RE: Miles Per Watt Trials

---------

From: Adrian Weiss W0RSP English Department (AWEISS@charlie.usd.edu)
Date: Tue Feb 28 1995 - 16:49:11 EST


I want to complement Marty KW1C and Rob WA3ULH
on their Miles-per-Watt achievement. Other issues
aside, Rob's write-up shows the painstaking and
scientific approach which characterise efforts to
test the distance/power barriers to two-way
communication. This was undertaken in the spirit
of the early pioneers of QRP.

Now, various issues will pop up: the ERP problem,
given the high-gain antennas; the use of a four
letter word as the data; the "realists'" question:
what does that prove since it isn't real communication,
and so on. I think that we should simply recognize the
accomplishment for what it is within the parameters set
by the two experimenters. Otherwise, every accomplishment
can be questioned for some reason. For instance, what was
the solar flux level? Should we add or substract or
normalize the propagation factor into the equation, so that
15 million-miles-per watt on 21MHz with a flux level of 300
only works out to 7 m.p.w. on 7mHz with a flux level of 103?
Or do we substract for topographical focusing as per Moxon's
excellent analysis of the subject in his book, or add for
lousy topographical un-focusing. In the final analysis,
two-way QRPp communication has so many dependent variables
that no two records are actually "equal" and every record
is unique to its own ballgame and ballpark.

The overall point is: if testing the limits of the power-distance
barrier is a worthwhile objective, as it indeed is, then any
verifiable record is of value.

Carry on the good work. 73 Ade W0RSP


Search QRP-L Archives

[ QRP-L Archive | ]
[ 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 ]

---------

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 on Fri Jun 02 2000 - 11:27:47 EDT

kd4ab@kd4ab.org