WNSH to 50kw, WPEP goes away

[madprof]

Dan:    excellent analysis!  your knowledge and intelligence are highly
appreciated!

with my knowledge being "enough to be dangerous", I completely agree with
"hair-brained proposal"

a note on effectiveness of WNSH's current site (from KC8LSY's AM-Viewer
(of FCC_database) software): the augmentations (to non-engineering folks:
that means corrections in theoritical pattern) show a severe loss of signal
to the norht




----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Strassberg" <dan.strassberg@att.net>
To: <boston-radio-interest@rolinin.BostonRadio.org>; "Scott Fybush"
<scott@fybush.com>
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 7:20 AM
Subject: Re: WNSH to 50kw, WPEP goes away


> Based on the coverage maps, I think the FCC would approve this I don't
think the overlap with a station on Long Island is likely
> to be deemed material. And there appear to be no overlap issues with WNTN.
> The salt-water path doesn't bring WNSH's signal far enough inland to
produce
> overlap of 5 mV/m contours with WNTN. HOWEVER, a few weeks back, there
were
> a couple of postings on this list about a fairly large group of Canadian
AM
> stations that the FCC or maybe Industrie Canada considers to be Class As.
> One would surely think that the currently dark 1570 in Laval (Montreal)
> could have and should have made it to this list, as the station had a
> monster nighttime signal that was substantially interference free--at
least
> within Canada. Rumor has it that a CP has been granted to resurrect this
> station (albeit with 10 kW-U using a two-tower array vs the late CKLM's
> 50-kW-U using three towers). Regardless of the power, if the Laval
> allocation is considered to be a Class A, WNSH will have to throttle its
CH
> power WAY back, maybe all the way back to the current 500W. I guess that
> would make the sunset pattern change a little less ridiculous, but it
would
> also substantially reduce WNSH's AM and PM drive-time power during much of
> the year.
>
> Then there's one more technical issue that, unless I missed something, the
> engineers seem to have completely overlooked. Perhaps I missed something
in
> my quick read through the application, but unless those three towers were
> built on truly outsized base insulators, the only way to put that much
power
> into towers designed to handle 1% of the proposed power is to short out
the
> insulators and install skirt-fed radiators (so-called Folded-Unipole
> antennas). I could have missed it, but I saw no reference in the
application
> to WNSH's current use of Folded Unipoles or to conversion of the
series-fed
> top-loaded towers to skirt-fed radiators. If the plan really is to convert
> series-fed towers to skirt-fed radiators, there may be an issue with
> combining the top-loaded and skirt-fed constructions. I know of no station
> that has done this, but that doesn't mean that there is no such station or
> that the combination is infeasible. If the towers weren't designed with 50
> kW in mind and they can't be converted to Folded Unipoles, then the towers
> will most likely have to come down and be replaced with new ones. (Maybe,
> however, the towers can be jacked up and larger base insulators inserted
to
> replace the existing ones. Replacement of base insulators under standing
> towers is an operation that definitely IS occasionally performed. The
> operation doesn't always succeed, though. I believe that's how WRCA lost a
> tower a few years back. The rocky soil at the site certainly wouldn't make
> the operation any easier.) Anyhow, if the towers must be replaced, even
with
> ones of the same height but with larger base insulators, I think a
building
> permit will be required. In that event, I can imagine the Beverly NIMBYs
> mobilizing and tying up this proposal indefinitely, even if the FCC
> approves.
>
> --
> Dan Strassberg, dan.strassberg@att.net
> eFax 707-215-6367
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Scott Fybush <scott@fybush.com>
> To: <boston-radio-interest@rolinin.BostonRadio.org>
> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 12:11 AM
> Subject: WNSH to 50kw, WPEP goes away
>
>
> > Going over FCC stuff for tomorrow's NERW tonight, and look what the
"late"
> > Keating Willcox has come up with for WNSH: he's asking the FCC to let
him
> > take WNSH to 50kw by day (85 whopping ND watts at night) in exchange for
> > taking WPEP dark. Same three towers at Endicott College, and a pattern
> that
> > only the fish could love. Feast your eyes:
> >
> >
>
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/cdbsmenu.hts?
> context=25&appn=100668225&formid=301&fac_num=22798
> >
> > Details in Monday's NERW...and I can't wait to see Dan Strassberg pick
> this
> > one apart!
> >
> > s
> >
>
>