Return-Path: Received: from rly-da05.mx.aol.com (rly-da05.mail.aol.com [172.19.129.79]) by air-da06.mail.aol.com (v120.9) with ESMTP id MAILINDA064-a6e472b9646252; Fri, 02 Nov 2007 17:27:57 -0400 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-da05.mx.aol.com (v120.9) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINDA056-a6e472b9646252; Fri, 02 Nov 2007 17:27:36 -0400 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Io42y-0007MN-Qy for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 02 Nov 2007 21:27:20 +0000 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Io42y-0007ME-A3 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 02 Nov 2007 21:27:20 +0000 Received: from mail2.imagen.ca ([208.181.178.12]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Io42u-0008G8-Kp for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 02 Nov 2007 21:27:20 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.imagen.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18AC41EF89E7 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2007 14:28:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Score: - Received: from mail2.imagen.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail2.imagen.ca [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10027) with ESMTP id pWEm7iJ-zI9x for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2007 14:28:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p1i5f0 (gi104.imagenisp.com [204.244.17.109]) by mail2.imagen.ca (Postfix) with SMTP id E43A81EF89E0 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2007 14:28:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <000f01c81d97$129e71a0$6d11f4cc@p1i5f0> From: "Steve McDonald" To: References: <472B9072.4090800@w1tag.com> Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 14:26:45 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Karma: 0: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,none Subject: LF: Re: 137 kHz band - WRC07 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: listenair ; SPF_helo : X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: listenair ; SPF_822_from : > On the face of it, a transmitting setup running 1 watt EIRP will be 2.1 > dB weaker than 1 watt ERP based on a dipole in free space. That's not a > step forward. Presumably, countries presently defining power in this > allocation based on dipole-ERP will have to switch to the more > restrictive EIRP, right? This is unfortunate and I really wonder why they would seek to define it this manner. It seems to me that simple "ERP" is a much more valid term of reference to use for this application. Interestingly, some of our Canadian LF experimental licences were issued for 1 W ERP, while others for 1W EIRP, which makes one wonder if anyone in the know really knows or is concerned about the difference. At any rate, either way will likely require a good kW to get close, considering most normal backyard LF antennas. Steve / VE7SL Web: "THE VE7SL RADIO NOTEBOOK" at http://www.imagenisp.ca/jsm