From: WarmSpgs@aol.com
Message-ID: <15.3ff24e7.26560f86@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 23:31:18 EDT
Subject: Re: LF: Puckeridge Experiments
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

In a message dated 5/18/00 8:52:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
j.r.moritz@herts.ac.uk writes:

<< ERP will be calculated on the basis of estimated radiation 
 resistance and measured antenna current for each antenna. For 
 the inv. L this should be about 20 milliohms and 2A, for the main 
 mast about 0.7 ohms and 0.34A, both giving about 80mW radiated 
 power in theory. 
 
 By definition, two transmitters/antennas giving the same ERP will 
 yield the same signal strengths at equal distances. But a number of 
 things may modify the actual ERP obtained ... >>

Please don't misunderstand my earlier inquiry, Jim.  I think this experiment 
is worthwhile and may yield much useful experience.  I'm just concerned about 
the seemingly rather casual use of the term ERP, and the tendency to equate 
it with power dispersed in radiation resistance.  These are very different 
things.

ERP _is_ actual ERP, and can only be actual ERP.  That is, ERP is determined 
by actual field strength.  It therefore already includes antenna and nearby 
environmental losses; hence, equal field strength is the only way to actually 
say the ERP of two systems are equal, not the power in the radiation 
resistance.  (Measuring the signal out of two different systems with equal 
powers in the radiation resistance is instructive, of course, because it does 
permit one to compare the interaction of two different radiators with their 
environments.  I take this to be your fundamental objective.)

Someonce commented earlier--I was thinking it was Rik, although I can't find 
the post now--that there were those who believe that one watt ERP from one 
kind of antenna is better than one watt ERP from another kind.  I got a good 
chuckle from that, but actually there is a certain grain of truth to the 
concept...particularly when the radio authorities set a maximum ERP limit on 
transmissions.

This means that the field strength in ANY direction or elevation cannot 
exceed so many mv/m at so many km from the antenna.  (Different 
administrations may choose to define the distance differently for their own 
regulatory purposes, and the corresponding field strength will vary inversely 
with that part of the definition.)  The key words in the definition of 
maximum ERP, though, are usually "maximum field" in "any direction" from the 
antenna.  I supervise a number of FM broadcast stations, by way of showing 
why this is significant.  One has a maximum ERP of 100kw, yet covers less 
than half the geographical area of another one that also has a maximum ERP of 
100kw, over similar terrain.  Why?  Because the former uses a directional 
antenna.  The _maximum_ ERP is indeed 100kw in the main lobe, but is less in 
all other directions around the antenna than its omnidirectional counterpart.

If any two given antennas have the same 1w ERP in the same direction, and it 
happens to be the direction you need to reach, then all is well.  You have 
equal field strength...in that one direction.  But, if that maximum 1w ERP 
happens to be in a less useful direction from one antenna (say, straight up)  
than the other, then yes, 1w ERP produced by one antenna can be different 
from 1w ERP produced by another!

Neither any theory nor practice that I can find indicates two electrically 
short verticals (one roughly .004 wavelength and the other .04 wavelength, 
for instance) would produce any different radiation pattern.  If you can 
force enough power through them to achieve the same ERP, it will be achieved 
in all directions, barring local obstructions.

Your experiment, however, is not so much about big versus small, but between 
antennas of differing shapes.  That's what I think is interesting: can 
amateurs make up for terrible inefficiency by directing their energy with 
other geometries?  And if so, can it be done predictably, or will we always 
be imprisoned by trial and error?  I'll be watching with keen interest.  Good 
luck.

73,
John KD4IDY