From: k2ors@comcast.net
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org, rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:46:34 +0000
Message-Id: <110620071646.17068.47309A69000BE173000042AC22064246130B97010D0A020E06979D0E03@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: LF: Re: 137 kHz band - WRC07
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



> The Canadian proposal was based on 1W EIRP 

   There really isn't a need to even specify a power limitation !
If the WRC conferees thought about it for even 1 minute they'd realize that it's self limiting!
Not many hams are going to put 300 meter high top loaded towers!
You quickly realize in this business that with amateur size towers or antennas that you very soon come up against component limitations in terms of voltage (short verticals) or current (loops).

If there were no limits at all the vast majority of hams would still be at the 1 watt or less ERP level, perhaps a very few ambitious hams might reach 5 watts, in any case not enough to cause interference to anything. 

It is foolishness on the part of the WRC conferees to split hairs between ERP and EIRP!

If there is a 1W EIRP ham band, I will continue to renew my Experimental license WD2XGJ which has a 10W ERP limit and no interference reports to date!

--
73 Warren K2ORS
WD2XGJ     136-140kHz
WD2XSH/23 505-510kHz
WE2XEB/2   160-189kHz
WE2XGR/1 505-515kHz

FN42hi
http://www.w4dex.com/wd2xgj.htm

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Scott Tilley <sthed475@telus.net>
> The Canadian proposal was based on 1W EIRP according to Jim, VE3IQ one 
> of major driving forces behind it.  i May even have an email around here 
> somewhere explaining the issue from many years back...  I think they may 
> have intended to ask for 1W EIRP and start off by asking for 1W ERP, you 
> know the old ask for more and have what you want as a concession...
> 
> 73 Scott
> VE7TIL
> 
> 
> Steve McDonald wrote:
> >> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >   
>