Re: [IRCA] Re; 1130 Interference

[neilkaz <neilkaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Scott "There was a time when the FCC would not have licensed 53-degree 
towers for a 50 kW stations."

KAZ replies that there was a time when our FCC had integrity and wasn't a pawn of big corporarations and wasn't 100% clueless in regards to both AM and FM engineering and propagation.




-----Original Message-----
>From: Scott Fybush <scott@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Oct 7, 2010 6:34 PM
>To: Mailing list for the International Radio Club of America <irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [IRCA] Re; 1130 Interference
>
>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
>

_______________________________________________
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