Then I guess I could just "vaguely" follow the rules, sort of like the
President, his cabinet, the heads of the alphabet soup agencies, IRS, EPA, FBI,
NSA, VA, ICE, DHS,... do.
That said, I think you're making this too complicated. The rule states:
"For the purpose of computing ERP, the transmitter PEP will be multiplied by
the antenna gain relative to a half-wave dipole antenna. A half-wave dipole
antenna will be presumed to have a gain of 1 (0 dBd). Licensees using other
antennas must maintain in their station records either the antenna
manufacturer's data on the antenna gain or calculations of the antenna gain."
Note, there is no mention of any directivity, or lack thereof, so I would take
it that this is a theoretical free-space value. Zero dBd is equal to 2.15 dBi
so modelling another antenna and calculating its gain in dBi, which is the
normal modelling outcome, then subtracting 2.15 from that number yields the gain
relative to an ideal dipole, i.e the FCC reference.
Right away this gives a significant advantage to an actual horizontal dipole
that has ground gain, assuming that the dipole is rotatable and the elevation
angle is favorable for the path. Absent that, and considering the physical size
one would probably use a vertical and bump up the power to account for the
inevitable losses.
Wes N7WS
On 11/12/2015 3:12 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
Your point is, of course, well taken, Wes. BUT -- there's a certain vagueness
to the FCC definition, in that it does not specify mounting height of the
reference dipole, making comparisons to a vertical antenna, which relates to
mounting height quite differently, at least a bit squishy.
73, Jim K9YC
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[email protected]
This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [email protected]
