[CQ-Contest] 73 watts

[Eric Gruff]

Jim,

Or 1 milliwatt! Can you imagine the confusion with "0.001" or "1 MW"? With no capitalization in CW, it might be interpreted as 1,000,000 W, and then everyone on the reflector would be screaming about "power cheating". 

I rarely get involved in these crazy discussions, but every so often, I can't stop myself.

73,

Eric NC6K

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Stahl [mailto:jimk8mr at aol.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 10:30 AM
To: Eric Gruff <egruff at cox.net>
Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] 73 watts

At least they weren’t running fifty nine watts. (Or 599 watts on CW)


73 -  Jim  K8MR




> On Mar 10, 2017, at 11:50 AM, Eric Gruff <egruff at cox.net> wrote:
> 
> For those of you complaining about the "73" power report, I have to 
> say "really?". The rules say that the DX exchange is (emphasis mine), 
> " DX stations send signal report and power (number or abbreviation 
> indicating APPROXIMATE transmitter output power)." So, there's no need 
> for a power meter calibrated to three decimal points anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> In the CW weekend, I received a lot of "NN" (99 Watts), which is a lot 
> faster to send than "1TT" or "ATT" or "100". No one is complaining 
> about that. If a station wants to report 73 Watts, I log it and move 
> on. Many rigs, including my Flex, don't put out a full 100 W on many bands, and "73"
> is close enough to the actual output, not to mention that most hams 
> can decode "73" in their sleep. It's not like they're going to save 
> time and boost score by sending "73" instead of "NN".
> 
> 
> 
> I think we can go back to arguing about important things, like is 
> using an SDR or having your kids bring you coffee during a contest 
> considered assisted operating.
> 
> 
> 
> Everyday life and work are stressful enough - let's have fun with our 
> hobby as much as we can!
> 
> 
> 
> 73 de NC6K
> 
> 
>