WNSH

[Dan Strassberg]

Well, there's nothing but salt water from the water's edge in Beverly or
Peabody to the water's edge nearest your QTH on Cape Cod. So all but maybe
0.1 miles of the 60+-mile distance is salt water. Let's assume for the
moment that I am right and that the inverse-distance field is 1080 mV/m @ 1
km (well below the Class D minimum of 1543). At 100 km, the field strength
would be close to 11 mV/m. None of the other stations you listed would be
quite in that class. 950 should be next at close to 7 mV/m and 1360 would
probably be third at around 3.34. If WNSH's application is correct and the
efficiency is greater than the Class D minimum, you can increase the number
for WNSH by almost 50%--to over 16 mV/m. When WNSH's application was for 50
kW directional, a friend of mine, who thought it was going to be directional
to the east (it really was not; it was to be directional to the north),
joked that WNSH was going to have the stongest signal in Bermuda of any US
mainland AM. Despite the power reduction to 30 kW, I suspect that the joke
may be even more true now than it was when the power was to be higher.
Nevertheless, coverage of Cape Cod wasn't supposed to be the idea. Still,
neither was coverage of Arlington.

--

Dan Strassberg
dan.strassberg@att.net
Fax: 1-707-215-6367

----- Original Message -----
From: <markwa1ion@aol.com>
To: <boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 12:50 PM
Subject: WNSH


> I was at a get-together in Yarmouth on the Cape last Saturday and noted
> WNSH-1570 with an absolutely huge signal, much stronger than any other
> metro-Boston station above 1030 kHz, even 50 kW WWZN.  I think that
> only 590, 680, 950, and 1030 were stronger.  1360 was the only higher
> end of the dial station in a somewhat-similar signal class, not
> including Cape / nominal Cape stations 1170, 1240, and 1390.  1230's
> fairly strong too, but messed up by 1240 IBOC.
>
> Mark Connelly - Billerica, MA
>
> Dan Strassberg wrote:
> I am dumbfounded. I knew that the new signal would not be a
> world-beater, but
> even with what I learned from your application about the low antenna
> efficiency,
> I am truly surprised at how awful the signal is! (I live in Arlington,
> near the
> Lexington line, just north of Route 2. I have a few decent AM radios
> including a
> Super Radio III. Based on loudness and background noise, I judge WNSH's
> signal
> here to be in the neighborhood of 1.5 mV/m.) The signal sounds roughly
> equivalent to WESX's 600 or so watts. (WESX's power is nominally 1 kW,
> but it is
> throttled back because of the very efficient half-wave antenna.)
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! -
> http://mail.aol.com