[BC] KKGM

[Cowboy <curt@spam-o-matic.net>]

On Thursday 14 July 2005 18:11, "Mullaney Engineering, Inc." 
<Webmail at mullengr.com> wrote:
 > Regarding comments on this thread concerning KKGM.  Since
 > I am the engineer involved in setting up the original collocated
 > operation with KHVN and also moving the 1630 operation to
 > its new site, I can give the complete story.

  Absolutely correct, and *I* am the guy who walked the FIM.
  First, as a skeleton, then as a partial, and finally as a full proof since
  we were having a hard time believeing it could be THAT poor.
  ( I'm also the guy who had the sections welded, twice, personally
   brazed additional grounding, and other misc. construction ideas )

  The only part of that story that Al might not know, is exactly which other
  high-dollar consultants confirmed the data.

On Monday 11 July 2005 18:33, Phil Alexander wrote:

 > Peter,
 >
 > Check KKGM, FT. WORTH.  263.70 deg. FCC shows 10 kW which must be an
 > "ERP"

  Nope.
  10.00 KW at the output "J" plug, as measured by your's truely.

  The transmitter had a fault, which I didn't have the time to look into, 
limiting
  it to around 8.9 KW when I got there.
  ( I believe Mike as since fixed that )
  There was / is also some high losses in the ATU itself, but when we measured
  it, there was definately 10.0 kw into the feeder.

  The tx loading was deliberately mis-adjusted to produce 10.15 amps into
  the 97 ohm feed point, to produce 10.0 KW through the OIB-3.
  I forget the j, and did burn up the leads on an OIB at 5kw, forgetting
  the voltage rating momentarily ( which is all it takes ).
  This was done to validate exactly what the conductivity was at that site.


On Tuesday 12 July 2005 00:45, PeterH5322 at aol.com wrote:

 > Licensed operation of KKGM is co-located with KHVN.

  Currently correct, but that's not the CP location.

 > KKGM's 282.00 mV/m/kW at 1 km and a 263.70 degree tower is a tip-off that
 > the efficiency is faked.

  Careful.....
  This one *is* me, and I might take great offense should someone accuse
  me of a motel proof, on ANY of the 8 radials actually measured.
  ( on THAT radiator. Several other stations were measured in the same
  relative areas, to make sure that what we thought we were seeing was true )

  It might be a tip-off to question the methodology, and I have no problem
  with that, nor do I have any problem with someone else duplicating the
  measurements that I made, but it was not faked in any way, shape, or form.

  Since I personally did it, you can bet that if it were even questionable, 
I'ld
  not have made this post, but I won't allow someone to suggest that it was
  faked without reasserting my own integrity.
  NOTHING was faked.
  You can walk the golf course, and the city owned property as did I, and 
you'll
  get the same readings I did, within the calibration tollerance of the FIM.

  In fact, I'ld make that same FIM available for comparison !

 > I don't know the particulars, but the operation could indeed be 10/1 kW,
 > using a resistor to dump much of the power, thereby producing 282.00 mV/m
 > per kW of input.

  Well, if you consider the conductivity of the dirt in that part of the 
DFW metro
  to be a resistor, then you would be partially correct.
  ( that particular radiator does have the efficiency one would predict, out
  to about the ends of the radials. Across the road, it's already dropping
  faster than the curves. The conductivity in metro Dallas / Ft. Worth is NOT
  what the M3 says it is, not even close )

  The radiation is there, for the first few hundred feet, so I know it's not
  an on-site loss.

 > The KHVN LIC is 970 kHz, 1 kW-D, 0.27 kW-N, ND, Class B, 156.9 degrees,
 > 308.99 mV/m/kW at 1 km, which also seems faked.

  That one, I have not personally measured.

 > CP for KKGM is 10/1 kW, ND2, 164 degrees, 361.6 mV/m/kW at 1 km, which
 > seems more real, but on the weak side. Perhaps a truncated ground system
 > is being used.

  That is almost true. The ground system does hit the property lines on the 
side
  near the highway, but otherwise it is not truncated.