[Elecraft] # 5607 first contact QRP!

[Dave Barr]

QRP works!  Bottom line is that if you want a lot of DX contacts, you 
need at least a dipole.  With a K2 built in '99, a dipole and a 
tribander (bad qrp word) K2YG has worked 261 countries at 5 watts on 
rtty and 108 with 1 watt.  Many of these are on 40, 17 and 12 meters 
with only the dipole, such as VQ9 on 40 with 5w and VU on 12 with one 
watt.  CW is even easier, but SSB is tougher.  So, throw up a wire with 
open feed if possible, even indoors (with coax feed) if you can attach 
it to the house ridge pole, and avoid verticals and small antennas.   
Then, add patience and persistence.

73, Dave, K2YG


On 2/6/2014 12:02 AM, elecraft-request at mailman.qth.net wrote:
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 25
> Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 18:11:58 -0800
> From: EricJ<eric_csuf at hotmail.com>
> To:elecraft at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] # 5607 first contact QRP!
> Message-ID:<BLU0-SMTP1005D64F825FA84983C84188E940 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
>
> And that's an important point, Don. A poor antenna hooked to a 5 watt
> rig is no different than a poor antenna hooked to a 100 watt rig...in
> receive. Power sometimes gives you an advantage on transmit under
> marginal conditions, but it does nothing on receive as you mention. Then
> you run into the classic "can't work 'em if you can't hear them" barrier
> no matter how much power you run.
>
> I have three boatanchors (2NT, DX40 and Ranger) and they run around
> 50-65 watts INPUT. That's what 90% of hams ran in the 50s and 60s and
> that's only an S unit or so better than my K1 or K2/10.
>
> Anyway, I said what I wanted to say which is most of the argument
> applies to any power level, not just QRP. Part 97 says run no more power
> than necessary. QRP meets that criteria for the majority of operating.
>
> Eric
> KE6US
>
> On 2/5/2014 4:23 PM, Don Wilhelm wrote:
>> >Yes, there are many QRPer's who also frown on beams and other
>> >efficient antennas, but I disagree with that philosophy.  Why 'shoot
>> >yourself in the foot' with a compromise antenna unless your physical
>> >conditions dictate that compromise as a necessity (HOA restrictions,
>> >portable operation, etc.)
>> >
>> >If you operate with 5 watts and an antenna with 3 dB gain, you will
>> >have the equivalent of a 10 watt signal, and if you can achieve an
>> >antenna with 10 dB gain, you have the equivalent of a 50 watt signal
>> >into a dipole. (yes, I know those are extremes).
>> >
>> >Much of the QRP work with compromise antennas is a problem on the
>> >receive side.  If you cannot hear them, you cannot work them.  So why
>> >handicap yourself with inefficient antennas.  Check QRPARCI - you will
>> >find no credits or deductions in their contests for antenna
>> >inefficiency.  Use the best antenna that you have for the task.
>> >
>> >QRP operation will increase your operating skills - listen, listen and
>> >listen, figure out the other stations habits, operate split if
>> >necessary, and call when you think your signal will be heard.
>> >
>> >73,
>> >Don W3FPR
>> >
>> >On 2/5/2014 6:52 PM, Stephen Roberts wrote:
>>> >>You're right of course. It takes some time to get comfortable with
>>> >>QRP and its limitations, and you're right, that it can be a source of
>>> >>frustration for many new hams.  Your are also absolutely right that
>>> >>when you ad a crappy antenna to the mix, it can be very frustrating
>>> >>indeed. But that's the fun of learning and discovering all that is
>>> >>ham radio.
>>> >>
>>> >>I started with an OHR 100a 40m rig and a homebrew magloop antenna set
>>> >>up on a tripod in my kitchen. I was happy as a clam and simply didn't
>>> >>know what I was missing and found plenty of QSO's to keep me occupied
>>> >>while I figured out what it was all about. I had other ham friends
>>> >>telling me that I was setting myself up for disappointment if I
>>> >>didn't get at least a 100W radio, but I stuck it out and never felt
>>> >>that I was missing much. I still feel that way, and I'm still having
>>> >>fun.