>
>Rothan Maxwell wrote:
>>
>> For years I considered myself to be a QRPer; that is, one
>> who operates on the amateur bands, using no more than 5 watts
>> CW, or 10 watts SSB. However; it now appears that what
>> constitutes one being considered a QRPer has - in my opinion -
>> changed.
>
><big SNIP>
>
>Max,
>
>Well, I have a portable rig that meets the definition of 'modern QRPing'
>which I take into the field from time to time. I also have a commercial
>rig which I operate at QRP power levels with better antennas from home.
>And I sometimes turn my home station up to 100 watts (but not during fox
>hunts!) I don't feel schizophrenic (at least, not as a result of ham
>radio).
>
>I do think that the concept of QRP as 'make contacts with low power,
>poor antennas, lousy selectivity, no RIT (etc.)' is not conducive to
>long-term enjoyment of the hobby, though! My philosophy is: use low
>power, but make the receiver and antennas the best that you can build or
>afford.
>
>To each, of course, to his own.
>
>Vic K2VCO
>
>
Hello Vic
Thank You for your response. It seems that many people have a broader
view of what constitutes QRP than I do at present; which really isn't
all that surprizing, but it is interesting to hear the opinions of
others on the subject.
In regards to what youn have stated about antennas and receivers as
they related to low power operation, I think you are right on target,
and your words ought to be listened to and acted upon...
Thanks.
de Max (nu6u)
[
QRP-L Archive |
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000
]