Re: Andleman returns tomorrow to 1510 (fwd)

[dan.strassberg@att.net]

--
dan.strassberg@att.net
617-558-4205
eFax 707-215-6367
----------------------  Forwarded Message:  ---------------------
From:    dan.strassberg@att.net
To:      Kevin Vahey <kvahey@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Andleman returns tomorrow to 1510
Date:    Mon, 04 Mar 2002 15:06:17 +0000

Or maybe the GM is a nontechnical type, or maybe he is 
just so out of it he should be canned, or maybe he was 
trying to simplify for the masses and in the process 
denigrated his own station, in which case he should be 
canned. According to the quote, he said that they are 
running 10 kW and no changes can be made. The facility 
is licensed for 50 kW-U, and I am more than a little 
skeptical about their running lower power at night.

When I saw the quote here, it was part of a quoted 
passage from another message and the attribution was 
missing. I had no idea that the quote came from the 
station's own GM. I assumed that the person being quoted 
was air talent, who generally know nothing about the 
technical side.

I can guarantee you this: If WWZN has filed an 
application to reduce its night power, the FCC had not 
acepted the application for filing as recently as last 
Thursday. As of this writing, Thursday is the last day 
for which FCC actions and applications have been posted 
at the FCC Web site. Without a CP to reduce power, 
operation at a power lower than that specified in the 
license has to be considered a temporary situation.

--
dan.strassberg@att.net
617-558-4205
eFax 707-215-6367
> Dan ( or anybody)
> 
> Since the WWZN GM was quoted in the Globe that they
> are running 10K at night, are they doing this on their
> own until they get other problems solved?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- Dan Strassberg <dan.strassberg@att.net> wrote:
> > No additional towers. No zoning issues. The new day
> > pattern uses the same
> > two towers as are used for the current day pattern,
> > which will become the
> > new CH pattern. An additional phasor is what's
> > needed. I believe that WWZN's
> > two existing phasors reside in the ATU building at
> > the base of tower 1. It's
> > a steel "building"--rather like a stainless steel
> > truck trailer raised up on
> > concrete piers to keep it away from the flood waters
> > that sometimes hit that
> > side of the 411 Waverley Oaks Rd Industrial Park.
> > The tower base and the
> > building are surrounded by a chain-link fence to
> > which is attached a painted
> > wood fence so you can't (easily) look inside. There
> > may be no room inside
> > the ATU building for an additional phasor, but there
> > should be plenty of
> > room in the Tx building.
> > 
> > When the station was being constructed, the
> > consulting engineer told me that
> > the reason he designed the setup that way was that
> > the owners of the station
> > and the industrial park kept changing the location
> > of the Tx building within
> > the site. I guess the architects were still playing
> > with different concepts
> > for the three-story office building that was built
> > on top of part of the
> > ground system after the station was completed. This
> > negotiation was going on
> > even as the towers were going up. The engineer said
> > that he had to order the
> > phasors and the design had to be based on a known
> > location. The tower
> > locations were already fixed, so he decided to put
> > the phasors in a location
> > that wouldn't be changed. To do otherwise could have
> > added months to the
> > station's construction schedule.
> > 
> > Sure, if the CH and N phasors are in the ATU
> > building and the D phasor is in
> > the Tx building, the setup for changing patterns
> > will be more complicated,
> > but I still find it hard to imagine the technical
> > problems being very great.
> > The current day pattern is a relatively standard
> > cardioid nulled to less
> > than 1 kW behind the array. The new day pattern is a
> > very substantially
> > detuned version of the same thing. The field out the
> > back is the equivalent
> > of several tens of kW ND.
> > 
> > As far as I can see, the biggest risk and potential
> > cost associated with the
> > project is the cost of satisfying complaints of
> > interference within the new
> > 1V/m day contour. The area is quite densely
> > populated. In theory, all such
> > complaints in areas to the north and east of the
> > site were resolved when the
> > site first went on the air in 1981. Allegedly, the
> > costs of interference
> > abatement back then topped $1 million. The new 1 V/m
> > day contour must take
> > in several additional square miles to the south and
> > west. However, part of
> > that area consists land owned by the state and
> > federal governments, and may
> > not be considered to have any resident population.
> > 
> > As for the signal in NH being worse now than it was
> > when the TX was in
> > Quincy, that would likely be true in the Seacoast
> > region, since part of the
> > path from Quincy to that part of NH is over salt
> > water. Also, my own
> > listening tests showed a definite reduction in
> > signal strength in the
> > Hanover area after the office building was built on
> > the northern part of the
> > ground system. I personally witnessed the
> > destruction of part of the ground
> > system when conduit was being installed to bring
> > power to the light
> > standards that illuminate the parking lot between
> > one of the towers and the
> > office building. I told the guy who was supervising
> > the guy with the
> > grooving machine that he was cutting the station's
> > ground system. He said
> > "what's it to you?" and came at me in a menacing
> > way. I got the hell out--in
> > a hurry.
> > --
> > Dan Strassberg, dan.strassberg@att.net
> > 617-558-4205, eFax 707-215-6367
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: SteveOrdinetz <steveord@bit-net.com>
> > To: <boston-radio-interest@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 9:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: Andleman returns tomorrow to 1510
> > 
> > 
> > > Dan Strassberg wrote:
> > >
> > > >There isn't a lot of time before the CP is pulled
> > for failure to
> > construct.
> > > >I can't figure out what Rose City (WWZN's
> > licensee) has been waiting for.
> > >
> > > Financial or zoning issues would be my guess. 
> > What's involved in making
> > > the change...are there additional towers that need
> > to be constructed or is
> > > it just tweaking of phasing?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >BTW, most recollections of 1510's terrible night
> > signal during the days
> > when
> > > >the station held the Red Sox contract relate to
> > the station's operation
> > from
> > > >North Quincy--before its move to 411 Waverley
> > Oaks Rd in Waltham.
> > WMEX/WITS
> > > >ran only 5 kW-N from N Quincy, and--especially
> > after the construction of
> > the
> > > >State St South office complex immediately to the
> > west of the N Quincy
> > > >site--was completely unlistenable at night in the
> > western suburbs.
> > >
> > >
> > > I can't speak for the western suburbs, but the
> > signal seemed a lot better
> > > here in N.H. back when the tx was in Quincy.  A
> > decent portable could
> > > receive it quite well (at least during the day). 
> > The same radio can't
> > even
> > > hear 1510 today.
> > >
> > >
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball
> http://sports.yahoo.com