Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+QRP\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+QRP\s*$/: 24 ]

Total 24 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: QRP (score: 1): Author: Art Snapper <art@nk8x.net>; Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 23:26:43 -0500; Has anyone achieved DXCC on 160 meters using QRP? Or is anyone even close? 73, Art NK8X _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband; /archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00144.html (6,158 bytes)
2. Re: Topband: QRP (score: 1): Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>; Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:12:40 -0500; Has anyone achieved DXCC on 160 meters using QRP? Or is anyone even close? 73, Art NK8X Power ratings were DC plate input power up to the early 1980's. A Heath SB220 was a legal input amp rated for 1; /archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00146.html (7,557 bytes)
3. Re: Topband: QRP (score: 1): Author: Louis Parascondola via Topband <topband@contesting.com>; Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:16:25 -0500; Nice to see you here Tom. I used much information form your site preparing for my 160m set up here. In the spring I am going to take your advice and bury my beverage feed line under the ground. I hav; /archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00148.html (8,879 bytes)
4. Re: Topband: QRP (score: 1): Author: Michel Spelier <on7eh@skynet.be>; Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:55:13 +0100 (CET); Hello, Living in a country, where 10W has been the upper limit set by the regulator in the early 160m days, I have been puzzled with this question for a long time... Given the progress on antenna and; /archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00149.html (8,820 bytes)
5. Re: Topband: QRP (score: 1): Author: "Mort" <mort.g2jl@ntlworld.com>; Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 08:31:13 -0500; Well, IMO the problem with QRP QSO is definitely the increase in man-made noise. We had a 10 Watt DC input to "the valve or valve energising the aerial" or as we must now say, since American has disp; /archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00150.html (8,239 bytes)
6. Re: Topband: QRP (score: 1): Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>; Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 09:14:50 -0500; I have been puzzled with this question for a long time... Given the progress on antenna and Rx-capabilities (over the years) and say typical transceiver output power (100W), how come it has become so; /archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00152.html (8,636 bytes)
7. Re: Topband: QRP (score: 1): Author: K4OWR <k2owr@comcast.net>; Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 09:34:21 -0500; is the point of operating such a difficult band, full of all sorts of noise, relatively awful propagation, requiring gigantic antennas, then using the low power? Is it because using high power makes; /archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00153.html (9,084 bytes)
8. Re: Topband: QRP (score: 1): Author: "John K9UWA" <john@johnjeanantiqueradio.com>; Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 09:44:00 -0500; It is the CHALLENGE that makes us chase DX on 160M. Whether you do it with 100W and a short vertical from a noisey city lot or have a super station with a few hunded acres of land and unlimited ante; /archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00154.html (8,408 bytes)
9. Re: Topband: QRP (score: 1): Author: Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:09:14 -0600; Two words: Noise and antennas. Noise--yes, millions of cheap junk appliances have destroyed reception. Ever lived next door to a plasma TV? Antennas--Old hams unable to climb or plow in radials and; /archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00156.html (7,653 bytes)
10. Re: Topband: QRP (score: 1): Author: James Bennett <w6jhb@me.com>; Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 09:49:07 -0800; Hmmm. Junk, yes. Cheap, no. Five years ago we purchased a $2,900 Samsung P.O.C. plasma TV, at the time not knowing what plasma sets (some) do to the HF bands. Not only does it clobber HF, but the pic; /archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00159.html (8,627 bytes)
11. Re: Topband: QRP (score: 1): Author: "Richard (Rick) Karlquist" <richard@karlquist.com>; Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 12:47:10 -0800; The thing about QRP is that the guy on the other end of the QSO from the station receiving the award does the heavy lifting. A more impressive achievement would be to work QRP stations in 100 countr; /archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00162.html (8,219 bytes)
12. Re: Topband: QRP (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:02:26 -0800; The thing about QRP is that the guy on the other end of the QSO from the station receiving the award does the heavy lifting. Most of it, yes. But not all. The QRP station needs very good TX antenna(s; /archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00163.html (8,271 bytes)
13. Re: Topband: QRP (score: 1): Author: James Rodenkirch <Rodenkirch_LLC@msn.com>; Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 22:19:18 +0000; I don't know that I'd use Jim's, "Most of it, yes" phraseology, Rick....go to the results pages for any 160 meter contest.....look up the top ten scores of the QRP entrants, then.....go to the Low po; /archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00164.html (10,278 bytes)
14. Re: Topband: QRP (score: 1): Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>; Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:22:16 -0500; The thing about QRP is that the guy on the other end of the QSO from the station receiving the award does the heavy lifting. A more impressive achievement would be to work QRP stations in 100 countri; /archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00165.html (8,883 bytes)
15. Re: Topband: QRP (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 15:02:08 -0800; Perhaps I'm an exception. I can switch between three 160M verticals, two of which are a quarter wave with 4 radials elevated 20 ft, and one that's a 100 ft Tee with 60 on-ground radials. All three ha; /archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00166.html (9,438 bytes)
16. Re: Topband: QRP (score: 1): Author: Robert Harmon <k6uj@pacbell.net>; Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 15:33:02 -0800; Jim, Do the 160 verticals with 4 radials elevated at 20 feet, individually outperform the other vertical with 60 radials on the ground ? Bob K6UJ On 12/15/15 3:02 PM, Jim Brown wrote: On Tue,12/15/20; /archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00167.html (9,690 bytes)
17. Re: Topband: QRP (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 15:41:18 -0800; I have no meaningful way to measure that, but work by N6LF and N6BT suggest that radials elevated by 20 ft can approach 30-60 radials on the ground. The key word is "approach," with the obvious quest; /archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00168.html (9,315 bytes)
18. Re: Topband: QRP (score: 1): Author: Robert Harmon <k6uj@pacbell.net>; Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 15:50:21 -0800; Jim, OK, I am working on a similar arrangement with 4 elevated radials at 14 feet. Hence the question. thanks, Bob K6UJ I have no meaningful way to measure that, but work by N6LF and N6BT suggest tha; /archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00170.html (9,570 bytes)
19. Re: Topband: QRP (score: 1): Author: Mike Waters <mikewate@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:50:12 -0600; According to this they are close. lists.contesting.com/_topband/2007-11/msg00248.html www.antennasbyn6lf.com/design_of_radial_ground_systems - scroll down to the section "QEX article on elevated radi; /archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00171.html (8,562 bytes)
20. Re: Topband: QRP (score: 1): Author: Robert Harmon <k6uj@pacbell.net>; Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 15:59:11 -0800; Mike, Thats good stuff ! I am putting up a 160 with 4 elevated radials at 14 feet (would like to get them higher but they are the least visible at 14 feet to my wife :-) I am anxious to see how it wo; /archives//html/Topband/2015-12/msg00172.html (10,188 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]