KTRB 860 Modesto's move to San Francisco has taken years of preparation and will result in them getting a power increase from 10,000 to 50,000 watts. During critical hours they're required to cut back to 40,000 watts from a different site, and at night they'll kick it back up to 50,000 from another site. That's right: THREE sites for an AM station! Isn't this a first? Talk about routine maintenance being a full-time job...
-
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
How'd you like to be an engineer at KTRB?
- Thread starter jd
- Start date
B
BoardmanDJ
Guest
At least they'll have options for an auxilary transmitter!
How many towers are involved??
Ring Ring!
"We're off the air!"
"OK, I'll go check the transmitter"
...30 minutes later...
"Oh ****! It's only 4:40am. I'm at the wrong site!"
...45 minutes later...
(insert WKRP theme song on engineers cell phone)
"Hello?"
"Nevermind, it's time to switch to the critical hours site now. Sorry to wake you up".
GRRRR!!
or
"Uh, which readings do we use? All three transmitter sites are showing they are running at their designated full power allocations, captain!"
> KTRB 860 Modesto's move to San Fransisco has taken years of
> preparation and will result in them getting a power increase
> from 10,000 to 50,000 watts. During critical hours they're
> required to cut back to 40,000 watts from a different site,
> and at night they'll kick it back up to 50,000 from another
> site. That's right: THREE sites for an AM station! Isn't
> this a first? Talk about routine maintenance being a
> full-time job...
>
How many towers are involved??
Ring Ring!
"We're off the air!"
"OK, I'll go check the transmitter"
...30 minutes later...
"Oh ****! It's only 4:40am. I'm at the wrong site!"
...45 minutes later...
(insert WKRP theme song on engineers cell phone)
"Hello?"
"Nevermind, it's time to switch to the critical hours site now. Sorry to wake you up".
GRRRR!!
or
"Uh, which readings do we use? All three transmitter sites are showing they are running at their designated full power allocations, captain!"
> KTRB 860 Modesto's move to San Fransisco has taken years of
> preparation and will result in them getting a power increase
> from 10,000 to 50,000 watts. During critical hours they're
> required to cut back to 40,000 watts from a different site,
> and at night they'll kick it back up to 50,000 from another
> site. That's right: THREE sites for an AM station! Isn't
> this a first? Talk about routine maintenance being a
> full-time job...
>
BoardmanDJ wrote:
> At least they'll have options for an auxilary transmitter!
TedL asked:
Yes, but can each of the three sites legally do so... with the correct pattern, required coverage and protection?
> How many towers are involved??
Total?? Or per site?
> "Uh, which readings do we use? All three transmitter sites
> are showing they are running at their designated full power
> allocations, captain!"
Now that would be a really big mess. Wonder how THAT would be explained to the FCC??
During site change, will it be "break before make" or "make before break" when the transition's put into motion?
One would think the remote control system would have some kind of lockout to keep more than one site from being on the air at one time.
> At least they'll have options for an auxilary transmitter!
TedL asked:
Yes, but can each of the three sites legally do so... with the correct pattern, required coverage and protection?
> How many towers are involved??
Total?? Or per site?
> "Uh, which readings do we use? All three transmitter sites
> are showing they are running at their designated full power
> allocations, captain!"
Now that would be a really big mess. Wonder how THAT would be explained to the FCC??
During site change, will it be "break before make" or "make before break" when the transition's put into motion?
One would think the remote control system would have some kind of lockout to keep more than one site from being on the air at one time.
I wonder how many hours per day that CH site is used for. Strange that as a news/talk station, they have no web presence. They will have some tough competition in the bay area market, but with a fairly competative signal and nice dial position. Just think, if they can not use any site outside of its licensed hours, they might need six fifty KW transmitters (more than many shortwave broadcasters) for reliability. What ever happened to good 'ole DA-1's?
Are you hiring?<P ID="signature">______________
Proud 2 B a pioneering satellite radio subs¢riber
Ai4i is always on the trailing edge of technology
______________</P><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by ai4i on 08/09/05 02:46 AM.</FONT></P>
Are you hiring?<P ID="signature">______________
Proud 2 B a pioneering satellite radio subs¢riber
Ai4i is always on the trailing edge of technology
______________</P><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by ai4i on 08/09/05 02:46 AM.</FONT></P>
Their latest application posted on FCC site (July 8 2005):
(watch wrap when pasting into address)
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/getattachment_exh.cgi?exhibit_id=321635
(watch wrap when pasting into address)
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/getattachment_exh.cgi?exhibit_id=321635
Re: Thanks for the update...
> Their latest application posted on FCC site (July 8 2005):
>
> (watch wrap when pasting into address)
>
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/> prod/cdbs/forms/prod/getattachment_exh.cgi?exhibit_id=321635
That changes everything. I had not seen that latest application that would make them a DA-2. But even with two sites instead of three it's still going to be really complex and it has to make you wonder if the entire project is really going to be worth it in the long run.
> Their latest application posted on FCC site (July 8 2005):
>
> (watch wrap when pasting into address)
>
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/> prod/cdbs/forms/prod/getattachment_exh.cgi?exhibit_id=321635
That changes everything. I had not seen that latest application that would make them a DA-2. But even with two sites instead of three it's still going to be really complex and it has to make you wonder if the entire project is really going to be worth it in the long run.
Re: Thanks for the update...
> > Their latest application posted on FCC site (July 8 2005):
>
> >
> > (watch wrap when pasting into address)
> >
> http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/>
> prod/cdbs/forms/prod/getattachment_exh.cgi?exhibit_id=321635
>
>
>
> That changes everything. I had not seen that latest
> application that would make them a DA-2. But even with two
> sites instead of three it's still going to be really complex
> and it has to make you wonder if the entire project is
> really going to be worth it in the long run.
>
So what would coverage / interference to other stations be like if they were a DA-2 with something like the following:
Daytime transmitter power: 50kW
Daytime transmitter site: 1/4 mile west of the beach on the west side of san fran (yes, the towers would be IN the water)
Daytime pattern: null to the west (about 10mW ERP in deepest part of null), decent output to north and south, maximum output to east / northeast (somewhere between 150 and 250 kW)
Nighttime transmitter power: 50kW
Nighttime transmitter site option 1: somewhere near Colfax, CA, near I-80
Nighttime Pattern option 1: fairly narrow lobe aimed through Sacramento to San Francisco.
Nighttime transmitter site option 2: southwest corner of Morro Bay on beach, maybe slightly in water
Nighttime pattern option 2: very narrow pattern aimed north toward San Francisco and Sacramento (similar in shape to patterns of stations like KPRO, KMIK (nighttime))
> > Their latest application posted on FCC site (July 8 2005):
>
> >
> > (watch wrap when pasting into address)
> >
> http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/>
> prod/cdbs/forms/prod/getattachment_exh.cgi?exhibit_id=321635
>
>
>
> That changes everything. I had not seen that latest
> application that would make them a DA-2. But even with two
> sites instead of three it's still going to be really complex
> and it has to make you wonder if the entire project is
> really going to be worth it in the long run.
>
So what would coverage / interference to other stations be like if they were a DA-2 with something like the following:
Daytime transmitter power: 50kW
Daytime transmitter site: 1/4 mile west of the beach on the west side of san fran (yes, the towers would be IN the water)
Daytime pattern: null to the west (about 10mW ERP in deepest part of null), decent output to north and south, maximum output to east / northeast (somewhere between 150 and 250 kW)
Nighttime transmitter power: 50kW
Nighttime transmitter site option 1: somewhere near Colfax, CA, near I-80
Nighttime Pattern option 1: fairly narrow lobe aimed through Sacramento to San Francisco.
Nighttime transmitter site option 2: southwest corner of Morro Bay on beach, maybe slightly in water
Nighttime pattern option 2: very narrow pattern aimed north toward San Francisco and Sacramento (similar in shape to patterns of stations like KPRO, KMIK (nighttime))
B
BoardmanDJ
Guest
I thought you could drop a lower powered second transmitter at each site, and qualify for a backup site.
I also wondered how many towers at each site.
I know back in the good ol days of time share, you would hear a pause between one transmitter site and the other. I suspect that with today's technology, there's some sort of computer control that will handle things near flawlessly.
probably "when x = x milliseconds, then raise y"
> BoardmanDJ wrote:
>
> > At least they'll have options for an auxilary transmitter!
>
>
> TedL asked:
>
> Yes, but can each of the three sites legally do so... with
> the correct pattern, required coverage and protection?
>
> > How many towers are involved??
>
> Total?? Or per site?
>
> > "Uh, which readings do we use? All three transmitter
> sites
> > are showing they are running at their designated full
> power
> > allocations, captain!"
>
> Now that would be a really big mess. Wonder how THAT would
> be explained to the FCC??
>
> During site change, will it be "break before make" or "make
> before break" when the transition's put into motion?
>
> One would think the remote control system would have some
> kind of lockout to keep more than one site from being on the
> air at one time.
>
I also wondered how many towers at each site.
I know back in the good ol days of time share, you would hear a pause between one transmitter site and the other. I suspect that with today's technology, there's some sort of computer control that will handle things near flawlessly.
probably "when x = x milliseconds, then raise y"
> BoardmanDJ wrote:
>
> > At least they'll have options for an auxilary transmitter!
>
>
> TedL asked:
>
> Yes, but can each of the three sites legally do so... with
> the correct pattern, required coverage and protection?
>
> > How many towers are involved??
>
> Total?? Or per site?
>
> > "Uh, which readings do we use? All three transmitter
> sites
> > are showing they are running at their designated full
> power
> > allocations, captain!"
>
> Now that would be a really big mess. Wonder how THAT would
> be explained to the FCC??
>
> During site change, will it be "break before make" or "make
> before break" when the transition's put into motion?
>
> One would think the remote control system would have some
> kind of lockout to keep more than one site from being on the
> air at one time.
>
Re: Thanks for the update...
Got to remember too that they can't put 10 mV/m or more over the FCC monitoring station in Livermore.
Got to remember too that they can't put 10 mV/m or more over the FCC monitoring station in Livermore.
Re: Thanks for the update...
> Got to remember too that they can't put 10 mV/m or more over
> the FCC monitoring station in Livermore.
>
Ok, how about a 0.1° wide null toward that Livermore site in which the field strength is 9.9 mV/m?
And, while I'm at it, if a station wanted to be tri-city licensed to, say, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, and Riverside, with a transmitter site near San Ysidro, CA, would something like that be possible with a fairly directional antenna?
> Got to remember too that they can't put 10 mV/m or more over
> the FCC monitoring station in Livermore.
>
Ok, how about a 0.1° wide null toward that Livermore site in which the field strength is 9.9 mV/m?
And, while I'm at it, if a station wanted to be tri-city licensed to, say, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, and Riverside, with a transmitter site near San Ysidro, CA, would something like that be possible with a fairly directional antenna?
- Status