[BC] 50 kW DA Coverage

[Robert Meuser]

If you are correct, then it was a bad DA design. Look at their present 
three tower DA and then overlay the 50 KW KMJ 4 tower pattern, and you 
will see that moving towards the sides of the lobe the fields would have 
been maintained at about what they now are at 5 KW.  I just can not find 
anything east that would be a limitation. Besides, if it were a coverage 
issue, why would Salem (the company that filed for the CP) have it 
extended a number of times?  That would tell me they liked what they saw.


R


WFIFeng at aol.com wrote:

>In a message dated 06/02/2006 09:24:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
>Robertm at broadcast.net writes:
>
>  
>
>>Many highly directional stations take advantage of distance and high ground 
>> conductivity to put more population in the main beam at the expense of 
>>    
>>
>rural 
>  
>
>>and 
>> open areas.
>>    
>>
>
>This is true... but based on the patterns I remember seeing, the 50Kw upgrade 
>was throwing a very narrow beam out to sea, (E-SE) just south of Long 
>Island's south shore, thus missing most of the Island. It also drastically reduced 
>their signal into CT, directly affecting most of the rather populous coastline 
>between the NY border & New Haven. If the new pattern was rotated just a couple 
>degrees to the north, it would have "lit up" all of Long Island. If that were 
>true, they probably would have done it long ago!
>
>Perhaps the airpport issue you mentioned was the main reason, and that would 
>make sense. It's also possible that they considered the loss of listeners up 
>in CT in their decision as well. Only they know for sure. :)
>
>Willie...
>
>_______________________________________________
>This is the BROADCAST mailing list
>To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
>For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: http://www.radiolists.net/
>
>  
>