[amsat-bb] Re: QRP re deux

[Andrew Koenig]

I made my first 50 or so AO-51 contacts using my FT-60 with an offbrand
equivalent of the Diamond NR770HA.

I quickly figured out that it was not a game of power for me, since at the
time I did not have a way to use more power, but rather a game of timing.

BTW: With that omni, AO-51 came in at about an S2 at the most.

On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 6:51 AM, Michael Heim <kd0ar at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> I'd like to weigh in on this topic with my 2 cents worth, being a long time
> QRP operator on various bands and modes...
>
> I think QRP means soething different depending on what kind of operating
> you do.  On HF, its generally 5 watts into a simple antenna, such as a
> dipole or vertical.
>
> HF digital, there isnt much of a distinction (psk31) as many run 5 watts
> into a dipole vs maybe 20-30 watts into a similar antenna for QRO?
>
> I operate VHF and microwave.  to me, on 2m SSB tropo, I consider QRP to
> be 5-10 watts into whatever and however large an array you can muster,
> as most QRO stations run 50 watts or more into a similar antenna.
>
> EME ops typically defines QRP as anything under about 500 watts or so into
> a single yagi. (no matter how large that single yagi is)
>
> Meteor Scatter I've been called QRP running 50 watts into 10 elements.
>
> However, on 10 GHz, I run 2 watts into a 18 inch offset fed dish, and I do
> NOT consider myself QRP.  I'm an "average powered station" with that setup.
> When I ran 200 mW into the same dish, it was questionable even then if I
> could consider myself QRP.  2 watts = about 2-4KW ERP, 200 mw -= 200-400W
> ERP.  (I havent actually MEASURED the gain, this is calculated ERP)
>
> QRP is a relative term.  Depending on what kind of operating you do, ERP
> certainly does take into account whether you're QRP or not.
>
> I think in the satellite realm, I would understand QRP to be 5 watts or
> less into a low gain antenna.  Maybe I'm wrong about this, as I'm still a
> relative newcomer, however  This puts everyone on an even keel as far
> as someone stepping over another to make it fair for everyone.  I know there
> are operators on the main channel that might tweak up the power to get thru
> on a busy channel.  I know, because I have when I started out.  I have
> realised it wasnt right, and now my power stays at 5 watts on the 857.  Do i
> consider myself QRP on AO-51?  well, with my homebrew 3 ele/6 ele V/u
> antenna on a fixed elevation mount, yea, at times I do, when running 5
> watts.  I actually have LESS antenna gain than someone would have with a
> handheld yagi because the antenna is hardly ever pointing right at the bird.
>
> The QRP channel does provide some interesting experimentation like what
> Tim, N3TL and others have done, exploring "how low can you go" and still
> make contact.  To me, THAT is the kind of experimentation that seems like a
> logical purpose for the "QRP" channel.
>
> As a side note, hasnt the rule always been to run just enough signal to
> achieve a downlink of reasonable quality?  I remember this from my AO-10
> days.  Too much power on an SSB bird robs power from everyone.  Too much
> power on an FM bird robs others from getting in.
>  Michael Heim
> Chief Engineer, Forever Broadcasting
> New Castle PA
> WKST WJST WWGY
>  814-671-0666
> ARS KD0AR
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Sebastian <w4as at bellsouth.net>
> To: AMSAT BB <AMSAT-BB at amsat.org>
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 11:10:45 PM
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: QRP re deux
>
> I agree 100% with you Jim.
>
> If you look at it another way.  Standing on relatively flat terrain
> with 5 watts from an HT on a simplex channel will give you a mile or
> so on FM.
>
> That same 5 watts from the same HT at the Empire State Building
> observation deck will give you coverage to several miles, if not
> several states.
>
> Either of those two scenarios, I consider to be QRP.
>
> 73 de W4AS
> Sebastian
>
> On Dec 19, 2008, at 6:49 PM, Jim Danehy wrote:
>
> > the premise that I follow is that QRP in the ham fraternity for
> > decades prior to AMSAT was 5 watts output from the final stage of
> > the transmitter . . .  any other attempt which hopes to replicate
> > that simplistic approach is speculation based upon a dynamic that is
> > flawed from lack of accurate measurements . . . and constantly
> > changing parameters . .
> >
> > HAPPY  HOLIDAYS
> >
> > Jim W9VNE
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>



-- 
Andrew Koenig