Return-Path: Received: from rly-ma10.mx.aol.com (rly-ma10.mail.aol.com [172.20.116.54]) by air-ma09.mail.aol.com (v120.9) with ESMTP id MAILINMA091-8d0472bb74f4e; Fri, 02 Nov 2007 19:48:49 -0400 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-ma10.mx.aol.com (v120.9) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINMA102-8d0472bb74f4e; Fri, 02 Nov 2007 19:48:33 -0400 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Io6FT-0008OH-DJ for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 02 Nov 2007 23:48:23 +0000 Received: from [83.244.159.144] (helo=relay3.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Io6FR-0008O8-R2 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 02 Nov 2007 23:48:21 +0000 Received: from outbound04.telus.net ([199.185.220.223]) by relay3.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Io6FO-0000fo-B9 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 02 Nov 2007 23:48:21 +0000 Received: from priv-edtnaa05.telusplanet.net ([64.180.181.86]) by priv-edtnes73.telusplanet.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.00 201-2186-121-20061213) with ESMTP id <20071102234815.MEEK16471.priv-edtnes73.telusplanet.net@priv-edtnaa05.telusplanet.net> for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2007 17:48:15 -0600 Received: from [192.168.0.102] (d64-180-181-86.bchsia.telus.net [64.180.181.86]) by priv-edtnaa05.telusplanet.net (BorderWare MXtreme Infinity Mail Firewall) with ESMTP id E5HN3KKEQX for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2007 17:48:15 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <472BB73F.7000909@telus.net> Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:48:15 -0700 From: Scott Tilley User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <472B9072.4090800@w1tag.com> <000f01c81d97$129e71a0$6d11f4cc@p1i5f0> In-Reply-To: <000f01c81d97$129e71a0$6d11f4cc@p1i5f0> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,none Subject: Re: LF: Re: 137 kHz band - WRC07 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed 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=0.9 required=5.0 tests=FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS 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 : X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) 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 > > > > >