To Quote from over the pond :-
He ... insists that no mathematical
formula, however exact it may appear to be, can be of greater accuracy than the
assumptions on which it is based, and he draws the conclusion that experience
still remains the great teacher and final judge.
-
James Kip Finch
Luckily the regulation body's use the
same desire guide lines that 'we' do , so every one is happy
.... apart from those who insist on working to 6 place's of
decimals from measurements taken with a ex RAF ww2 Ae
currant meter ...
Antennas are a dark art , formulate behind
closed doors with the maths to follow , at Lf we seem to
have geology to contend with as well , surely a constant, but then
again , i'm not a geologist , so I can only guess , so
therefore its ok to make a guess about things we 'don't know' about ...but
that assumes we know about everything else .. ?
I don't see it as a 'problem' as
such, a reasonable amount of work has been done, the results
of which are published and are accepted as 'fit for purpose'
G ..
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 10:32 AM
Subject: LF: ERP at LF
Seems to me that measuring ERP at LF is a bit of a
problem. On here I have read comments referring to a stations ERP by various
operators : 'Estimate', 'Guess', 'Approx.', 'Reckon I'm fairly close
to...', 'Approaching' etc. Nobody REALLY knows exactly! Even Mike's book, 'LF
Today - A guide to success on 136kHz', refers to certain 'estimates' having to
be made. The last sentence on the bottom of p81 just about sums it
up.
I don't know what the answer is, but it is clear
that ERP at LF is far more complex than at VHF/UHF etc. where 'full size'
antennas are generally used.
Chris, G4AYT.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.7/2422 - Release Date:
10/08/09 06:39:00
|
