From: "Mike Dennison" <mike.dennison@ntlworld.com>
To: John P-G <gm4slv@sighthound.demon.co.uk>, rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:34:24 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <497D91B0.1756.4B9405@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com>
In-reply-to: <20090125194232.05798210@lurcher>
References: <20090125092908.0aec06a4@lurcher>, <00d301c97f22$87d998d0$6401a8c0@asus>, <20090125194232.05798210@lurcher>
Content-description: Mail message body
Subject: Re: LF: Re: WSPR 503.5
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


GM4SLV wrote:
 
> There was much discussion on the WSPR forum on the merits or otherwise
> of this approach, in the HF sphere at least.
> 
> It might be easier if we adopted the same approach as is recommended
> for HF use - to report the actual TX power, not ERP.

This does not follow. On the HF bands the ERP is close to RF power, 
especially on the bands where WSPR is popular, and can therefore be 
used a a rough approximation. That is most certainly not the case on 
LF/MF. On 136kHz I have to run 800W RF to get 300mW ERP. Another 
station might need just 100W RF to achieve the same power. Although 
the ratio is smaller on 500kHz, there is still a huge discrepancy 
between the RF needed to achieve the same ERP for different stations. 
RF power is therefore meaningless.

Mike, G3XDV
==========