[BC] "mV/m/kW"

[Richard Fry]

> We do seem to have had significant thread drift on this one.

For the sake of discussion, and while not wishing to rankle anyone, below 
are some comments based on previous clips on this topic from the thread 
titled "need a NON-technical explanation."

These clips were made in response to my post, "Although it is widely used, 
"mV/m/kW" for the IDF at some distance is not scientifically accurate, IMO. 
It implies that the IDF is directly proportional to power." ...

> mV/m/kW, with the implicit understanding that power is actually 
> incorporated by reference to 1 kilowatt, ...  This is a very specialized 
> area of engineering, and if an "uninformed" correspondent cannot conform 
> to the requirements, tough luck.

> Those who are "skilled in the art" KNOW that one MUST apply a factor which 
> is the SQUARE ROOT of the power, if above 1 kW, or the SQUARE ROOT of the 
> power, if below 1 kW, to the required minimum efficiency, or PRECISELY 
> ONE, if precisely 1 kW.

> Or should this "efficiency" just be an antenna gain in dBi?

It is possible to calculate the exact inverse distance field intensity in 
volts/meter at any distance, when antenna system gain in dBi and applied 
power are known.  Likewise, the antenna system gain in dBi can be calculated 
exactly from a known field intensity at 1 km when using 1 kW of applied 
power (e.g., the FCC efficiency of the antenna system).

Such methods could determine both the FCC efficiency, which always is based 
on 1 kilowatt of applied power, plus the IDFs for all other power levels --  
AND without requiring any implicit understanding, luck, or further 
mathematical manipulations by those either skilled, or unskilled in the art 
(not that this is likely to happen).

RF