Amen, brother.
Something occurred to me earlier today in thinking about this ongoing discussion that includes a few different threads.
Given all the information I can find about the nominal transmitter powers of the satellites I have worked [AO-7, AO-16, AO-27 (currently inactive), AO-51, FO-29, SO-50 and VO-52], at least half of every satellite contact I've made has been QRP - the half coming this way from space. Most of mine - but not all - have been 2-way QRP.
73, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all,
Tim - N3TL
-------------- Original message from "Jim Danehy" jdanehy@cinci.rr.com: --------------
ERP is not QRP . . . . . . I never saw anything in FCC exams about QRP or
ERP but it has been a long time for me since I was last examined . . . folks are confusing ERP and QRP . . . 5 watts out QRP driving an amp . . . get real . . . it is 5 watts out of the final stage feeding the antenna . . . the gain of the antenna does not have anything to do with QRP it has to do with ERP . . . one is apples and the other is oranges . . . the original issue arose out of someone feeling that folks using the AO 51 QRP channel were not using QRP . . . well I use 5 watts on the QRP channel but I only have fairly big yagis for satellites . . . If the goal is to have HT users with compromised antennas use the "QRP" channel then drop the QRP designation and ask the users to keep the power to 5 watts out from the final stage of the transmitter and then WHAT ? ? ? 5 watts many can compute but that is it . . . ERP is guess work by most . . . that is my point . . . seems senseless to me but surprising the responses . . . ERP is not QRP different concepts . . . apples and oranges . . . .
Jim W9VNE _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb