howdy neighbor

[Dan Strassberg]

Well, not such close neighbors. I think by airline miles, I'm 2.1 miles
almost exactly due north of 411 Waverley Oaks Rd. I'm in Arlington, a short
way north of Route 2 Exit 57 not far from the Lexington line. As for the old
WMEX data from Quincy, I do have (somewhere) a rather inexact polar plot of
the old DA-1 pattern. It's in a 1970-something National Radio Club Night
Pattern Book. As far as I can tell, the (two self-supporting) towers for
that pattern were on a due north-south line, and I remember them as being
relatively far apart. The pattern was kind of an upside-down figure eight
with a broad major lobe centered on due north and a rather sizeable minor
lobe centered on due south. I suspect that the towers were 90 degrees high.

There's an interesting story about why you may have found bases for four
towers at the Squantum site. Whether you found all the bases or not, there
were four towers--but only three of them stood at the same time. WMEX was
granted a CP for 50 kW-D and planned to add one (guy-supported) tower
northeast of the existing south tower. The day pattern was a cardioid aimed
northeastward--out to sea. The null to the southwest protected the (then)
WNLC and also kept daytime skywave toward (then Class IB) WLAC within
limits.

Before WMEX could get the new day pattern on the air, however, the
Commomwealth took part of the property for contruction of a new bridge
across the Neponset River. Fortunately, enough land was left at the site for
both the day and night arrays. In fact, the new day array was not affected,
but the land on which the night array's north tower had stood, was taken.
The original night array was duplicated a fraction of a wavelength east and
slightly north of its original location by building a second guy-supported
tower due north of the new day tower. Thus, if you could find all of the
tower bases, they would describe a parallelogram.

The loss of the land was just the beginning of WMEX's travails, however. Not
long afterward, the Sate St South office complex was constructed to the east
of the Squantum site. Although the effect of the buildings on the 50-kW day
pattern wasn't awful, the effect on the night signal (which, in the western
suburbs, had always been marginal at best) was horrendous. (Even before the
buildings went up, WMEX got creamed by very strong first-adjacent skywave
signals from WKBW (now WWKB) and WTOP, but later also by co-channel
interference from a station in Sherbrooke PQ that signed on the the late
'50s.) WMEX (or maybe it was WITS by then) at first hoped to correct the
problem by enhancing its ground system, but the improvement was never
noticeable. Faced with the loss of the lucrative Red Sox broadcast rights,
the station secured a CP to move to Waltham.

Because of the need to protect Sherbrooke and Nashville, a site northwest of
Boston was about the only possible location for the night array. (Besides
WNLC, a bunch of stations to the southwest of Boston had been dropped into
WLAC's null toward Boston. WMEX, though only a Class II, predated Class IB
WLAC. The situation of a co-channel Class II receiving protection from a
Class I, though unusual, is not unique.) Unfortunately, management never
realized until too late the huge beneftis of the salt-water path from
Squantum to downtown Boston and the North Shore. Despite the cost, the
station should have kept the Quincy site for days or arranged a daytime
diplex with 1260. Until the move to Waltham, a lot of people scoffed at the
old day pattern, which seemed to waste most of its power over the Ocean.
Although the nay-sayers were technically correct, they forgot that land
areas quite a good distance inland got the benefit of the superb
conductivity of the sea water. Despite the use of 200-degree towers, the day
signal from Waltham is a mere shadow of the 50-kW day signal from Squantum.

--
Dan Strassberg, dan.strassberg@att.net
eFax 707-215-6367

----- Original Message -----
From: madprof <madprof@ix.netcom.com>
To: Dan Strassberg <dan.strassberg@att.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 11:11 AM
Subject: howdy neighbor


> meaning that I'm off South Street, Waltham, south of Brandeis,
> 0.4 mi from WBRS ring antenna (Ed Perry of WADT is their consulting engr),
> 0.5 mi from WRCA towers, 0.6 mi from WNTN tower.
>
> Grady Moates is a consulting engineering, including the primary for
> 1510, he's spoken of changing power tubes at the 1150 site.
> his company name, Loud and Clean, I realize now implies excellent
> audio.  so he must be a mix of audio & RF.
> I have not been in the 1510 TX shed.
> He was working the old WMEX site (Quincy) in 1980, (as WITS)
> just before the Wal site was built,  so he's promised me the WMEX
> array data if he ever runs across it "buried somewhere"
>
> (hey, you wouldn't have WMEX old data would you?
> field ratios, phasing, heights, spacing, orientation)????
> I have been  seeking it to plot the old patterns & coverage,
> only as a mathematical / comparison exercise?
> yes, we DX'ers are crazy.
> I have visited the Quincy swamp & attempted to measure
> distance and angles between the 3 main cement butts
> (1 is 4 butts, apparently was a self-supporting towers)
> (there's also 6 guy wire anchors butts).
> due to slippery mud, I was unable properly measure,
> but semi-confirm reading from USGS & USGS aerial maps.
> experimenting, I have yet to find a ratio / phase set that makes
> any sense for reasonable coverage over Boston, etc.
> someday.
>
> take care, as WBCN (Charles Laquidara? probably spelled wrong)
> used to say "take it....anyway you can"
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan Strassberg" <dan.strassberg@att.net>
> To: "Robert Sutherland" <madprof@ix.netcom.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 7:13 AM
> Subject: Re: non-broadcast
>
>
> > I've never met Grady Moates but I've heard several people describe him
as
> > brilliant. I thought, however, that he was an audio guy, not an RF guy.
He
> > is credited with, among others, WILD's very fine sound. However, WWZN's

> > upgrade was an RF job--and I suspect a pretty straightforward one. When
> > (then) WITS was moving to Waltham (1980-81), I hung out at 411 Waverley
> Oaks
> > Industrial Park (it's only a couple of miles from my house) and got to
> talk
> > to an engineer exactly once. He was, however, the project engineer from
> the
> > consulting firm that designed the array and I got to see the polar plots
> of
> > the standard patterns. Then, after the station had gone dark (1987), I
> > caught the team of engineers who were reproofing and tweaking the array
> > prior to the station's return to the air as WNRB. That time, I got to
take
> a
> > quick look around inside the transmitter building. As I recall, there
were
> > three TXs inside--two 50-kW units and a 5-kW unit. I think that one of
the
> > 50-kW units and the 5 kW-unit were actually hooked up and ready to go on
> the
> > air. The other 50-kW unit, a huge blue RCA AmpliPhase box, was partially
> > disassembled.
> >
> > --
> > Dan Strassberg, dan.strassberg@att.net
> > eFax 707-215-6367
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Robert Sutherland <madprof@ix.netcom.com>
> > To: Dan Strassberg <dan.strassberg@att.net>
> > Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 9:15 PM
> > Subject: re: non-broadcast
> >
> >
> > > very impressive!    your level of understanding still exceeds mine by
a
> > long
> > > ways!
> > >
> > > I also had the engineering "basics" (at UMass Amherst), and have
> > researched,
> > > experimented with programs to estimate coverage AM / FM / TV,
> > > and AM directional patterns (theoritical very good, "augmented" not at
> all
> > > usable.  yet?), and area & channel maps.
> > > I have visited many site & talked (live & online) with many broadcast
> > > engineers,
> > > especially at times of changes (ie 1510 & relaxed day pattern; Grady
> > Moates)
> > > 3 months  ago I discovered the Rado-Tech list, all professionals,  and
> am
> > > realized how much I have no clue about.
> > >
> > > Bob.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Dan Strassberg" <dan.strassberg@att.net>
> > > To: "Robert F. Sutherland" <madprof@ix.netcom.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 7:26 PM
> > > Subject: Re: re Re_ site of WAAF cp & Ch27
> > >
> > >
> > > > An engineer yes (MSEE, PE); broadcast engineer, no. Never worked in
> > radio
> > > > engineering; it's just a hobby. In fact, I've never worked at all
for
> > > money
> > > > in radio; I did do some radio for free when I was in college MANY
> years
> > > ago.
> > > > What I've learned, I could never have learned if I weren't an EE,
but
> > none
> > > > of it (except the fundamentals) came from school. I picked it all up
> > > through
> > > > listening, reading, and from people I've "met" on the Web.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Dan Strassberg, dan.strassberg@att.net
> > > > eFax 707-215-6367
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Robert F. Sutherland <madprof@ix.netcom.com>
> > > > To: <boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org>; Dan Strassberg
> > > > <dan.strassberg@att.net>
> > > > Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 6:45 PM
> > > > Subject: re Re_ site of WAAF cp & Ch27
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Sorry Dan, I mis-credited  my praise of comments re WAAF,
> > > > > should have been to you.
> > > > > You are apparently a broadcasting engineer,
> > > > > a field I have great respect for.
> > > > >
> > > > > My profession has been computer test engineering,
> > > > > but since my youth, I've been a DX'er, and heavily drawn
> > > > > to the techincal / engineering sides of broadcast,
> > > > > so I know only enuf to be "dangerous".
> > > > >
> > > > > Your knowledge and insight are highly appreciated.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob Sutherland
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>