W273ds Stronger signal than WYPH-LP in hartford

[SomeRadioGuy]

It is interesting to note, AM station WICH 1310 Norwich, originally had a construction permit for 96.1 FM, but, because of a strong signal from WNTY 96.1, they requested 94.5 FM instead.

I can't find any reference that directly addresses W241CG Southington as the reason for W241CT Norwich becoming W233DB, but its implied in asking for the waiver that there is some interference of some kind.

In fact, the stations listed as being an issue for 96.1 are WSRS, WTIC and WKSS. W241CG is 20 or so km away from causing theoretical overlap with W241CY. W241CG 96.1 Southington and W241CY 96.1 Norwich are about 60km apart, give or take.

There appears to be quite a bit of overlap with WKSS, WTIC and WSRS before W241CY Norwich was even turned on, the paperwork shows it.

This doesnt mean W41CG Southington isnt the cause of the interference, because what shows on paper vs what happens in real life can be two entirely different things.

But, I'd suspect based upon pouring over the engineering paperwork, the problem in Norwich isnt W241CG Southington, its WSRS, WTIC and WKSS. On crappy radios, if you have a strong signal from WKSS, i could very well see it wiping out 96.1 Norwich. When i worked in NW PA, we had a problem with a 94.5 translator and 93.9 25KW FM on the same tower, which is legal.. but on crappy radios, 93.9 would overpower 94.5 on clock radios.

So, get the facts, read some paperwork and quit this axe to grind you clearly have with John Fuller/Full Power/red wolf, etc

 

[MrBruce]

An indoor antenna is what I consider to be special equipment. That's probably how you're able to get 96.1 Kool Radio that far from Meriden Mountain where their antenna is mounted on the side of the 104.1 WMRQ tower.

Meanwhile when I used to be able to pick up 102.5 WYPH-LP crystal clear in parts of Southington and Bristol, I was not using any special equipment. I was using just the stock radio in a 2010 Honda Civic LX.

Actually a 'T' shaped FM antenna is stock for stereo systems with AM & FM receivers, they also included a rectangular plastic framed coil antenna for indoor AM reception. So, there is nothing special about this type of antenna. It looks like that old type 300 Ohm ribbon wire used years ago for TV antenna setups, before 75 Ohm coax was used, however this is shaped like the letter T. I could hook up outdoor antennas if I wanted to, for both AM & FM, because most stereo receivers have ground and hot antenna lugs on the back panel. I use my outdoor antennas for (Over The Air) digital TV reception.

 

[MarcB]

And the war between Full Power Radio and WYPH-LP continues. Just before the 4AM hour this morning White Wedding by Billy Idol ended. A 102.9 The Whale liner played followed by a female Voice-Over (Suzy Klonk?) talking about WYPH-LP 102.5 causing interference to WDRC 102,9 Ther Whale in the areas of Routes 44, 83, and 84 ever since WYPH returned to the airwaves on July 21st. (She also named several local streets). She gave out a phone number to call to get instructions as toow to file a complaint against WYPH-LP.

 

[KML0224]

Somebody else seems to mess with them by Stanley and North Streets in New Britain. May be on 103.3 or 103.5 FM. It's only for maybe a block and that's it. The one time I heard somebody talking, it was NOT WDRC-AM's translator.

 

[MrBruce]

And the war between Full Power Radio and WYPH-LP continues. Just before the 4AM hour this morning White Wedding by Billy Idol ended. A 102.9 The Whale liner played followed by a female Voice-Over (Suzy Klonk?) talking about WYPH-LP 102.5 causing interference to WDRC 102,9 Ther Whale in the areas of Routes 44, 83, and 84 ever since WYPH returned to the airwaves on July 21st. (She also named several local streets). She gave out a phone number to call to get instructions as toow to file a complaint against WYPH-LP.

I personally think it is pretty sleezy to complain about a small circle of possible lost listeners. But to each their own, it appears stating facts, puts me under the gun of having a personal vendetta against the owner, when it has nothing to do with WHO owns it, it has to do with the way their money, allows them to take over the whole radio dial to further line their pockets with money. This includes, blocking out the channels they are not licensed to transmit on with interference. Todays generation, wouldn't realize that, because todays generation is so used to over compressed garbage and music created with a computer. Since they grew up listening to music sounding like crap, they think that is how it is supposed to sound.

 

[KML0224]

WDRC-FM ran that PSA this evening, mentioning the little station in Manchester. A lady voiced the announcement. It was not Klonk.

 

[TPO]

Just to clarify, W283BW, 99.5 Mhz, is not on the WCTY tower but on a nearby tower.

 

[MrBruce]

Just to clarify, W283BW, 99.5 Mhz, is not on the WCTY tower but on a nearby tower.

TPO, W283BW which is on 104.5 MHz, not 99.5 Mhz, as Bomba Radio (A Spanish programming station COL New London CT) has its antenna on the same tower as WCTY 97.7 MHz. It is clearly visible half way down the tower below WCTY's 3 bay antenna.
The coordination's for WCTY and W283BW antennas are exactly the same on the FFC data base.
The coordinates for both stations are
41° 28' 30.30" N Latitude
72° 06' 15.20" W Longitude (NAD 83)
So, they are both on the same tower, the only other tower on that hill, is a cellular communications tower.
Although the COL is New London, it is broadcasting from Cook Drive above the Mohegan Sun Casino in Uncasville, although, many call that area Montville.
So let's make this easier for you, click this link, their push pin is off a bit. There is no FM transmission antenna on that cell tower, it is on WCTY's transmission tower.

Radio-Locator.com

Radio Station Search Engine

radio-locator.com

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

TPO, W283BW which is on 104.5 MHz, not 99.5 Mhz as Bomba Radio (A Spanish programming station COL New London CT) has its antenna on the same tower as WCTY 97.7 MHz. It is clearly visible half way down the tower below WCTY's 3 bay antenna.
The coordination's for WCTY and W283BW antennas are exactly the same on the FFC data base.
The coordinates for both stations are
41° 28' 30.30" N Latitude
72° 06' 15.20" W Longitude (NAD 83)
So, they are both on the same tower, the only other tower on that hill, is a cellular communications tower.
So let's make this easier for you.

Radio-Locator.com

Radio Station Search Engine

radio-locator.com

No, youre wrong.

WCTY is: 41-28-28.3 N 72-06-12.2
That 2nd set of antennas on the WCTY tower is the WCTY auxiliary license, for 1.6KW

W283BW is 41-28-30.3 N 72-06-15.2 W

W283BW and WCTY both show a different site elevation and height above mean sea level which wouldnt be possible if they are on the same tower.

All of this info is easily available online, if you know where to look

 

[TPO]

Indeed, the lower antenna on the WCTY tower is their auxiliary. I know first hand there are no other broadcast stations on that tower.

 

[MrBruce]

No, youre wrong.

WCTY is: 41-28-28.3 N 72-06-12.2
That 2nd set of antennas on the WCTY tower is the WCTY auxiliary license, for 1.6KW

W283BW is 41-28-30.3 N 72-06-15.2 W

W283BW and WCTY both show a different site elevation and height above mean sea level which wouldnt be possible if they are on the same tower.

All of this info is easily available online, if you know where to look

SomeRadioGuy, first off, you seem really defensive against my posts, I really do not think John Fuller gives a rats ass what I say, but, you, state I have an issue with him and his stations. Whereas I think he could care less what I say, I think you fight with a double edge sword here, you condemn me for my comments, but, are guilty of the same thing on a person to person basis, that other person is me. But, you say you have no personal ties to him or his stations. So, why are you so hyped to prove me wrong here? John Fuller isn't, so why are you???
Here is the deal, attached are 3 photos.
One is WCTY screen shot, right off the FCC FM Quarry website.
The other is W283BW, again from the FCC FM Quarry website.
The third, is an overhead screen shot of Cook Drive in Montville.
The coordinates for W238BW are 41.28 30.30 N 72.06 15.20 W
That would put it on the cell tower marked in my third photo marked as CELL TOWER.
My recent visit to that location, shows, no such FM broadcast band antenna anywhere on that tower, unless it is using 700 to 900 MHz to broadcast on, as all antennas on that tower are cellular band antennas above 700 MHz.
The FCC website does not list what brand the antenna is or what type it is, but obviously, it is some sort of circumpolar antenna, based on the Vertical/horizontal measurements.
The only circumpolar antennas up there on Cook Drive are on the tower marked WCTY, so you tell me.
Either way, 1 foot away, to 3,000 feet away, the antenna used by W238BW is STILL ON THAT SAME ANTENNA FARM, so what is your point? Because it is roughly 1,000 feet away and not on WCTY's tower, it makes a big difference to where it causes interference?
Lastly, you're not even in Connecticut, never mind New London County, to make such calls on what is and what isn't happening here, I am. End of rant!

 

[fybush]

SomeRadioGuy, first off, you seem really defensive against my posts, I really do not think John Fuller gives a rats ass what I say, but, you, state I have an issue with him and his stations. Whereas I think he could care less what I say, I think you fight with a double edge sword here, you condemn me for my comments, but, are guilty of the same thing on a person to person basis, that other person is me. But, you say you have no personal ties to him or his stations. So, why are you so hyped to prove me wrong here? John Fuller isn't, so why are you???
Here is the deal, attached are 3 photos.
One is WCTY screen shot, right off the FCC FM Quarry website.
The other is W283BW, again from the FCC FM Quarry website.
The third, is an overhead screen shot of Cook Drive in Montville.
The coordinates for W238BW are 41.28 30.30 N 72.06 15.20 W
That would put it on the cell tower marked in my third photo marked as CELL TOWER.
My recent visit to that location, shows, no such FM broadcast band antenna anywhere on that tower, unless it is using 700 to 900 MHz to broadcast on, as all antennas on that tower are cellular band antennas above 700 MHz.
The FCC website does not list what brand the antenna is or what type it is, but obviously, it is some sort of circumpolar antenna, based on the Vertical/horizontal measurements.
The only circumpolar antennas up there on Cook Drive are on the tower marked WCTY, so you tell me.
Either way, 1 foot away, to 3,000 feet away, the antenna used by W238BW is STILL ON THAT SAME ANTENNA FARM, so what is your point? Because it is roughly 1,000 feet away and not on WCTY's tower, it makes a big difference to where it causes interference?
Lastly, you're not even in Connecticut, never mind New London County, to make such calls on what is and what isn't happening here, I am. End of rant!
View attachment 2251View attachment 2252View attachment 2253

See the tower right above the "4" in your coordinates?

That's where the 99.5 and 104.5 translators are. Two bays mounted on a pole at the very top, at least in this photo from NECRAT.

NECRAT Picture V4.0

About NECRAT - I've traveled around with Mike and watched him zoom in on towers to find "hidden" antennas that I can't spot without a lot of effort. If he says an antenna is where it is, it's where it is. His pictures are the gold standard of antenna pictures, and if I'm the one saying that, it ought to mean a little something.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

SomeRadioGuy, first off, you seem really defensive against my posts, I really do not think John Fuller gives a rats ass what I say, but, you, state I have an issue with him and his stations. Whereas I think he could care less what I say, I think you fight with a double edge sword here, you condemn me for my comments, but, are guilty of the same thing on a person to person basis, that other person is me. But, you say you have no personal ties to him or his stations. So, why are you so hyped to prove me wrong here? John Fuller isn't, so why are you???
Here is the deal, attached are 3 photos.
One is WCTY screen shot, right off the FCC FM Quarry website.
The other is W283BW, again from the FCC FM Quarry website.
The third, is an overhead screen shot of Cook Drive in Montville.
The coordinates for W238BW are 41.28 30.30 N 72.06 15.20 W
That would put it on the cell tower marked in my third photo marked as CELL TOWER.
My recent visit to that location, shows, no such FM broadcast band antenna anywhere on that tower, unless it is using 700 to 900 MHz to broadcast on, as all antennas on that tower are cellular band antennas above 700 MHz.
The FCC website does not list what brand the antenna is or what type it is, but obviously, it is some sort of circumpolar antenna, based on the Vertical/horizontal measurements.
The only circumpolar antennas up there on Cook Drive are on the tower marked WCTY, so you tell me.
Either way, 1 foot away, to 3,000 feet away, the antenna used by W238BW is STILL ON THAT SAME ANTENNA FARM, so what is your point? Because it is roughly 1,000 feet away and not on WCTY's tower, it makes a big difference to where it causes interference?
Lastly, you're not even in Connecticut, never mind New London County, to make such calls on what is and what isn't happening here, I am. End of rant!
View attachment 2251View attachment 2252

As Scott above me here has said, youre wrong.. the coordinates for W283BW and WCTY are too different to be on the same tower. Just because its marked cell tower doesnt mean it cant hold FM stuff

And in your post about you're using only two places in the coordinates 41.28 30.30 ignoring the second set of digits which prove its not on the same tower

I may not be in New London County, but im From Colchester, im in radio .. have friends around there and keep in touch with whats going on radio wise and do have a clue of with which I speak

 

[MrBruce]

See the tower right above the "4" in your coordinates?

That's where the 99.5 and 104.5 translators are. Two bays mounted on a pole at the very top, at least in this photo from NECRAT.

NECRAT Picture V4.0

About NECRAT - I've traveled around with Mike and watched him zoom in on towers to find "hidden" antennas that I can't spot without a lot of effort. If he says an antenna is where it is, it's where it is. His pictures are the gold standard of antenna pictures, and if I'm the one saying that, it ought to mean a little something.

fybusy, I have to admit, those antennas are hard to see from ground level with the cellular antennas mounted below them and the frame of the tower its self blocking the view. I do not doubt that information, but, you have to admit, those FM antennas are impossible to see standing below that tower.
Either way, the distance between my claims and the actual antenna are mere feet, maybe 1,000 or so, but, does an antenna being 1,000 feet off, my mark, make it any less to cause FM dial channel splatter at an (Assumed) ERP of 50 Watts, assuming it is 25 watts Horizontal, 25 Watts Vertical, while WCTY is at an (assumed) ERP of 4,000 Watts = 1.9 Watts Horizontal 1.9 Watts Vertical?
I am not saying WCTY is at 4,000 Watts ERP, but assuming the initial transmitter power is close to it, before the polarization split in the circumpolar antenna being used. The same with the one, on that cell tower you pointed out to me, if the vertical and horizontal numbers are 25 watts each, then likely the transmitter is putting out 50 Watts before the polarization split at the circumpolar antenna. Does that sound about right? If not, feel free to correct me. But either way, how does one low power transmitter cause more intermod than a full powered one from the same general location?

 

[fybush]

fybusy, I have to admit, those antennas are hard to see from ground level with the cellular antennas mounted below them and the frame of the tower its self blocking the view. I do not doubt that information, but, you have to admit, those FM antennas are impossible to see standing below that tower.
Either way, the distance between my claims and the actual antenna are mere feet, maybe 1,000 or so, but, does an antenna being 1,000 feet off, my mark, make it any less to cause FM dial channel splatter at an (Assumed) ERP of 50 Watts, assuming it is 25 watts Horizontal, 25 Watts Vertical, while WCTY is at an (assumed) ERP of 4,000 Watts = 1.9 Watts Horizontal 1.9 Watts Vertical?
I am not saying WCTY is at 4,000 Watts ERP, but assuming the initial transmitter power is close to it, before the polarization split in the circumpolar antenna being used. The same with the one, on that cell tower you pointed out to me, if the vertical and horizontal numbers are 25 watts each, then likely the transmitter is putting out 50 Watts before the polarization split at the circumpolar antenna. Does that sound about right? If not, feel free to correct me. But either way, how does one low power transmitter cause more intermod than a full powered one from the same general location?

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. There seem to be some misunderstandings here.

There's nothing "assumed" about WCTY's ERP. It's specified in their license - 1.9 kW with both h and v polarization. I think you're getting ERP (the licensed figure for the amount of power coming out of the antenna) confused with TPO (total power output). TPO is what the transmitter puts out, and it's not really relevant here - you could have a 10 kW transmitter going into a long run of very lossy transmission line and an inefficient antenna and get 1.9 kW out the other end, or you could have a 1 kW transmitter going into a short run of low-loss line and a high-gain antenna and still get 1.9 kW out the other end. All the FCC cares about (within reason) is how much is coming out of the antenna.

Where the antenna matters, though, is in how much RF you're getting right at ground level - and that's what can cause interference issues close by.

A one-bay antenna like the one each of the translators is using radiates more or less a sphere of RF energy. A multiple-bay antenna like the WCTY main (or the aux below it) has higher gain toward the horizon by concentrating more energy forward and less directly below or above. Imagine a sort of bagel-shaped torus of energy coming out of the antenna.

Which is to say - it's entirely possible, and even likely, that there's more RF hitting a radio at ground level from two 250-watt translators on one-bay antennas on a short tower compared to a 1.9 kW class A with a four-bay antenna higher up.

And it's entirely possible, and even likely, that the class A station has better output filtering on its transmitter than the translator, which can contribute to the sort of "splatter" I think you're talking about.

There are a lot of factors that can contribute to (or reduce) interference close to a transmitter site. It's not as simple as you're trying to make it out to be.

 

[MrBruce]

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. There seem to be some misunderstandings here.

There's nothing "assumed" about WCTY's ERP. It's specified in their license - 1.9 kW with both h and v polarization. I think you're getting ERP (the licensed figure for the amount of power coming out of the antenna) confused with TPO (total power output). TPO is what the transmitter puts out, and it's not really relevant here - you could have a 10 kW transmitter going into a long run of very lossy transmission line and an inefficient antenna and get 1.9 kW out the other end, or you could have a 1 kW transmitter going into a short run of low-loss line and a high-gain antenna and still get 1.9 kW out the other end. All the FCC cares about (within reason) is how much is coming out of the antenna.

Where the antenna matters, though, is in how much RF you're getting right at ground level - and that's what can cause interference issues close by.

A one-bay antenna like the one each of the translators is using radiates more or less a sphere of RF energy. A multiple-bay antenna like the WCTY main (or the aux below it) has higher gain toward the horizon by concentrating more energy forward and less directly below or above. Imagine a sort of bagel-shaped torus of energy coming out of the antenna.

Which is to say - it's entirely possible, and even likely, that there's more RF hitting a radio at ground level from two 250-watt translators on one-bay antennas on a short tower compared to a 1.9 kW class A with a four-bay antenna higher up.

And it's entirely possible, and even likely, that the class A station has better output filtering on its transmitter than the translator, which can contribute to the sort of "splatter" I think you're talking about.

There are a lot of factors that can contribute to (or reduce) interference close to a transmitter site. It's not as simple as you're trying to make it out to be.

I think part of my confusion is based on comments, that a signal going into a circumpolar antenna, splits the signal 50/50 V/H so more power is needed to still make the licensed TPO.
My over-all question, is why, even with 99.5 MHz on the same tower, only 104.5 MHz's audio can be heard across the dial along route 32 and north of the Mohegan Sun Casino. I tried my best to take a screen shot of the area using Google Earth and to place a circle where various car radios, while also, monitoring the actual channel for consistency that the interference heard matches W238BW current content. I squared in the area of the Mohegan Sun Casino. The modulation on this translator is quite peaked for extreme loudness, when compared to levels of the other stations in that part of the dial. By peaked, I mean, setting a specific volume level on 104.5 and tuning up or down the dial, you have to turn the volume up to acknowledge the programming content, even, with tuning up to WCTY on 97.7, you have to increase the volume to hear what's on it, then decrease it when you reach 104.5 again. I mean, I have nothing against Spanish music, but, it should not be affecting anything besides the actual channel, or maybe even 400KHz either way, 1st adjacent channels.
Am I making any sense here? I mean, I know most people do not even own an indoor AM/FM stereo system anymore, because of cell phones and streaming, but, it must be hell, to live on that hill and trying to listen to anything besides Bomba FM!

 

[davideduardo]

Imagine a sort of bagel-shaped torus of energy coming out of the antenna.

I will never buy a bagel and cream cheese again without thinking of this analogy.

 

[TPO]

Here is a picture of the W283BW translator antenna on Cook Rd in Norwich, right across the road from the WCTY tower.

 

[Greg Strickland]

Original poster Dannyct did not define stronger.

1. Some listeners interpret a louder station as being stronger. Most radio people would think of stronger as having more effective radiated power (ERP) from the antenna or more signal strength at a given location.

2. Perhaps the LPFM station is using audio processing built into an economical transmitter marketed to LPFM broadcasters, and the translator is using a dedicated processor by Orban, Telos Alliance or Wheatstone. Difference in on air sound between the two could be significant.

3. Scott Fybush was describing ERP radiation pattern of an antenna in two-dimensions. That is, from the perspective of the antenna- horizontally in azimuth (towards the horizon in all directions), and vertically in elevation( skyward and downward).
An antenna may have a directional pattern in the vertical plane, the horizontal plane, or both. Thus, the vertical elevation pattern should not be confused with a directional pattern (in azimuth) that is widely known.

This is distinguished from polarization (H,V, CP, elliptical) which is a characteristic of the electromagnetic field as it propagates in space. You might say multi-bay, directional, CP antenna radiation is a four dimensional abstraction. Then again you might conclude the best thing to do is watch some cat videos and chill out.

Practical effect of the vertical radiation pattern is (for example) a 6 KW Class A station is up to 6 KW ERP towards the horizon, and progressively less towards the ground closer to the transmitter antenna.

4. My opinion is a radio station is unlikely to overmodulate to the extent they splatter up and down the dial. They might impair first, second and third adjacent channel stations. Again this is semantics. It appears some listeners describe interference as overmodulation in a pejorative connotation. Most radio people describe interference as the audible effect of a desired signal and a undesired signal. Sometimes interference heard by a listener is created within the listener's receiver (receiver induced intermodulation distortion). This heard interference is not radiated by the radio stations. Other interference is completely legal because FCC allocation rules are based on creating interference-free coverage at a signal level at or above a certain value, as calculated by FCC rule 73.313. Propagation basis of this rule was determined before routine use of computer processing and voluminous terrain database. That was a long long time ago. FCC developed and is now using current state of the art coverage analysis for new spectrum allocation.

5. Comment- Often there is outrage and anger about interference. Important to understand that if FCC allocated radio stations to allow each station to be heard at any location where a fan of the station would listen, the number or stations would be greatly reduced. Allocation is a compromise, with the average listener in mind. Minimum protected signal contour for full-power stations is greater than the signal level that can frequently be listened to, especially by fans of the station. This is a administrative and practical fact of life. FCC is not doing anything wrong. If a full-power station is doing something wrong, it is nearly always an unintentional error.

Summary- Nearly all bagels with cream cheese are delicious. Enjoy life!

 

[MrBruce]

Original poster Dannyct did not define stronger.

Summary- Nearly all bagels with cream cheese are delicious. Enjoy life!

Interesting he has responded since posting that opening comment.
Send some of those bagels my way, I always have a hot cup of java close by, they go great together.