Re: WHOM and other Superpowered FMs
> What you're not taking into account is that WHOM is just far
> enough north to be a class C facility, not a class B
> facility. Class C stations can run 100 kw at up to 600
> meters AAT. As Doug's list points out, if WHOM were a
> height-derated "textbook" C instead of a superpower, it
> would have 27,652 watts instead of 48,000 watts, which is,
> as he correctly notes, just a 2.4 dB improvement. (WPKQ is
> pretty much a textbook C, at 22 kW/1181 m, and its coverage
> is pretty comparable to WHOM's, except in its directional
> nulls.)
Hello...
Well, I have always wanted to know about the "height-derated" formulas if this were to apply to both Mt. Washington FM's. And, if all things being equal, what the ERP differences would be between the 103.7 stick and the lower to the summit 94.9 tower. Even that high up on a mountain, it would seem there would be "thousands" of watts of ERP difference for the different altitudes of these two towers way up on the ole mountain. WPKQ is 105 feet above the ground at it's site, and WHOM is only averaging 46 feet above it's ground. An approx. 59 foot difference would be approxamently 6152 watts less for WPKQ?!?! I always figured that they are both way up on the top of the mountain, could it really make that much difference for either scenario in theory? I have always wondered this, but the high altitude "playing field" for both these stations made me wonder about this question specifically. At this high altitude, would their really be that much of a lower power in theory for a height-derated 94.9 stick, even though they are way way up in the air already?
Also, being a little bit of a radio geek myself, and finding the two Mt. Washington FM signals fascinating, and have paid very close attention to both signals in most all directions off Mt. Washington. WHOM's short stubby overbuilt tower has WHOM's bays facing towards the South. For the 94.9 signal to cover the north, towards Coos County, it would have to penetrate that thick tower. In my mind, that would attenuate, or shadow this signal at least somewhat towards the north. Well, there I was one day a few years ago, crossing from Quebec, into Pittsburg, NH, way way up north by the Fourth Connecticut lake (Which is just a pond really, very beautiful area!!), and being more or less due north of Mt. Washington I figured this would be a good test to see which summit FM signal was strongest at the top of the state of New Hampshire. WHOM still had the best signal! It was noticeably more solid, and steady, then 103.7 was, much to my amazement. I thought with the 103.7 signal favoring what I believe to be a more Northwestern direction, away from Keene, and having that valuable extra "59" feet of height, that 103.7 would have the signal advantage over a shadowed 94.9, but it truly did not. I thought I would relay this story here for what it's worth. I have noticed that 103.7 did have the advantage at some specific direction off the summit, over 94.9, but I forget what direction that is. I believe it was NW of the mountain in Maine however, but it was quite a while ago when I noticed this.
> Another way to look at all of this is the total amount of
> population covered by a superpowered signal. By that
> measurement, even given the amount of signal wasted at sea,
> the Wilson FMs win, hands-down. WHOM may be huge, but it
> covers an awful lot of places where there aren't very many
> people.
I can't help but think how much super rural, untouched land WTOS covers with their 57000 watts and their new higher and shiner tower off Sugarloaf USA covers!! LOL!! That TOS signal map really is for the logging trucks!
http://www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/pat?call=WTOS&service=FM&status=L&hours=U
Thanks for a great post as usual Scott...
73
DrSquelchcrash
<P ID="signature">______________
All day, All Night, No Reason!</P>
> What you're not taking into account is that WHOM is just far
> enough north to be a class C facility, not a class B
> facility. Class C stations can run 100 kw at up to 600
> meters AAT. As Doug's list points out, if WHOM were a
> height-derated "textbook" C instead of a superpower, it
> would have 27,652 watts instead of 48,000 watts, which is,
> as he correctly notes, just a 2.4 dB improvement. (WPKQ is
> pretty much a textbook C, at 22 kW/1181 m, and its coverage
> is pretty comparable to WHOM's, except in its directional
> nulls.)
Hello...
Well, I have always wanted to know about the "height-derated" formulas if this were to apply to both Mt. Washington FM's. And, if all things being equal, what the ERP differences would be between the 103.7 stick and the lower to the summit 94.9 tower. Even that high up on a mountain, it would seem there would be "thousands" of watts of ERP difference for the different altitudes of these two towers way up on the ole mountain. WPKQ is 105 feet above the ground at it's site, and WHOM is only averaging 46 feet above it's ground. An approx. 59 foot difference would be approxamently 6152 watts less for WPKQ?!?! I always figured that they are both way up on the top of the mountain, could it really make that much difference for either scenario in theory? I have always wondered this, but the high altitude "playing field" for both these stations made me wonder about this question specifically. At this high altitude, would their really be that much of a lower power in theory for a height-derated 94.9 stick, even though they are way way up in the air already?
Also, being a little bit of a radio geek myself, and finding the two Mt. Washington FM signals fascinating, and have paid very close attention to both signals in most all directions off Mt. Washington. WHOM's short stubby overbuilt tower has WHOM's bays facing towards the South. For the 94.9 signal to cover the north, towards Coos County, it would have to penetrate that thick tower. In my mind, that would attenuate, or shadow this signal at least somewhat towards the north. Well, there I was one day a few years ago, crossing from Quebec, into Pittsburg, NH, way way up north by the Fourth Connecticut lake (Which is just a pond really, very beautiful area!!), and being more or less due north of Mt. Washington I figured this would be a good test to see which summit FM signal was strongest at the top of the state of New Hampshire. WHOM still had the best signal! It was noticeably more solid, and steady, then 103.7 was, much to my amazement. I thought with the 103.7 signal favoring what I believe to be a more Northwestern direction, away from Keene, and having that valuable extra "59" feet of height, that 103.7 would have the signal advantage over a shadowed 94.9, but it truly did not. I thought I would relay this story here for what it's worth. I have noticed that 103.7 did have the advantage at some specific direction off the summit, over 94.9, but I forget what direction that is. I believe it was NW of the mountain in Maine however, but it was quite a while ago when I noticed this.
> Another way to look at all of this is the total amount of
> population covered by a superpowered signal. By that
> measurement, even given the amount of signal wasted at sea,
> the Wilson FMs win, hands-down. WHOM may be huge, but it
> covers an awful lot of places where there aren't very many
> people.
I can't help but think how much super rural, untouched land WTOS covers with their 57000 watts and their new higher and shiner tower off Sugarloaf USA covers!! LOL!! That TOS signal map really is for the logging trucks!
http://www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/pat?call=WTOS&service=FM&status=L&hours=U
Thanks for a great post as usual Scott...
73
DrSquelchcrash
<P ID="signature">______________
All day, All Night, No Reason!</P>