'm about the
exact same distance from WBZ and WGY (110 miles each,
plus or minus a couple miles), and WBZ's signal here
is far better. Even given that WBZ is directional
toward me, WGY is much weaker. It seems to get out
better up in Vermont.

WGY's real problem is that for at least several years,
CJVA, French, in Caraquet, N.B., has been putting
awful skywave interference on it esentially every
night -- at least where I am. Maybe this is the worst
spot for it, as I'm probably at a prime skywave
distance from CJVA and I'm so close to WGY that it's
skywave isn't that big. But -- while I try to avoid
casting aspersins anywhere :)) -- I think the problem
is that CJVA always "forgets" to switch to its night
pattern. It's supposed to be 10 kW, DA night. Maybe
they'll move to FM soon . . . 

*****************************************************
Have you patronized the signal of an AM Class A
station today?
*****************************************************




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/