Re: [IRCA] CKDO

[Scott Fybush <scott@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm inclined to think that the data reported to the FCC may be 
inaccurate. My recollection - and it's been years since I was at the 
CKDO site - is that all four towers were physically the same height.

Perhaps they're using top-loading?

s

Dan Strassberg wrote:
> Maybe it's an error in the FCC AM database, but if one is to believe the
> database, CKDO added or replaced a tower as part of its move from 1350 to
> 1580. According to Bob Carpenter's AMSTNS program, which uses the FCC
> database, the two towers that CKDO uses on 1580 are both 110 degrees high
> (not high enough to meet Class A minimum efficiency--but when did the CRTC
> or Industrie Canada ever care about that?). On 1350, CKDO used four towers
> by night and three by day. One of the four nighttime towers was 94 degrees
> high, the correct height to be 110 degrees at 1580, but the other three were
> all 60 degrees, as were the three used for the 10-kW daytime operation on
> 1350. So, one can infer that, before the move to 1580, CKDO had a total of
> five towers--three used by day, all 60 degrees high at 1350, and four used
> at night, three of them 60-degrees high at 1350 and one 94 degrees high. Two
> of the short towers were common between the day and night arrays. The new
> setup (really DA-1, though documented as DA-2) appears to use the one tall
> tower from the old night array plus one new tower of equal height.
> 
> Interestingly, WLIM has just been granted a CP to drop its two-tower 5-kW CH
> operation and run 10 kW ND during the entire daylight period, thus no longer
> protecting Canada during CH. If CKDO is a Class A, this would seem to
> violate the US-Canadian agreement. In fact, given that Oshawa is several
> hundred miles south of Chicoutimi, even the WLIM's 5 kW DA-CH pattern might
> not have protected CKDO's 0.1 mV/m groundwave contour from CH skywayve
> interference.
> 
> --
> Dan Strassberg, dan.strassberg@xxxxxxx
> eFax 707-215-6367
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IRCA mailing list
> IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://arizona.hard-core-dx.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
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://arizona.hard-core-dx.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