Lib Station Discovers It's Better To Go Black

[fybush]

You only need to show the 80% NIF coverage if you come back as a class B, of course...and I have a strong hunch that if 1310 is ever relicensed from a new site, it will be as a class D with no nighttime COL coverage requirement. That COL won't have to be Dearborn, either.

 

[Schroedingers Cat]

Here's an interesting observation about former Class III-As and III-Bs. There were usually two stations that primarily interfered with 125 uV/m (III-A) and 200 uV/m (III-B) 10% skywave signals. Although the computation of skywave is now parametric rather than graphic, the results are fairly close in value. This results in the 50% RSS NIF of former III-As clustering around 3.5 mV/m and around 5.7 mV/m for former III-Bs. The specified 2.5 mV/m (III-A) and 4.0 mV/m (III-B) NIFs were apparently based on the statistical unlikelyhood of both signals being at 10% skywave simultaneously. III-As were usually protected by nulls, and III-Bs were usually protected by minor lobes. If a station was lucky, it could fit into a regional umbrella of protection where several stations were arranged along the same general azimuth and received better protection. A good example is the string of 1330s from New York City to Minneapolis. Class II-Bs between I-B assignments also used the mutual protection of Class I-Bs to achieve a fairly well protected signal KTOK 1000, and WLQV 1500 are good examples. Even WAKE 1500 as a 25 watt night Class D gets good protection from this type of protection umbrella.

Many newer stations have much higher NIFs and were neither III-A nor III-B. Both classes are very well protected by today's standards, if not for the "Friday Night Lights STAs".

 

[1L6E6VHF]

You only need to show the 80% NIF coverage if you come back as a class B, of course...and I have a strong hunch that if 1310 is ever relicensed from a new site, it will be as a class D with no nighttime COL coverage requirement. That COL won't have to be Dearborn, either.

When (and if) it first comes back on the air, it will almost certainly have a Dearborn COL, which is why it will almost certainly come back as a class D when (if) it first does. A different COL is a major change, and needs to await the next auction, by which time the channel gets deleted for being silent too long. Dearborn is a wide (East-West) city, and providing NIF to enough of it would take major investment. Plopping down a single unlighted stick to get 5 mV/m day is a lot easier. They could then change COL, then (maybe) go class B as a minor change later.

A case in point along these lines is Birach's WCXI 1160. They had applied for a change of COL from Fenton to Wixom. Now they have applied instead to change the station from a B to a D, so they can change TL without changing the site that would serve Wixom (it is far too south to cover Fenton) Sadly, it is finding that the local fiefdom at the proposed TL does not want to allow even unlit towers.

 

[fybush]

Re: WDTW

Since 2006, the FCC has processed AM COL changes as "streamlined" minor changes that don't require a window:

Community of license changes for commercial and NCE full-power AM standard band and FM broadcast licensees may
be filed as minor modification applications. These minor modification applications processed on a first
come-first served basis will be limited to those applications where the proposed daytime facilities are
mutually exclusive with the applicant’s existing daytime facilities.

Interestingly, one of the major proponents of this rulemaking proceeding (Docket 05-210) was none other than MMTC. Funny how that works out in the end, isn't it?

 

[1L6E6VHF]

Nice to know, thanks.

 

[Schroedingers Cat]

WCXI's applications online contain measured conductivity/contour data that would allow no less than 4 kW from their existing two towers. If the original proof of performance on the array were available, it would probably indicate that the conductivity near the site is also substantially lower than M-3, as it is in that whole gravelly sandy range of hills between Detroit and Flint. That would probably allow a lot more than 4 kW. My guess is it is in the 2-4 mmho/m range at most. Quaternary Geological Survey Maps show this area clearly, as do other applications and proofs within 25 miles or so. All this means is they don't have to fight with Milford Twp. to get more power. The site conductivity of the proposed site, as well as the licensed WPON site, are also in the same hill range and have similar measured results. This range shows as 4 on M-3 up to about the western edge of Livingston County, but is less and extends further, to around Almont. Any signal that crosses that area for most of its path that I have MEASURED is only 1/4 to 1/2 the predicted value. Winter is a little better, but nowhere near 8. I once measured a signal when it was 15 degrees below zero, and it still fell substantially short of M-3 prediction.

 

[Schroedingers Cat]

Fenton is considered First Local Service. It is a town of well over 10000 people, and the area is GROWING. See 2010 vs. 2000 Census figures. It would be nearly impossible to move despite all that minor change appearance. The FCC set a nearly impossible standard for COL change from a First Local Service community when at the urging comments of competitors, refused to change the COL of Channel 268A from Tuscola, Michigan to Clio, Michigan. Drive through Tuscola. It's nearly nonexistent. Clio is a substantial town, much larger than Tuscola, which is unincorporated. It is essentially a partly undeveloped subdivison of several city blocks. It is not, as some suggested, Tuscola County or Tuscola Township.

The soil in Northern Oakland County is similar to that around Gaylord, which was mentioned in connection to WCCW. It's also at relatively high elevation. Water generally drains from this area, and contains the source of several SE MI rivers. The lakes in this area often were gravel pits. This leaves it frequently dry, unlike the Delta areas near Lake Erie and Saginaw Bay.

 

[1L6E6VHF]

Strange notation on Mapquest aerial view, and other WDTW thoughts

While I was browsing aerial views of the Detroit area, I found a very strange notation on the Mapquest satellite view:

http://mapq.st/Uf7IH3

If you are reading this forum, you likely recognize that this has never been the site of "AM 1310 Radio Station", rather that of WLQV 1500 (better known by its former callsigns WJBK and WDEE)

It had me wondering if someone already has plans for diplexing WDTW on this array. Despite the higher frequency, WLQV's 245' towers are plenty tall for 1310. Feeding towers 1 and 2 (or any of five other identical pairs) in phase would protect WILS, WOBL and WJMO (formerly WERE) nicely. The problems are that I suspect Salem would be reluctant to support a competitor, it may be difficult to diplex such a complex array, and I don't see any way to get a night pattern on 1310 out of that tower constellation. The "1310" reference is likely just a mistake.

Of the vacant sites in Southwest Detroit one could use for "kicking the can down the road" - single tower class D, one particularly large one is the former Michigan Malleable Iron site (later an auto impound or junkyard), 82 17 44n, 83 06 46w. It is far from high towers or power lines, devoid of buildings and partially fenced with metal walls. I did some sightseeing in the Delray area, and was surprised to find a "for sale" sign at the site.

Another site of interest is the former Michigan Steel in Ecorse, 42 14 15n, 83 09 33w. This is the same site WAAM 1600 wanted to use when it filed for a major change to 15kW and Oak Park as COL (I'm really curious about the whole story of how this one went down - it seems WAAM was "bullied" out of doing it, a competing app was filed way up north, and it never went to auction as both parties agreed not to pursue their apps). 1310 could assemble a class B (protected night) operation if they had this site, though it is too far north to cover Dearborn at night and they would need to change COL.

It is unfortunate that Mud and Grassy islands in the Detroit River were made part of the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge in 2001 - they would be good sites for a new 1310 class B, but there's no way they would get permission to build an array there now (despite the fact that it would have not one bit of impact on wildlife).

Turning this into a real pipe dream (that is, if one actually had money and local government favor), there is the abandoned Grant City/Farmer Jack site at Fort (M-85) and King Road, in Trenton, 42 09 26n, 83 11 24w. From here, they might go class B without losing the Dearborn COL. Being further south than the above sites and the former site in Taylor, the 25 mV/m contour of WEXL is out of the way, and, they could deliver a great daytime signal to the whole area (with a desirable back lobe for Monroe and Toledo to boot) with somewhat more than 5,000 watts. A four-tower inline array from NNE to SSW may look something like this, and the eastern part of the property could be spared for use by a strip of small stores with modest parking needs.

Field Orientation
Tower Ratio Phase Spacing degs. Height deg.

1 1.000 0 - - 96.00
2 0.700 90 90 195 72.00
3 0.900 180 220 195 96.00
4 0.630 270 310 195 72.00

Not sure the lot is big enough (N-S) for the array. It would be a close fit. I don't have the software to do the far more complicated nighttime scenario, suffice to say that it would be at a much lower power, the field ratios of towers 2 and 4 would be closer to parity with those at 1 and 3, the phases, possibly even the precise alignment of the towers, a little different.

It would not be unrealistic to consider buying out WCCW and an FM in the Traverse City area, putting sports on the FM (where you need to be to make it in Northern Lower MI) and temporarily (or permanently) downgrading the AM to a D to make things easier for WDTW.

 

[1L6E6VHF]

OOPS!

As far as I can tell, there's no way to edit one's own post here.

I erred on the array description.

I meant to say that Tower 3 would be 200o from Tower 1 and that Tower 4 would be 290o from Tower 1.

 

[1L6E6VHF]

OUCH! (OOPS again)

The latitude for the Michigan Malleable Iron site, is, of course, 42 17 44n, NOT 82 17 44n!

 

[bturner]

Getting back to the question of whether the Conservatives like conservative talk radio and the Liberals don't like progressive talk radio, I have an opinion.

Conservative talk radio is not actually politically based. Shocking, huh? Actually it is the 'morals' that unite the listenes under the umbrella. If you look hard, the Conservatives tend to be based more on Christian principals, but even that is fairly restrictive...more of a golden rule sort of thinking. From this springs Comservative talk with jjustification based on these common denominators. Picture this as a much like a church denoomination. It's not so much what is said from the pulpit, it's the common belief system that holds it all together.

Progressive Talk is what I like to call a catch all of all other thinking. There are some common principals among Progressive Talk listeners but in many areas of opinion the Liberal listeners can range from near conservative to extreme left. This makes it hard to assemble the cohesive group under that umbrella...too much splintering. Progressive talkers have centered more on politics alone. Politics alone is like a boxing match...a few rounds and a victor is claimed and you move on...there's not this tugging of the heartstrings constantly. The conservative side sees the politics as a threat on their lifestyle and therefore, the politics is simply a play by play in this never ending fight.

Sure signal strength, market coverage, marketing, a good sales staff and such are other big factors in making any format succeed or fail and these cannot be discounted. Plenty of Conservative Talk stations on marginal signals failed as well.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Re: OOPS!

As far as I can tell, there's no way to edit one's own post here.

You can edit your own post.... but there is a time limit.

After you have posted, you can pull up the message you just posted, and you will see up in the top right hand corner next to the link that allows you to QUOTE a message you are reading, you will see a link that says MODIFY. I have never sat and pulled up a message over and over again to time it, but you have may five minutes.... maybe ten minutes.... before MODIFY vanishes into the blue.

But doing what you just did... posting a correction as a follow-up is always a courteous thing to do.


This is an EDIT demonstration. After posting I pulled it back up to make sure the MODIFY link was where I said it was.

Now look below. You will see where it says something about "last edit at xx:xx )

 

[Schroedingers Cat]

There's another poster here on this thread who is probably in the best position to negotiate doing this. You have to pick the correct towers, or add a tower, to get the correct orientation.

195 degrees would put the maximum too close to CIWW to have a lot of power at night. WDFN is better oriented with existing towers. I had looked the scenario of adding a tower to reorient the array when WAAM was considering diplexing WLQV rather than a new array about a mile away. WTTF put the kibosh on that, citing a tiny peninsula where overlap would potentially have occurred. I would have kept the thing alive by modifying the application. But WAAM had lost interest and committed to staying in Ann Arbor.

 

[1L6E6VHF]

Re: OOPS!

You can edit your own post.... but there is a time limit.

Touché

I had posted it at night, and discovered the mistakes the following morning.

Thanks for the info.

 

[Schroedingers Cat]

Another possibility with WCCW is to pay to upgrade their night pattern and power so that even with additional WDTW interference, the area covered with an NIF would be the same. That's what WYLL did to upgrade to 50 kW night with WHBY Kimberly, WI. Expensive, but an eventual owner might benefit from doing that.

The thing Scott Fybush and others are thinking is that one or both will just go Class D with a translator on FM. But both Detroit and Traverse City are quickly running out of frequencies. WIOT kicked a high power translator off 104.7, and WJZJ kicked another Traverse City based station translator off 95.5 in Petoskey. Without an expanded FM band, the hunger for FM facilities will not be satisfied.

 

[1L6E6VHF]

While WDTW's array was built along straight East/West lines (probably to conform to their property lines), their night pattern was electrically set with an East-of-North tilt to protect WIBA (which would come to haunt WKNR when its audience moved to Livonia).

I still think the 15 degree East-of-North tilt would make sense, for it is more effective at protecting WILS, WOBL, WJMO and WTRX in daytime operation than a due North 4-tower inline array. This was conceived primarily with daytime coverage in mind.

One other thought is that a x-90-165-255 spacing could be practical, as it would use a little less land, and narrow the lobes a little, making it easier to run at night (at the expense, of course, of a slightly weaker signal Northwest and East-northeast of the site)

BTW, would you happen to know what the NIF of CIWW is?

Covering the whole Detroit metro area at night on 1310 is just about impossible. One would need a 9, 10 or 12 tower array to use much more than 5kW of power, and the major lobe would be so narrow as to drive a nail through the metro area and miss both East and West sides (as WDTW did and as WLQV still, to a lesser extent, does). Backing up the site Southward so that the whole metro would be in the beam would cause the signal to be weak below NIF in the Northern reaches of the metro area (a worse scenario) - even at 50 kW.

Perhaps 1/.03 ND from Michigan Malleable would actually be the most practical permanent plan? Cover the area by day when listeners are out-and-about working or commuting, and serving the core area when they are home at night. It all depends on whether the 12 mV/m contour could make it to 14th Street with 30 watts. It was interesting to listen to WSDS this evening with commercials for businesses in SW Detroit. It proves that some listeners will tolerate a poor signal to hear the programming they want.

 

[Schroedingers Cat]

WIBA 2.9 25% Contributor Maintain or reduce
WTLC 5.6 25% Contributor Maintain or reduce
WDTW 11.9 WTLC WDPN WIBA 50% contributors
CIWW 10.2 Maintain, possibly SLIGHT increase if below 50% RSS (Treaty not Ratchet Clause applies)
WCCW 27.0 WDTW is 17 mV/m 50% Contributor 10% FIELD Reduction Required

I'll try to add more details before the ridiculously short editing time limit but have to look it up.

 

[Schroedingers Cat]

I think if they went the Class D route, they could treat it like a Class B application and maintain or reduce accordingly to WTLC and WIBA. Otherwise they would have to go under the 25% RSS limit. Toward CIWW, the maximum would be about a 5.05 mV/m limit, about a 250 uV/m 10% skywave interfering signal.

For maximizing facilities, you usually don't want to change the maximum more than 5 degrees, unless a restriction in the major lobe completely disappears, like WOOD with the 1300 in the Maritime Provinces disappearing, or with CFCO with the heritage KDWB 630 temporarily becoming Class D, or WYLL with the Thunder Bay 1160 allotment relocated and WHBY 1150 upgraded.

 

[1L6E6VHF]

Very interesting. I never would have thought WDPN would be a 50% contributor to WDTW's interference. They have a null in our direction, and I've never logged them (funnier yet, I've never logged WTLC, either).

I wonder how they managed to get Canada to move that 1160 allotment. WWJ could be a lot better in the eastern burbs if they could get rid of CKBB Barrie - which moved to FM many years before WWJ changed their TL to Newport.

 

[Schroedingers Cat]

When did WDPN go fulltime? If it was before the 1980s, they probably snuck in under the 50% umbrella of WTLC (or WIFE or whatever it was back then). I've noticed some other ones like that that were under the wire, and may even calculate higher than the 50% RSS value, at least under present calculation methods. Don't know how that happened. I see in an old WRTH that WFAH was a 1000 watt directional daytimer in 1969. I was thinking that it was either a daytimer or 500 watts-U, putting it under the WRTH radar. It was difficult to run to the library to look it up in another book.

Perhaps they put their array on an Alliance "Tenna Turntable" and aimed it toward Dearborn.

A substitution was proposed for Thunder Bay. I'll look in AM Query and post again.