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: [1] 2 3 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: WAS running 100 milliwatts  (Read 18264 times)
WB0FDJ
Member

Posts: 137




Ignore
« on: February 11, 2014, 10:14:38 PM »

Just read an article in 73 about a guy who earned his WAS running 100 milliwatts. He wasn't using a big antenna farm either. It's an interesting read.
So for fun I went back through a few years of my log and discovered that I've worked 9 states on less than a watt. Best "DX" was CA and Edmonton, Alberta from MN.
Anyone out there doing in milliwatt work? It's gets me to thinking.....and that's a dangerous thing  Grin

WB0FDJ Doc
Logged
WB0FDJ
Member

Posts: 137




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: February 11, 2014, 10:16:20 PM »

Sorry, senility has apparently set in when I wasn't looking. It was CQ magazine.

Doc
Logged
K0OD
Member

Posts: 2539




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: February 12, 2014, 10:35:09 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.



Logged
NU4B
Member

Posts: 2194




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: February 12, 2014, 01:28:55 PM »

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


Yes!   Grin


Because your assuming the other guy is doing 90% of the work. Maybe sometimes, maybe not.

Antennas can do part of the work, propagation can do a bunch of the work, having an efficient station can do part of the work.
If FT5ZM can copy my 5 watt signal in a pileup without any question, I think I had at least a decent signal. I'm not saying the op wasn't a great op, because he is (N2OO). But I've worked enough 2XQRP Q's to know what a QRP signal sounds like. Can they be tough to copy? No doubt. Can they be easy to copy? Most definitely. But 100 watt stations can be hard to copy. 1000 watt stations can be hard to copy.

Power is no substitute for knowledge and skill!  Grin
Logged
W1JKA
Member

Posts: 1619




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: February 12, 2014, 01:57:41 PM »

Life is to short to feel guilty about any hobby especially ham radio.
 
From the size of some ham's oversized guts I've seen in "Shack Showcase" it would definitely be to their benefit to WORK all the QRP boys they could.
Logged
K0OD
Member

Posts: 2539




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: February 12, 2014, 02:32:37 PM »

Quote
From the size of some ham's oversized guts I've seen in "Shack Showcase" it would definitely be to their benefit to WORK all the QRP boys they could.

Huh??? Was that meant for me? I'm not in "shack showcase" whatever that is, and I'm 5'10" 185 lbs.  I do have a gut... but it's somewhere between QRP and QRPp-sized.
Logged
W1JKA
Member

Posts: 1619




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: February 12, 2014, 02:54:10 PM »

Re: K0OD

No, not you (just a general observation). Shack Showcase, bottom right hand corner eHam home page.
Logged
KE7TMA
Member

Posts: 467




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: February 13, 2014, 03:28:53 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.


I've worked many stations in the short 9 months I have been active on HF CW with 3 watts, generally.  While some have really had to work to hear me, many report 579 to 599.  An efficient antenna on my end probably helps me achieve the same or similar results that somebody using a 100w rig into a lousy trapped vertical would obtain. The other guy either hears you or he doesn't - S3 or S9 sound pretty close when you are working CW.  Many are quite shocked when I tell them what kind of power I am running, likely because it seems like less work than they might have expected.

As far as QSOs go, stateside ones are often the best as far as I am concerned.  It's tough to have a nice chat with somebody overseas once the spotters home in on them - many of these guys, who might not hear me or don't care, will hammer away on the DX in order to tick off a box and get their award.  Stateside folks are not in such demand, and I don't have to worry about getting crowded out by award chasers.

Anyway I don't really understand how using a big beam array and 1500w could be much fun - where's the challenge?  It's just as easy to pick up a telephone or use IRLP from your handy talkie at that point.
Logged
WB0FDJ
Member

Posts: 137




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: February 13, 2014, 06:06:57 AM »

"The other guy either hears you or he doesn't - S3 or S9 sound pretty close when you are working CW." 


Yep, and I think this point is overlooked. I hear a lot about "the work" it takes to hear a QRP station, as if focusing a bit of concentration to copy a signal that isn't S-9 represents foot-pounds or ergs. You either hear a signal or you don't. (And if you run JT-65,JT-9 or PSK  at 2 watts the computer software does the "work"). Back in the day when I was a novice a lot of the old timers took pride in their ability to copy weak signals using nothing more than their "Mod 0, Type I, standard issue" ears.

72 de WB0FDJ
Logged
AA4GA
Member

Posts: 118


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #9 on: February 13, 2014, 11:26:07 AM »

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


Yes!   Grin
Indeed!
 
I really don't think that a lot of non-QRPers realize that *many* QRPers seek out others on the air as well. 

I haven't been on the air much this year - so far 128 QSOs.  Of that, 92 have been other QRPers!  I don't anticipate I'll keep that percentage up, but that's what it is now.  Generally, outside of contests and DXing, more and more of my QSOs are with other QRPers.
Logged

F8WBD
Member

Posts: 63




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: February 13, 2014, 01:46:44 PM »

I know that I seek out other QRP operators. The most satisfying QSOs (for me) are 2x QRP. That is why I have no problem adding /QRP to my call when on 14.060. I announce that to attract other QRPers, not QRO operators.

72
Logged
K5TED
Member

Posts: 703




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: February 14, 2014, 06:12:06 PM »

I know that I seek out other QRP operators. The most satisfying QSOs (for me) are 2x QRP. That is why I have no problem adding /QRP to my call when on 14.060. I announce that to attract other QRPers, not QRO operators.

72

Ironic that SWLs may gladly spend hours listening through qsb, static crashes, just to log that elusive 10kw station in Lower Slobovia, while some hams just don't have the stamina to work a qrp station.
Logged
ZENKI
Member

Posts: 916




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: February 15, 2014, 02:03:02 AM »

If had a suburban ham station I too could not work most milliwatt QRP stations because of the noise levels in the suburbs.

I am always shocked when visiting some hams shacks and turn on their radios and watch their s-meters sit on s7 to s9 of noise. If I had  such a noise level
i would give up ham radio. It is then no surprise that  most hams would struggle working QRP stations.

QRP stations do stand a very good chance when working  something  like WAS  under short  skip stations. Under short skip interstate conditions even 5 watts
with the dipole laying on the ground can make a contact with  low power. If the RX station has no  noisy its very easy. My point has always been that the power level  for what is considered QRP power should be set for the conditions on hand not  by some contest committee  who picked  QRP legal power limit from the air.  I think when you consider what RX noise levels most hams live with,  25 watts can still be called QRP power.
Logged
K0OD
Member

Posts: 2539




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: February 15, 2014, 07:18:04 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.)
Logged
W1JKA
Member

Posts: 1619




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: February 15, 2014, 08:13:04 AM »

Re: K0OD  reply #13

Just curious as to your antenna and height when you made those QRP contacts. I keep a record of all my 2x DX and CONUS QRP contacts antenna info., an informal survey if you will. Thanks
Logged
Pages: [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!