• 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 WPEN's application for 25 kW-D

Friday's digest of FCC actions announced that the FCC has granted WPEN's application to increase its day power to 25 kW. WPEN will use the three towers in its former night array at what has become the station's daytime site in W Philadelphia. The pattern will send a very slightly diminished signal to the northwest and a much stronger signal to the southeast--toward Philadelpha and southern New Jersey. No tower construction is involved, just a new transmitter, new phasor, and probably new transmission lines and antenna-tuning units. Based on the speed with which WPEN built its new 21-kW night facilities at the WWDB site once the FCC approved, it is reasonable to expect the new day signal to be on the air by mid-summer. Typically, the longest lead-time item in upgrades of directional AMs has proven to be the phasing network (phasor). There aren't many suppliers for these custom items and the suppliers are notoriously slow to deliver. But money talks and most likely enough of it will move a station ahead in the queue. Perhaps WPEN put in its order in anticipation of the application being granted, thus improving the likelihood of early delivery.

An interesting question is whether WWDB will apply to operate nights at low power from the WPEN day site. WWDB might be able to get permission to use 50 or 60 watts at night from WPEN's towers. The signal would probably be listenable in a suprisingly large portion of Philadelphia and the project would not be tremendously expensive--well worth the cost to Beasley, I think. WWDB's value would instantaneously increase significantly.
 
Dan,

WWDB could possibly get a bit more power at night. There was/is a CP granted in 1988, but never built. It would have been built in Lower Merion and given 860 500 watts, using 3 towers.


Dave Gardiner

WVCH 740/WNWR 1540


Philadelphia
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by DG02816 on 03/15/06 12:39 AM.</FONT></P>
 
>
> WWDB could possibly get a bit more power at night. There
> was/is a CP granted in 1988, but never built. It would have
> been built in Lower Merion and given 860 500 watts, using 3
> towers.
>
Hi, Dave: Well, first off, they have to work with the existing towers, so how creative can they get? Secondly, they can't change COLs at this time (and even if a filing window opened up, what towns would be candidates from the E Philly site?). So they are limited to remaining a Class D at least for now, which means 250W max or a pattern RMS that does not exceed 140.85 mV/m @ 1 km. I think the RMS limitation would limit the power to a bit less than 250W--assuming they could protect the Candian border adequately, which I don't know about. You know, WVCH could get higher night power--than your present, what is it 6W?--by using those same three towers at night. Whatever night power WWDB could get from that site, WVCH ought to be able to get about the same. Both stations have to protect Toronto 50 kW ND operations that are diplexed from the same tower! And remember that Class D AMs need not provide any night service to their COLs, so WVCH would not have a problem with not serving Chester at night.

My statement about 60W or so was based on your 6W ND and the Huntington LI 740, which has a four-tower array and is limited to 40W (or maybe now 50W) at night.

I know that WAMO on 860 runs almost 1 kW at night into three towers, IIRC. But even though Pittsburgh is a lot closer to Toronto than Philly is, I think WAMO's array was designed from the ground up to protect Toronto. You just can't provide the same degree of protection with an array that was designed for a different purpose (protecting a different station--WWJ--on a different frequency, 950--or actually, the WPEN array was probably designed pre-NARBA, so it was probably designed for 920, which would explain why the tower spacing is slightly greater than 90 degrees.)
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom