Return-Path: Received: from rly-de07.mx.aol.com (rly-de07.mail.aol.com [172.19.170.143]) by air-de04.mail.aol.com (v121_r5.5) with ESMTP id MAILINDE042-4ee497d98902da; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 06:04:02 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-de07.mx.aol.com (v121_r4.4) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINDE077-4ee497d98902da; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 06:03:47 -0500 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1LRPF0-00034k-JT for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:02:54 +0000 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1LRPF0-00034b-7G for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:02:54 +0000 Received: from sighthound.demon.co.uk ([80.177.174.126]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1LRPEz-0004cb-FW for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:02:54 +0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (lurcher.twatt.home [10.0.0.8]) by rsync.twatt.local (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6093E3B716 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:02:47 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <497D9856.7080601@sighthound.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:02:46 +0000 From: John P-G User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <20090125092908.0aec06a4@lurcher>, <00d301c97f22$87d998d0$6401a8c0@asus>, <20090125194232.05798210@lurcher> <497D91B0.1756.4B9405@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com> In-Reply-To: <497D91B0.1756.4B9405@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com> X-Karma: unknown: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,none Subject: Re: LF: Re: WSPR 503.5 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 X-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) Mike Dennison wrote: > 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 > ========== > Hello Mike, LF This is precisely why I thought it might be instructive to report TX power! In the above example, of an inefficient antenna and 800W vs an efficient antenna and 100W for the same ERP, the WSPR reports will make this plainly obvious, as similar S/N should be reported for both systems, due to similar ERP, but the different efficiencies will be obvious from the reported TX power - one reporting 60dBm and the other 50dBm, rather than both reporting 23dBm ERP(using the closest available power options in WSPR) However, I must admit I'm swayed by the general argument to stick to ERP in WSPR on LF/MF, for the reasons given by Jim et al. and I'm withdrawing my initial argument for using TX power. Cheers, John