Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: WAS running 100 milliwatts  (Read 17823 times)
AA4GA
Member

Posts: 118


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #15 on: February 15, 2014, 08:50:51 AM »

Dabbled briefly in the ARRL CW DX contest last night and had absolutely no problem making Qs with 5 watts on 40 meters. Worked 3 Finnish stations, one in Norway, plus scarce JW/ DL5CW. Conditions seemed fabulous. Could probably have worked most of them with one watt.

100 mW would be tough. If I had a way to measure my output that low, I'd be tempted to try it. I know WAC has been worked with less than 100 mW. (probably easily on 10 meters long ago.)
Since I'm just in and out of the shack this weekend, I decided to operate the ARRL DX Contest sub-1-Watt.  I found 40 and 80 tough last night, with only three QSOs per band, but I didn't try very hard either...due to my ineffective antenna for DX on those bands.  I've made a slow sweep on 10/15/20 this morning and now have a total of 55 QSOs x 51 mults using 900 mW out of the KX3 into an 80m doublet up about 40-ish feet.  Condx do seem pretty decent, but I definitely can tell a difference with my 7 dB smaller signal compared to the 5 Watts I'm used to...I'm missing a lot of stations I think I'd get at 5 Watts.

Oh, that represents 34 different DXCC countries (still need Asia and Oceana for WAC)...I may decide to try to work DXCC at 1 Watt and under...and after that, maybe at the 100 mW level...but I think I'll need to do some antenna work before that happens!

Not sure if I'll get on much more this weekend, if at all.
Logged

K0OD
Member

Posts: 2533




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: February 15, 2014, 09:03:19 AM »

Last night I used my OHR-100A 40 meter kit transceiver and Timewave DSP-9 audio filter with a ground mounted DXE 43' vertical. QTH is suburban St Louis, Mo. My transceiver has the optional 10X tuning pot and outboard Digital Dial much like the picture below. 

Made 23 Qs in a very casual 2 hours of operating, mostly around midnight local time.
I only called one station that didn't reply, a Russian who seemed to be struggling with QRM.

Logged
K0OD
Member

Posts: 2533




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: February 15, 2014, 09:36:10 AM »

AA4GA:
Quote
I may decide to try to work DXCC at 1 Watt and under...and after that, maybe at the 100 mW level...but I think I'll need to do some antenna work before that happens!

I was surprised to hear strong clear Scandinavians. Often when you hear them on 40 they have fuzzy polar flutter that requires some real horse power to cut through.

Yes, going to 1 watt would cost about 7 dB. That MIGHT be a fun challenge. But using 100 mW would slice off another 10 dB... altogether about 3 S-units below normal QRP levels.  Would that be fun?
Logged
AA4GA
Member

Posts: 118


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #18 on: February 15, 2014, 11:39:08 AM »

Probably not without better antennas!

But maybe for WAS with what I've got.  Yes, another 10 dB would make it much tougher!
Logged

K0OD
Member

Posts: 2533




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: February 16, 2014, 09:24:34 AM »

Here's an impressive table from WD3P who worked QRPp WAS (from the east coast! ) with several contacts at less than 5 mW. Best "miles per watt" was 487, 650!

He used only dipoles and says his "current goal is to work all states at 10,000 miles per watt." 
http://www.wd3p.net/qrp/was_qrpp.htm

One of his nuttier pursuits was working WAS powered only with a 9v battery!

Logged
AE5X
Member

Posts: 369


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #20 on: February 17, 2014, 04:27:55 AM »

Randy AA2U has worked DXCC with 100 milliwatts.

John AE5X
http://www.ae5x.com/blog
Logged
K0OD
Member

Posts: 2533




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: February 17, 2014, 10:51:36 AM »

Quote
Randy AA2U has worked DXCC with 100 milliwatts.

I see online references to AA2U running stacked 6 element tribanders with the top at 90'. He lives a few blocks from the Atlantic.  That's about equivalent to working DXCC from the midwest with a dipole or vertical and 5 watts... which is easy, even in a good CQWW weekend.

DXing with 100 mW is really, really, really tough, but not so much in his situation.
Logged
AE5X
Member

Posts: 369


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #22 on: February 17, 2014, 12:22:19 PM »



DXing with 100 mW is really, really, really tough, but not so much in his situation.


...and he's worked 5B-DXCC with 5 watts.

John AE5X
http://www.ae5x.com/blog
Logged
K0OD
Member

Posts: 2533




Ignore
« Reply #23 on: February 17, 2014, 02:39:57 PM »

Quote
..and he's worked 5B-DXCC with 5 watts.

Piece of cake working EU/Africa from his location on any band. One thing that's rarely discussed is that coastal stations enjoy periods when the rest of the country isn't competitive. For example, around their sunset on 80 meters.

He also has a salt water path to much of the Caribbean and SA. Then there's long path to the Pacific/Australia and (with some luck) SE Asia.

When Midwesterners find goodies, there are always two or more US time zones hearing it too.
Logged
WB4M
Member

Posts: 115




Ignore
« Reply #24 on: February 21, 2014, 08:52:11 AM »

Odd how so many hams think if you are transmitting QRP then you have a 339 signal or lower.  I guess they also believe their 1500 watts is an automatic S-9 or better.
Logged
W1JKA
Member

Posts: 1619




Ignore
« Reply #25 on: February 21, 2014, 12:52:38 PM »

Re: WB4M  reply #24

  I don't think it so much as being odd but more likely that these hams who think this way have never tried QRP or maybe tried it a few times and failed due to lack of basic QRP knowledge and operating practices.
Logged
ZENKI
Member

Posts: 906




Ignore
« Reply #26 on: February 24, 2014, 12:59:18 AM »

Well please define the distance, the band, the sunspot numbers, locations and the receiving stations antenna.

Just assuming that success can be had  using 100 milliwatts to work all areas of the world under all sunspot conditions and that the receiving station  can use a attic dipole is arrogance at its best.

The transatlantic path from the USA is an easy one even for 100 milliwats QRP. How about trying the same from the East coast into Asia. different ball game and very tough.
You have to be balanced and sensible about making claims about QRP operations and then generalizing that experience to the rest of the world. Life is just not that simple.

This does not mean if you like this sort of operating that you cant try it or that it cant be done and enjoyed.
Logged
AA4GA
Member

Posts: 118


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #27 on: February 24, 2014, 03:19:23 PM »

Just assuming that success can be had  using 100 milliwatts to work all areas of the world under all sunspot conditions and that the receiving station  can use a attic dipole is arrogance at its best.

Anyone here see anyone make this assumption?
Logged

ZENKI
Member

Posts: 906




Ignore
« Reply #28 on: February 26, 2014, 03:42:07 AM »

Well its the  consensus amongst  most QRP operators who believe that using QRP  is adequate to do the job on any mode or band. It also comes about with the arrogant assumption that the 5 watt  legal QRP  limit is something that should be carved into rock because the contest committee decided that that was the legal limit for a contest. I am more interested in what the practical lower power limit is for reliable communications. Doing this analysis could produce more user friendly QRP equipment that  has minimal disadvantage when compared to the equivalent 100 watt station. If this limit varies from band  to band and  from mode to mode so be it. Thats the correct way of going about setting the power limit. Its all about the signal to noise ratio not what power limit the contest committee plucked out of the sky. Hey its a free world I dont operate in QRP contrests however I do operate with a 25 watt HF manpack and a 10 watt Elecraft K2. With simple antennas and 25 watts the  experience is far more enjoyable and has numerous advantages over say packing a K2 with  a bag full of crap that fills up a desk. The convenience of a HFpack is just unbeatable. This is not to say a radio like the K2, FT817,  KX or whatever cant be configured to offer the same versatility. The bottom line for me is that  the tradeoff between battery life and power output is about optimum with 25 watts of output. From a technical perspective doing HF link analysis 25 watts holds up well in terms of area coverage compared to a 100 watt station with simple antennas. Numerous military  forces have had these problems analyzed to death by expert consultants and thats why they still stick with 20  to 30 watts of power. All for very good reasons But hey if you want to contact the other end of the world with 1 milliwatt  and enjoy trying, good luck to you and thats perfectly OK. There are better ways of doing QRP that is still within the spirit of the QRP philosophy without  depending on silly contest rules that plucked a power figure out of the sky.

Just assuming that success can be had  using 100 milliwatts to work all areas of the world under all sunspot conditions and that the receiving station  can use a attic dipole is arrogance at its best.

Anyone here see anyone make this assumption?
Logged
NU4B
Member

Posts: 2167




Ignore
« Reply #29 on: February 26, 2014, 04:37:27 AM »

Well its the  consensus amongst  most QRP operators who believe that using QRP  is adequate to do the job on any mode or band. It also comes about with the arrogant assumption that the 5 watt  legal QRP  limit is something that should be carved into rock because the contest committee decided that that was the legal limit for a contest. I am more interested in what the practical lower power limit is for reliable communications. Doing this analysis could produce more user friendly QRP equipment that  has minimal disadvantage when compared to the equivalent 100 watt station. If this limit varies from band  to band and  from mode to mode so be it. Thats the correct way of going about setting the power limit. Its all about the signal to noise ratio not what power limit the contest committee plucked out of the sky. Hey its a free world I dont operate in QRP contrests however I do operate with a 25 watt HF manpack and a 10 watt Elecraft K2. With simple antennas and 25 watts the  experience is far more enjoyable and has numerous advantages over say packing a K2 with  a bag full of crap that fills up a desk. The convenience of a HFpack is just unbeatable. This is not to say a radio like the K2, FT817,  KX or whatever cant be configured to offer the same versatility. The bottom line for me is that  the tradeoff between battery life and power output is about optimum with 25 watts of output. From a technical perspective doing HF link analysis 25 watts holds up well in terms of area coverage compared to a 100 watt station with simple antennas. Numerous military  forces have had these problems analyzed to death by expert consultants and thats why they still stick with 20  to 30 watts of power. All for very good reasons But hey if you want to contact the other end of the world with 1 milliwatt  and enjoy trying, good luck to you and thats perfectly OK. There are better ways of doing QRP that is still within the spirit of the QRP philosophy without  depending on silly contest rules that plucked a power figure out of the sky.

Just assuming that success can be had  using 100 milliwatts to work all areas of the world under all sunspot conditions and that the receiving station  can use a attic dipole is arrogance at its best.

Anyone here see anyone make this assumption?

Arrogance? You want everyone else to change their definition of QRP for your benefit. So you can say your a QRP operator when your not. That's what I call arrogance.
Operate at whatever output power you want, but don't try to claim to be something your not. And for goodness sake, give it a break. We've already heard this to the point of nausea.
If your comfortable running whatever you run - go for it, do it, enjoy it. Whatever your psychotic need to claim your a QRP operator is beyond me. If you want to be a QRP operator, operate QRP. But don't expect everybody else to redefine their definition of QRP just for you.
If you think contests or their rules are silly - then don't enter them. Most all contests with a QRP category use the 5 watt definition for QRP as does most every QRP club and amateur radio society throughout the world.
If you think we are all silly, then go somewhere else where silly people won't ruin your day.
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!