QRP, common sense, and summer conditions.

[wa9cwx]

Ok, I am glad that people are trying to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
But come ON! I have just gotten off of a VERY noisy 40 CW. My two CQs were answered by QRP stations that that gave me so-so reports, but insisted on continuing to send LONG transmissions after I gave them 459 QRN /QSB reports. (I was NOT on the QRP calling freq)
Conditions were marginal at BEST. Copying them was WORK, not fun! Why not a polite hello, CUL when bands better, and BYE.
I know, if I don't want to talk, why go on, etc etc...
So I am not REALLY complaining, just wondering WHY.
I believe both had regular rigs, just running under 5 watts at the moment. My power was 75 watts.
Any comments... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[al2i]

I know exactly what you mean, but I get a perverse thrill out of torturing myself to copy weak signals that barely develop a sidetone. The only thing that really gets me bummed, is when some AGC slammin' 20 over 9 station keeps trying to get my attention when I am busy working some incredibly faint 339 guys in a part of the world I can rarely hear.

73,
Dave/al2i

[k0ews]

You wrote that you gave them 459 reports. Within the RST system as it is written, you told them that they were readable with practically no difficulty, and had a fairly good signal. You did say QRN/QSB, and that is good that you did, but if you had as much trouble as you said, perhaps a 339, or 239 would have been more appropriate...I'm not sure. Otherwise, just suggest that they either raise their power or shorten their comments. That would certainly be a reasonable request. I like to QRP as well, but will certainly agree that under bad band condtions, it's easier on everyone to use more power. Interesting post, 73.

[w8znx]

Hello 9CWX

intresting post
im with
9EWS

op your working gets 459 RST

4 readable with practically no difficulity
5 good signal

throw in qrm qrn
after 459
op on other end

thinks you
miss word or letter
now and then
but not realy working to copy

you got to send a true report

yours truly
Mac

[al7n]

Absolutely...If the other guy is weak and hard to copy, it don't matter how much power HE is running...YOU are the one
who is copying..Give an honest report...IF readability is crap
make it a "1" or a "2" and bid the other guy "73". #If you give him a readability of 4, you ought to be getting darn near all of it without difficulty, irregardless of his signal strength, and you really should have no complaint. #If QSB is present and he drops into the noise at times say so. #

I generally don't say anything about how much power I'm running...It is only supposed to be as much as it takes for reliable communication anyway, and a Readability of 4 or 5 from the other end is SUPPOSED to mean he is getting you
OK. #If it is 3 or less you probably aren't going to have an easy go of it and it's probably a good idea to try another time.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[ae4fa]

Quote[/b] ]if you had as much trouble as you said, perhaps a 339, or 239 would have been more appropriate
Dead on!

I run QRP and QRPp a fair amount. I prefer not to clue the other guy in 'til near the end of the QSO.

Before I began that practice, I'd get a 459 or 449 at first, then have it revised to 339 or 229 after stating my power level.

I had a nice fella from MO respond to my CQ last year. I was portable, running 500mW to a random wire. We had a nice chat. At then end, he nearly dropped his teeth when I told him what I was using.

Perception is reality.

[W8MW]

Your post reminded me of many a cw qso where conditions got so bad there was no longer a contact, but I didn't know it until minutes later after I stopped transmitting. #Turn it over to the other station and nothing there anymore! #Finally got the idea that short transmissions and a lot of back and forth make sense in marginal conditions. Actually, it makes sense in all conditions because the contact becomes so much more lively and interesting when it's interactive in real time.

73 Mike

[n5tjd]

Quote[/b] (W8MW @ May 22 2005,04:35)]Finally got the idea that short transmissions and a lot of back and forth make sense in marginal conditions. Actually, it makes sense in all conditions because the contact becomes so much more lively and interesting when it's interactive in real time.

73 Mike
Agree 100%.

I can adapt to a QSO where each side carries on for several minutes, but I love it when only a short paragraph is said before passing it on. It is much more like talking to someone in person. I've listened in on nets where one guy started, I got up to fix some lunch, and 10 minutes later he was still going strong as I came back into the shack with a glass of water and a sandwich.

Also, don't be afraid of giving them low RST values. They aren't in it to hear the typical "your 5-9 plus." I run 50 watts which isn't QRP by far, but after working with another station for a few minutes to get the required info across to count as a contact, I don't feel bummed about the 33 RS, I feel excited that I got through...

[wa9cwx]

You guys are right of course. When I posted it I realized when I wrote 459 what it meant, when on the air, I suppose I was being more hopeful than honest!
I have asked for QRO before, and usually just a few watts is all that is needed (20 watts is quadruple power after all).
I actually enjoy weak CW at times, especially on 432 and 144. On 432, there is NO noise, stations just seem to APPEAR out of the background...strange experience!
On 144, used to work my buddy in Chicago (100 mi) with him using SIMPLE antennas, even 18" whip on back of rig one time!
Kind of like imaginig the tones.

Thanks for the replys.
Frank http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[K9STH]

When noise levels are down, I have worked quite a number of stations on CW that were an "honest" 509 or 409. That is, if I put the AVC/AGC "on" the "S" meter wasn't budging from the lower "pin". All of my "S" meters are calibrated for S-9 = 50 microvolts (pretty much the "old" standard).

I have worked many SSB stations that were an "honest" 50 to 51, especially on VHF, but also a lot of times especially on the "higher" HF bands (20 through 10 meters). However, with the inflated "S" meters on a lot of today's transceivers (like S-9 = 5 microvolts and "40 dB over S-9" = 10 or 15 microvolts) too many operators get "insulted" if you give them less than an S-9. Some expect to get a "40 over" reading.

Well, when an "S" meter is calibrated for 50 microvolts = S-9, then a "20 over" report means a signal level of 500 microvolts, a "40 over" report means a signal level of 5000 microvolts, and a "60 over" report means a signal level of 50,000 microvolts. You almost have to live next door to someone running 1500 watts with your yagi pointed directly into his/her yagi to get a "60 dB over S-9" report. Yet I hear "60 over" reports all the time.

Now, I am not "doubting" that the "S" meter on the rig actually "reads" 60 over. However, the "true" signal report is usually in the S-6 to S-9 range when a "properly" calibrated "S" meter is used. Also, turning on the preamplifier in the rig not only increases the "S" meter reading but also increases interference, noise, and other "bad" things much more than the increase in "S" meter readings.

Frankly, the end result of a QSO should be whether or not the information can be exchanged. This goes for any mode, not just CW or phone. It is the signal to noise ratio of the signal that adds or subtracts from the quality of the contact, not the "S" meter reading. But, too many amateur radio operators out there today are only interested in what the "S" meter reads. They don't seem to care if they are really "getting through" or not!

That is why I try to "avoid" giving an "S" meter reading. If I tell the other station what my "S" meter is actually reading they get VERY upset, especially on HF. On VHF most of the "serious" weak signal operators understand that the "S" meter may not even be "moving" but that their signal can be copied very easily.

I definitely have "above average" antennas, and all of my receivers are "tweaked" for best performance. Thus, I can often "hear" stations (and work them as well) that other local stations cannot even hear, let alone work. However, when the station is very "workable" by me, locals with lesser antennas can barely hear the station, their "S" meters will be reading "much" higher than mine. They often cannot "believe" this until they actually visit my station and hear this for themselves.

There is one local operator that I have "loaned" a 35 year old tube-type transceiver that I have "tweaked" to the "max". He has several "modern" solid-state transceivers that are less than 5 years old. He has been amazed at how much better the "old" transceiver receives than any of his "modern" equipment. The "S" meter doesn't read anywhere near as "high", but he is able to "hear" stations quite comfortably on the tube-type unit that he cannot hear at all on the solid-state units. Other than usually getting a better audio quality report from the tube-type unit his signal reports from the other stations are pretty much the same (which they should be since all of the units are running pretty much the same power output).

Glen, K9STH

[WA3KYY]

Quote[/b] (K9STH @ May 22 2005,18:17)]When noise levels are down, I have worked quite a number of stations on CW that were an "honest" 509 or 409. #That is, if I put the AVC/AGC "on" the "S" meter wasn't budging from the lower "pin". #All of my "S" meters are calibrated for S-9 = 50 microvolts (pretty much the "old" standard).
Glen,

I understand what you mean here but I do not agree that any RST report can have a "0" for the S portion. That may be what your meter reads but you and I both know that the "S" in an RS(T) report has zero to do with what the meter says, calibrated or otherwise. For you to honestly have stength of zero, you would not have any detectable signal.

73,
Mike WA3KYY

[w8znx]

hello

s meter
s meter
we don't need no stinking s meter!

R-S-T
signal strength

1- faint signals barely perceptible

that means baldwins
clamped on ears
eyes closed
working to pull out call and report

you can not get any lower than barely perceptible

unless you want
to go for my report was #try agn,
try agn, #try agn, #try ag
phone net ESP reports

R-S-T system
has nothing to do with
s meter reading

last few years
got feeling
lots of ops
never read
part of hand book
that has R-S-T system
in it

geting tired of receiving
tone reports of 5 to 3
for my chirp

cul
dit dit
Mac

sail onedesign
sail fast
sail thistle class

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (K9STH @ May 22 2005,18:17)]That is why I try to "avoid" giving an "S" meter reading. If I tell the other station what my "S" meter is actually reading they get VERY upset, especially on HF.
I have given 229 to 339 reports steadily for hours at a time while getting 569, 579, etc. in return. Such an effect indicates that the other stations are performing better than my station, where I am probably making up for a hasty, temporary, or defective antenna job by running power.

Oh, and as far as moving the S-meter, forget it. You are obviously working stations much louder than I am. If the signal has a side tone it is loud enough to copy from any good operator who knows to QRS after a low RST report.

73,
Dave/al2i

[WB2WIK]

I never use my "S" meter on any receiver to give an "RST" (or "RS") report. I close my eyes and listen, and give the report that comes to mind.

Quiet band, an S1 signal can easily sound "59." Noisy band, an S9 signal can easily sound "33" or worse.

Unless I'm really bored and the band's very quiet, I don't answer weak signals because life's too short to dig them out when they fade lower.

If I work a station (usually on SSB) who says, "I have an amplifier, but it's turned off right now" and he is weak, I ask him to turn it on. If he doesn't, I find somebody else to talk to.

That thing about life being too short keeps surfacing...

WB2WIK/6