Re: [IRCA] [NRC-AM] Re: WBAL is better now

[Barry McLarnon <bdm@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thursday 20 September 2007 18:39, Bill Harms wrote:
> Barry, this is what that site returned. Interestingly, WCBM has a
> stronger signal according to the site.
>
> WCBM-N 81.2 dBu  11.51  mV/m
> WBAL-N 79.8 dBu   9.79  mV/m

That should certainly put you well inside WBAL's primary protected contour.

I calculated the field strength of WTAM's lower primary digital sideband 
(i.e., the noise signal under WBAL) to be 0.42 mV/m.  This is the 10% skywave 
value, which means the field strength would be exceed that value 10% of the 
time.  That value would be 27 dB less than WBAL, which would certainly make 
the noise audible.  It would be much worse closer to WBAL's NIF contour, 
however, which should be a cause for concern for them.

Barry

-- 
Barry McLarnon  VE3JF  Ottawa, ON

_______________________________________________
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca

Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers

For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org

To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx