Wow Cookie! I wasn't trying to ruin your week, or even your day! I thought I made it fairly clear that how one approaches the hobby is a very individualistic thing. If you want QRO (and big antennas), that's fine! I'm certainly not being critical of that approach. I just don't subscribe to it, that's all.
When I entered the hobby in 1955, there were scads of stations running rigs like an AT-1 (Heathkit) at 30 watts or so INPUT. What do you suppose that converts to in today's methodology of measuring ones' transmitter power based on OUTPUT? It probably wasn't much, if any, more than half that amount. Actually, the maximum power allowed used to be 1 KW INPUT. Now it's 1.5 KW Output. Not a move in the right direction as far as I'm concerned. I don't get upside down about power levels like that, but when some station is 20, 30, or even 40 over S9 don't you think that's a little excessive? The rule has always been that you run only as much power as is "necessary", but that is a rule that has continually been ignored. I probably don't have the right perspective about "newbies", but if they think ham radio should be just like a telephone call from their friend down the street, that escapes me a bit. This smacks of a complete divergence from how ham radio started, and how it remained for most of the last several decades. Working another station always had some uncertainty to it. What I hear you saying is that every QSO should be S9 or better, lest we lose the interest of the newbies. I'm probably one step short of being a fossil, but I want at least some contacts to be a challenge. True, there are plenty of times when you want communication without a hassle, and many aspects of the hobby are based on that. A good "armchair" ragchew is obviously all that many folks want. I say fine! I enjoy that too! But if every aspect of ham radio was strictly armchair, that would bore me to death. If you eliminate challenge from the equation, I just don't think there would be nearly the number of people involved in the hobby. I agree though, not everyone is interested in the least in being challenged. That, I think, is the substance of our disagreement. You, I think, are interested in showing newbies how easy it is to talk to New York City, or Tokyo, and I'm more interested in showing them that it can be done with a minimal amount of investment, or with a somewhat "spartan" setup. I completely agree that some folks may be much more impressed with your approach than mine. I just don't agree that a majority would be find that preferable. Maybe we can agree that it would be a 50-50 split? I've always been somewhat in awe of the various "superstations" that exist, with huge antennas and high dollar gear, etc. But I have never been inclined to want to emulate those stations. I certainly can afford a much more exotic station than I have, but it just doesn't appeal to me. The easier it gets, the less interested I am. It's that simple. I've spent a fair amount of money on radios, like my K3, but to be honest with you my KX-1 can give me a bigger kick. If I work a DXpedition with my K3, and then later with my KX-1, which one do you think I'm going to talk about more? So, if what you say is true, that most newbies want it "easy", I don't think the hobby has a very bright future. They might as well just fire up their computers and use Skype or Echolink. Why bother with trying to tweak your antenna, or worrying about sunspots and propagation? If you want to eliminate uncertainty from the equation, ham radio has no real purpose. Dave W7AQK ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIS COOKE" <wrco...@flash.net> To: "Elecraft_List" <elecraft@mailman.qth.net>; "dw" <bw...@fastmail.fm>; "David Yarnes" <w7...@cox.net> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 1:08 PM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Your Opinion: The realities of QRP vs. QRO David, this conversation upsets me a great deal. I am a member of SKCC and I see the QRP thing tearing it up at the moment. That the conversation is coming to the Elecraft reflector as well is doubly upsetting. I am not totally against QRP, but the bragado that is taking place here and elsewhere leads the inexperienced to think that all they have to do is buy a QRP rig and a Buddypole and work the world. I see newbie after newbie crying that no one will work them for some perceived reason and the real reason is that no one hears them. The best, cheapest, most effective rig for a newbie is to buy a 100 watt transceiver and put up a dipole or Carolina Windom or such. Deed restrictions sometimes limit them to an attic antenna or a trap vertical or something small. To influence them to use a compromised antenna system and QRP is little short of criminal. It is certainly rude and not in the best interest of the hobby. I see numerous posts by newbies that are upset that every contact is a minimum exchange then 73. They want to rag chew with people, but they are running QRP. Of course you can rag chew with your next door neighbor at QRP and if you catch a great opening sometimes you can carry on for a few minutes before QSB gets you. But most of the time it is a struggle to get your name, qth and club number. To hear QRP advocates saying that they are the essence of ham radio and great operators revolts me. Worst of all is talking about trying a call with 100 mw then 1 watt then 2 watts I find totally rude and repulsive. I seldom see the need for more than 100 watts, but I will turn it up if I need to. The only time I turn it down to QRP is if you tell me you are QRP, then I will turn the power down until you can't hear me either. Willis 'Cookie' Cooke K5EWJ --- On Thu, 3/5/09, David Yarnes <w7...@cox.net> wrote: > From: David Yarnes <w7...@cox.net> > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Your Opinion: The realities of QRP > vs. QRO > To: wrco...@flash.net, "Elecraft_List" > <elecraft@mailman.qth.net>, "dw" <bw...@fastmail.fm> > Date: Thursday, March 5, 2009, 11:35 AM > Willis and All, > > I very much respect your opinion, but I reject much of it > from my point of view. In particular, your assertion that > 80% of the contacts would be lost at QRP levels. I feel > much of the problem of operating at QRP levels is the QRM > from QRO stations! A CW or PSK31 op, in particular, might > tend to agree with this. There are a lot more stations > out > there that should be turning their power down, there there > are stations who need to turn their power up! > > I also personally feel that your suggestion that "big > antennas" and power is what we need to impress new hams > just might be 180 degrees out of phase. Not only are > "big antennas" out of reach for me from a > practical standpoint, I find the cost somewhat daunting. > I > would think new hams might be scared off if they think > getting a license needs to be followed by a very large > outlay of money to get effectively equipped. I've > always found that emphasizing how easy it is to get > started > works better. Let them develop their own opinion as to > whether bigger is better. > > Finally, and this may be a bit of "heresy", I > question the absolute definition of QRP. Yes, for > contests > and awards we do need a fixed level, but I also think it > should be perfectly acceptable to say that running a K2 or > Argonaut V at nearer their upper power limit is still > "QRP". To me it's all relative. Not many > folks will agree with me I fear, but I've always felt 15 > or 20 watts was pretty much QRP in comparison to what most > folks run. Besides, there is a great disparity between me > running 5 watts to my vertical, and another person running > 5 > watts into his 4 element beam at 70 feet! In other words, > just saying everyone must run 5 watts doesn't make the > playing field equal. > > But all of this is just individual perception. What works > best for you is what you should probably do. It's no > big deal really. The main thing is to enjoy what you are > doing, and there is no sin in cranking up the power. The > beauty of this hobby is that there are so many different > ways to approach it. Nothing "cookie cutter" > about it. > > Dave W7AQK > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIS COOKE" > <wrco...@flash.net> > To: "Elecraft_List" > <elecraft@mailman.qth.net>; "dw" > <bw...@fastmail.fm> > Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 9:05 AM > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Your Opinion: The realities of QRP > vs. QRO > > > > I would estimate that 90% of my QRO contacts would > have not been possible with QRP. 98% would not have been > enjoyable because I don't particularly enjoy contacts > where repeats are required to exchange any info. I would > guess that if only QRP to QRP were legal the QRP stations > would lose 80% of their contacts. This is based on QRP > being 5 watts. If QRP is 1 watt or 100 milliwatts the > problem will be much greater. If it is 10 watts, not > quite > so bad. I really think that QRP is generally bad for the > hobby and reduces my enjoyment when others use QRP, > especially new hams that don't understand the importance > of big antennas and running a reasonable amount of power. > > > > Willis 'Cookie' Cooke > > K5EWJ > > > > > > --- On Thu, 3/5/09, dw <bw...@fastmail.fm> > wrote: > > > >> From: dw <bw...@fastmail.fm> > >> Subject: [Elecraft] Your Opinion: The realities of > QRP vs. QRO > >> To: "Elecraft_List" > <elecraft@mailman.qth.net> > >> Date: Thursday, March 5, 2009, 4:34 AM > >> A few years back in our little farming community, > there was > >> a fellow > >> whose name was Francis. > >> Francis was an avid hunter. > >> At this time, the rumor went around the community > that > >> Francis had been fined for deer jacking. > >> Out of his truck one night, with a spot light, he > took a > >> shot at a > >> plastic deer planted by game wardens. > >> Soon it became a joke…….Sir Francis the deer > slayer. > >> > >> Something within me seemed to understand > Francis’ point > >> of view. > >> He was a pragmatist….. He had little interest in > the > >> thrill of the hunt. > >> He was focused on the efficiency of the catch. > >> > >> Although QRO is far from illegal, it does seem to > be > >> somewhat more > >> focused on the efficiency of the catch than the > thrill of > >> the hunt. > >> So there is a certain un-romantic reality to QRO > vs. QRP. > >> > >> I'm wondering, what percentage of contacts > you've > >> made QRO, that you > >> would estimate as not attainable QRP. > >> > >> I hope I didn't break the list rules getting > off-topic > >> with the story > >> :~/ > >> -- dw > >> d...@sover.net > >> > >> > ______________________________________________________________ > >> Elecraft mailing list > >> Home: > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > >> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > >> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net > >> > >> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > >> Please help support this email list: > >> http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > > > ______________________________________________________________ > > Elecraft mailing list > > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > > Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net > > > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > > Please help support this email list: > http://www.qsl.net/donate.html ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
