• 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

FCC grants Rock 100.5 more power

R

Rick Rose 2.0

Guest
I see that the FCC has just issued a construction permit that will boost WWWQ to 13.5 kw from its current 12.5 kw signal. WWWQ will stay on the same spot on the tower and will now have 1000 extra watts to play with once Cumulus cranks up the power. Watchout Project 96-1.......
 
Watch out for what?

Also, you mean WNNX. Also also, they lose 5 meters of height.

G
 
The coverage maps are identical. This doesn't appear to affect their signal strength at all.
 
Rick Rose 2.0 said:
I see that the FCC has just issued a construction permit that will boost WWWQ to 13.5 kw from its current 12.5 kw signal. WWWQ will stay on the same spot on the tower and will now have 1000 extra watts to play with once Cumulus cranks up the power. Watchout Project 96-1.......
Click to expand...

In the grand scheme of things 1kW is going to make no noticable difference at all. To make a difference in coverage you have to, at the very minimum, double your power.
 
Rick Rose 2.0 said:
I see that the FCC has just issued a construction permit that will boost WWWQ to 13.5 kw from its current 12.5 kw signal. WWWQ will stay on the same spot on the tower and will now have 1000 extra watts to play with once Cumulus cranks up the power. Watchout Project 96-1.......
Click to expand...

How does this affect Q100?

upstate29651 said:
Also, you mean WNNX. Also also, they lose 5 meters of height.
Click to expand...

Answer: It doesn't.
 
If Radio Locator has it correct (some times they are wrong):

http://www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/finder?sr=Y&s=C&call=WNNX&x=13&y=6

If this will be a non directional antenna at the same place on the tower, am I correct in guessing the reference point on the new antenna (where the power is radiated from for FCC height purposes) is 27 feet lower which would indicate there are a couple of more bays higher on the antenna reflecting more power down giving more antenna gain? How much will this allow them to reduce the transmitter power?
BTW is the old 92.9 and 94.1 antenna system and channel 69 still on the tower? This would make an excellent backup site. If you remember after 911 WCBS NY’s channel 2 still had their old Empire State site as a back up. IIRC they stayed on thru the tragedy. A lot of NYC stations that only had the World Trade Center site where off for several days.
 
Bengalsfan said:
In the grand scheme of things 1kW is going to make no noticable difference at all.
Click to expand...

Precisely. Listeners will never know the difference.

secondchoice said:
BTW is the old 92.9 and 94.1 antenna system and channel 69 still on the tower?
Click to expand...

WNNX is the only broadcaster left up there. The old master FM antenna was disassembled and removed. The 69 antenna remains, with the slots covered up so that it now acts as a support for the WNNX antenna.
 
secondchoice said:
If this will be a non directional antenna at the same place on the tower,
Click to expand...

This is where Radio-Locator got it wrong. It's still directional. For whatever reason, this info is often omitted.

An extra 1kw will help penetration in buildings downtown, but not much. With that huge null to the Northeast, losing height is not a good thing. Sighnal might be impacted slightly in Gwinett,
 
They have two antennas on top of the building. If they chose to run th HD into the original one and the analog into the newer one, they could then save some money on the electrics. The analog radio would run somewhat more efficiently, and the digital would run at substantially lower power. The five meters sounds more like gerrymandering the Rules thna anything else, to egt more power authorized. Although they could presumably lowr the newer antenna five meters physically.
 
I looked at the app on the CDBS and I think they ran the radials towards WSSL using a different set of terrain data and came up with a new HAAT for 100.5.

Consultants are probably sitting and running studies on all kinds of "what if scenarios" looking for a buck in a bad economy.

littlejohn said:
They have two antennas on top of the building. If they chose to run th HD into the original one and the analog into the newer one, they could then save some money on the electrics. The analog radio would run somewhat more efficiently, and the digital would run at substantially lower power. The five meters sounds more like gerrymandering the Rules thna anything else, to egt more power authorized. Although they could presumably lowr the newer antenna five meters physically.
Click to expand...
 
littlejohn said:
They have two antennas on top of the building. If they chose to run th HD into the original one and the analog into the newer one, they could then save some money on the electrics.
Click to expand...

Actually, they could low level combine everything and save even more electrics.
 
I believe a two antenna solution will require somewhat less electricity to run than either low lever combined and amplified, or high level combined.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom