Re: QCX Challenge poll #poll-notice

Arv Evans


My comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, even though attempts at on-line 
humor usually fail.

It is usually interesting to find an obviously QRO station operating in a QRP area 
and send "QRO?" (can you increase power).  After a couple of requests for more 
power they usually QSY.    8-) 

Yes, I am a QRP bigot.  Like UNIX and Linux code, less is more!


On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 12:34 PM Jim Morgan <W4QE@...> wrote:

Hi Arv & all,

Don't worry about a technical definition for "QRP" and "QRO" with respect to transmit watts or ERP.  As you point out, it's relative - what is QRO to one operator may be QRP to another.

The origin comes from the early Q-signals:  QRP ? == "Can you reduce power ?"  (or in the affirmative:  QRP == "Please reduce your power").  Likewise, QRO ? means "Can you increase power ?"

I don't think that people started referring to low-power transmitters as "QRP rigs" until maybe the time of the Heathkit HW-7/HW-8.  It was also around then that homebrewers started building small low-power rigs.

Luc ON7DQ/KF0CR had a good response - "QRP" has generally come to mean a transmit power of around 5 watts, more or less.  I don't think anyone is picky about whether this refers to input power, output power or ERP.  I don't think there is a convention for "QRO" in terms of watts.  With respect to your QCX, the ham running a commercial rig with a power around 100W would be QRO, but from his perspective, someone would probably need to run a kilowatt to be QRO.

Just my humble opinion!

Have fun & 73,

Jim W4QE

On 11/5/2020 12:31 PM, Arv Evans wrote:

For some 50 KW would be QRP.  For others anything above 50 MW would be QRO.
Seems that the difference between QRP and QRO is so poorly defined that it could 
be almost anything.

Is QRP actually ERP (effective radiated power) or power into the final amplifier?
I did a Google search for "QRP versus QRO" and now am really confused.


On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 10:14 AM Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell@...> wrote:

So the conversation is down to what power level is 'reasonable'. I agree
that around about 50 watts seems reasonable. I doubt anybody with a five
watt rig feels despoiled just because there are other amateurs on the
air with a kilowatt. I never felt that way when I used a two-watt radio.
Scoring should be less for use of more than five watts and a lot less
for 100 watts (or more).

In my experience the really high power licensees won't 'bother'
themselves listening for weaker signals and therefore won't bother about
working the QCX events.

Of course, it is a "QCX Challenge" so maybe refuse contacts with anybody
else regardless of power level. I do have some QRP Labs bits here - but
not a QCX.


Bill  KU8H

bark less - wag more

On 11/5/20 9:10 AM, N3MNT wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 08:39 AM, Bill Cromwell wrote:
>     Hi,
>     In the USA there is already a power limit of 1500 watts. Just saying. I
>     am guessing you have some other, lower power level in mind. I would
>     offer a previous "QRP" level of 100 watts as a starting place for
>     discussion of such a limit. I do not own a QCX (yet) so won't be in the
>     "contests with one. You can bet the farm that IF I join with something
>     else it won't be running 1500 or even 100 watts.
>     73,
>     Bill KU8H
>     bark less - wag more
>     On 11/5/20 8:28 AM, N3MNT wrote:
>         Voted, but think we should set a limit for the amp power.
> Yes lower power level.  I have a high power QRO radio when I want it but
> I enjoy the challenge of working others with 5W or less hence I have
> several QCX+.  With out a reasonable limit ( 50W) it will spoil the
> event for the pure QRP operators..

Join to automatically receive all group messages.