Re: Herald: Is WWZN dragging down SNR?

[Dan.Strassberg@att.net]

The WBNW site does present some interesting possibilities. With New London gone 
from 1510, the constraints on 1510, during the day at least, are significantly 
relaxed. A move that far west would probably mean that WWZN's relaxed non-CH 
day pattern would have to be tightend up--to protect Greenfield, but from a 
site that far west, I guess it wouldn't matter.

Now, nights are a different problem. The big problem is Sherbrooke, which is 
still notified to the US and hence must be protected. Would the CRTC relinquish 
the allocation?--maybe; until a year or so ago, that had never happend, but now 
there are two cases that are at least under consideration, I believe. The CRTC 
has said that it would "consider" relinquishing an unused allocation in North 
Bay ON to enable 1160 in Chicago to increase to 50 kW nights and it appears 
that the deletion of one or two stations north of Minneapolis will to make way 
for improved night facilities for WDGY 630, Hudson WI.

The existence of a fourth tower not in line with the other three at the WBNW 
site creates the possibility of synthesizing a night pattern that protects 
Sherbrooke. I'm not enough of an array designer to know how well this might 
work out. If only the three in-line towers were used, a night pattern closely 
resembling WEEI's could be synthesized. WEEI's towers are 120 degrees apart; 
WBNW's are just over 120 degrees apart at 1510. 

There are problems with the WBNW site, though. Not only are WBNW's towers 
shorter than WWZN's (approximately 110 degrees at 1510 vs 200), but also the 
soil conductivity is HORRENDOUS, which means that the signal in Boston would 
absolutely be inferior. Lexington might indeed be the farthest east community 
in which the signal would meet the citeria for COL. A lot of people in Belmont 
and Watertown would be grateful, though. AND no change in COL would be possible 
unless and until the FCC opened once of its very infrequent and very brief AM 
filing windows. The FCC considers COL changes to be major changes. Applications 
for such changes are accepted for filing only when the FCC opens a "window."

Another problem with the WBNW site is that the towers could not hack 50 kW. 
Could they be jacked up, bigger base insulators inserted and the towers put 
back on the new insulators. Sounds like a tricky operation, but perhaps. 
Another possibility is to ground the tower bases and install Folded Unipole 
antennas for both stations. This would be more practical.  
--
dan.strassberg@att.net
617-558-4205
eFax 707-215-6367
> Laurence Glavin writes:
> > If I remember correctly, one of the technical
> > types posting here theorized that WWZN was spending huge
> > amounts of money in rent and electricity for their tower site
> > at the Waltham/Belmont line, making it difficult for a
> > station with minimal listenership to break even.
> 
> Dan: Could WWZN move its transmitter site elsewhere further out (say, the
> WBNW site in Concord/Acton), maybe move its COL to a northwestern suburb
> (Lexington?), and still get away with putting a decent signal into the city?
> Wouldn't the rent in Acton be a bit cheaper? And there wouldn't be an office
> park that cut through the ground wiring.
> 
> 
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release Date: 5/13/2003
>