WWZN and Kinstar antennas

[Dan Strassberg]

I think Piedmont is a Class B. I believe the night pattern RMS is just
greater than 140.85 mV/m @ 1 km, qualifying the station for Class B status
and nighttime protection. Were this not the case, no CoL change would have
been required to add night service, and the Col WAS changed from San Rafael
to Piedmont.

As for how you mollify Canada for constructing a facility that interferes
with a dark or unbuilt internationally notified Canadian facility, Ron
Rackley has done it, thus enabling WYLL's increase to 50 kW-N. There was an
unbult 1160 station in, I believe, North Bay ON. Rackley was able to get
Canada to accept replacing it with an unbuilt station on, IIRC, 770. I think
the replacement has a higher NIF than the original, but, notwithstanding,
probably covers more area because of the lower frequency. To my knowledge,
this is the only case in which something like that has been accomplished
with Canada.

However, I don't understand how WDGY 630 Hudson WI (St Paul MN)
was able to get its now-built upgrade to 2.5 kW-N from the WCTS site. That
upgrade appears to destroy a co-channel Canadian somewhere in SK or MB--and
AFAIK, THAT station is still on the air. The WDGY signal is aimed
north-northwest. All the years that the late KDWB occupied 630 in the Twin
Cities, it was limited to 500 W-N (5 kW-D) and had a night pattern with a
deep minimum to the north. Before its upgrade, WDGY was running something
like 230W-N as a Class D from what it now the site of co-owned WMIN 740.
That site is much closer to Hudson than is the WCTS site. And WDGY's 230W
night pattern was, like KDWB's, deeply nulled to the north.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Fybush" <scott@fybush.com>
To: "Eli Polonsky" <elipolo@earthlink.net>
Cc: <boston-radio-interest@rolinin.BostonRadio.org>; "Dan Strassberg"
<dan.strassberg@att.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 11:40 PM
Subject: Re: WWZN and Kinstar antennas


> Eli Polonsky wrote:
>
> > Right, but the sites that Aaron hypothetically proposed are about
> > even a mile closer to the WTTT/WAZN site than the current WWZN
> > site. The location mentioned by the old military base in Waltham is
> > practically almost just across Trapelo Rd. from the site. That's why
> > I was wondering if there would be issues for the two sites to be
> > that close together.
>
> That, by itself, shouldn't be a problem.
>
> I'm much more curious about how a WWZN move would be affected by
> ratcheting. Even if then-WITS *was* ratcheted in 1981 (and I don't
> believe it would have been), my casual reading of the rules seems to say
> that a subsequent move would again require ratcheting. Reducing WWZN's
> night signal toward WLAC by 10% would hurt. So would reducing WWZN's
> night signal toward WRNJ in New Jersey.
>
> With WNLC gone, it seems to me that the real winner might be a night
> site significantly SOUTH and west of Boston. I wonder if the thing to
> do, in the next AM major change window, might not be a city of license
> change for 1510 to allow it to move at least its night operations
> somewhere down around the old WBZ site in Millis, with the signal aimed
> north and east back at greater Boston? The issue would then become
> protection of the dead CJRS allocation, and I'm not entirely sure how
> you'd resolve that.
>
> The issue of 1510's NIF is an interesting one, too. 1510 is actually one
> of - if not THE - cleanest channels on the AM dial at night. There are
> only six fulltime facilities on 1510 in the continental US - WWZN, WRNJ
> in New Jersey, WLAC, KGA in Spokane, KSPA Ontario CA and KYOL in Denver.
> Everything else is class D, and of those class Ds, I find only a tiny
> handful that have any unprotected night power at all. The Pittsburgh
> 1510 has a watt, which I don't believe it uses. KFNN Mesa AZ has 100
> watts, and KPIG Piedmont (Oakland) CA has 230 watts. Everyone else signs
> off at sunset, or is supposed to. That makes ratcheting much easier for
> WWZN, since there are only a tiny number of stations whose NIF limit it
> contributes to.
>
> It's a mixed blessing for WWZN, though, because it means that all the
> signal coming its way at night - and at a pretty substantial level -
> comes from the single source of WLAC. That can be much more destructive
> interference, from the listener's standpoint, than the same level of
> incoming signal would be if it were the "babble" of multiple co-channel
> stations heard on other frequencies.
>
> s
>