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]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: WAS running 100 milliwatts  (Read 19574 times)
AA4GA
Member

Posts: 120


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #30 on: February 27, 2014, 08:05:26 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.
Where do you get that?  It is certainly usable on any band, any mode, but "adequate"?  Define "adequate".  To me, that would be "adequate for my enjoyment", and QRP suffices at present.  If one defines "adequate" as "adequate for reliable communications under all conditions", I know of no one who would say QRP operation meets that definition.

Quote
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.
Once again, you have proven your ignorance.  The "generally accepted" definition of what constitutes "QRP" is 5 Watts - that is promulgated by QRPARCI and most QRP operators.  Most contests do adhere to that definition, yes, but they do not define what QRP is for anyone but themselves.  I will add that the stated purpose of this forum on eHam is to discuss operations at 5 Watts or less.  Which tends to make most of your posts off-topic here.

Quote
I am more interested in what the practical lower power limit is for reliable communications.
That is *you*.  That is not the generally accepted QRP power definition.  Nor is it the stated purpose of this forum.  As NU4B states, you're welcome to do what you want...but that doesn't make your comments valid here, as it is not a discussion of operations at 5 Watts and below.

Why you can't comprehend that, I don't know!  Unless you're just an unlicensed troll.  Wait...that seems to be the case!

I know many here have asked your callsign, yet you silently ignore these requests - why?  Why should we presume you even have a license if you won't tell us who you are?  Why should anyone grant your comments any credibility at all?

Quote
There are better ways of doing QRP that is still within the spirit of the QRP philosophy without  depending on silly contest rules
OK, I get it.  You don't like contests.  Again, wrong forum.

Logged

W1JKA
Member

Posts: 1765




Ignore
« Reply #31 on: February 27, 2014, 08:38:59 AM »

  If in fact ZINKY is a troller (licensed or not)  you have to give him credit for catching his share of fish in this pond and others. MY opinion, never rise to artificial bait.
Logged
AA4GA
Member

Posts: 120


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #32 on: February 27, 2014, 08:50:26 AM »

  If in fact ZINKY is a troller (licensed or not)  you have to give him credit for catching his share of fish in this pond and others.
Indeed, that is true.  The problem I have with ignoring people like that is that if they post uncontested, some unsuspecting newcomer may come by and actually give credence to those posts.  In many cases, the "internet experts" are just wrong.
Logged

K8AG
Member

Posts: 352




Ignore
« Reply #33 on: February 27, 2014, 01:31:10 PM »

My best is about 40000 miles per watt right now.  That with 100mw to Europe from a wire in the trees in my yard.

It is all possible.  But you need to be opportunistic.  WAS would be cool.  HI is > 40000 mpw.

72, JP, K8AG
Logged
AE5X
Member

Posts: 405


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #34 on: February 28, 2014, 11:28:13 AM »

The problem I have with ignoring people like that is that if they post uncontested, some unsuspecting newcomer may come by and actually give credence to those posts.  In many cases, the "internet experts" are just wrong.

You've got your work cut out for you then...



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

Posts: 405


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #35 on: February 28, 2014, 11:37:00 AM »

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.

DXer extraordinaire Bob W9KNI also has a more relaxed view of QRP - perhaps it should be called qrp to differentiate it from the "contest legal" definition...

He writes about his experiences with a 10-12 watt K2 in 'QRP Musings' which can be read here:
http://www.elecraft.com/TechNotes/QRP_Musings_CQ.pdf

John AE5X
http://www.ae5x.com/blog
Logged
AA4GA
Member

Posts: 120


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #36 on: February 28, 2014, 03:21:50 PM »


You've got your work cut out for you then...


So that's why I'm sleepy! 
Logged

KE7TMA
Member

Posts: 471




Ignore
« Reply #37 on: March 12, 2014, 11:36:17 PM »

The convenience of a HFpack is just unbeatable.

Channelized operation on many models is a deal killer.  So is the cost.  So is the fact that they generally lack adjustable / optional filters, noise blanker, noise reduction, and so forth.  It might be a fun hobby but I view it as even more of an analog to the polar bear club (that's when people jump into a freezing lake in the dead of winter) than QRP operation.  I can operate all day off the internal AAs, or for a whole week off two 6v lantern batteries or my little AGM or an Antigravity XP1.  The whole setup rig fits into a Pelican 1200 case, weighs less than 3 pounds, and when sealed up tight is even more waterproof and rugged than any manpack.

I think manpacks are neat and would like one just for S's and G's some day but to say that they are convenient?  That's pushing things pretty far.
Logged
NO2A
Member

Posts: 800




Ignore
« Reply #38 on: March 13, 2014, 11:23:19 AM »

Congrats to the other 50 hams who made the effort to dig out his really weak signal.

I've worked Europe with one of those $39 Ramsey kit transmitters that puts out about one watt. I've worked over 100 countries, including Japan on 80 CW, with various 5 watt transmitters over the years. I've won several certificates in major DX contests using 5 watts.

But am I the only one who feels guilty when I make the other guy do 90% of the work to contact me?

Life's Too Short For 339 Stateside Qs.




How`d you ever do that on 80m?
Logged
VE3LYX
Member

Posts: 141




Ignore
« Reply #39 on: March 19, 2014, 10:18:13 AM »


"I am always shocked when visiting some hams shacks and turn on their radios and watch their s-meters sit on s7 to s9 noise level"
If hams spent as much time working on reducing rx noise level as they do on transmitter power the world would be a very different place. having built a Beverage antenna of sorts I am now probably worse then a reformed smoker but on most days there is almost no noise. So simple. So inexpensive and yet day after day I hear how this one or that has  noise level of almost S9. While I have had some success with Vintage QRP (1929 TNT , 1930s mopa, 50L6 cw rig) my success with solid state rigs has been a big fat zero even though power out is decent. Must be the lack of hum making me hard to hear. Have two transistorized rigs beside me right now. One about 3 watts and one probably just above the 5watt level.  80M and 20M. Hopefully someday I will figure that out too.  I have no idea what I am doing wrong. I can hear other stations easily. It is my impression at least that with 100 MW from tis QTH success would be about impossible. based on my lack of success with the above.
don
« Last Edit: March 19, 2014, 10:20:47 AM by VE3LYX » Logged
KI6LZ
Member

Posts: 587




Ignore
« Reply #40 on: March 19, 2014, 10:31:52 AM »

One can reduce receiver noise by using a dummy load. My typical noise level on 40 M at night is S6, will get worse as summer nears. If the noise is less then that, I know I have a problem with my antenna or the ionosphere has burped. I don't have room for long beverages which in some cases improve the S/N ratio at the cost of reducing the signal strength by 20 db or more. And one can't transmit on a Beverage or other low noise antennas which are designed only for reception.

Most use a transmit antenna and receive antenna on the lower bands.
Logged
W1JKA
Member

Posts: 1765




Ignore
« Reply #41 on: March 19, 2014, 11:12:05 AM »

Re: VE3YLX  reply #39

  Your right on the money when it comes to the quality of a nice tube rig CW note compared to the  flattish tinny solid state CW note, I've resigned myself to the fact that it has something to do with my age and compensated for it with adding HiPerMite audio filters to my QRP rigs and using my old Autec QF-1A on my IC-7200 to bypass that DSP B.S.

   As far 20m QRP receiver noise issues go I conquered that problem easily with a Hex beam when I realized the majority of my 2X QRP DX contacts were using either a Hex or Moxon, they are quiet and you can hear and work the weak signals that were other wise lost with my old dipoles and half squares, I won't even go into the Vertical fiasco with QRP. Now I just wish I had the room and support for a 30/40m Hex, but that won't happen in this lifetime.
  
Logged
KE7TMA
Member

Posts: 471




Ignore
« Reply #42 on: March 21, 2014, 08:50:40 PM »

One can reduce receiver noise by using a dummy load. My typical noise level on 40 M at night is S6, will get worse as summer nears. If the noise is less then that, I know I have a problem with my antenna or the ionosphere has burped. I don't have room for long beverages which in some cases improve the S/N ratio at the cost of reducing the signal strength by 20 db or more. And one can't transmit on a Beverage or other low noise antennas which are designed only for reception.

Most use a transmit antenna and receive antenna on the lower bands.

S6 is crazy noisy.  Have you an attenuator?  You're probably never going to hear anything below the noise floor anyway so you might as well take a break on your ears.  I always adjust my preamps and attenuator so that my noise is S0-S1, S2 at the most.  Why run your receiver so hot that you're just getting 'spheric noise all the time?  I'd drop $40 on an outboard attenuator if your rig doesn't have one, or kill the preamps.
Logged
KI6LZ
Member

Posts: 587




Ignore
« Reply #43 on: March 29, 2014, 06:56:24 PM »

I was just saying what my typical noise level is using the defined S9=-73dbm and 6 db per unit. Of course I use attenuation.
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3]   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!