Talk:Effective radiated power

I was under the impression

That to have any gain an antenna had to be directional. Plugwash 19:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

And indeed they are. The important distinction is between omnidirectional and non-directional or isotropic. Isotropic antennas only exist in theory, but are true point sources of radiation in all three dimensions. An omnidirectional antenna is non-directional in one plane (usually horizontal for broadcast stations) but highly directional in a perpendicular plane. Since there are no real isotropic antennas, broadcasting regulators usually consider omnis to be "non-directional", and only those antennas which exhibit directionality within the horizontal plane are called "directional". You can in addition get into the question of beam tilt, where the omni "pancake" can be pushed out of the horizontal plane -- either mechanically (in which case it's still flat, just at an angle to horizontal) or electrically (in which case the "pancake" turns into a cone). 121a0012 02:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

CITI Inaccuracy

According to the article on CITI, it's effective power, which had been 210,000 watts was reduced in 2002 to 100,000 watts.

In either case, the information presented in this article is inaccurate and should probably be updated or replaced.

Perhaps FM96 in London, Ontario, Canada could be used as an example as it currently outputs the highest ERP in Canada (according to its article) at 179,000 watts. 216.240.7.149 23:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge Equivalent isotropic radiated power into this page?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge

---

What about merging this Equivalent isotropically radiated power into Effective radiated power? The former does have a very similar alternative name, "Effective isotropically radiated power". (Please discuss it here, not there.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.158.200 (talk) 01:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I would be inclinded to merge. It's the same principle just with a different reference antenna. Plugwash (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, they should be merged. There's very little to bring in, anyway. EIRP could just redirect to ERP Thomasonline (talk) 06:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

definitely merge, since the texts are mostly duplicated. but i am unclear about the distinction between ERP and EIRP and how to calculate these. -- 135.23.66.249 (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Support merger, for reasons cited above. @135.23.66.249: I agree that the article needs a mathematical definition; added a "Definitions" section. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

 Done: Merger performed. --Chetvorno^TALK 07:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Formula

Since ERP is a formula, can someone please create it as such. It would be nice to do it in both W/W and dB units. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.121.61 (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

there is no discussion of dish antennas in either article, but dish antennas are both very important and it is easier to calculate directivity with them. -- 135.23.66.249 (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Better explanations needed

I added a bit about CMF (for which I am about to add redirects), but with little knowledge of the field don't want to make sweeping other changes to the article. However I think that based on what I've just read (particularly in the Barclay source), there needs to be more explanation of the US/UK/European differences, and the relationship of all of the terms to FM and AM radio transmission in a way that can be linked to a layperson's understanding as well other Wikipedia articles (e.g. AM broadcasting, FM broadcasting). I suspect that the whole article is rather US-focused. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Definition of EIRP acronym

The EIRP acronym is defined as follow in the article : EIRP as Equivalent Isotropically Radiated Power. But in literature I used, the acronym is defined like Equivalent Isotropic Radiated Power. My native language is French, so I am not sure which term is most suitable.

Thanks for bringing that up. I think it is "Effective Isotropic Radiated Power". That is the term the NIST, and reference books [1], [2], [3] use. --Chetvorno^TALK 17:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)