It's all in fun, miles, the simple math, the whole bit. As I pointed
out on slashdot, it's a simpified model. Going to inverse squared is
one step closer to the physics, but it's a slippery slope. You will
want to measure the ERP in the direction used by the propagation path,
factor in the antenna receiving gain sinilarly, use the IONCAP or that
Australian ionosonde data to find the length of the actual propagation
path and refraction angles (It's not like the radio signal goes on a
great circle path! Perhaps the 3d straight-line distance through the
Earth wold be better?), subtract our D layer attenuation, note the
coding gain in dB -- surely there is some gain in QRSS at one hour --
and finally define an acceptable BER (bit error rate). In other words,
you can make it as complicated as you want. Or as simple as 1000 miles
per watt. DX can have a 1000kKM/watt award!
Leigh.
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 12:40 pm, S55M wrote:
Miles per Watt is nonsense data to impress people.because nothing
happens in linear mode!!!So increasing or decreasing power by 10 times
will not expand range by 10 times......
More you go to miliwatts better will be m/W calculated ratio.
Adi
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
