X-GM-THRID: 1237442397909807299 X-Gmail-Labels: rsgb lf Delivered-To: daveyxm@gmail.com Received: by 10.78.172.1 with SMTP id u1cs418812hue; Fri, 25 May 2007 11:17:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.67.115.11 with SMTP id s11mr3090653ugm.1180117032982; Fri, 25 May 2007 11:17:12 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id k2si6028478ugf.2007.05.25.11.17.07; Fri, 25 May 2007 11:17:12 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 193.82.116.20 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1HreI0-0003q2-P8 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 25 May 2007 19:13:24 +0100 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1HreI0-0003pt-Aw for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 25 May 2007 19:13:24 +0100 Received: from smtpout0171.sc1.he.tucows.com ([64.97.136.171] helo=n082.sc1.he.tucows.com) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HreHz-00069L-IN for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 25 May 2007 19:13:24 +0100 Received: from g3kev (62.252.232.66) by n082.sc1.he.tucows.com (7.2.069.1) id 4630CFCB0024982A for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 25 May 2007 18:13:08 +0000 Message-ID: <000701c79ef8$58d0b7a0$42e8fc3e@g3kev> From: "hamilton mal" To: "rsgb" Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 18:12:32 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,none Subject: LF: 500 khz ERP Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 2877 In response to recent emails about the requirement for more RF out on 500 khz I am of the opinion that ERP is the way forward. 10W erp would be a realistic start and preferably 20W erp, this approach would encourage amplifier and antenna design and research on 500 khz. At present we have reached stalemate with the 0.1w erp restriction, limiting communications to the UK during daytime and during the dark hours to a few countries in near EU. There is virtually no hope at present to research propagation or work DX on a more international scale. To justify my ERP argument and keep the maths simple, look at examples below. 1. 10W rf output to the antenna and an efficiency of the average antenna 1% the ERP would be 0.1W erp, this would be no improvement from the current position, increase it to 20W and we get 0.2W again this would be insignificent. You would need a lot of Watts to get any real change. 2. 10W ERP and the same 1% efficiency would require 1Kw output to the antenna and this is the sort of increase that is required for meaningfull international communications and propagation studies. This power level is modest compared to the commercial users of the past like ships and costal stations. Most ships installations were running 1000 watts give or take a little and more with good antennas especially on the larger ships. Even with this power during daytime the coverage was only in the region of a few hundred miles, even sorrounded by the ideal salt water earth. Night time was different with longer range but required these powers to work back to the appropriate shore stations. The transmitter PA tube installations that I encountered were 2 x 4-400, 1 x 4cx 1500 b, 4 x 4c250b or 1 x 4-1000a, these seemed to be the norm. There were some /MM with less power but this was rare except for emergency transmitters. The above is an example of my experience and opinion, although from what I have read so far on this reflector the ERP approach is the favourite. 73 de Mal/G3KEV