WLYN simulcasting WZRC New York
Fri May 12 22:53:28 EDT 2006
WLYN was a 1 kW daytimer for many years. WLYN-FM's (later WFNX's) antenna
was located atop the WLYN (AM) tower--most likely side-mounted (which was
more common than top-mounting for FM antennas added to existing AM towers).
Many years ago, when the FM was already running the maximum power for
a Class A, the FCC allowed Class A FMs both greater antenna height (100m--up
from 250') and 3 kW (up from 1 kW and subsequently increased to 6 kW). (Of
course, even before the blanket increase, Class As, like FMs of all other
classes, were allowed greater antenna heights if they reduced their ERP to
achieve coverage equivalent to that of the class maximum.) WLYN was granted
the equivalent of 3 kW at 100m. This was accomplished, in part, by
increasing the tower height (and, I believe, top-mounting the FM antenna on
the new taller tower). WLYN (AM) thus got a more efficient, half-wave tower,
but because of proximity to first-adjacent WFEA, could barely increase its
coverage. WLYN thus became one of the first beneficiaries of the new rule
allowing AMs to operate at virtually any power instead of just 250W, 500W, 1
kW, 2.5 kW, 5 kW, 10 kW, 25 kW, and 50 kW. 700W into a half-wave tower was
probably equivalent to a little more than 1 kW into the shorter tower that
WLYN had been using. I don't think there was ever an intermediate step that
required WLYN to reduce to 500W--the nearest, lower, round-number power. I
have a feeling that for a LONG time after WLYN increased its tower height,
there was something seriously wrong with the AM installation because where I
live, the AM signal became noticeably weaker and did not improve until after
the station had changed ownership a couple of times.
Dan Strassberg, email@example.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Drown" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: WLYN simulcasting WZRC New York
> Pardon my ignorance (I may well be wrong on this), but wasn't WLYN at one
> time a 5 kw daytimer? If so, why (and when) was the daytime power reduced
> to 700 watts?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <email@example.com>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 2:59 PM
> Subject: Re: WLYN simulcasting WZRC New York
> > At Brewster, MA on the Cape, V-Soft gives Lynn's little 700 watts a
> > 1.58 mV/m versus only 1.14 mV/m for 50 kW WWZN-1510 (day). WEEI-850,
> > also with 50 gallons, only does 2.36 mV, not a whole lot better than
> > WLYN.
> > With the directional antenna (Flag) I use here in Billerica, the WLYN
> > 76 watt night signal is usually tops on 1360. Now that Bathurst, New
> > Brunswick (CKBC) is gone, the interference WLYN takes is either from
> > whatever WDRC signal leaks through from the back of my cardioid antenna
> > system or, quite often, WLYN is dogged by a hefty 1 kHz heterodyne from
> > the big Spain station on 1359, basically on the same easterly bearing
> > as Lynn.
> > Mark Connelly - Billerica, MA
> > <<
> > WLYN's 700 watt day signal comes in quite well in Boston
> > proper. It comes over mostly salt water from the North
> > Shore just ten miles from downtown Boston. It's obviously
> > not a powerhouse signal, but it's very listenable in the
> > city and the immediate Boston metro, and it also hits the
> > coast of the South Shore well.
> > It weakens as you travel inland, but still can be heard
> > to Route 128 and a lot farther in some areas depending
> > on conditions.
> > ...
> > WLYN's 76 watt mono night signal becomes very weak south
> > of the Tobin Bridge. It can be heard faintly in Boston,
> > but with a lot of background noise from WDRC Hartford and
> > other co-channels in the Northeast which may drown it out
> > on nights with strong skywave.
> > Eli Polonsky
> > >>
More information about the Boston-Radio-Interest