WDJR files to downgrade signal

[TheX]

> I don't see WKXK 96.7 in Pine Hill getting another power
> increase.  They are already broadcasting at 50,000 watts of
> power.  

What about a voluntary downgrade (back to C3 or a low-powered C2) and a move towards Selma...or even Montgomery somehow?

______________
"Not fixing [New Orleans'] levees before Katrina struck will now cost us untold billions. Not resolving the nation's issues of race and class has and will cost us so much more."
--Wynton Marsalis

[romer979fm]

> Was just an analogy Juicy. I wanted to paint a picture. Was
> not meant to be taken literal. Again, people resort to
> hatred on this board.
>

  I thought it was an excellent analogy: while I'm not an engineer,
  I've watched several stations here in Nashville do basically the same thing.
  WCJK, WRVW, WGFX are all licensed 100k, but are now in the center of
  the city (on TV towers off I-24 on the NW side to be exact) at
  power levels between 30-40kw.  Their metro signals are excellent, and
  fully cover all eight counties of the Nashville DMA.

______________
but wait...there's more!

[Dothan Radio]

> Whoaaaa.....Mr. Fruit
>
> Some of the points Frogman makes are valid.
>
> While not agreeing that going lower will help building
> penetration, antenna optimization can be a real blessing.
> Have you ever seen the pattern distortion created when
> an antenna is leg mounted on a ten foot face tower?
> Believe me, it is not pretty. And if a range study wasn't
> done on the original install, there could be a real signal
> deficit toward the desired coverage area.
>
> Use of ERI's lambda sections and/or pattern optimization
> could possibly be really beneficial in this case.
>
> Maintaining 1500 feet HAAT would be icing on the cake.
> But economics always mandate.
>
> It remains to be seen if the optimization can fully
> compensate
> for the loss of height.
>
> It all comes down to covering your base of revenue is all
> that matters.
>

Thank you!

Here is a counter point: I've seen the maps and spoken with several other engineers who all seem to agree that you can "overshoot" your target area with too much height. We might be able to pound into buildings at 1,500 feet, however they may be buildings outside the metro.

I will still be putting over 30kW into our new 8 bay antenna...that's a helluva lot of power when you consider alot of stations at 100kW ERP only put 19, 20 or 21kw into a 12 or 14 bay antenna. IMHO you can't fake RF. The more RF and the less antenna bays; the stronger and more pure your signal is. More bays = more multi-path.

Again, if money and budgets weren't part of the game we'd all have 100kW transmitters going into 1 bay.

[phr8trayn]

> > Whoaaaa.....Mr. Fruit
> >
> > Some of the points Frogman makes are valid.
> >
> > While not agreeing that going lower will help building
> > penetration, antenna optimization can be a real blessing.
> > Have you ever seen the pattern distortion created when
> > an antenna is leg mounted on a ten foot face tower?
> > Believe me, it is not pretty. And if a range study wasn't
> > done on the original install, there could be a real signal
>
> > deficit toward the desired coverage area.
> >
> > Use of ERI's lambda sections and/or pattern optimization
> > could possibly be really beneficial in this case.
> >
> > Maintaining 1500 feet HAAT would be icing on the cake.
> > But economics always mandate.
> >
> > It remains to be seen if the optimization can fully
> > compensate
> > for the loss of height.
> >
> > It all comes down to covering your base of revenue is all
> > that matters.
> >
>
> Thank you!
>
> Here is a counter point: I've seen the maps and spoken with
> several other engineers who all seem to agree that you can
> "overshoot" your target area with too much height. We might
> be able to pound into buildings at 1,500 feet, however they
> may be buildings outside the metro.
>
> I will still be putting over 30kW into our new 8 bay
> antenna...that's a helluva lot of power when you consider
> alot of stations at 100kW ERP only put 19, 20 or 21kw into a
> 12 or 14 bay antenna. IMHO you can't fake RF. The more RF
> and the less antenna bays; the stronger and more pure your
> signal is. More bays = more multi-path.
>
> Again, if money and budgets weren't part of the game we'd
> all have 100kW transmitters going into 1 bay.
>

I don't believe "overshoot" would be the case here.
With your tower being 20 to 30 miles away.
Maybe if it was closer in.
Regardless, "beam tilt" is available in such cases.

I do subscribe to the less bays/more power belief though.

[Dothan Radio]

> I don't believe "overshoot" would be the case here.
> With your tower being 20 to 30 miles away.
> Maybe if it was closer in.
> Regardless, "beam tilt" is available in such cases.
>
> I do subscribe to the less bays/more power belief though.
>
To whom to I have the pleasure of having a real conversation with on the board? It is nice to match wits and discuss engineering!

Reveal yourself! frogman@wdjr.com

Later...

[aViD_FaN]

> > Somebody's been listening to a swampland salesman.
> >
> > BTW...Reynolds Technical did the engineering.
> > Heard of them. Wouldn't surprise me if they have
> > their own agenda. Like upgrading one of their stations
> > or another clients on 96.?
> >
> > The flaw in your umbrella analogy is
> > you have to be at the handle to stay dry.
>
>
> OK, I've gotta ask: What has Paul (or someone) done to you
> or someone you know?
>

Not to me. Someone I know. As told to me, some
possible deception in one of their multi channel
moving schemes.

[aViD_FaN]

> > Somebody's been listening to a swampland salesman.
> >
> > BTW...Reynolds Technical did the engineering.
> > Heard of them. Wouldn't surprise me if they have
> > their own agenda. Like upgrading one of their stations
> > or another clients on 96.?
> >
> > The flaw in your umbrella analogy is
> > you have to be at the handle to stay dry.
> >
>
> Whoaaaa.....Mr. Fruit
>
> Some of the points Frogman makes are valid.
>
> While not agreeing that going lower will help building
> penetration, antenna optimization can be a real blessing.
> Have you ever seen the pattern distortion created when
> an antenna is leg mounted on a ten foot face tower?
> Believe me, it is not pretty. And if a range study wasn't
> done on the original install, there could be a real signal
> deficit toward the desired coverage area.
>
> Use of ERI's lambda sections and/or pattern optimization
> could possibly be really beneficial in this case.
>
> Maintaining 1500 feet HAAT would be icing on the cake.
> But economics always mandate.
>
> It remains to be seen if the optimization can fully
> compensate
> for the loss of height.
>
> It all comes down to covering your base of revenue is all
> that matters.
>

Mr. Fruit?  Please.....

Still sounds like a lot of snake oil to me.

[aViD_FaN]

> > Was just an analogy Juicy. I wanted to paint a picture.
> Was
> > not meant to be taken literal. Again, people resort to
> > hatred on this board.
> >
>
>   I thought it was an excellent analogy: while I'm not an
> engineer,
>   I've watched several stations here in Nashville do
> basically the same thing.
>   WCJK, WRVW, WGFX are all licensed 100k, but are now in the
> center of
>   the city (on TV towers off I-24 on the NW side to be
> exact) at
>   power levels between 30-40kw.  Their metro signals are
> excellent, and
>   fully cover all eight counties of the Nashville DMA.
>

'cept they ain't a movin to the center of the city.

[romer979fm]

'cept they ain't a movin to the center of the city.
 
  Understood: however they still blanket the eight county metro...
  signal good to 60-70 miles out.  Apples and oranges, I know...
  how far out is the WDJR site?

______________
but wait...there's more!

[phr8trayn]

> > I don't believe "overshoot" would be the case here.
> > With your tower being 20 to 30 miles away.
> > Maybe if it was closer in.
> > Regardless, "beam tilt" is available in such cases.
> >
> > I do subscribe to the less bays/more power belief though.
> >
> To whom to I have the pleasure of having a real conversation
> with on the board? It is nice to match wits and discuss
> engineering!
>
> Reveal yourself! frogman@wdjr.com
>
> Later...
>
No can do froggy.

I sometimes find it necessary to reveal classified information
on these boards. Anonymity is essential.
There ain't no ham like birming....my home base.