Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

rsgb_lf_group
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: LF: 500kHz ERP

To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: LF: 500kHz ERP
From: [email protected]
Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 20:26:15 EDT
Delivered-to: [email protected]
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
Hi John and LF,

having never transmitted and only sparadically monitored 500 kHz, I am a little reluctant to state "outsider" opinions in the ongoing UK power limit discussion. Anyway from a more technical perspective, I tend to very much support Jim's views and favour an ERP based limit, if possible on the order of one to ten watts.

- Innovation: In my opinion, many of the new concepts for LF communication have been centered around optimizing the receive side. FFT-based and coherent reception techniques are now widely employed by amateurs, which would not have been the case if signal strength was not so much limited. Unidirectional receive antennas and noise cancellation approaches are being explored and used. On the other side, maximizing antenna size is not a new art - large and efficient antennas have been the standard method for broadcasting and commercial communications.

- Equal opportunities: As Jim pointed out, a transmitter power based limit would put many of us who have limited space available practically out of business. This discrimination is probably more severe in the low and medium frequency range, compared to HF where even a tiny or makeshift antenna can have reasonable efficiency.

- Learning: It has been stated that the requirement of calibrating one's antenna efficiency adds an additional burdon on the operator, compared to simply measuring TX power - agreed. On the other hand, I think this is a good thing: having to learn these techniques, we are also led to understand a lot more of how an antenna works, and what the basic physical limits are.

- Compatibility and supervision: There is no way of measuring TX power from a distance, and all potential spectrum compatibility issues in the far field would have to be based on ERP assumptions anyway. Limiting transmitter power would seem a bit like imposing a speed limit based on horse power rather than miles per hour... However I have to concede that in close proximity of a small antenna driven by high power, significantly higher reactive nearfields will be present, which may impose additional limits from electromagnetic compatibility issues.

Best wishes to all
Markus, DF6NM


In einer eMail vom 24.05.2007 20:02:55 GMT-Normalzeit schreibt [email protected]:

Dear John, Rik, LF Group,

I would agree with Rik's comments. Experimentation on 136k (and 73k) over
the last several years has given us a pretty good idea of how to optimise
the efficiency of small LF antennas, but it has also shown that, once "best
practice" has been employed, one quickly reaches a point of diminishing
returns where further improvements have negligible effect on the radiated
signal level. Beyond this, significant improvement in antenna performance
can only really be achieved by increasing the physical dimensions of the
antenna, which is usually not feasible for non-technical reasons. The same
is certainly true for 500kHz, although the antennas are effectively a bit
better to begin with. So however much one may strive  to improve antenna
efficiency, and whatever incentives there are, beyond a certain point it
just isn't possible without discovery of some revolutionary and unknown new
antenna design principle, which one cannot rely on ever happening (I
hesitate to mention "Poynting vector synthesis"...). The 1W ERP limit on
136k has given us a fair amount of freedom and flexibility and has led to
some interesting technical challenges and solutions (e.g. how to
economically generate a lot of TX power and feed it into a tiny antenna
without something going up in smoke :-) ) - I don't think the last several
years on LF would have been nearly so rewarding if TX power had been limited
to 10 or 20 watts as is currently being suggested for 500kHz.

Cheers, Jim Moritz
73 de M0BMU



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>