WNSH

[jjlehmann@comcast.net]

I can say that WNSH's signal has improved greatly on the south shore, just as the radio-locator map indicates. I used to hear WPEP when they were on the air, but now WNSH is stronger than they ever were.

Jeff Lehmann
Hanson, MA
-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Don A" <donald_astelle@yahoo.com> 

> I had the opportunity earlier this week to drive from northern Vermont into 
> Boston and used it as a chance to check out the new daytime signal for WNSH. 
> (It's always interesting to see how a 'proposed' facility upgrade actually 
> turns out!) 
> 
> I started to pick up the signal just south on Manchester at Rts 93/293. 
> 
> The signal strength increased as I got closer to the Mass/NH border...but 
> when I entered Massachusetts, I was surprised at how bad the signal was. 
> 
> Judging from this map: 
> 
> http://radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/pat?call=WNSH&service=AM&status=C&hours=D 
> 
> ...WNSH should have been a reliable signal once I crossed the border. 
> ANd while the signal was "there"....I could hear some station in the 
> background fighting it out with them. (Whats the next nearest station I 
> would pick up on 1570AM during the day? I don't have my database with me.) 
> 
> Once I crossed over 128/95 the signal was very usable and very reliable (as 
> the map indicates it should be), and stayed that way until I got into 
> downtown Boston traffic. 
> 
> While it appears the intended directional pattern is going where it out to 
> be, I am surprised the signal wasn't as reliable and useful in the areas 
> just outside it's primary contours. 
> 
> Someone on the list said there is an issue with ground/soil conuctivity? 
> 
> I hope there are more conversations with the consulting engineers before 
> this is considered a "done deal". 
> 
> While this no doubt gives WNSH a stronger signal in their 
> hometown/COL....and a stronger signal coverage to the north (Gloucester, 
> etc.)...it doesn't appear to have given them the added area that I imagined 
> from reading the documentation. 
> 
> I think some field test readings should be on the to-do list. 
> 
> 
> 
>