Re: [IRCA] Re; 1130 Interference

[Scott Fybush <scott@xxxxxxxxxx>]

rfoxwor1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > part of the 
> > problem CKWX is experiencing from KPWX is the result 
>
> Is it just a coincidence that the 2 sets of call letters are
> so similar sounding?

I believe so, yes. Those aren't the original calls - they were picked 
after the station was sold to Amador Bustos, who likes his calls to end 
with "X."

> (Their towers are 
> > really, REALLY short - 53 electrical degrees in height, compared to 90 
> > degrees for a more typical class B station and 190 degrees for a typical 
> > class A.)
>
> I figure 53 degrees at this freq is a tower height of 128 feet.
> Is this about where they are at? Do they even have to light them?

That appears to be correct - there's no top-loading indicated in any of 
KPWX's applications.

It may be that 128 feet was simply as much tower as they could get past 
local zoning...but I think one of the issues here is that the Mount 
Angel station was built "on spec" - the applicant evidently had no 
intention of operating the station, just to build it out and sell it. 
There's no incentive to build it right under those circumstances...and 
part of the problem here is that Mount Angel simply was built on the 
cheap. There was a time when the FCC would not have licensed 53-degree 
towers for a 50 kW stations.

s
_______________________________________________
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