• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

AM Changes?

J

John1

Today's NorthEast Radio Watch discusses that the FCC is ready to reconsider some AM applications, including moving WWJZ from Mt. Holly to Horsham (WGNAS land available soon?), "more power for WNWR" (maybe nightime, since they're already 50kw?), and a new AM on either 1390 in Morrisville or 1400 in Philadelphia.
Anyone have more information, or comments? Some of these have been discussed here before but seem to be on the table again.
 
> Today's NorthEast Radio Watch discusses that the FCC is
> ready to reconsider some AM applications, including moving
> WWJZ from Mt. Holly to Horsham (WGNAS land available soon?),
> "more power for WNWR" (maybe nightime, since they're already
> 50kw?), and a new AM on either 1390 in Morrisville or 1400
> in Philadelphia.
> Anyone have more information, or comments? Some of these
> have been discussed here before but seem to be on the table
> again.

Isn't WNWR a daytimer?


<P ID="signature">______________
noiboc.jpg
</P>
 
> > Today's NorthEast Radio Watch discusses that the FCC is
> > ready to reconsider some AM applications, including moving
>
> > WWJZ from Mt. Holly to Horsham (WGNAS land available
> soon?),
> > "more power for WNWR" (maybe nightime, since they're
> already
> > 50kw?), and a new AM on either 1390 in Morrisville or 1400
>
> > in Philadelphia.
> > Anyone have more information, or comments? Some of these
> > have been discussed here before but seem to be on the
> table
> > again.
>
> Isn't WNWR a daytimer?<

No, it is not. It's 50Kw days and 500w nights. But I can imagine, with that very directional pattern, allowing the night power as high as 5kw.

Steve
KC2LDY
 
WNWR has never broadcast at night, signing off at sunset. When it was oldies WPGR in the '90's Jerry Blavat experimented with keeping the station on at reduced power until about 11pm for a short period but the signal was very poor and they went back to daytime only. In the '60's & '70's they were country WRCP and also signed off at sunset, but simulcast with FM 104.5 so the station could broadcast 24/7.
 
From what I'm told, the then WPGR ran with 1 kW nights, but the signal was poor. They could possibly be trying to get night authorization back. They DO have the Class D post sunset authorization of 7 WATTS but have never used it.
Kevin Fennessy might have the info. Kevin?

Dave Gardiner

WVCH 740

Chester/Philadelphia
 
> From what I'm told, the then WPGR ran with 1 kW nights, but
> the signal was poor. They could possibly be trying to get
> night authorization back. They DO have the Class D post
> sunset authorization of 7 WATTS but have never used it.
> Kevin Fennessy might have the info. Kevin?
>
> Dave Gardiner
>
> WVCH 740
>
> Chester/Philadelphia
>
In Montgomery County the experimantal WPGR nighttime signal was barely audible, drowned out by WPTR (Albany, NY) and KXEL (Waterloo, Iowa).
 
> No, it is not. It's 50Kw days and 500w nights. But I can
> imagine, with that very directional pattern, allowing the
> night power as high as 5kw.

Radio-Locator does not show any evidence of WNWR having a license for 500-watt nighttime service. In fact, WNWR is a Class D station, which means their nighttime power level, if they had any, could only be a maximum of 250 watts.

What you might be referring to is a Post-Sunset Authorization (PSSA), usually paired with a Pre-Sunrise Authorization (PSRA), which allow a daytime-only station to transmit at a reduced power level for a short period (usually less than 1 hour) after sunset and before sunrise, respectively. Therefore even if WNWR used their PSSA, they would still have to sign off the air at some point in the evening, as the PSSA does not give them authorization to transmit all night long.

<P ID="signature">______________
noiboc.jpg
</P>
 
You got KXEL Waterloo? The only Iowa station I ever received in Philadelphia was WHO from Des Moines.


> In Montgomery County the experimantal WPGR nighttime signal
> was barely audible, drowned out by WPTR (Albany, NY) and
> KXEL (Waterloo, Iowa).
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
 
> You got KXEL Waterloo? The only Iowa station I ever
> received in Philadelphia was WHO from Des Moines.

I used to be able to pick up KXEL in this area pretty regularly after sunset when it was a country station in the '70's- -80's. In the '80's when more stations were given nighttime coverage a lot of stations you could pick up before were no longer coming in, replaced by clutter. An example was country WJJD 1160 from Chicago, which boomed in here clearly almost every night for 90 minutes after sunset (until they signed off to protect KSL in Salt Lake City.)
 
> WNWR has never broadcast at night, signing off at sunset.
> When it was oldies WPGR in the '90's Jerry Blavat
> experimented with keeping the station on at reduced power
> until about 11pm for a short period but the signal was very
> poor and they went back to daytime only. In the '60's &
> '70's they were country WRCP and also signed off at sunset,
> but simulcast with FM 104.5 so the station could broadcast
> 24/7.
>
The story I heard is one of the better radio stories I know. It may not be ture, however, although I'm quite sure that at least part of it is true. WNWR (probably long enough ago that it had different calls at the time) held a CP to change its COL (to Bala Cynwyd, I believe) and operate at night with a low power (the number 223W sticks in my mind, but I am by no means sure of this). The combination of antenna efficiency and power would have produced an RMS inverse-distance field exceeding 140.85 mV/m @ 1kM, so the station would have been a Class B. (That was the reason for the COL change; the station could have remained licensed to Philly as a Class D because Class Ds do not have to cover any portion of their COLs at night.) Anyhow, the consulting engineer who designed the night facilities had a key to the station's Roxboro Tx building because he had to do a lot of work there--especially at night. The night pattern used the existing day towers and a new night phasor, which was in place and had undergone some testing but the station was not yet operating regularly at night. The station owner was really upset at the lousy night coverage and refused to pay the consultant. One night, the consultant drove to the site in his pickup truck, removed the new phasor, and left. The owner turned in the CP.

Of the Philadelphia-area AM major-change applications that the FCC has designated as mutually exclusive, WWJZ's application to change COL to Horsham has me most puzzled. As I understand it, WWJZ is proposing to continue using its existing 50 kW day facilities without modification, although identifying with a new COL that it could cover at night while also providing pretty good night service to metro Philly. The new night facilities would involve constructing an eight-tower array (unusual design--it's an end-fire; most eight-tower arrays are side-fire) either right at the edge of Berks County or just east of it, and operating with 25 kW at night. As you would imagine, the proposed night pattern is a narrow teardrop aimed east-southeast, but there is a minor lobe to the south-southeast. Why this operation is mutually exclusive with a proposed AM 640 in Virginia, I don't know. Maybe WWJZ's minor lobe would deliver enough skywave to the VA location to prevent the VA station from adequately serving its COL at night from its proposed Tx site.
 
>a new AM on either 1390 in Morrisville or 1400
> in Philadelphia.

Oh, wonderful! A class C on 1400 in Philly. Just what we need -- another struggling low power AM that doesn't cover the market.
 
> I understand it, WWJZ is proposing to continue using its
> existing 50 kW day facilities without modification, although
> identifying with a new COL that it could cover at night
> while also providing pretty good night service to metro
> Philly. The new night facilities would involve constructing
> an eight-tower array (unusual design--it's an end-fire; most
> eight-tower arrays are side-fire) either right at the edge
> of Berks County or just east of it>>>

That sounds very strange - Berks County is a long way from Horsham in eastern Montgomery County! Why wouldn't the COL be Hereford or Palm?
 
>
> That sounds very strange - Berks County is a long way from
> Horsham in eastern Montgomery County! Why wouldn't the COL
> be Hereford or Palm?
>

I'm not familiar enough with southeast PA/south Jersey geography to answer your question, but I think the rationale for the location of the new night site is to serve Philadelphia and suburbs as fully as possible without causing prohibited overlap with WIP. The rationale for the Horsham COL was to find a community that receives a 5 mV/m signal from the present day facilities, whose primary goal, when built, was to cover Mount Holly NJ with 5 mV/m. Of course, covering Philly et al by day was also a goal, but covering Mount Holly was mandatory. The NEW COL had to be within the existing daytime 5 mV/m contour and also within the new NIF contour. The result (Horsham) had to be a compromise because the existing day pattern isn't really strong to the west. I suspect, however, that the plan is eventually to operate full-time from the eight-tower night site with whatever power is possible during the day because the day signal in Philly from the eight-tower site ought to be a lot better than the signal from the Jersey site. But the daytime move is probably a secondary priority and no application is likely to be filed until all of the obstacles to the night move have been cleared. Remember that WWJZ was willing to settle for 39 kW-D from a nine-tower site that WAS (albeit just barely) inside Berks County. I think that proposal was shot down because environmental approval could not be obtained for the nine 400' towers.
 
I'm just speaking out of ignorance, but is it possible the honorable author is meaning Bucks County and not Berks County? John1 is correct in saying that the edge of Berks County is quite far from Horsham. If WWJZ were to move its tower site there, it would be a rimshot at best and I would imagine not even cover its proposed new COL. A tower site at this location would better serve Allentown, Reading, or even far northern Montgomery County (Pottstown area). I may possibly be wrong, but as I read these posts, I think this is what is intended.

> >
> > That sounds very strange - Berks County is a long way from
>
> > Horsham in eastern Montgomery County! Why wouldn't the
> COL
> > be Hereford or Palm?
> >
>
> I'm not familiar enough with southeast PA/south Jersey
> geography to answer your question, but I think the rationale
> for the location of the new night site is to serve
> Philadelphia and suburbs as fully as possible without
> causing prohibited overlap with WIP. The rationale for the
> Horsham COL was to find a community that receives a 5 mV/m
> signal from the present day facilities, whose primary goal,
> when built, was to cover Mount Holly NJ with 5 mV/m. Of
> course, covering Philly et al by day was also a goal, but
> covering Mount Holly was mandatory. The NEW COL had to be
> within the existing daytime 5 mV/m contour and also within
> the new NIF contour. The result (Horsham) had to be a
> compromise because the existing day pattern isn't really
> strong to the west. I suspect, however, that the plan is
> eventually to operate full-time from the eight-tower night
> site with whatever power is possible during the day because
> the day signal in Philly from the eight-tower site ought to
> be a lot better than the signal from the Jersey site. But
> the daytime move is probably a secondary priority and no
> application is likely to be filed until all of the obstacles
> to the night move have been cleared. Remember that WWJZ was
> willing to settle for 39 kW-D from a nine-tower site that
> WAS (albeit just barely) inside Berks County. I think that
> proposal was shot down because environmental approval could
> not be obtained for the nine 400' towers.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
Not all who wander are lost.</P>
 
> I'm just speaking out of ignorance, but is it possible the
> honorable author is meaning Bucks County and not Berks
> County? John1 is correct in saying that the edge of Berks
> County is quite far from Horsham. If WWJZ were to move its
> tower site there, it would be a rimshot at best and I would
> imagine not even cover its proposed new COL. A tower site
> at this location would better serve Allentown, Reading, or
> even far northern Montgomery County (Pottstown area). I may
> possibly be wrong, but as I read these posts, I think this
> is what is intended.
>
> > >
All I can tell you is that the proposed eight-tower night site is 51.4 miles west-northwest of the day site and 2.2 miles due north of the previously proposed nine-tower site. The nine-tower site was in Berks County (but just barely). Wouldn't a site 2.2 miles due north of a site in Berks (that is not near the northern boder of Berks) also be in Berks? I have no idea of what the NIF contour of the proposed Horsham operation would be, but I suspect that at least the tip of the NIF contour lies east of the Delaware River in New Jersey. 640 is a great low frequency, 25 kW is a lot of power, the narrow directional pattern produces a maximum field strength equivalent to almost 400 kW ND from a minimum-efficiency antenna, the radiation maximum of the proposed night pattern is directed RIGHT AT the current day site near Mount Holly, and the soil conductivity in your part of the country is pretty good. So, though I won't swear that I'm right about the proposed site being in Berks, I think I am.
 
> All I can tell you is that the proposed eight-tower night
> site is 51.4 miles west-northwest of the day site and 2.2
> miles due north of the previously proposed nine-tower site.
> The nine-tower site was in Berks County (but just barely).
> Wouldn't a site 2.2 miles due north of a site in Berks (that
> is not near the northern boder of Berks) also be in Berks?

You would be correct, sir. I apologize for being presumptuous. I still find it odd that the tower site is so far from the COL (proposed or not).

> I have no idea of what the NIF contour of the proposed Horsham
> operation would be, but I suspect that at least the tip of
> the NIF contour lies east of the Delaware River in New
> Jersey. 640 is a great low frequency, 25 kW is a lot of
> power, the narrow directional pattern produces a maximum
> field strength equivalent to almost 400 kW ND from a
> minimum-efficiency antenna, the radiation maximum of the
> proposed night pattern is directed RIGHT AT the current day
> site near Mount Holly, and the soil conductivity in your
> part of the country is pretty good. So, though I won't swear
> that I'm right about the proposed site being in Berks, I
> think I am.

Yep, you are. Interesting though how they are going about serving their COL. Good information, thank you!
<P ID="signature">______________
Not all who wander are lost.</P>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom