I'll put my tongue in the other cheek and ask how me increasing my TX power
improves the SNR on a received DX signal?
Wes N7WS
On 3/14/2020 4:20 AM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
This is only half tongue-in-cheek.
With the ambient noise going up, and there being limits to the size and cost of
receiving arrays most amateurs can build, the next logical step is to raise the
output power. Perhaps the FCC should be >petitioned to raise the legal limit? They
were supposed to safeguard our frequencies against interference (man-made noise
included), but since they have failed to do that, they should allow more >power to
restore the original signal to noise ratio? (Which some already do, anyway.)
It's a legitimate idea and probably one of the best ways of dealing
with the problem when you think about what can and can't be
controlled. I've been seriously suggesting the power limit be raised
or eliminated for a few years now. Eliminating the power limit isn't
as horrible as it sounds at first, because there are a lot of other
factors that would prevent a ham from running crazy high power, but I
don't want to digress off into that here. Unfortunately just raising
the power limit is probably never going to happen. U.S. hams already
have it pretty good compared to some other countries, and the RF
exposure hysteria, which disregards the fact that about 99.9% of ham
operations are harmless, would prevent it. Also, the power socialists
who think everyone should be limited to 100 watts would jam FCC with
objections. By the way, the power limit debate goes back to the
1930s; it isn't new, but the noise floor problem is relatively new.
You can only do so much with rx antennas, phasing, DSP (which always
adds distortion from my experience), filters and tx antennas. Of all
the ham band allocations, medium wave is probably most in need of
power.
73
Rob
K5UJ
_________________
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_________________
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
|