Topics

QCX Challenge poll #poll-notice


Hans Summers
 

Hi all,
 
Hans has allowed me to setup a poll about the QCX Challenge/QSO Party
 
My personal observation is that not too many people really participate in the Challenge (very strange, with more than 11000 QCX's sold ...). Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
I also noticed that some of the regulars (e.g. GM0EUL, OK2BQN) were not spotted during the QCX QRO sessions, they probably have no amplifier and so weren't there.
 
So I made a suggestion to join both sessions, QRP & QRO into one monthly session (each last monday), with a new , but still simple scoring system.
 
See http://www.qrp-labs.com/party.html, for the rules as they are now.
Note that in the QRP session, a QCX + amplifier does NOT count for 3 points.
 
The new scoring would be:
 
- Only ops using a QCX can put their scores online and claim points
- Working any non-QCX station is 1 point
- Working another QCX, but one or both stations are using an amplifier, is 3 points
- QCX to QCX and BOTH are "true" QRP is 5 points
 
Hans would prefer to let "the masses speak", hence this poll. Make your VOTE count!
 
73,
 
Luc ON7DQ/KF0CR

Thank you for voting.



N3MNT
 

Voted, but think we should set a limit for the amp power.


Bill Cromwell
 

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.


Daniel Conklin
 

I would participate, but the times are not in my windows of freedom due to job responsibilities. 
--
73, Dan - W2DLC


Richard
 

On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 08:41 AM, Daniel Conklin wrote:
I would participate, but the times are not in my windows of freedom due to job responsibilities. 

I have brought this up before, but no one commented or seemed to care.  I am either at work or getting ready for bed on the East Coast during the allotted times.


N3MNT
 

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..   


Shane Justice <justshane@...>
 

Just a comment,

The pole should include an option for 2 days a month, one day QRP, the other QRO.

The solar cycle is on the upswing and qrp will reach further then.

73,
Shane
KE7TR


On Nov 5, 2020 at 01:06, Hans Summers <hans.summers@...> wrote:

A new poll has been created:

Hi all,
 
Hans has allowed me to setup a poll about the QCX Challenge/QSO Party
 
My personal observation is that not too many people really participate in the Challenge (very strange, with more than 11000 QCX's sold ...). Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
I also noticed that some of the regulars (e.g. GM0EUL, OK2BQN) were not spotted during the QCX QRO sessions, they probably have no amplifier and so weren't there.
 
So I made a suggestion to join both sessions, QRP & QRO into one monthly session (each last monday), with a new , but still simple scoring system.
 
See http://www.qrp-labs.com/party.html, for the rules as they are now.
Note that in the QRP session, a QCX + amplifier does NOT count for 3 points.
 
The new scoring would be:
 
- Only ops using a QCX can put their scores online and claim points
- Working any non-QCX station is 1 point
- Working another QCX, but one or both stations are using an amplifier, is 3 points
- QCX to QCX and BOTH are "true" QRP is 5 points
 
Hans would prefer to let "the masses speak", hence this poll. Make your VOTE count!
 
73,
 
Luc ON7DQ/KF0CR

1. I like it as it is, I want no change
2. I prefer ONE session a month, mixing QRP and QRO, with the new scoring
3. I prefer TWO sessions a month (I have a lot of spare time), also mixing QRP and QRO in both sessions, with the new scoring
4. I don't care, I stuffed my QCX under a mattress

Vote Now

Do not reply to this message to vote in the poll. You can vote in polls only through the group's website.


Hans Summers
 

Shane

That's the way it is now. 2 days a month, one QRP, one QRO

73 Hans G0UPL
http://qrp-labs.com

On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 6:22 PM Shane Justice <justshane@...> wrote:
Just a comment,

The pole should include an option for 2 days a month, one day QRP, the other QRO.

The solar cycle is on the upswing and qrp will reach further then.

73,
Shane
KE7TR


On Nov 5, 2020 at 01:06, Hans Summers <hans.summers@...> wrote:

A new poll has been created:

Hi all,
 
Hans has allowed me to setup a poll about the QCX Challenge/QSO Party
 
My personal observation is that not too many people really participate in the Challenge (very strange, with more than 11000 QCX's sold ...). Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
I also noticed that some of the regulars (e.g. GM0EUL, OK2BQN) were not spotted during the QCX QRO sessions, they probably have no amplifier and so weren't there.
 
So I made a suggestion to join both sessions, QRP & QRO into one monthly session (each last monday), with a new , but still simple scoring system.
 
See http://www.qrp-labs.com/party.html, for the rules as they are now.
Note that in the QRP session, a QCX + amplifier does NOT count for 3 points.
 
The new scoring would be:
 
- Only ops using a QCX can put their scores online and claim points
- Working any non-QCX station is 1 point
- Working another QCX, but one or both stations are using an amplifier, is 3 points
- QCX to QCX and BOTH are "true" QRP is 5 points
 
Hans would prefer to let "the masses speak", hence this poll. Make your VOTE count!
 
73,
 
Luc ON7DQ/KF0CR

1. I like it as it is, I want no change
2. I prefer ONE session a month, mixing QRP and QRO, with the new scoring
3. I prefer TWO sessions a month (I have a lot of spare time), also mixing QRP and QRO in both sessions, with the new scoring
4. I don't care, I stuffed my QCX under a mattress

Vote Now

Do not reply to this message to vote in the poll. You can vote in polls only through the group's website.


Bill Cromwell
 

Hi,

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.

73,

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..


Arv Evans
 

Bill

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.

Arv
_._


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

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.

73,

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..
>






ON7DQ Luc
 

Just for clarity:
On the website http://www.qrp-labs.com/party.html , only the QRP event is mentioned (last monday of the month).
That's how it all started.

The QRO session was only mentioned by Hans in this newsgroup, and takes place "somewhere halfway" in the month, but there is no clear definition of "when" on the website. That's probably intentional, to check who's awake and reading the messages ....

So, whatever the outcome of the poll, the site will have to be updated.

As for power, pse let's keep it reasonable, and not make it too complicated.
The QCX Challenge is not a contest, and "in the spirit of QRP Labs", I guess we're not talking kW's of power here.
Anything "around" 50W should be considered  a level playing field, 25W is -3dB, 100W is + 3dB ... all good.
But if you really must ... no one will stop you from using a kiloWatt.

And QRP ? 
Also no nitpicking please ... 5W is QRP (referring to a "barefoot" QCX rig), but if you get 6W out of your QCX, good for you ... there is always some coax loss isn't there ? ;-)

73,
Luc ON7DQ/KF0CR


Jim Morgan
 

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:
Bill

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.

Arv
_._


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

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.

73,

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..
>






Bill Cromwell
 

Hi Luc,

Most hams today see "QRP" as being 5 watts output (or less) from the transmitter. In some operating events whether they are a contest or not 5 Watts is specified. Prior to the present notion of "QRP" being 5 watts it was considered to be 100 watts. I have some old publications here that say so. Well we are not operating in the olde days here :) If I have the right calendat it is now 2020.

"QRP" is a Q signal that means reduce power and with the question mark as QRP? it asks "should I reduce power?". That has no relation at all to any actual power level. QRO is the converse. That is still true in 2020.

I agreed that about 50 watts seems like a reasonable limit. I notice that the QRP Labs outboard amp is designed for the QCX and delivers about 50 watts:) As for me, I do not have a kilowatt. I don't want one either.

73,

Bill KU8H

bark less - wag more

On 11/5/20 1:01 PM, ON7DQ Luc wrote:
Just for clarity:
On the website http://www.qrp-labs.com/party.html <http://www.qrp-labs.com/party.html>, only the *QRP* event is mentioned (last monday of the month).
That's how it all started.
The QRO session was only mentioned by Hans in this newsgroup, and takes place "somewhere halfway" in the month, but there is no clear definition of "when" on the website. That's probably intentional, to check who's awake and reading the messages ....
So, whatever the outcome of the poll, the site will have to be updated.
As for power, pse let's keep it reasonable, and not make it too complicated.
The QCX Challenge is not a contest, and "in the spirit of QRP Labs", I guess we're not talking kW's of power here.
Anything "around" 50W should be considered  a level playing field, 25W is -3dB, 100W is + 3dB ... all good.
But if you really must ... no one will stop you from using a kiloWatt.
And QRP ?
Also no nitpicking please ... 5W is QRP (referring to a "barefoot" QCX rig), but if you get 6W out of your QCX, good for you ... there is always some coax loss isn't there ? ;-)
73,
Luc ON7DQ/KF0CR


Wilbur Long
 

I took QRO to mean maybe using Hans' nifty little 50W companion amp for the QCX+

PS  I  really like mine


On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 7:35 PM Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell@...> wrote:
Hi Luc,

Most hams today see "QRP" as being 5 watts output (or less) from the
transmitter. In some operating events whether they are a contest or not
5 Watts is specified. Prior to the present notion of "QRP" being 5 watts
it was considered to be 100 watts. I have some old publications here
that say so. Well we are not operating in the olde days here :) If I
have the right calendat it is now 2020.

"QRP" is a Q signal that means reduce power and with the question mark
as QRP? it asks "should I reduce power?". That has no relation at all to
any actual power level. QRO is the converse. That is still true in 2020.

I agreed that about 50 watts seems like a reasonable limit. I notice
that the QRP Labs outboard amp is designed for the QCX and delivers
about 50 watts:) As for me, I do not have a kilowatt. I don't want one
either.

73,

Bill  KU8H

bark less - wag more

On 11/5/20 1:01 PM, ON7DQ Luc wrote:
> Just for clarity:
> On the website http://www.qrp-labs.com/party.html
> <http://www.qrp-labs.com/party.html>, only the *QRP* event is mentioned
> (last monday of the month).
> That's how it all started.
>
> The QRO session was only mentioned by Hans in this newsgroup, and takes
> place "somewhere halfway" in the month, but there is no clear definition
> of "when" on the website. That's probably intentional, to check who's
> awake and reading the messages ....
>
> So, whatever the outcome of the poll, the site will have to be updated.
>
> As for power, pse let's keep it reasonable, and not make it too complicated.
> The QCX Challenge is not a contest, and "in the spirit of QRP Labs", I
> guess we're not talking kW's of power here.
> Anything "around" 50W should be considered  a level playing field, 25W
> is -3dB, 100W is + 3dB ... all good.
> But if you really must ... no one will stop you from using a kiloWatt.
>
> And QRP ?
> Also no nitpicking please ... 5W is QRP (referring to a "barefoot" QCX
> rig), but if you get 6W out of your QCX, good for you ... there is
> always some coax loss isn't there ? ;-)
>
> 73,
> Luc ON7DQ/KF0CR
>






R. Tyson
 

If you want to fall into the category of QRP then I'm afraid it's 5 watts output on CW and 10 watts on SSB.

They are the power levels recognised internationally by all the QRP clubs and QRP'ers. Others may decide to run 50 watts or more but they are not complying with the general understanding of QRP. Someone running 100w to 1kw may think they are running QRP at 50 watts but their understanding would be different to the generally accepted understanding of what QRP is.

Alternatively you can go QRPp which is generally less than one watt.

Reg                        G4NFR


Hans Summers
 

Yes Reg is correct

There isn't any ambiguity about this. It's 5W CW (Digi) or 10W SSB PEP. Transmitter RF Output (not DC input, and not ERP). Every QRP club and QRPer I have ever come across is consistent with this. 

73 Hans G0UPL 

On Fri, Nov 6, 2020, 00:07 R. Tyson via groups.io <tysons2=btinternet.com@groups.io> wrote:
If you want to fall into the category of QRP then I'm afraid it's 5 watts output on CW and 10 watts on SSB.

They are the power levels recognised internationally by all the QRP clubs and QRP'ers. Others may decide to run 50 watts or more but they are not complying with the general understanding of QRP. Someone running 100w to 1kw may think they are running QRP at 50 watts but their understanding would be different to the generally accepted understanding of what QRP is.

Alternatively you can go QRPp which is generally less than one watt.

Reg                        G4NFR


Arv Evans
 

Jim

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!

Arv
_._


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:
Bill

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.

Arv
_._


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

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.

73,

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..
>






VE3VXO
 

I like your sense of humour Arv.  I am tempted to use this psych on some of these stations to the south of me I hear at night on 75m hitting my needle with +40dB over.  You have given me a reason to dig out my microphone.  " Is that somebody down in the mud there? Buddy I can barely hear you can you turn up you mic gain?  Do you have an amp you could turn on?"


---------- Original Message ----------
From: Arv Evans <arvid.evans@...>
Date: November 5, 2020 at 5:02 PM

Jim

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!

Arv
_._


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:
Bill

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.

Arv
_._


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

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.

73,

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..
>





 

 


 


Martin DK3UW
 

I never submitted a log as having 2 to 5 QSO#s is more the fun meeting others than competing.  If condx improove that may change.

Preference to QRP seperately. I think the QRP frequencies + /- some khz shouldbe QRP only.

Have fun

Martin
DK3UW


Colin Weaving
 

I agree about keeping the QRP frequencies for QRP.

I know how annoying it is to be swamped with QRO stations ( particularly at weekends / contests ). In fact I have almost given up operating on 20 M other than mid week.

Perhaps a rule of thumb would be to operate the 50 W at 14.055 or 14.065MHz. Close enough but keeping within the spirit of reserving QRP frequencies. Yes, I know there is no specific regulation, but it would be harder to protest or complain about high power encroachment if we are doing it ourselves.

Colin M3WCK