Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: lars@salt.acc.com (Lars J Poulsen) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: First Time Cellular Phone Buyer Needs Advice Message-ID: <2346@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 21 Dec 89 17:38:08 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Reply-To: Lars J Poulsen Organization: Advanced Computer Communications, Santa Barbara, California Lines: 23 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 586, message 9 of 9 In article <2319@accuvax.nwu.edu> motcid!sirakide%cell.mot.COM@uunet.uu.net (Dean Sirakides) writes: > ... *four* watts is the maximum legal power that a >cellular radio may transmit. This is what is meant by ERP--Effective >Radiated Power. The *three* watts refered to by most ads is the >*chasis* power of the device. However, after antenna gain this is >increased, but should not exceed 4 watts nominal ERP. If 3 watts of power goes into the transmitter, I do not see how the laws of physics would allow 4 watts to be radiated into the electro- magnetic field ? Or is "4 Watts ERP" a derated number sortof like "the power that would be radiated out of a 4-watt transmitter using 1930's technology", meaning that the energy content of the field is really more like 1.5 Watts ? / Lars Poulsen (800) 222-7308 or (805) 963-9431 ext 358 ACC Customer Service Affiliation stated for identification only My employer probably would not agree if he knew what I said !!