[BC] WLW Superpower Coverage

[Rob Atkinson]

Yes, and I am astonished at how little 500 kw would get them over 50 kw, 
according to Keith's contour plots.  I expected the g/w reach to double.   i 
guess since the signal strength  decreases relative to area covered (for an 
omnidirectional station), and since the area increases dramatically with 
distance from the tower, your x 10 power increase doesn't buy you that much 
range.  more area yes (assuming ground conductivity is constant); distance 
from tower no.

thanks for the plots comments etc.  very interesting.  It appears there is a 
point of diminishing return with power increases.   in other words, unless 
you gain coverage of a metropolitan area, the costs associated with adding N 
watts to what is already being pumped into the load do not justify adding a 
relatively thin band of area surrounding your current fringe contour, that 
is more low pop. density land.  maybe 50 kw is that point of diminishing 
return.

rob atkinson

From: "Paul Christensen" <attorney at broadcast.net>
Reply-To: Broadcast Radio Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net>
To: "Broadcast Radio Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Subject: Re: [BC] WLW Superpower Coverage
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 17:08:29 -0500

>Willie:
>
>I know you were trying to be funny, but you're probably not too far off. If 
>anything on the low sire.

Rob, his answer was probably correct right down to the two decimal places!

Paul


====================================
Paul Christensen, CPBE, CBNT
LAW OFFICE OF PAUL B. CHRISTENSEN, P.A.
3749 Southern Hills,  Jacksonville, Florida 32225
Office: (904) 379-7802   Facsimile: (904) 212-0050
pchristensen at ieee.org

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/