Was looking at the CP for the new 50kW WNSH that it would seem might never even be built... anyone remember what Willow sold WPEP for, or what he paid for the 0.5kW WNSH?
-
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
WPEP/WNSH
- Thread starter ajhenderson
- Start date
No idea as to the price, but if the 50 kW CP is built, directional or non-D, Montreal and Riverhead LI will especially have to watch out during critical hours. I'd think it would be worse if this was built as a non-D. Perhaps the 1570 in Doylestown would get some interference as well. Probably not a lot, but it would be there....
Dave Gardiner
WVCH 740/WNWR 1540
Philadelphia
Dave Gardiner
WVCH 740/WNWR 1540
Philadelphia
DG02816 said:
The proposed predicted pattern for the CP is extremely directional, sending most ot the power eastward out to sea, with a sharp, deep null to the southwest toward New York, Pennsylvania and Boston. I don't think any of those stations, including Montreal and inland Canada, will have anything to worry about.
The 50 kW signal will probably be weak in Boston, only 20 miles away! However, I'm sure it would be a strong signal out in Provincetown, all over coastal Maine, Nova Scotia, up in Greenland, and they may even get QSL's from Great Britian during critical hours. I'm guessing the main purpose of this increase is to claim the magic number of 50,000 watts to potential advertisers, and to strengthen daytime coverage around the North Shore, northern suburbs of Boston north of the Tobin Bridge, the eastern Merrimack Valley and northeastern Massachusetts in general, and along the northern New England coast. The signal won't cover much of anywhere else useful (or on land) for a station licensed to Beverly, MA.
O
oomboppamaumau
Guest
I wonder if the numbers come even close to working on this. A 50Kw project cost versus the potential revenue from better North Shore coverage?
Granted, a good deal of the North Shore is affluent and in the desired demographics, but the "who listens to AM" question comes into play.
But then again, after WESX flipped, WNSH is the only station of its kind in the service area.
I would doubt savvy spot buyers would be wooed by the 50Kw claim, and not look at a coverage map. Not too many fish are potential BMW buyers. Nor will a Nova Scotian drive down to eat at the Clam Box!
Granted, a good deal of the North Shore is affluent and in the desired demographics, but the "who listens to AM" question comes into play.
But then again, after WESX flipped, WNSH is the only station of its kind in the service area.
I would doubt savvy spot buyers would be wooed by the 50Kw claim, and not look at a coverage map. Not too many fish are potential BMW buyers. Nor will a Nova Scotian drive down to eat at the Clam Box!
Eli Polonsky said:
Eli, you are usually so scrupulously accurate, but this time you are wrong regarding WNSH's pattern. You've fallen for Radio-Locator's sorta coverage maps, and thought of them as patterns. The maps at radio-locator are about as good as you can do for coverage maps if you use M-3 conductivity data. That means not very accurate in many cases. The radio-locator maps ARE NOT patterns--never were, never will be unless radio-locator drastically changes its methodology. I have tried to tell people that so often I lose patience when yet another person calls the pitiful maps patterns. WNSH's proposed 50 kW-D pattern is a very slightly modified version of its existing 500W D pattern. It is a broad modified cardioid aimed almost due north. The reason the coverage appears to be aimed eastward is that the southern part of the eastern side of the main lobe, which delivers significant energy over an arc of maybe 210 degrees or so centered pretty much on due north, falls over salt water. Only in the eastern direction does the signal get out for miles and miles largely unattenuated. Problem is, only fish live in that direction and from what I hear of the plight of the fishing industry--not so many fish anymore either--and no people except for whale watchers. The soil conductivity around the rest of the circle is pathetic, particularly to the south-southeast. In that direction, the ground system sits atop solid rock with a conductivity of less than 0.1 mS/m. (The M-3 map doesn't acknowledge the existence of conductivity that low anywhere in the US, but it exists in a few places--lower Manhattan is one, except maybe in Battery Park and Washington Sq Park where there actually is a little soil and grass.) Anyhow, were WNSH to run 50-kW DA, I'd expect the 1570 in Laval QC (CFAV?) to get clobbered so badly during CH that I'd expect it to change frequences. There are a bunch of AM frequencies open all over Canada and that includes greater Montreal. CFAV might move to 600 if CFCF's old towers are still standing.
I'm waiting for the Town of Marblehead to reject Otto Miller's plan to have Marblehead buy the WESX site. That site would work great for WNSH. The tower could be physically shortened or skirted at the top to reduce its electrical length to 200 degrees or less at 1570. From that site, using something less than 10 kW, WNSH could get coverage equivalent to what it is proposing with 50 kW-ND from the Endicott College site. Part of the coverage improvement would come from using a 200-degree tower instead of WNSH's existing very short towers at Endicott College. The rest would result from having a site with decent (and in many directions, outstanding) conductivity. Over close to 180 degrees, there is salt water between the WESX site and the rather densely populated North Shore communities to the north.
Thanks for the very insightful analysis Dan.
As to,
Well, anything is better than the rate they're getting now.
As to,
oomboppamaumau said:
Well, anything is better than the rate they're getting now.
DanStrassberg said:
Still, even if for different reasons, you're saying that the effect to the inland south and southwest will be about the same. It won't go far in that direction, so I don't think the stations on Long Island and in Pennsylvania will have anything to worry about.
F
FPB
Guest
Even when (if) they ramp to 50K, they'll go back to the micro 85-watt signal during the night. So there should be no concerns from the out of state stations (and no interest from Boston advertisers).
FPB said:
After sunset and before sunrise there would, of course, be no change. But you've apparently not heard of daytime skywave, the phenomanon that ultimately gave rise to the CH (critical hours) designation of the two hours following local sunrise and the two hours preceding local sunset. To protect co-channel Class A AMs, the FCC requires many Class B and D AMs on Class A channels (both US and foreign) to reduce power and/or change directional patterns during CH. Local examples of stations that use different facilities during CH are WBIX (different pattern, rduced power, protects KYW), WILD (reduced power, protects WBAL), and WWZN (different pattern, protects WLAC). 1570 is a Mexican Class A channel, but I doubt whether, even at 50 kW-ND, WNSH would interfere with XERF within Mexican borders approximately 2000 miles away.) Although CFAV is a Class B AM and Class A AMs are the only station class that receives protection from daytime skywave during CH, Class Bs RECEIVE daytime-skywave interference form co-channel stations in spades. Were WNSH to run 50 kW with its proposed day pattern, CFAV would probably become unlistenable even in its own CoL during CH on most days. To survive, the station would have to change frequencies. Fortunately, with Canadians abandonimg AM for FM in droves, finding a vacant channel should not be a problem, even in the densely populated Montreal area. Finding a transmitter site could be, though.
F
FPB
Guest
So, where on the dial does anyone suppose WPEP will land?
W
webcastboy
Guest
WVBF is, AFAIK, owned by Steve Callahan, A.C.E. at WRNI...who works extensively with the Talking Information Center (Radio Reading Service for the Blind). Also AFAIK, they broadcast the TIC audio feed 24/7. If that's the case, I don't see Steve abandoning that format lightly.
If I were WPEP and serious about maintaining the format, I would approach WUMD with an offer to pay for an HD Radio installation in exchange for free (or reduced cost) access to broadcast on the HD2 multicast channel. It's not a great exchange at the moment with so few HD Radios out there but since any transmitter-related change has to be viewed over a 10 year timespan, it's a good bargain since by 2017 there'll be a lot more HD Radios out there. And that 89.3FM signal reaches a helluva lot further (and better) than the current 1570AM signal does.
If I were WPEP and serious about maintaining the format, I would approach WUMD with an offer to pay for an HD Radio installation in exchange for free (or reduced cost) access to broadcast on the HD2 multicast channel. It's not a great exchange at the moment with so few HD Radios out there but since any transmitter-related change has to be viewed over a 10 year timespan, it's a good bargain since by 2017 there'll be a lot more HD Radios out there. And that 89.3FM signal reaches a helluva lot further (and better) than the current 1570AM signal does.
FPB said:
A year of so ago, back when this was an active topic, somebody posted that WVBF 1530 Middleborough Center would pick up the WPEP calls and programming and would attempt to serve Taunton. WVBF recently put up a new tower and increased its non-CH day power. The night power is some tiny number like 2W or maybe 3W. Such a puny signal doesn't make the trip from Middleborough to Taunton on 1530 under the best of conditions, and with co-channel WCKY booming in and WWKB and WDCD for first adjacents, only a DXer with a pretty good receiver could pick up anything at all. However, I don't see what would stop WVBF from keeping the old WPEP tower in place and running the few watts that are allowed at night from that tower, which, I believe, is actually inside the Taunton city limits. The coverage of Taunton would still be awful, but at least it would exist. That is to say, the signal should be listenable within a radious of a few hundred feet from the tower--probably enough to get past the end of the ground radials.
DanStrassberg said:
I know you fault Radio-Locator's accuracy, but if their information page on WPEP is correct, it currently runs 227 watts on 1570 at night, which isn't all that bad for just covering the COL. With the WNSH power increase proposed for daytime only, I don't see why they couldn't keep the present WPEP facility on the air at night only. Perhaps it would become the only nighttime-only AM station! Is there such a thing anywhere else in the USA?
Or, if WPEP moves to 1530 from Middleborough, and if they then decide to keep the Taunton transmitter on at night only but move its frequency to 1530 to match the Middleborough frequency for the sake of a consistent dial position in Taunton from day to night, I'd imagine it would then have to be reduced to 2 watts at night because of WCKY, as the Middleborough one currently does.
Come to think of it, perhaps it would have to be even slightly lower, such as only 1.5 watts, because the Taunton transmitter is about five miles closer to Kentucky than the Middleborough one. ;D
Eli Polonsky said:
There is only one dual-frequency AM in the US (WNZK Dearborn Heights MI 690 kHz-D/680 kHz-N 2.5 kW-U DA-2). The FCC has said several times that it considers WNZK to be technically substandard because of its unique dual-frequency operation and has refused to accept applications for other dual-frequency AMs. From all indications, WNZK is well engineered. The station uses six-towers day and night with four towers shared by the D and N arrays and a total of eight towers. The day and night coverage areas are more similar than those of many DA-2 AMs. I even heard a rumor that WNZK uses or used a Kahn PowerSide emphasizing the lower 690 sideband by day and the upper 680 sideband by night so that analog receivers could pick up the station without having to be retuned at sunrise and sunset. However, WNZK recently applied to increase its D power and it appears that the FCC's counter-proposal was revocation of the station's license. I'm inferring this from the fact that the application was very quickly withdrawn and hasn't been resubmitted. Anyhow, dual-frequency operation for WVBF seems out of the question.
You may be right that if WVBF operated from Taunton at night on 1530 it would be allowed less than the 2W it is allowed from Middleborough. The reason is not the shorter distance to Cincinnati from Taunton but the strangely high efficiency of WPEP's tower. The tower is allegedly 106.3 degrees high, which is not a lot more than a quarter wavelength, and the tower is not top-loaded. Yet the efficiency at 1 kW input is given as 355.67 mV/m @ 1 km. That's almost Class A minimum efficiency: 362.2 mV/m/kW @ 1 km. Efficiency that high normally requires a tower 166-degrees high--nearly half-wave. So if the efficiency is correct, the power would have to be cut to keep the field down to what WVBF currently gets from its nearly quarter-wave tower. But this does bring up the possibility of WVBF operating from both Middleborough and Taunton at night. The two transmitters, each running 2W or less, would not interfere with each other. As you drove between them, each signal would be buried by WCKY long before you could pick up the other. At least one Class D AM has such a setup. (I forget the calls; it's on 670 in the Tidewater area of Virginia and is licensed to a community well north of Norfolk/Portsmouth, which is the real target market.) By day, the station is quite powerful (20 kW, I believe) and, using a four-tower array, it sends a killer signal down the salt water of Chesapeake Bay to Portsmouth and Norfolk. By night, the signal from the main transmitter is reduced to a couple of watts to protect WSCR, but a second transmitter on 670 at the site of a co-owned station licensed to Portsmouth, runs a couple hundred watts nighttime only also directional and protects both WSCR and the tiny signal from the main Tx. The more powerful signal from the secondary Tx covers Norfolk and Portsmouth pretty well at night.
webcastboy said:
89.3 WUMD already does transmit HD Radio. They don't currently have a HD2 channel. I have a very hard time picking them up with my APS-13 antenna, since it is horizontal, and WUMD only runs vertical (due to being close to channel 6, I believe). Even in the car (vertical antenna) WUMD doesn't seem to cover as well as 107.1 WFHN, for example, eventhough they run less power. Maybe once channel 6 signs off in 2009, they will be able to go circular like most other stations.
Even the way it is now, 89.3 probably does put in a better signal than 1530 in most of that coverage area.
W
webcastboy
Guest
Ehhh, WPEP could still pay WUMD's costs for the software & licensing to operate an HD2 channel. And maybe a monthly rental fee. Given that the only way WUMD could afford to build out the 89.3 signal was to sell off the 91.1 signal...I don't think they'd mind getting a steady source of extra cash.
Yes, WUMD only runs 96 watts horizontal but 9600 watts vertical (ERP) because of WLNE-TV6 on the Tiverton tower, not far from WUMD at all. WFHN is 5400 watts circular ERP, albeit it's directional with a null to the northwest (including Taunton) so I don't know exactly how many watts they're throwing in that direction. They're both at about the same height...approx.400ft AMSL. Regardless, it's always better to be circularly polarized and that's probably at least part of the reason why you're seeing better reception for WFHN.
I wouldn't be surprised if you're also seeing differences in interfering stations, since even though WFHN has 1st adjacent WAAF to deal with, WAAF has a heavy null to protect WFHN these days, and there's likely some terrain in the way. Whereas WUMD has 2nd-adjacent WGBH which I'll bet comes in pretty strong down in that area.
FWIW...I haven't been down in that area since WUMD moved to 89.3, but I've been told by their engineer that the 89.3 signal would make them a viable rimshot signal into Providence. (shrigs)
Re: WNZK Dearborn Heights
Why is that "worthless"? Are there no minority listeners for those programs living in their coverage area? Are the producers of these programs getting no sponsors, and buying the airtime at their losses? I'm not familiar with that area, but if the brokered shows have listeners and sponsors, I wouldn't say the station is "worthless".
We have many full-time brokered multi-lingual stations here too, and of them, WUNR and WRCA occasionally show up in the public published (0.4 share or better) ratings. They do provide an outlet for programming which is of value to certain groups.
MarcB said:
Why is that "worthless"? Are there no minority listeners for those programs living in their coverage area? Are the producers of these programs getting no sponsors, and buying the airtime at their losses? I'm not familiar with that area, but if the brokered shows have listeners and sponsors, I wouldn't say the station is "worthless".
We have many full-time brokered multi-lingual stations here too, and of them, WUNR and WRCA occasionally show up in the public published (0.4 share or better) ratings. They do provide an outlet for programming which is of value to certain groups.
W
webcastboy
Guest
Re: WNZK
Looks like there was an informal objection from someone. A "JBC", whoever (or whatever) that is. The CDBS's public notice shows the following:
Minor change in licensed facilities.
Informal Objection filed 4/4/06 by ("JBC")
Application Dismissed per applicant's 6/20/06 request.
Informal Objection dismissed as moot 6/28/06 (without letter)
Maybe JBC had some serious dirt on WNZK's owner? ??? There's a Jamaican station JBC on 700AM but I can't see how WNZK's app would be objectionable to them...the app was for daytime power only. Also, there's a CJBC but it's in Toronto and on 860AM.
However, there's also a CHYR on 710 and it's in Leamington, Ontario which is right next to Detriot; there's plenty of overlap between CHYR's and WNZK's service areas. Perhaps there would be real-world interference between WNZK's new app and CHYR, even if there wasn't interference on paper. In which case someone at (or who likes) CHYR with the initials "JBC" made some noise and the FCC told them it wasn't going to happen because of cross-border political considerations.
Is it possible that the CRTC uses different standards for AM interference than the FCC does? Meaning, the FCC would've authorized WNZK's application but the CRTC denied it...and the FCC told WNZK to back off?
Looks like there was an informal objection from someone. A "JBC", whoever (or whatever) that is. The CDBS's public notice shows the following:
Minor change in licensed facilities.
Informal Objection filed 4/4/06 by ("JBC")
Application Dismissed per applicant's 6/20/06 request.
Informal Objection dismissed as moot 6/28/06 (without letter)
Maybe JBC had some serious dirt on WNZK's owner? ??? There's a Jamaican station JBC on 700AM but I can't see how WNZK's app would be objectionable to them...the app was for daytime power only. Also, there's a CJBC but it's in Toronto and on 860AM.
However, there's also a CHYR on 710 and it's in Leamington, Ontario which is right next to Detriot; there's plenty of overlap between CHYR's and WNZK's service areas. Perhaps there would be real-world interference between WNZK's new app and CHYR, even if there wasn't interference on paper. In which case someone at (or who likes) CHYR with the initials "JBC" made some noise and the FCC told them it wasn't going to happen because of cross-border political considerations.
Is it possible that the CRTC uses different standards for AM interference than the FCC does? Meaning, the FCC would've authorized WNZK's application but the CRTC denied it...and the FCC told WNZK to back off?
- Status