PDA

View Full Version : Re: Most Powerful AM Radio Stations


David Eduardo
July 24th 03, 07:47 PM
"Antonio" > wrote in message
...
> I always have wanted to know how much power are stations allowed to
> operate.
> I remember while living in Mexico, listening to XEWA 540AM, they used
> to operate at 150,000 watts day and night, but now they are less than
> that, probably 5000 watts or something.

150,000 day and night.

> XEW 900 is well known, they use 250,000 watts and say they cover most
> of North America.

They say nothing like that. The signal had been dropped to 100 kw for many
years, but due to high man made interference in Mexico City, they upped it
again to provide good coverage of the Mexico City metro area.

> American stations use at most 50,000 watts and they are forced to
> lower their power at night,

Some US 50's are 50 day and night; a few are non-directional all hours,
others go directional at night, others are directional at all hours. And
then there are many 50's in the daytime, that reduce to lower levels at
night... as low as 250 watts!

>while at the same time, one station, I
> think is in Mexico City, goes from 5,000 to 150,000 at nights.

Not so. In the 60's, XERF in Cd. Acuņa, Coah., on 1570 only operated at
night as it's business was mail order and preachers. This was an exception.
It is now 15 kw day and night.

No Mexico City AM has higher night power than day power.

> Any explanation would be appreciated and one question,
> Is there any pros and cons of running that much power?
> How about other countries, whats the most power a station can have?

Mexico: 250 KW. Most of Central America: 50 kw.
Colombia: 250 kw
Venezuela: 1,000,000 watts.
Chile, Argentina: 100 kw

Many European nations have 1,000,000 stations. Higher power is used in
several of the Arab nations.

CA was in NJ
July 25th 03, 03:16 PM
David Eduardo wrote:

>Some US 50's are 50 day and night; a few are non-directional all hours,
>others go directional at night, others are directional at all hours. And
>then there are many 50's in the daytime, that reduce to lower levels at
>night... as low as 250 watts!

KIQN/Tooele UT on 1010 runs 50,000w day, 3,100w critical hours and a
whopping 13w (yes thirteen watts) nights.

Antonio
July 25th 03, 07:02 PM
"David Eduardo" > wrote in message >...
> "Antonio" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I always have wanted to know how much power are stations allowed to
> > operate.
> > I remember while living in Mexico, listening to XEWA 540AM, they used
> > to operate at 150,000 watts day and night, but now they are less than
> > that, probably 5000 watts or something.
>
> 150,000 day and night.
>
> > XEW 900 is well known, they use 250,000 watts and say they cover most
> > of North America.
>
> They say nothing like that. The signal had been dropped to 100 kw for many
> years, but due to high man made interference in Mexico City, they upped it
> again to provide good coverage of the Mexico City metro area.

XEW 900 is listed at the Secretaria de Comunicaciones y
Transportes(www.sct.gob.mx) with 250 kW, along with other 3 more
stations with more than 50 kW(XEB 1220 100 kW, XEEP 1060 100kW, XEX
730 100kW). I remember listening to XEG 1050 from Monterrey, the
signal sounded better than some locals and but only at nights.
Its a shame that the Secreataria doesnt provide coverage maps for the
stations, it would be nice to see a coverage map for a 100kW or a
250kW.
Is there a way to make a map with the Effective Radiated Power, Height
above Avg. Terrain and Antenna Pattern?
XEW 900 broadcast over the Internet at www.esmas.com/wradio. The site
used to stream a few other FM radios, it dropped them and now only has
W Radio and other Pop station.
The promos of XEWA 540 used to say the covered North Mexico and the
South of the USA, and they fed their signal to regular satelite, you
could hear either a Televisa channel or the station. Satelite radio?

David Eduardo
July 25th 03, 09:55 PM
"Mark Roberts" > wrote in message
...
> CA was in NJ had written:
> | David Eduardo wrote:
> |
> | >Some US 50's are 50 day and night; a few are non-directional all hours,
> | >others go directional at night, others are directional at all hours.
And
> | >then there are many 50's in the daytime, that reduce to lower levels at
> | >night... as low as 250 watts!
> |
> | KIQN/Tooele UT on 1010 runs 50,000w day, 3,100w critical hours and a
> | whopping 13w (yes thirteen watts) nights.
> |
>
> That station doesn't have a DA. Might it be possible that KIQN once
> had a DA-N and then gave it up?

I think it was a low-power daytimer that upgraded to the best it can get.

> Does nighttime coverage really matter any more? How much radio
> listening is there at night (after PM drive)? And, more to
> the point, is that an audience worth selling to?

In LA, 53.3% of all persons 12+ listen to radio in the 7 to Midnight time
period.

Keep in mind that in deep winter, sunset may happen in the middle of
afternoon drive and sunrise late in morning drive. That means a daytimer in
a middle latitude may operate from 6:30 AM to 4:45 PM. So night operation is
critical.

> I wonder if a good, solid cost/benefit analysis has really been
> done for stations with limited coverage that are still staying on 24/7.
> I suppose the costs these days are marginally low enough that a
> small amount of revenue would make it worthwhile.

Since overall ratings performance and pricing are based on 6AM-Mid, Mon-Sun,
you don't see many daytimes doing well anywhere.

David Eduardo
July 25th 03, 09:55 PM
"Doug Smith W9WI" > wrote in message
...
> David Eduardo wrote:
> > Many European nations have 1,000,000 stations. Higher power is used in
> > several of the Arab nations.
>
> There are a handful of 2,000,000-watt stations in the Middle East and I
> believe at least one in Europe. I know of nothing more powerful.
>
> Is that megawatter in Venezuela operating? I've seen it mentioned from
> time to time but always as "future plans".

It tested briefly on 1240 (odd frequency) and never reappeared. It was some
president's boondoggle. I was told the transmitter was the same one that
operated in Costa Rica (TIRICA-625) for a few weeks in about 1971.

Charles Hobbs
July 26th 03, 06:53 PM
David Eduardo wrote:
> "Mark Roberts" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>CA was in NJ had written:
>>| David Eduardo wrote:
>>|
>>| >Some US 50's are 50 day and night; a few are non-directional all hours,
>>| >others go directional at night, others are directional at all hours.
>
> And
>
>>| >then there are many 50's in the daytime, that reduce to lower levels at
>>| >night... as low as 250 watts!
>>|
>>| KIQN/Tooele UT on 1010 runs 50,000w day, 3,100w critical hours and a
>>| whopping 13w (yes thirteen watts) nights.
>>|
>>
>>That station doesn't have a DA. Might it be possible that KIQN once
>>had a DA-N and then gave it up?
>
>
> I think it was a low-power daytimer that upgraded to the best it can get.
>
>
>>Does nighttime coverage really matter any more? How much radio
>>listening is there at night (after PM drive)? And, more to
>>the point, is that an audience worth selling to?
>
>
> In LA, 53.3% of all persons 12+ listen to radio in the 7 to Midnight time
> period.
>
> Keep in mind that in deep winter, sunset may happen in the middle of
> afternoon drive and sunrise late in morning drive. That means a daytimer in
> a middle latitude may operate from 6:30 AM to 4:45 PM. So night operation is
> critical.
>
>
>>I wonder if a good, solid cost/benefit analysis has really been
>>done for stations with limited coverage that are still staying on 24/7.
>>I suppose the costs these days are marginally low enough that a
>>small amount of revenue would make it worthwhile.
>
>
> Since overall ratings performance and pricing are based on 6AM-Mid, Mon-Sun,
> you don't see many daytimes doing well anywhere.

Are there that many daytimers left? The only one I know if in LA (or
anywhere
else for that matter) is KBRT-740 on Avalon (KCBS stomps on it as soon as it
gets just a little bit twilighty...)

All of the other local daytime-only stations (KIEV-870, whoever's on 900
and 1220 over in Pomona....were there any others) are full timers now
(much to the consternation of the DXers out there....)

P.S. Wasn't the expanded band designed to give these daytimers a place to
go be fulltimers without cluttering up the rest of the band? Well, guess
what
didn't happen...

Gene Seibel
July 26th 03, 06:54 PM
There was talk some years ago of a 5 or 6 million watt AM in Egypt.
Not sure if it ever happened.
--
Gene Seibel
Broadcasting page - http://pad39a.com/gene/broadcast.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.


"Antonio" > wrote in message
...
> I always have wanted to know how much power are stations allowed to
> operate.
> I remember while living in Mexico, listening to XEWA 540AM, they
used
> to operate at 150,000 watts day and night, but now they are less
than
> that, probably 5000 watts or something.
> XEW 900 is well known, they use 250,000 watts and say they cover
most
> of North America.
> American stations use at most 50,000 watts and they are forced to
> lower their power at night, while at the same time, one station, I
> think is in Mexico City, goes from 5,000 to 150,000 at nights.
> Any explanation would be appreciated and one question,
> Is there any pros and cons of running that much power?
> How about other countries, whats the most power a station can have?
>
>

Doug Smith W9WI
July 26th 03, 06:54 PM
Greg and Joan wrote:
> 1) Didn't PJB, 800 khz, Netherlands Antilles (Bonaire) run 500Kw? Do
> they still do so today? I used to be able to pick them up in Massachusetts

Yes and no.

(the night before my brother's wedding in Traverse City, Michigan PJB
was BOMBING into my motel room. I mean, they were louder than the
Chicago clears less than 200 miles away. Things must have been auroral
that night.)

My understanding is PJB's power plant (they had their own...) burned
down. When they rebuilt they decided to settle for 100kw and a
directional antenna favoring northern South America. (Venezuela &
Colombia)

> beamed out toward the ocean and their signals don't go west. Even WBZ has
> a lobe dampened, IIRC, to protect a station in Wyoming.

My understanding is that WBZ's DA actually protects the *east* - they're
trying to avoid wasting power over the ocean where there's nobody (at
least nobody with a diary) listening. The Wyoming station (KTWO Casper)
protects WBZ, but not vice-versa.
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com

S
July 26th 03, 06:54 PM
Are there still clear channel stations in the U.S? I thought they dropped
that years ago.

scott


"Peter H." > wrote in message
...
>
> >>
> I always have wanted to know how much power are stations allowed to
operate.
> >>
>
> This is specified by international treaties. For North America, this would
be
> the North America Regional Broadcast Agreement (signed 1939, effective
1941),
> and the subsequent U.S.-Mexico Broadcast Agreement and U.S.-Canada
Broadcast
> Agreement.
>
> For Class I-A stations, only, the wording was stated to be "at least
50,000
> watts" because Mexico was already using in excess of 50,000 watts.
>
> For all other Class I-B and Class II-B stations the wording was stated to
be
> "50,000 watts".
>
> However, Mexico subsequently authorized 100,000 watts, during daytime
only, for
> stations not otherwise entitled by treaty to use more than 50,000 watts.
>
> In fact, for some stations which were limited by treaty to 10,000 watts,
Mexico
> also allows 100,000 watts, during daytime only.
>
> The much later "Rio" treaty further modified the rules, and allowed for
the
> first time Mexican and Canadian operations on U.S. clear channels, as well
as
> unrestricted operation of U.S. stations on Mexican clears.
>
> (The earlier NARBA treaty had already authorized U.S. operations on
Canadian
> clears, provided the stations were more than 650 miles from the
U.S.-Canadian
> border).
>
> >>
> I remember while living in Mexico, listening to XEWA 540AM, they used to
> operate at 150,000 watts day and night, but now they are less than that,
> probably 5000 watts or something.
> >>
>
> XEWA was not the original Class I-A occupant of 540.
>
> By 1941's NARBA, 540 was given to Canada as a Class I-A.
>
> By the mid-1950s U.S.-Mexico agreement, 540 was added to Mexico's Class
I-A
> list, and that frequency was assigned to San Luis Potosi, at 150,000
watts.
>
> IIRC, XEWA is still operating with 150,000 watts.
>
> Certainly, it is "notified" and authorized to do so.
>
>
> >>
> XEW 900 is well known, they use 250,000 watts and say they cover most of
North
> America.
> >>
>
> NARBA also gave the U.S. night time priority on 800 and 900 in Alaska,
although
> one of those stations has been changed to a U.S. clear channel on account
of
> excessive interference from Canada.
>
> Insofar as the U.S.-Mexican treaty, the U.S. includes all states and
> territories, so Hawaii, Alaska and P.R. are included, even though these
states
> and territories really can't interfere with Mexico's "notified"
operations.
>
> However, Canada, not being contiguous with Mexico, used all Mexican clears
for
> whatever purpose it wanted. It's just that Canada could not "notify" any
Class
> I stations on those frequencies.
>
> Additionally, the U.S.-Mexican treaty prohibited the U.S. from operating
any
> station on Mexican clears at night, and also prevented any day operations
> greater than 1 kW. Unless specifically excepted by treaty, which covered
the
> 50,000 watt DA-1 operations in Cleveland (1220) and New York (1050), and
the
> 5,000 watt operation in Alaska (800 and 900).
>
>
> >>
> American stations use at most 50,000 watts and they are forced to lower
their
> power at night, while at the same time, one station, I think is in Mexico
City,
> goes from 5,000 to 150,000 at nights.
> >>
>
> U.S., Canada and The Bahamas have a 50,000 watt limit.
>
> Unless a specific station is "notified" for lower power at night, the same
> power may be used night as well as day.
>
> Class I-A and I-B (now Class A) stations are permitted a flat 50,000 watts
> (more for Mexico, under the conditions described above).
>
> That is, unless the Class A is "grandfathered" at a lower power, say,
10,000
> watts.
>
> There is only one U.S. Class A station which is so grandfathered.
>
> There is one Canadian stations which is so grandfathered (1550).
>
> There are three Mexican stations which are so grandfathered (1000, 1190
and
> 1550).
>
>
> >>
> Any explanation would be appreciated and one question, Is there any pros
and
> cons of running that much power?
> >>
>
> Lots of power was needed to cover "underserved" areas in decades past.
>
> Lots of power is now needed in order to overcome all the man-made
interference
> from the gazillions of switching power supplies used in computers and
> entertainment appliances.
>
> With "Rio" stations which were formerly limited to 5,000 watts were
allowed to
> increase to 50,000 watts.
>
> Practically speaking, this only applies to "historical" Class III-A
stations
> (KJR, KMJ, KKOL, KXTA, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera) as these Class III-A
> stations received better protection then Class III stations of inferior
> priority (Class III-B, e.g.).
>
>
> >>
> How about other countries, whats the most power a station can have?
> >>
>
> In Europe, there is/was a 1,400,000 watt station.
>
> But, because of unauthorized use by other countries (Cypress and Israel,
IIRC)
> the 1,400,000 watts is largely wasted at night.
>
>

Peter H.
July 27th 03, 08:14 PM
>>
Are there still clear channel stations in the U.S?
>>

There are still clear channels ... just no clear channel stations.

There are NO channels assigned to the highest priority station which are no
duplicated by statons of lesser priority.

WBRW
July 27th 03, 08:14 PM
> Are there that many daytimers left?

In the USA, AM daytime-only stations are "Class D". This used to be a
strictly daytime-only classification, but quite a few years ago many
of these stations were reallocated with "flea power" nighttime
signals, as low as 1 WATT. Today, "Class D" AM stations are limited
to a maximum of 50,000 watts daytime, but only a maximum of 250 watts
at night.

I don't know what the lowest DAYTIME power level for North American AM
stations is; despite it traditionally being 250 watts, there are a
number of stations using less than that during the daytime; I've heard
of one 170-watt daytimer, and right in my own backyard, 1170 WWTR in
Bridgewater, NJ is licensed for 243 watts, non-directional,
daytime-only. In that case, it's a long story -- the station
originated as WBRW, a 500-watt directional daytimer which went dark in
1990. Their license was subsequently bought out with the intent of
getting it back on the air under new ownership. Unfortunately, the
original WBRW transmitter site was vandalized beyond repair and the
towers were taken down, so in order to help simplify the construction
of a new site, they were granted a Construction Permit to change to a
one-tower non-directional signal, which necessitated the power
reduction to 243 watts. So, in effect, New Jersey got a "new" AM
daytimer in 1997 -- even though the FCC stopped accepting applications
for new daytimers a decade earlier!

Mike Terry
July 27th 03, 08:14 PM
In Europe some AM stations have 1,000 kw, more on longwave.

Mike

WBRW
July 27th 03, 08:14 PM
> There are a handful of 2,000,000-watt stations in the Middle East and I
> believe at least one in Europe. I know of nothing more powerful.

My outdated edition of the World Radio/TV Handbook lists Longwave
stations in Sweden (171 kHz) and Russia (261 kHz) that claimed to be
2,500,000 watts, as well as a number of 2,000,000-watt Longwave
stations in the Middle East, Asia, and Europe.

Also, near St. Petersburg, Russia, there's a station on 1494 kHz that
transmits 1,200,000 watts (with a transmitter capable of 2 MW) through
a *26-tower* directional array with a gain of 25 dB, aimed at
Scandinavia. The array is more than 1-1/2 miles from end to end.

BTW, right in my town, there's a 5,000,000-watt UHF TV station, but
that's the ERP due to antenna gain, not actual transmitter power.

Mark Roberts
July 27th 03, 08:14 PM
David Eduardo > had written:

| "Mark Roberts" > wrote:
|
| > Does nighttime coverage really matter any more? How much radio
| > listening is there at night (after PM drive)? And, more to
| > the point, is that an audience worth selling to?
|
| In LA, 53.3% of all persons 12+ listen to radio in the 7 to Midnight time
| period.

But what does the hour-by-hour breakdown look like? And are other
markets comparable? With a time period that broad, and a criterion
that easy to meet, it could just as easily be that the figure is
skewed from leftover PM drive listening (e.g. people with
hour+-long commutes).

| Keep in mind that in deep winter, sunset may happen in the middle of
| afternoon drive and sunrise late in morning drive. That means a daytimer in
| a middle latitude may operate from 6:30 AM to 4:45 PM.

At about 38 or 39 degrees in the center of any time zone, the minimum
time period for daytime operation would be 7.15 am to 4.45 pm.
Chicago's typically is 7.15 am to 4.15 pm. The comparable time
period in Houston (29 or 30 degrees) was 6.45 or 7 am
(I forget which) to 5.30 pm. The PSRA helps AM drive for these
stations somewhat. It probably isn't as big a factor as it was 30
years ago when PSRAs were first granted on a widescale basis and is
probably most meaningful for small-town community-style stations.

| So night operation is critical.
|
| > I wonder if a good, solid cost/benefit analysis has really been
| > done for stations with limited coverage that are still staying on 24/7.
| > I suppose the costs these days are marginally low enough that a
| > small amount of revenue would make it worthwhile.
|
| Since overall ratings performance and pricing are based on 6AM-Mid, Mon-Sun,
| you don't see many daytimes doing well anywhere.

I thought the figures for daytimers were, at least at one time,
weighted to account for hours actually on the air. If not, it seems
to be a serious skewing of the figures, not that I've ever felt
that radio surveying methodologies were particularly good as far as
statistical validity is concerned -- skew upon skew upon skew.


--
Mark Roberts
Oakland, California
(it will forward)

Sid Schweiger
July 27th 03, 08:14 PM
>Are there still clear channel stations in the U.S? I thought they dropped
that years ago.<

As the term "clear channel" was originally defined (meaning, only one station
on the frequency across North America), yes...that was dropped decades ago.
IIRC, WLW was the last one.

Mark Roberts
July 27th 03, 08:14 PM
Charles Hobbs > had written:

| Are there that many daytimers left? The only one I know if in LA (or
| anywhere
| else for that matter) is KBRT-740 on Avalon (KCBS stomps on it as soon as it
| gets just a little bit twilighty...)
|
| All of the other local daytime-only stations (KIEV-870, whoever's on 900
| and 1220 over in Pomona....were there any others) are full timers now
| (much to the consternation of the DXers out there....)

All the AMs in the Bay Area are full-time except for two,
KDYA/1190 and KTIM/1510. And even KTIM has a CP for DA-2 with COL Piedmont.
That's one of the benefits (I guess) of living in an area where the
nighttime signal can be shot out over the ocean.

("Bay Area" is defined here as 100 km radius from the reference coordinates
for Oakland, minus stations east of Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda,
or Santa Clara counties.)

Even back in the 1980s, when I was in Houston, I recall that, of
the AM stations, only KIKK and KCOH were daytimers.

| P.S. Wasn't the expanded band designed to give these daytimers a place to
| go be fulltimers without cluttering up the rest of the band?

No, it was more designed to resolve situations where stations had
very critical nighttime patterns to other stations, with
interference often resulting due to natural variations in
propagation. Most of the stations that got x-band allocations were
DA-N stations.

--
Mark Roberts
Oakland, California
(it will forward)

Mark Roberts
July 27th 03, 11:52 PM
Doug Smith W9WI > had written:

| My understanding is that WBZ's DA actually protects the *east* - they're
| trying to avoid wasting power over the ocean where there's nobody (at
| least nobody with a diary) listening. The Wyoming station (KTWO Casper)
| protects WBZ, but not vice-versa.

As others here have said, that is correct. A visit to the site in
Hull makes it clear that there was some pretty shrewd engineering
behind that move.

As a data point, in Chicago, the very minute WNVR/1030 goes off
the air at sunset, WBZ comes booming in. I think WNVR may have a
license that allows it to sign on at Boston local sunrise rather
than Chicago, but I don't remember for sure now.

Farther to the south, though, in Missouri, WBZ isn't much of a
catch for nighttime listening while, sometimes, thanks to the time
difference, KTWO can be heard in the early evening hours. In the
Kansas City area, 1030 was also horked up by the station in Blue
Springs which has practically no nighttime signal north of the
Missouri River...one of the two areas in KC with the fastest
population growth. (But who listens to AM at night?)

--
Mark Roberts
Oakland, California
(it will forward)

David Eduardo
July 28th 03, 11:24 PM
"Blue Cat" > wrote in message
...
> > Are there that many daytimers left? The only one I know if in LA (or
> > anywhere
> > else for that matter) is KBRT-740 on Avalon (KCBS stomps on it as soon
as
> it
> > gets just a little bit twilighty...)
> >
> > All of the other local daytime-only stations (KIEV-870, whoever's on 900
> > and 1220 over in Pomona....were there any others) are full timers now
> > (much to the consternation of the DXers out there....)

1220 in Canyon Country is a daytimer, as is 1050 in Frazier Park, 850 in
Thousand Oaks and 1050 in Big Bear.

LA is not typical, though, as it is on the coast where more AMs can go
directional at night and ship power over the Pacific Ocean without having to
protect anyone... a luxury not afforded to stations in Kansas City, for
example.

> There is a "de facto" daytimer in the Miami, FL area. This station is on
> 1550, with a day power of 10000 watts, and a permitted night power in the
> 500's. I have never heard the station at night, even when I was in Miami.
> Curious history about this station, a couple years ago it was on 1560,
> broadcasting both day and night.

They were operating illegally and had to move back. In the 70's and 80's,
the 250 watt signal at night from towers in the waste disposal facility on
72nd south of the Airport afforded excellent coverage of the Cuban
population of Miami, then concentrate mostly along the Trail.
>
> I would say that most of the existing daytimers left are on clear
channels.

As mentioned before, about 1800 AMs have power of 0-99 watts at night. That
is about 40% of all AMs in the US. 900 are pure daytimers, and the rest are
these with low night power, below 100 watts.

Peter H.
July 29th 03, 03:58 AM
>>
1220 in Canyon Country is a daytimer, as is 1050 in Frazier Park, 850 in
Thousand Oaks and 1050 in Big Bear.
>>

The two 1220s in L.A. county are Class Bs, operating full time.

Canyon Counry's KIIS (Citicasters) is 1 kW days, 0.5 kW nights, DA-2 is really
1/0.5 DA-1 as the day and night parameters are the same.

Pomona's KWKW (Lotus) is 0.25 kW-U DA-2 is also really DA-1 as the day and
night parameters are the same.

The 850 just outside L.A. county in Thousand Oaks has been a Class B for more
than two decades, IIRC. Started out as a daytimer, however, with three towers
and 0.5 kW. Added a fourth tower to add night operation at 0.25 kW.

Saul (Sol) Levine's ex-1050 in Frasier Park was always a daytimer. Apparently
intended to get Sol yet another X-band allocation on-the-cheap (KFOX/1650,
which see), this station is actually sited to serve Bakersfield (surprise), and
has 10 kW with a 3-tower DA near the I-5/US-99 split and 0.01 kW from a single
tower near Oildale, adjacent to Bakersfield. IIRC, Frasier Park is in L.A.
County, or is only a few hundred yards outside thereof.

[ Moderator's note: Citicasters? Ummm... that'd be Clear Channel, would it
not? As I recall, Citicasters was borged by Jacor which was in turn borged
by Clear Channel... ]

Blue Cat
July 29th 03, 03:14 PM
"Geoff Brozny" > wrote in message
...
>
> I saw in the FCC's database a station in cuba that was at 500kw, this link
> will show you all the stations in the western hemisphere.
>
http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/amq?state=&call=&arn=&city=&freq=530&fre2=1700&fa
cid=&list=0&dist=&dlat2=&mlat2=&slat2=&NS=N&dlon2=&mlon2=&slon2=&EW=W&size=1
0
>
> geoff
>
I believe that the Cuban 500 kw station is on 710 kHz. This is part of
Castro's "radio war", to keep Miami's Spanish speaking Radio Mambi (710
also) from reaching the island.

Paul Van House
July 29th 03, 03:14 PM
In article >, says...
>
> "Antonio" > wrote in message
> ...
> > American stations use at most 50,000 watts and they are forced to
> > lower their power at night,
>
> depends on what class AM station they are, for example 700WLW is a class A
> AM station with unlimited hrs of operation, so they are 50kw 24/7.
>
> >while at the same time, one station, I
> > think is in Mexico City, goes from 5,000 to 150,000 at nights.
> > Any explanation would be appreciated and one question,
> > Is there any pros and cons of running that much power?
>
> at night the station would carry real far, and could possibly interfear with
> other stations real far away, and I guess you could say another con would
> be you could have less stations on that same frequency.
>
> > How about other countries, whats the most power a station can have?
>
> I saw in the FCC's database a station in cuba that was at 500kw, this link
> will show you all the stations in the western hemisphere.
> http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/amq?state=&call=&arn=&city=&freq=530&fre2=1700&facid=&list=0&dist=&dlat2=&mlat2=&slat2=&NS=N&dlon2=&mlon2=&slon2=&EW=W&size=10
>
> geoff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Nobody has mentioned that for 5-years of so back in the 1930's WLW
was licensed for 500,000 watts. The signal was so strong that
florescent bulbs within a few miles of the transmitter would glow, and
the station had to cut daytime power to 50,000 watts until "directional
suppressor towers" because the signal interfered with a station in
Toronto.
The whole story is on Jim Hawkin's WLW page, including other
interesting facts, pictures and schematics of the WLW transmitter site.
( http://www.hawkins.pair.com/wlw.shtml )
It doesn't mention it on this site, but I believe the station had
daytime listeners through most of the 48-states, and was heard in Hawaii
and Europe at night.


--
Paul Van House
(remove _removeme_ from mail address for e-mail replies)
Radio/TV Software on my home page
http://www.binxsoftware.com
Coming Soon: A Voice For You (Voiceovers, Liners, On-Hold Imaging)
http://www.avoiceforyou.com

Mark Howell
July 29th 03, 10:58 PM
On 29 Jul 2003 02:58:09 GMT, (Peter H.) wrote:

>. IIRC, Frasier Park is in L.A.
>County, or is only a few hundred yards outside thereof.

Frazier Park (correct spelling) is in Kern County, about 2 miles north
of the L.A. county line.

>[ Moderator's note: Citicasters? Ummm... that'd be Clear Channel, would it
>not? As I recall, Citicasters was borged by Jacor which was in turn borged
>by Clear Channel... ]

Yes, although licensee names have largely remained unchanged through
these acquisitions -- CCU just made them subsidiaries. Also, Clear
Channel just sold the 1220 Canyon Country station back to the guy from
whom they bought it.

Mark Howell

Peter H.
July 30th 03, 03:22 PM
>>
> IIRC, Frasier Park is in L.A.
> County, or is only a few hundred yards outside
> thereof.

Frazier Park (correct spelling) is in Kern County, about 2 miles north of the
L.A. county line.
>>

Well, that's "only" 3520 yards ouside of L.A. county.

Since the Tx site is many, many, many miles outside of L.A. county, Frasier
(Frazier) Park might as well be inside L.A. County, for purposes of this
discussion.

Certainly, Gorman, which is the I-5 turnoff to Frasier (Frazier) Park is wholly
within L.A. county ... the NW-most point, in fact.

Too, too bad Levine couldn't accomplish with his 1050 station what he did with
his 540 station.

What a f**kin' "goniff".

(Yiddish, for "thief").

CA was in NJ
July 31st 03, 03:17 PM
WBRW wrote:

>BTW, right in my town, there's a 5,000,000-watt UHF TV station, but
>that's the ERP due to antenna gain, not actual transmitter power.

Which station is that?

Peter H.
July 31st 03, 07:49 PM
>>
> BTW, right in my town, there's a 5,000,000-watt
> UHF TV station, but that's the ERP due to antenna
> gain, not actual transmitter power.
>>

5 MW UHFs are pretty common, really.

Here's a real challenge: list the top ten (or top five) highest gain AM
stations.

That is, those with the highest maximum-to-RMS field ratio, regardless of
power.

The power ratio, hence the gain, is the square of the field ratio.

Hint: start looking at stations with eight or more towers.

Second hint: look for arrays with major axes of 180 or somewhat more degrees
and with minor axes of 90 degrees, more or less (210, or so, degrees and 80, or
so, degrees, respectively, are among the prime candidates).

John Byrns
July 31st 03, 09:42 PM
In article >, (Peter
H.) wrote:

> Here's a real challenge: list the top ten (or top five) highest gain AM
> stations.
>
> That is, those with the highest maximum-to-RMS field ratio, regardless of
> power.
>
> The power ratio, hence the gain, is the square of the field ratio.
>
> Hint: start looking at stations with eight or more towers.
>
> Second hint: look for arrays with major axes of 180 or somewhat more degrees
> and with minor axes of 90 degrees, more or less (210, or so, degrees and 80,
> or so, degrees, respectively, are among the prime candidates).


Are you going to post the answer later?

I think I did part of this exercise once before, listing all the stations
with 8 or more towers, and I seem to remember that the list was not all
that long. I only checked the "field ratio" on a couple though, so don't
have any idea which are the "winners".


Regards,

John Byrns


Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/

Peter H.
August 1st 03, 02:53 AM
>>
Are you going to post the answer later?

I think I did part of this exercise once before, listing all the stations with
8 or more towers, and I seem to remember that the list was not all that long.
I only checked the "field ratio" on a couple though, so don't have any idea
which are the "winners".
>>

1190 in Dallas is the winner (6 by 2); 1070 in Houston is a close second (3 by
3).

There are numerous 9- or 10-tower Canadians which are contendors.

You've got to get beyond 180 degrees, major axis, in order to make the
"aperture" small enough, then you just add additional instances of those tower
pairs until you get the gain way high ... certainly higher than 12.

Second challenge: name the top ten (or top five) stations with the most steel
in the air.

The winner is ... 1070 in Houston, again.

Bill Damick
August 1st 03, 02:53 AM
Doug Smith W9WI > wrote in message >...
> Greg and Joan wrote:
> > 1) Didn't PJB, 800 khz, Netherlands Antilles (Bonaire) run 500Kw? Do
> > they still do so today? I used to be able to pick them up in Massachusetts
>
> Yes and no.
>
> (the night before my brother's wedding in Traverse City, Michigan PJB
> was BOMBING into my motel room. I mean, they were louder than the
> Chicago clears less than 200 miles away. Things must have been auroral
> that night.)
>
> My understanding is PJB's power plant (they had their own...) burned
> down. When they rebuilt they decided to settle for 100kw and a
> directional antenna favoring northern South America. (Venezuela &
> Colombia)

Trans World Radio (PJB) still operates from Bonaire with 100kw and
still on 800 khz MW. About 3 years ago (not in the late 80's as
someone else mentioned), TWR decided for reasons of cost to replace
the old faithful unit with a new solid state transmitter. Tubes for
the old 500 kw MW unit got increasingly more expensive to rebuild when
they failed, and the costs of fuel to run the deisel generators higher
and higher. With a reassessment of the need to "boom" into its former
coverage, TWR decided to focus on the Caribbean and northern parts of
S. America only as we are able to serve many of the areas further
south by program distribution to local Christian stations. We do get
occasional reports from US-based MW DXers and are grateful for them,
but don't consdier the US a target any longer. We're airing English
(though on a reduced schedule), Spanish, Portuguese and a couple of
smaller Indian languages.

The PJB power plant was sold to the local electric company on Bonaire
to help power the grid there. The fire mentioned above was not at TWR
(PJB's) site, but rather at the R. Netherlands facility also on
Bonaire.

Trust this will help clear things up.

Bill Damick
Trans World Radio Headquarters
Cary, NC
www.twr.org

David Eduardo
August 1st 03, 06:16 AM
"Bill Damick" > wrote in message
...
> Doug Smith W9WI > wrote in message
>...
> > Greg and Joan wrote:
> > > 1) Didn't PJB, 800 khz, Netherlands Antilles (Bonaire) run 500Kw?
Do
> > > they still do so today? I used to be able to pick them up in
Massachusetts
> >
> > Yes and no.
> >
> > (the night before my brother's wedding in Traverse City, Michigan PJB
> > was BOMBING into my motel room. I mean, they were louder than the
> > Chicago clears less than 200 miles away. Things must have been auroral
> > that night.)
> >
> > My understanding is PJB's power plant (they had their own...) burned
> > down. When they rebuilt they decided to settle for 100kw and a
> > directional antenna favoring northern South America. (Venezuela &
> > Colombia)
>
> Trans World Radio (PJB) still operates from Bonaire with 100kw and
> still on 800 khz MW. About 3 years ago (not in the late 80's as
> someone else mentioned),

My impression, born out by field strength readings by the engineer at
WKVM-810 in Puerto Rico, was that the station had ceased to run 500 kw,and
was using the big rig at lower power since sometime around 1995 or 1996.

> TWR decided for reasons of cost to replace
> the old faithful unit with a new solid state transmitter. Tubes for
> the old 500 kw MW unit got increasingly more expensive to rebuild when
> they failed, and the costs of fuel to run the deisel generators higher
> and higher. With a reassessment of the need to "boom" into its former
> coverage, TWR decided to focus on the Caribbean and northern parts of
> S. America only as we are able to serve many of the areas further
> south by program distribution to local Christian stations.

At least it happened finally, although too late for some of us. I owned an
AM on 805 AM in Ecuador when TWR went on the air. It nearly destroyed the
station untill I could change frequency. A friend's station in Bucaramanga,
Colombia, was driven off the air by TWR's misguided religious zeal that
caused it to stomp on the coverage and signals of over a dozen radio
stations on 790, 800 and 810 in the NE South American zone.

People here complain about arrogance as demonstrated by Clear Channel; TWR
is the supreme example of arrogance for a "cause" with no thought for all
the people injured due to their actions.

Sven Franklyn Weil
August 1st 03, 04:03 PM
In article >, David Eduardo wrote:
> At least it happened finally, although too late for some of us. I owned an
> AM on 805 AM in Ecuador when TWR went on the air. It nearly destroyed the

805??? I thought AM radio in Ecuador was on the 10khz band plan like
the USA and Colombia.

In the past few years, though I've noticed a number of drop-in FM
stations on the "even" frequencies -- 95.4, 100.2, etc. That really
has to cause hell with a lot of digitally tuned car radios that only
tune in the odd frequencies.

> People here complain about arrogance as demonstrated by Clear Channel; TWR
> is the supreme example of arrogance for a "cause" with no thought for all

Ahhhhh....but they're doing the work of GOD! That forgives
everything, including the jamming of your heathen programming of your
station and your friend's. Be glad this isn't the Middle Ages.
They would have strung you up.... ;-)

--
Sven Weil
New York City, U.S.A.

John Rethorst
August 3rd 03, 10:26 PM
In article >, "Greg and Joan"
> wrote:

> Here in
> Boston, I can name four = WWZN - 1510, WBZ - 1030, WRKO - 680 , and
> WEEI - 850. However, all except WBZ have severe pattern restrictions and
> broadcast lobe restrictions that their signals -- except for WBZ -- are
> beamed out toward the ocean

WRKO and WEEI have north-south patterns, to protect San Francisco and
Denver respectively. Their signals don't do well very far west of Boston,
but cover Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine quite well at night.

--
John Rethorst

jrethorst -at- post -dot- com

Greg and Joan
August 4th 03, 07:08 AM
I live north of Boston - WEEI doesn't do very well very far north....

"John Rethorst" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Greg and Joan"
> > wrote:
>
> > Here in
> > Boston, I can name four = WWZN - 1510, WBZ - 1030, WRKO - 680 , and
> > WEEI - 850. However, all except WBZ have severe pattern restrictions
and
> > broadcast lobe restrictions that their signals -- except for WBZ -- are
> > beamed out toward the ocean
>
> WRKO and WEEI have north-south patterns, to protect San Francisco and
> Denver respectively. Their signals don't do well very far west of Boston,
> but cover Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine quite well at night.
>
> --
> John Rethorst
>
> jrethorst -at- post -dot- com
>

Google