AMSAT started using the term QRP when they probably should have used ERP or more accurately "estimated" ERP . . . after all the goal is to allow those with lesser powered rigs (HT) to have a channel on AO 51 where they could be more competitive with restricted power . . . maybe a better interpretation of ERP should be ESTIMATED RESTRICTIVE POWER rather than EFFECTIVE RADIATED POWER which in amateur radio is more speculative than accurate as I have attempted to point out in prior posts . . . unfortunately when I run 5 watts output on AO51 "QRP" channel I only have one set of satellite antennas to use . . .I could . . .( might be interesting ) use my Bird 25 watt 2 meter slug . . . on the other side of the attenuator (which I built years ago 10 db) so I could use 1/2 watt Uplink to my 10 db antenna or 50 watts estimated ERP . . .before I do that I think I will attempt my last ham goal, EME . . .
Jim W9VNE
----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Danehy To: n3tl@bellsouth.net Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 9:40 PM Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] ERP is not QRP apples and oranges
AMSAT started using the term QRP when they probably should have used ERP or more accurately "estimated" ERP . . . after all the goal is to allow those with lesser powered rigs (HT) to have a channel on AO 51 where they could be more competitive with restricted power . . . maybe a better interpretation of ERP should be ESTIMATED RESTRICTIVE POWER rather than EFFECTIVE RADIATED POWER which in amateur radio is more speculative than accurate as I have attempted to point out in prior posts . . . unfortunately when I run 5 watts output on AO51 "QRP" channel I only have one set of satellite antennas to use . . .I could . . .( might be interesting ) use my Bird 25 watt 2 meter slug . . . on the other side of the attenuator (which I built years ago 10 db) so I could use 1/2 watt Uplink to my 10 db antenna or 50 watts estimated ERP . . .before I do that I think I will attempt my last ham goal, EME . . .
Jim W9VNE
----- Original Message ----- From: n3tl@bellsouth.net To: Jim Danehy ; amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 8:17 PM Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] ERP is not QRP apples and oranges
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
Jim and all,
"after all the goal is to allow those with lesser powered rigs (HT) to have a channel on AO 51 where they could be more competitive with restricted power . . . "
Maybe Drew, Gould or someone else will comment on this. I've never heard any control operator or member of the AO-51 scheduling team state that as a reason for a "QRP" frequency pair. The first time they activated that pair after I started working the satellites, I didn't jump in with my 5 watts and Arrow. I tried the AL800 whip, then 300 milliwatts, then 50 milliwatts on Duracells. And when they all worked over there, I took 'em to 145.920/435.300 - and they worked there, too. They also worked on AO-27 and SO-50 ... all of them not just once or twice, but repeatedly.
I guess that's why I personally have never felt "less competitive" on the "regular" AO-51 pair when I'm running 5 watts into a handheld antenna with gain and directional radiation.
73 to all,
Tim -------------- Original message from "Jim Danehy" jdanehy@cinci.rr.com: --------------
AMSAT started using the term QRP when they probably should have used ERP or more accurately "estimated" ERP . . . after all the goal is to allow those with lesser powered rigs (HT) to have a channel on AO 51 where they could be more competitive with restricted power . . . maybe a better interpretation of ERP should be ESTIMATED RESTRICTIVE POWER rather than EFFECTIVE RADIATED POWER which in amateur radio is more speculative than accurate as I have attempted to point out in prior posts . . . unfortunately when I run 5 watts output on AO51 "QRP" channel I only have one set of satellite antennas to use . . .I could . . .( might be interesting ) use my Bird 25 watt 2 meter slug . . . on the other side of the attenuator (which I built years ago 10 db) so I could use 1/2 watt Uplink to my 10 db antenna or 50 watts estimated ERP . . .before I do that I
think I will attempt my last ham goal, EME . . .
Jim W9VNE
----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Danehy To: n3tl@bellsouth.net Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 9:40 PM Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] ERP is not QRP apples and oranges
AMSAT started using the term QRP when they probably should have used ERP or more accurately "estimated" ERP . . . after all the goal is to allow those with lesser powered rigs (HT) to have a channel on AO 51 where they could be more competitive with restricted power . . . maybe a better interpretation of ERP should be ESTIMATED RESTRICTIVE POWER rather than EFFECTIVE RADIATED POWER which in amateur radio is more speculative than accurate as I have attempted to point out in prior posts . . . unfortunately when I run 5 watts output on AO51 "QRP" channel I only have one set of satellite antennas to use . . .I could . . .( might be interesting ) use my Bird 25 watt 2 meter slug . . . on the other side of the attenuator (which I built years ago 10 db) so I could use 1/2 watt Uplink to my 10 db antenna or 50 watts estimated ERP . . .before I do that I think I will attempt my last ham goal, EME . . .
Jim W9VNE
----- Original Message ----- From: n3tl@bellsouth.net To: Jim Danehy ; amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 8:17 PM Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] ERP is not QRP apples and oranges
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" :
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
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
participants (2)
-
Jim Danehy -
n3tl＠bellsouth.net