With 940 now officially vacant

[Dan.Strassberg]

Even at night, when 800 runs 10 kW and 940 ran 50 kW? Also, although
CKLW protects CJAD, the null appears to be mis-aimed by a few degreees
to the north, with the result that CJAD must receive quite a strong
skywave from Windsor (the equivalent of more than 25 kW ND). Given
that peculiarity, I find it hard to imagine that 800's NIF is anywhere
near as low as 940's.

The CJAD array is also kind of an enigma. 195-degree towers but with
nighttime efficiency more approprate for 155 degrees. Suggests design
problems. Also, I suspect that most owners would prefer 940's two
short towers to CJAD's four tall ones, whose predecessors became the
casualties of an ice storm a few years ago.

I would think the 940/690 site could be purchased for a reasonable
price and the 800 site could be sold to at least partially defray the
cost of acquiring the 940/690 site.

-----
Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net)
eFax 1-707-215-6367

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Fybush" <scott@fybush.com>
To: "Kevin Vahey" <kvahey@gmail.com>
Cc: "(newsgroup) Boston-Radio-Interest"
<boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org>
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: With 940 now officially vacant


> Kevin Vahey wrote:
>> So I could hear Habs radio in the car and not on XM???
>
> When CJAD finds a way to generate revenue from your listening south
> of the border, then they might care about the signal improvement
> that a move to 940 would bring in New England.
>
> Until then, one can argue that CJAD actually does better in its
> target market on 800 than it would on 940. CJAD's 50 kW on 800 is
> concentrated in a relatively tight directional pattern over
> Montreal; if it went to 940 with the looser DA that CINW used, it
> would actually have a lower field strength over most of the Anglo
> population up there!
>
> s