[PaQSO] QRP, Mults, Scoring, et al

[Mark J. Schreiner]

As a QRP operator for the past 3 years in the PAQP it is time to voice 
my opinions.  Before even starting very far into this I would like to 
state that QRP is only defined as the Tx Output Power and does not 
equate to a poor antenna system and in many cases is inversely 
proportional to the antenna capabilities which should be required for 
any good station (for example K3WW when he choses to run QRP from his 
antenna farm, although he is quite QRO-capable as well).  A recent quote 
in QRP Quarterly from QRP ARCI's president Dick Pascoe, G0BPS, stated 
"If you have $5000 for a station, spend $4000 on the antenna and $1000 
on the rig."  This should apply to QRP as well as QRO as the antenna is 
where you will get the most bang for the buck as it helps on both Tx & 
Rx!  So, to assume that QRP = Poor Antenna is surely fallacious 
reasoning.  Although, it is surely true that operators with poor 
antennas are out there at all Tx power levels!  My antennas are never as 
good as I wish they could be but they are usually as good as they can be 
given various boundary conditions (yes, property boundaries included, as 
well as dollars, time and threshold of tolerance that the XYL and 
neighbors have, etc). 

First of all, to one of those early commentaries in this long discussion 
again this year, Bill, K3ANS, thanks for helping me decide whether I 
should put my score toward one club or the other!  Your views were made 
quite clear, and as a member of a mutual club toward which I have been 
submitting my scores toward in the past even before I was an official 
member of that club, your comments were the deciding factor that tipped 
the balance in favor of the QRP club of which I'm also a member.  I've 
agonized over this over the past few years, but no more!  Especially 
since I've been operating QRP in PAQP for the past few years, whether it 
be from Potter, home at Lehigh or this past year in Mifflin.  I've 
always felt a bit torn as to which club's bucket I should be putting my 
score.   Obviously, this decision of mine won't bother you one way or 
the other since you don't participate in the activity anyway, but I sure 
feel a lot better about not having to make a decision about this 
anymore.  Sorry, Grump!

Also, to Bill, K3ANS, since you seem to no longer have an interest in 
operating, don't "indulge" us with stories of your station that "was" 
and try to be a bit more creative with your emails rather than simply 
copying (or at least regurgitating in a rough manner) the same diatribe 
on the reflector year after year.  I think you made pretty much the same 
post about 365 days ago.  If your email program is set to automatically 
make the same post again next year I'll make sure to add a filter to my 
email program to take care of it automatically.  Frankly, it is boring 
to see the same basic thing even if it is only once a year when you 
decide to stir the pot.

While my QSO rate obviously isn't as high as that of the QRO operators, 
I did enjoy a peak rate of 72/hour, which I thought for QRP was pretty 
good.  I also spent a greater percentage of time calling CQ and waiting 
for or responding to answers as I've found that my QSO rates tend to be 
better in this manner because I don't have to wonder if a station can 
hear me, if they answer me, they can hear me, and the QSO goes quick, on 
both ends.  Rarely when I answer somebody else did I have to repeat 
anything, but occasionally this happens, but then it did when I used to 
run Medium Power or QRO as well due to a variety of reasons such as band 
conditions, QRM, etc. and not specifically because one station or 
another is QRP or is loading up a wet noodle located in a underground 
civil defense shelter using a bedspring tuner with a sparkgap radio 
using 50 year old carbon cells that are leaking all over the place and 
in imminent danger of creating another Superfund Cleanup Site.  I don't 
believe for an instant that the only QSOs that are asked for repeats are 
those with QRP stations.  I also found that running CW is much easier 
than Phone for QRP, and the extra points per contact don't hurt either, 
but I do run both as I need all the Phone QSOs I can get to help out the 
score as well. 

The purpose for my operating the PA QSO Party is for my own personal 
enjoyment.  I'm not a hardcore contester, although I do enjoy a few, but 
more for operating, and not necessarily for the chance to go out there 
an win.  I'm not an A-type personality, which most serious contesters 
probably are, but I do like to have fun.  I may have slowed a few folk 
down when I told them about how I was enjoying the QTH in Big Valley, 
watching the Amish going past the farm in their horse and buggy, but 
then again, this is the Friendly QSO Party, is it not?  At least it used 
to be, and I'm trying to do my part to keep it that way.  The way I see 
it, I compete against myself, trying to better my score from the 
previous year, which shows improvement in my station (radio, antennas, 
QTH, accessories, interface to the computer, etc.) and skill (CW 
capability, logging capability, searching out that elusive multiplier 
for a clean sweep, etc.).  My score was slightly lower from Mifflin this 
year than from home in Lehigh, which disappointed me slightly because I 
had three antennas to chose from in MIF while only one in LEH, however 
we are at the very bottom of the sunspot cycle now and we weren't quite 
there last year, so all in all I guess it was in the ballpark anyway.  I 
had a few technical difficulties which would have resulted in a higher 
score had I not had them, and had I operated the full time (I missed the 
first hour as I wasn't quite set up in time and I had a computer that 
crashed with about 1 hour left in the event).  Honestly, though, one of 
the reasons I specifically chose MIF to operate this year was to try to 
break the county record and part of my strategy was by taking advantage 
of the 2x QRP multiplier, which is available to everyone who 
participates if you chose to operate in such a manner.  I believe I 
achieved this goal and I had a lot of fun doing it, and I think I 
represented the county well in handing out QSOs to stations who needed 
MIF, although I understand there were at least 2 or 3 others who 
operated from MIF this year as well (thankfully, so I could get that 
county as a multiplier as well). 

I certainly will agree that the Rx station, not the QRP Tx station, has 
more work to do in making the QSO.  If, however, a station can't hear my 
signal well enough in a reasonable time I don't waste their (or my) 
time, chances are I'll get them later when conditions improve.  The same 
applied when I worked Medium or High Powers as well.  It is still 
seemingly more work for the QRP Tx station as well, though.  I'll 
discuss my opinion of and offer options about the multiplier later, 
though.  I had many contacts that replied that I had a good signal for 
QRP, though, which often makes me wonder what that actually means, since 
there is usually only about a 2 S-Unit difference in 100W versus 5W, a 
variation by which antennas and propagation vary by a greater amount, 
and also given that most stations are much more than 2 S-units above the 
noise level anyway.  When operating in the ARRL November Sweepstakes 
Phone contest two years ago as QRP I was holding and running stations on 
75m (okay, so it was about 4 AM local time when I finally was able to 
accomplish that) and other than the many stations commenting that I had 
a great signal for QRP and that I had a nice score for QRP (I was ahead 
of many "A" stations at that time), one guy commented that something 
must be wrong that a QRP station is holding and runnings stations on 75m 
phone.  Well, I was doing it, and my result that year was 1st place 
Atlantic Division QRP Phone and 5th place in USA-Canada, all with one 
simple antenna. 

Also, here is a simple reminder of the FCC rules, Section 97.313 
Transmitter Power Standards:

(a) An amateur station must use the minimum transmitter power necessary 
to carry out the desired communications. 

See the "period" at the end of that statement?  It doesn't go on to say 
"Except when doing contests" or "Unless you want to have a higher QSO 
rate" other various exceptions.  So, the way I read the FCC rules, all 
stations that I was able to contact with my 5W signal that were running 
Medium or High Power must have been in violation of the rules.  My 
interpretation of the rules is that "desired communications" simply 
means capability of correctly logging a contact, not how far you can get 
the S-meter over the noise floor (or how hard it bangs against the stop 
on the right side of the meter).  So, if all of those QSOs are in 
violation of FCC rules, they should be excluded from participation in 
and disqualified from the event.  Of course, how do I know that I wasn't 
able to make a QSO with even lower power, so even I was in violation of 
the rules for many of the QSOs myself, right?  I experimented with this 
a couple of years ago on 40m CW with R1ANT who was in Antarctica at a 
Russian Research Station and I heard him on the air nearly every night 
around 9:30 PM local time.  After I worked him several nights in a row 
(when propagation was up at least) at 5W I dropped the power the next 
night to 2W and the next night to 1W and the next night to 1/2W.  He 
nearly always came back to me.  Obviously he had a great Rx antenna down 
there, I'm sure he had the real estate for it!  I'd have to look back 
through my log to see if I worked him at 1/4 Watt or if the last QSO was 
at 1/2W, but either way, I'm not sure if that was the lower limit of our 
capability of making a QSO.  I didn't slow him down for our QSO and have 
to repeat lots of info for him to finally get it in the log, I worked 
him as quickly as others running (I assume) higher power.  So, QRP does 
not automatically relate to lower QSO rates or more specifically a 
longer time to complete one QSO, it depends more on the propagation 
path. Who knows, the next night after a solar flare I may not have been 
able to make the same QSO using any legal amount of power (or more), so 
obviously the threshold for "minimum" changes with a variety of variables. 

Okay, my view on the multiplier for QRP is this.  Since it is in the 
rules, I enjoy taking advantage of it, regardless of who has to "work 
harder" for the QSO to get in both the Tx and Rx stations logbooks.  I'm 
pretty sure that it is an advantage to me over the Medium Power stations 
since I think I work over 1/2 of the stations I would have had I been 
using Medium Power anyway.  Some other contests, QRP ARCI, for example, 
give various multipliers for lower power levels, I think all the way 
down to x17 for < 50 mW.  They may break out separate categories for 
each power level multiplier, I forget.  Then there is the Stew Perry 
160m contest which gives the Rx station more points for working QRP 
stations (and has different points based on distance zones), but there 
is a separate QRP category for this contest as well.  Interestingly 
enough the person logging and the exchange does not indicate QRP as I 
recall so the group who administers the contest ends up doing some 
corrections and scoring out of all of the received logs.  Many contests 
out there have separate categories for QRP, and some, such as ARRL Field 
Day, provide for a multiplier for QRP.  So, looking across all contests, 
there is a wide variety of how the QRP multiplier (1x, 2x, etc up to 
about 17x) and QRP category or non-categorized is handled.  The rules 
are what the rules are, and everyone has the same opportunity to play 
the game however they feel they will be able to be most competitive (or 
in my case have the most fun, does anyone else feel that way or am I the 
only one?).  There is no unfair advantage to a Medium Power or QRO 
operator because they don't get the 2x multiplier, they had the same 
opportunity to take advantage of it but chose not to.  It is that simple. 

Okay, now since QRP operators are in competition only against QRP 
operators anyway, what is the issue about the 2x mult?  It shouldn't 
matter.  Except, it does when you look at the All Time Records.  Some of 
the county records are specified as having been set by a station who 
operated QRP, and therefore had the 2x multiplier.  Obviously this is 
what the main issue must be for all of you, or am I missing some other 
point?  Well, then maybe what should be done is (sorry, but this would 
involve more work for the chairman and organizers to figure this out 
going back through the past years results) recording multiple records 
for each county, with each category separately.  This way for any given 
county there is a record for QRP category, Medium Power category and 
High Power category.  Oh, I guess this would have to be expanded for 
other things as well such as CW only, etc., but you get the idea, right? 

Now, what else did I miss in the QRP argument, er, I mean discussion?  
Oh yeah, I guess some folk are not happy that their Medium and High 
Power operations and otherwise excellent score with say 800 to 1000 or 
more QSOs can actually (occasionally, sometimes, as shown by Goody  but 
not very often and unlikely statistically) be beaten and lose the "First 
Place Overall for XYZ County in the Year 2XYZ" to a QRP operator that 
had less than 1/2 the QSOs.  Hmm, I do see that it would be quite a bit 
of sand grinding away at the well running gears of a great contest 
station, but c'mon, you big guns like the competition, right?  Well, 
again, the only thing I have to offer is that the same rules apply to 
everyone, so it was your choice to not take advantage of the 2x 
multiplier by not running QRP.  I played by the same rules, just chose a 
different path to get to the finish line.  I do sympathize with your 
disappointment that such a situation could happen, but I would not vote 
to change it.  I'd likely be outvoted, but frankly, I'm not sure voting 
counts here anyway, I didn't see anything in the rules that said this 
was a democracy, just that the rules are administered by NARC.  We all 
have Mike's ear right now, though, and whatever he decides we will all 
have to either play the game as the rules are written or go do something 
else.

Okay, so if the rules were changed to not have the 2x Multiplier for QRP 
I would have to think a bit harder about how I would operate.  I may 
still do QRP because I like to and because I'll be competing against 
other QRP stations.  On the other hand I may decide that I'll try out 
the BIG AMP again with my reforged skills acquired while operating QRP 
and see how that goes.  Or maybe just have fun a different way and 
operate with 100W like I used to several years ago.  I'm not sure how I 
would do it, but guaranteed, as much as I like this QSO Party and enjoy 
working familiar callsigns year after year (I'm getting used to many of 
these callsigns now, I hope the "foreign" NK8Q is getting more familiar 
to you all here as well) as well as some new ones that pop in there now 
and again.  Again, the purpose of the event for me is to have fun and 
secondarily more of a contest against myself.

Regarding the "last hour" I know I made QSOs, although my rate dropped 
down.  I'm just glad there is a time to be able to sleep during the 
contest, so I don't mind that it finishes so late.  Then again, I'm 
probably much younger than most of you, so check back with me in another 
20 years and I'll tell you a different story then, I'm sure!  Again, I'm 
used to contests that go 24 to 36 to 48 hours straight through.  I enjoy 
the operating regardless so I would vote NOT to shorten the contest 
period in any way (knowing that my vote doesn't count anyway).  Sunday 
evening a couple of hours after the PAQP was done I had fun operating on 
160m CW (yes, QRP of course, what a hoot working DX on 160m while QRP!) 
for a while.  Of course, I had taken Monday as a vacation day so I could 
tear down the antennas from my Mifflin portable QTH and drive home.

Regarding the strange scoring which doesn't allow some programs to score 
correctly, I would be in favor of changing it but I would hesitate to do 
so because of all the prior records.  If we can all agree that a clean 
slate is okay, maintain a copy of the records prior to the change in 
rules, and go forward with new scoring that would be more universal for 
logging programs such as N1MM, that would be fine with me as well. 

Regarding choice of logging programs, I used a very old laptop and so 
was somewhat resource limited.  I wanted to be able to do CW with LPT 
keying and rig control to capture frequency and mode info automatically 
for logging via a COM port (RS-232).  I had used Don Reamers program in 
the past his program didn't support LPT keying and I only had one serial 
port.  I used WinEQF however I would NOT recommend this to anyone  for 
PAQP and I'll use something else next year.  I prefer to use N1MM for 
all my other logging here at home on my desktop computer.  Maybe I'll 
have to upgrade to a better laptop for the next contest, however by 
"better" I may lose the LPT and COM Ports as well, so I'll have to be 
careful here.  Maybe I should have one of my spare desktop compukers 
configured and ready to go portable with me, not as convenient as a 
laptop, but maybe the best solution.  I'll have to look into that one 
somebody has mentioned, WB3W or whatever it was.  If the scoring changes 
for allowing N1MM to more accurately score the PAQP I'd likely use that 
program.  I highly recommend it to anyone to check out. Somebody 
mentioned signing up to the Yahoo Group or something, but I've never 
done that, just gotten the updates from the website occasionally.  Seems 
to work well for me, but then I'm not a serious contester, just pretty 
casual.

Thanks to all who listened for and worked my QRP station!  I'm looking 
forward to working many of you again from Snyder County next year.

73,

Mark, NK8Q