Return-Path: <owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org> Received: from rly-dd06.mx.aol.com (rly-dd06.mail.aol.com [172.19.141.153]) by air-dd09.mail.aol.com (v121_r4.4) with ESMTP id MAILINDD092-b84497cc62e21a; Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:06:13 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-dd06.mx.aol.com (v121_r4.4) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINDD066-b84497cc62e21a; Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:06:08 -0500 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1LRBEv-0004ox-TC for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:05:53 +0000 Received: from [83.244.159.144] (helo=relay3.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1LRBEv-0004oo-Bx for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:05:53 +0000 Received: from sighthound.demon.co.uk ([80.177.174.126]) by relay3.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <gm4slv@sighthound.demon.co.uk>) id 1LRBEu-0007vN-KO for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:05:53 +0000 Received: from lurcher (lurcher.twatt.home [10.0.0.8]) by rsync.twatt.local (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AD613B6DF for <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>; Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:05:46 +0000 (GMT) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:05:46 +0000 From: John P-G <gm4slv@sighthound.demon.co.uk> To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Message-ID: <20090125200546.4bd39582@lurcher> In-Reply-To: <00e101c97f26$eefca7b0$6401a8c0@asus> References: <20090125092908.0aec06a4@lurcher> <7EC707A6E2D94414AEBBC52C6159581C@JimPC> <AAD643EEA70C4FC99B4B3E17041C8F54@JimPC> <002001c97f0a$cf16fac0$ae01a8c0@youry0mkaz8jaq> <20090125165335.47fc3399@lurcher> <7690F13DCE5D44BA8A5AA126607E7979@JimPC> <fc7eccec0901250940p388c4cb0gb9d3ed78cb605393@mail.gmail.com> <20090125180430.1d63e1c7@lurcher> <6449616DC58940A19C537A59F53828DA@AGB> <00d201c97f20$bd909520$6401a8c0@asus> <00d301c97f22$87d998d0$6401a8c0@asus> <20090125194232.05798210@lurcher> <00e101c97f26$eefca7b0$6401a8c0@asus> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.5.0 (GTK+ 2.14.4; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,none Subject: Re: LF: Re: WSPR 503.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII 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 Hello Gary and LF, Yes, I'd agree that we should stick to TX power rather than ERP in WSPR beacon data. This allows comparisons of antenna efficiencies to be made by comparing reported power vs s/n ratios, normalizing for TX power. An efficient antenna will give larger ERP for given TX power, and should show a commensurately larger S/N ratio. This method also removes the fudge and fiddle factors most people have to make to estimate ERP. The available choices of power level, in the software option setting, go up to 60dBm, so there's even scope for the EAST RIDING FOG HORN to join in. Cheers, John On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 19:55:54 -0000 "Gary - G4WGT" <g4wgt@tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > Hi John, LF, > > You wrote :- > As to power reporting, I see that most people on LF/MF are attempting > to estimate ERP, and use this figure in the beacon data. > > This aspect of power reporting method has been briefly discussed on > LF but even on the HF bands there may well be as large a difference > in antenna gains as there is on 500KHz. > > I believe that we should adopt the recommended WSPR standard then all > the reporting is the same whether it is HF, MF or LF. > > Cheers, > > Gary - G4WGT. > >