Date   

Last Telegraph Line is Down! 167 Years!

Phil Anderson
 


Hey Guys, 

Plug pulled on last telegraph line; it was in India. 
<http://www.gizmag.com/last-telegraph-message/28314/
72, Phil, W0XI


Midwest div convention?

ka0ncr
 

Hi Group,


At this time, I am planning on going down to the Midwest convention in Lebanon, Mo on the 8th and 9th of November, assuming that
we don't have enough snow by then up here to make travel a problem.

I was wondering if the 4SQRP group is going to have a table at the
convention, maybe with a few kits on display or to sell.
And if there are plans for a table, or someone is thinking about it, do you (who ever is doing it) need some help with
manning the table for breaks and to get away for a while to check
out the convention?

I thought that I would offer to help for a few hours if there is a need for some extra table time coverage..

Anyhow.. Before all that, I will be looking forward to seeing those of the group that can make it to the Brutus bash! I think it will be a FUN time!

73 - Arnie KA0NCR (up in the great white nort' )


Re: Flowers and Kudos

Johnny AC0BQ
 

Thanks for sharing the "good news" Rich.
Johnny AC0BQ


On Sunday, August 18, 2013, Rich Fowler wrote:
 

FYI
Altho this is addressed to me...it is actually addressed to the 4SQRP staff
and support!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tom <tbarton.0925@...>
Date: Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: QRP-O-Meter parts


Rich, I just wanted to thank you for the support a couple of weeks ago! I
finally got a chance to sit down with the kit again and finish it up and it
works like a champ! You guys do a great job and you have some great
products! I have to say, too, as a professional technical writer that
whoever is doing your documentation is doing a great job...

I wish the 4State group the best!

Tom
WA5WXQ


Flowers and Kudos

Rich Fowler <k8meg@...>
 

FYI
Altho this is addressed to me...it is actually addressed to the 4SQRP staff
and support!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tom <tbarton.0925@...>
Date: Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: QRP-O-Meter parts


Rich, I just wanted to thank you for the support a couple of weeks ago! I
finally got a chance to sit down with the kit again and finish it up and it
works like a champ! You guys do a great job and you have some great
products! I have to say, too, as a professional technical writer that
whoever is doing your documentation is doing a great job...

I wish the 4State group the best!

Tom
WA5WXQ


Re: QRZ.com "distance" reports are different.

Glen <glene77is@...>
 

N9SSA Distance and MPW Calculator

FROM: LAT LON Or Grid-Square
TO: LAT LON Or Grid-Square

Grid Square EM55ce to EL95tq
Watts 0.2

Miles away
Miles per Watt KM
KM per Watt
Tools : Buckmaster | QRZ | Prefixes | MapBlast | QRP Spots | GreyLine
Great Circle Distance and MPW Calculator by N9SSA

V1.3 Copyright ©2000, 2002 Pete Hoffswell. All rights reserved.

Right ON! That is NEAT !
Investigating the methods of calculating distance is great fun.



However ...
How can we justify using N9SSA,
compared to using the QRZ built-in Google Map system ???

Remember this:
We are NOT talking about establishing World Records KMPW/MPW.
We ARE talking about 4SQRP awards, meritorious to 4SQRP only.

Speaking to N9SSA ...
Which of the N9SSA Options should we select?
Buckmaster | QRZ | Prefixes | MapBlast | QRP Spots | GreyLine ???
1) Buckmaster could be explored.
2) QRZ has its own, via built-in Google Map.
3) Prefixes does not exist.
4) MapBlast does not exist.
5) QRP Spots is irrelevant.
6) GreyLine is off subject.



Consider these opinins, please:

1) If we calculate "our own" with our own pencil,
then we must 'police and investigate' all the entries
to be certain that "all" the entries are on "equal ground".

2) If we designate a small-time service
then we face the problem of having that service go away.

3) If we rely on a big-time service,
then we have more assurance that it will always be ready to go.

Guess I suggested my own answer: QRZ.com (Google Maps).
1) since it is based on the "grid locs".
2) since it is widely available for "peer review".

Guys,
That is Just my Opinion.

Glen, KK4LPG

--- In 4sqrp@yahoogroups.com, "Jim, ND9M / VQ9JC" <Claryco@...> wrote:


I was curious what NAQCC used for calculating MPW and contacted their awards manager, John, KK1X. He told me of a web site that they use; it's a simple on-line calculator based on grid subsquares; the address is http://www.qsl.net/n9ssa/mpwcalc.html.

Certainly, since subsquares are 2.5 latitude minutes by 5 longitude minutes in size, they aren't dead-on precise as calculations based on exact GPS-type lat/long positions. In worst case, I estimate that the distance error could be as much as 10 miles. But I've found that obtaining an op's subsquare is a lot easier than his lat/long, let alone an exact measurement.

In most cases that I've seen, QRZ.com pages show the op's subsquare as "user supplied". When the page doesn't show the subsquare as being user supplied or if it's a station that's operating portable, I've e-mailed the op and asked for the subsquare; so far each op has replied with the six-character subsquare info that I needed.

72,

Jim, ND9M / VQ9JC
4SQRP #523, NAQCC #6103, ARPI #13839


Re: QRZ.com "distance" reports are different.

Glen <glene77is@...>
 

Jim,
http://www.qsl.net/n9ssa/mpwcalc.html
did not connect. Spelled right ?
Glen KK4LPG

--- In 4sqrp@yahoogroups.com, "Jim, ND9M / VQ9JC" <Claryco@...> wrote:


I was curious what NAQCC used for calculating MPW and contacted their awards manager, John, KK1X. He told me of a web site that they use; it's a simple on-line calculator based on grid subsquares; the address is http://www.qsl.net/n9ssa/mpwcalc.html.

Certainly, since subsquares are 2.5 latitude minutes by 5 longitude minutes in size, they aren't dead-on precise as calculations based on exact GPS-type lat/long positions. In worst case, I estimate that the distance error could be as much as 10 miles. But I've found that obtaining an op's subsquare is a lot easier than his lat/long, let alone an exact measurement.

In most cases that I've seen, QRZ.com pages show the op's subsquare as "user supplied". When the page doesn't show the subsquare as being user supplied or if it's a station that's operating portable, I've e-mailed the op and asked for the subsquare; so far each op has replied with the six-character subsquare info that I needed.

72,

Jim, ND9M / VQ9JC
4SQRP #523, NAQCC #6103, ARPI #13839


Re: QRZ.com "distance" reports are different.

 

About ten years ago I fixed the distance, lat/lon, and grid square
calculations in Hamlib. The only thing is that it's a library for other
programs to use and is not a stand-alone application. Anyone familiar
with Perl or Python should be able to make use of the routines.
However, the routines can be accessed through the rotctl program bundled
with Hamlib.

I found that when it comes the grid squares that there are two
variations when it comes to precision--one uses ten characters and the
other twelve characters. I found some tricky differences between the
two and with either the precision is far greater than used by radio
amateurs. Using six character locators is a good compromise for our use
and gets us within a few miles of accuracy.

I also found that convention is to calculate from the southwest corner of
a square to the SW corner of the next square for distance and bearing.
The SW corner seems to be considered the "anchor" point for a square no
matter the precision in use. The greatest distance error would occur
when a station is physically at the SW corner of square A and the other
station is at the NE corner of square B. Using six character subsquares
minimizes this error to within eight to ten miles total (as I recall) at
middle latitudes. One could calculate to the middle of a square but
since squares get smaller as one works toward the poles, some additional
math would be needed to take that into account (likely well above my
poor algebra skills).

The Maidenhead system is pretty well thought out. It's kind of a shame
that most ops never use it beyond the four character squares ARRL uses
for its awards. IMO, the greater precision it is capable of does make
it quite useful for various tasks since any spot on the globe can be
identified without the confusion of east/west longitude and north/south
lattitude.

72, de Nate >>

--

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true."

Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us


Re: QRZ.com "distance" reports are different.

Todd K7TFC
 

I don't see the The 2.5x5 degree squares--such as CN82-- as sub-squares. The sub-squares that are shown after the main square designation (ex. CN82ni) resolve down to areas of 3x4 miles. The site that Jim linked to earlier will use the sub-square letters if you enter them. That get's you very close indeed.

73,

Todd
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
K7TFC / Medford, Oregon, USA / CN82ni / UTC-7 (PDT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 4:42 AM, Jim, ND9M / VQ9JC <Claryco@...> wrote:
 

I was curious what NAQCC used for calculating MPW and contacted their awards manager, John, KK1X. He told me of a web site that they use; it's a simple on-line calculator based on grid subsquares; the address is http://www.qsl.net/n9ssa/mpwcalc.html.
 
Certainly, since subsquares are 2.5 latitude minutes by 5 longitude minutes in size, they aren't dead-on precise as calculations based on exact GPS-type lat/long positions. In worst case, I estimate that the distance error could be as much as 10 miles. But I've found that obtaining an op's subsquare is a lot easier than his lat/long, let alone an exact measurement.
 
In most cases that I've seen, QRZ.com pages show the op's subsquare as "user supplied". When the page doesn't show the subsquare as being user supplied or if it's a station that's operating portable, I've e-mailed the op and asked for the subsquare; so far each op has replied with the six-character subsquare info that I needed.
 
72,
 
Jim, ND9M / VQ9JC
4SQRP #523, NAQCC #6103, ARPI #13839
 
 
 
 



Re: QRZ.com "distance" reports are different.

Jim, ND9M / VQ9JC
 

I was curious what NAQCC used for calculating MPW and contacted their awards manager, John, KK1X. He told me of a web site that they use; it's a simple on-line calculator based on grid subsquares; the address is http://www.qsl.net/n9ssa/mpwcalc.html.
 
Certainly, since subsquares are 2.5 latitude minutes by 5 longitude minutes in size, they aren't dead-on precise as calculations based on exact GPS-type lat/long positions. In worst case, I estimate that the distance error could be as much as 10 miles. But I've found that obtaining an op's subsquare is a lot easier than his lat/long, let alone an exact measurement.
 
In most cases that I've seen, QRZ.com pages show the op's subsquare as "user supplied". When the page doesn't show the subsquare as being user supplied or if it's a station that's operating portable, I've e-mailed the op and asked for the subsquare; so far each op has replied with the six-character subsquare info that I needed.
 
72,
 
Jim, ND9M / VQ9JC
4SQRP #523, NAQCC #6103, ARPI #13839
 
 
 
 


Re: LT SPICE circuit draw and simulate program DOWNLOAD

Glen <glene77is@...>
 


Nick, WA5BDU
Good advice. 
Keeping the same offsets will keep any peaking (Group Transients) 
from combining at the same frequency.   
Spreads out the effect.  

Have had trouble visualizing (numbers in my head) 
how the Lo + offset Lo + offset Lo combine, 
except to say it as I did above.   

Need to read some more, and see if I can grasp how to calculate the "Q" factor 
in a Lo or Hi Pass filter.  Most texts just go for a single stage Lo or Hi. 

My multistage Band-Pass uses Q of 1.1, 1.3, 1.5, 1.7 , staggering the skirts, 
in order to avoid stacking the transient response peaks on top of each other. 
The Q spread may need to be greater.  Have not been able to calculate that. 
May have to just make measurements, and build another with a greater Q spread. 

I am curious how the the delays caused by the chip and the circuit 
can be calculated.   
The various graphs show the peaking caused at the active -3dB curve, 
but no text so far has shown how it might be calculated. 
The Q=1,2,4,8 curves are shown, for Butterworth, 
but no equation is used to describe the objective extent of the peaking at this active point. 
I can relate the extra activity to the ringing on the leading/trailing edge of a square wave, 
while the differential circuit is "seeking balance", but no equations are given. 

Been too many years, away from it all.  
Will have to just scan the sampling range and make measurements, 
the experimental way.  Build up a little nomograph. 

This little project has grown very much out of proportion to what I thought it would be. 
K7MEM kindly advised me of that.   
But it has been a very interesting involvement for this old man.  

Just made a 1 Watt contact from Memphis, TN into Bloomingdale, NY, 941 miles, 
at S1-2 .   Entered as one of my many "Barely Contacted" QSO's .   Sent a Card to him. 

You engineering technicians have been very kind in your responses 
to my queries.   Thanks. 


--- In 4sqrp@..., Nick-WA5BDU wrote:
>
> Glen,
>
> I didn't go back to the design equations for the filters in the
> HI-PER-MITE. I used info from the 4SQRP page as a guide (below) and
> then LTSpice to verify and OK changes I was making which were for gain
> as well as center frequency.
>
> I see that the info on the 4SQRP page does give values for 770 Hz.
> That's pretty close to what you're after, and for me would be close
> enough. Probably as good as you can get with standard values. But
> that's not to say you can't combine values, use pots, etc., to get dead
> on. That's the ham way.
>
> If I were to go back to the design equations for the stages though, I'd
> try to maintain the same offsets that David used, since I assume that's
> important in getting the ring-free response.
>
> Here's the link from the 4SQRP page that provides a table of values to
> use for different center frequencies:
>
> http://www.4sqrp.com/kits/Filter/cwfilter_f_vs_r_table.pdf
>
> 72-
>
> Nick, WA5BDU
>
>
> On 8/15/2013 6:18 AM, Glen wrote:
> >
> > *Regarding the HiPerMite Freq(center). *
> > *Any suggestions for raising the HiPerMite Freq(center) from 700Hz to
> > 750Hz, *
> > *to match the HW-8 Transmit Offset of 750Hz ? *
> >
> > I
> >
> >
> > *So, I wonder if there is a particular perspective to use in changing
> > the HiPerMite ? *
> >
> >
>


Re: LT SPICE circuit draw and simulate program DOWNLOAD

Nick-WA5BDU
 

Glen,

I didn't go back to the design equations for the filters in the HI-PER-MITE.  I used info from the 4SQRP page as a guide (below) and then LTSpice to verify and OK changes I was making which were for gain as well as center frequency.

I see that the info on the 4SQRP page does give values for 770 Hz.  That's pretty close to what you're after, and for me would be close enough.  Probably as good as you can get with standard values.  But that's not to say you can't combine values, use pots, etc., to get dead on.  That's the ham way.

If I were to go back to the design equations for the stages though, I'd try to maintain the same offsets that David used, since I assume that's important in getting the ring-free response.

Here's the link from the 4SQRP page that provides a table of values to use for different center frequencies:

http://www.4sqrp.com/kits/Filter/cwfilter_f_vs_r_table.pdf

72-

Nick, WA5BDU


On 8/15/2013 6:18 AM, Glen wrote:

Regarding the HiPerMite Freq(center). 
Any suggestions for raising the HiPerMite Freq(center) from 700Hz to 750Hz, 
to match the HW-8 Transmit Offset of 750Hz  ?   

I


So, I wonder if there is a particular perspective to use in changing the HiPerMite ? 




Re: QRZ.com "distance" reports are different.

Bill Cromwell
 

Hi,

I think somebody else already alluded to "tolerances" and then somebody else mentioned that we might not be "exact". Exact comes in grades. I'm sure the people who are responsible for the awards will get it all sorted out. I Googled and found this an online calculator that accepts the geographic coordinates in your choice of formats of two locations and spits out the distance in your choice of units. I have used it to calculate (within a few short miles) the distance between my station and the NDB transmitters I log here. The locations of those transmitters are given in online databases including those of the licensing authorities and of course, I know just about where I am. If the award administrator wants it I'll send the URL but there is nothing particularly magic about it. It's probably the same as the QRZ calculator and would give about the same result so long as the correct latitude and longitude are entered.

My distance record since I started casually logging NDBs is 1025 miles straight out the St Lawrence Seaway from my home location out on the coast of the North Atlantic. Give or take a couple inches. Or a couple feet. Or something like that <evil grin>.

Some hams have an intense interest in splitting very fine hairs. The WSPR crowd have to do that or their stuff fails. I don't expect to actually run a WSPR beacon although I might be able to copy them. I can "bracket" their frequency but they would grumble because I cannot and *WILL NOT* measure frequencies down to fractions of a millihertz. I could stick some digits on the right side of the decimal point in my frequency counter but that won't mean they are right. I'm an amateur - says so right on my license - and I am only required to stay between the band edges! Beyond that I can actually measure with good "accuracy" to the nearest one cycle per second if I care to put in the effort. That is rarely ever needed. I do that when I am checking my secondary standards against something like WWV. With doppler and propagation phase shifts that process is still more than good enough for *amateur* use. The same probably goes for distance calculations. I don't care if that North Atlantic NDB is actually only 1024 miles, 5279 feet, seven and a quarter inches away <evil grin>.

73,

Bill KU8H


Re: QRZ.com "distance" reports are different.

Wayne Dillon
 

Julio,
I feel that an "official" MPW Calculator would be an excellent resource. Maybe something we could park on the 4SQRP webpage? what say the webmeisters?
72/3 es God Bless de Wayne - KC0PMH


On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Julio Jimenez <ak4vl.qrp@...> wrote:
 

This is a good discussion y'all.  I've put some thought into the same subject after following in AA4XX's footsteps as the QRP ARCI awards manager.


I have no clue what algorithm QRZ uses for distance calculations, but based solely on my research I've found that calculation based on the Haversine formula can have a 0.3% error (3m per km), especially if the distance is not parallel to a latitude line, given that Haversine assumes the earth is a sphere, from what I understood.

I also found the Vicenty formula, which takes into account the elliptical (or spheroidal?) shape of the earth, with a margin of error of 1mm per km, or whatever that percentage is...0.001%?

Aaaaanyways, I've been thinking about building an "official" calculator specifically for the 1000 miles per watt award based on some of the above research.  What do y'all think?

Oh, and someone let me know if I was way off track with the math-talk above.

VY 72 DE AK4VL
Julio Jimenez


On Thursday, August 15, 2013, Todd F. Carney / K7TFC wrote:
 

Glen,

I just checked the QSOs in my QRZ log and all the distances agree. I would be interested in knowing what software (or function on the internet) QRZ uses to calculate these distances. I think I'll cast about the web looking for online distance calculators. 

I do think it's cool that QRZ include this service, but for an award I'd be inclined to use a good-sized map and measure with an good-quality ruler. What's good sized? Well, at least 2x4 feet perhaps. The U.S. Geological Survey has excellent maps. So does the National Geographic Society. They have one of the United States that's 30x43" with a scale of 1:4,560,000. http://shop.nationalgeographic.com/coupon.jsp?code=NG20214&url=%2Fproduct%2F304%2F1293%2F173%2Ehtml. Like most maps, it has a scale reference in the legend box--miles/inch, or (easier to calculate) miles/mm.

I would like to hear what QRZ says.

73,

Todd
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
K7TFC / Medford, Oregon, USA / CN82ni / UTC-7 (PDT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Glen <glene77is@...> wrote:
 

Guys, 
I wonder if anyone else has spotted this intermittent problem at QRZ.com ? 

I have noticed a difference in 
1) the QRZ.com reported "Distance" 
vs.  
2) the "Bio page" "Detail map" reported "Distance".  

Sometimes it may be 40% milage off. 
Most of the time it is the same. 

Here is a sample QRZ log comment entry, 
/Start Quote/
#59401804 Log 
Date: 2013-08-13 23:04:33 MST 
QSO Start: 2013-08-13 23:03:00 UTC: 

20LW. 941. Dale WC7S in WY 
2nd time today. 
QSB flutter 73. 
Think Dale parks at 14.060. 
QRZ "Bio" "Detail" (via Google) reports "Distance:  908.5 mi  (1462.1 km)". 
QRZ "log page"                           reports "Distance:  464.0 mi   / 746 km" 

Glen, updated.
/End Quote/ 

So, the question next is, running QRPp , 
if I apply for a "1000 miles per watt certificate", 




--
http://www.qsl.net/kc0pmh/   Under construction but please visit anyway.
 
QRP -  EFFICIENCY AND SKILL, NOT POWER. 
 
I'm British by birth but American by CHOICE!

Jesus came to pay a debt He didn't owe because we owe a debt we cannot pay...

The Lord bless you and keep you
The Lord make His face shine upon you, and be gracious unto you
The Lord lift up his contenance upon you and give you peace.

God Bless from Wayne Dillon - KC0PMH

Joshua 24:14-15
2 Cor 5:17
1 Jn 2:17
 

4 State QRP Group NCS - 40m & 160m
4SQRP #95
FPQRP #342 (Flying Pigs QRP Club)
G-QRP-C #11504
NAQCC # 0759
QRP-ARCI #11505
SKCC #1155C
SOC #848
30MDG#1176
NEQRP #693
GORC #192


Re: QRZ.com "distance" reports are different.

Glen <glene77is@...>
 

Julio,

This is a really GOOD Discussion. Keep up the Good Work.

I agree that    """building an  "official"   calculator 
specifically for the 1000 miles per watt award  
based on some of the above research" ""
will be a good thing.

Could be that  you will decide 
to just rely on the publicly published Google Data. 

Due to the constant undulations of the earth's crust,  
and minor Plate Techtonic considerations, 
I don't see any  "exact" accuracy coming out of this.

Somewhere along the line, a compromise will be made.

At least the problems will have been considered, 
and we will ALL be doing  things the same way
 ... in regards to receiving 4SQRP awards.


Glen, KK4LPG.

--- In 4sqrp@..., Julio Jimenez wrote:
>
> This is a good discussion y'all. I've put some thought into the same
> subject after following in AA4XX's footsteps as the QRP ARCI awards manager.
>
> I have no clue what algorithm QRZ uses for distance calculations, but based
> solely on my research I've found that calculation based on the Haversine
> formula can have a 0.3% error (3m per km), especially if the distance is
> not parallel to a latitude line, given that Haversine assumes the earth is
> a sphere, from what I understood.
>
> I also found the Vicenty formula, which takes into account the elliptical
> (or spheroidal?) shape of the earth, with a margin of error of 1mm per km,
> or whatever that percentage is...0.001%?
>
> Aaaaanyways, I've been thinking about building an "official" calculator
> specifically for the 1000 miles per watt award based on some of the above
> research. What do y'all think?
>
> Oh, and someone let me know if I was way off track with the math-talk above.
>
> VY 72 DE AK4VL
> Julio Jimenez
>
>
> On Thursday, August 15, 2013, Todd F. Carney / K7TFC wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Glen,
> >
> > I just checked the QSOs in my QRZ log and all the distances agree. I would
> > be interested in knowing what software (or function on the internet) QRZ
> > uses to calculate these distances. I think I'll cast about the web looking
> > for online distance calculators.
> >
> > I do think it's cool that QRZ include this service, but for an award I'd
> > be inclined to use a good-sized map and measure with an good-quality ruler.
> > What's good sized? Well, at least 2x4 feet perhaps. The U.S. Geological
> > Survey has excellent maps. So does the National Geographic Society. They
> > have one of the United States that's 30x43" with a scale of 1:4,560,000.
> > http://shop.nationalgeographic.com/coupon.jsp?code=NG20214&url=%2Fproduct%2F304%2F1293%2F173%2Ehtml.
> > Like most maps, it has a scale reference in the legend box--miles/inch, or
> > (easier to calculate) miles/mm.
> >
> > I would like to hear what QRZ says.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > K7TFC / Medford, Oregon, USA / CN82ni / UTC-7 (PDT)
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Glen glene77is@... wrote:
> >
> > **
> >
> >
> > Guys,
> > I wonder if anyone else has spotted this intermittent problem at QRZ.com ?
> >
> > I have noticed a difference in
> > 1) the QRZ.com reported "Distance"
> > vs.
> > 2) the "Bio page" "Detail map" reported "Distance".
> >
> > Sometimes it may be 40% milage off.
> > Most of the time it is the same.
> >
> > Here is a sample QRZ log comment entry,
> > /Start Quote/
> > #59401804 Log
> > Date: 2013-08-13 23:04:33 MST
> > QSO Start: 2013-08-13 23:03:00 UTC:
> >
> > 20LW. 941. Dale WC7S in WY
> > 2nd time today.
> > QSB flutter 73.
> > Think Dale parks at 14.060.
> > *QRZ "Bio" "Detail" (via Google) reports "Distance: 908.5 mi (1462.1
> > km)". *
> > *QRZ "log page" reports "Distance: 464.0 mi
> > / 746 km" *
> >
> > Glen, updated.
> > /End Quote/
> >
> > *So, the question next is, running QRPp , *
> > *if I apply for a "1000 miles per watt certificate", *
> >
> >
> >
>


Re: New pictures added to my photo file

Johnny AC0BQ
 

Nice pics Wayne
Could you get a shot of the shape of the antenna?
Nice looking Balun!
Johnny AC0BQ

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 15, 2013, at 9:05 AM, Wayne Dillon <wayne.dillon@...> wrote:

 

I was messing with the W3EDP antenna last evening and have added some pictures of the set-up to my photo album on the 4SQRP yahoo group page.
The BalUn is a home-brew 4:1 on a T-200-2 core, as you can see it's connected right on the back of the LGD QRP Autotuner,
Enjoy,
72/3 es God Bless de Wayne - KC0PMH

--
http://www.qsl.net/kc0pmh/   Under construction but please visit anyway.
 
QRP -  EFFICIENCY AND SKILL, NOT POWER. 
 
I'm British by birth but American by CHOICE!

Jesus came to pay a debt He didn't owe because we owe a debt we cannot pay...

The Lord bless you and keep you
The Lord make His face shine upon you, and be gracious unto you
The Lord lift up his contenance upon you and give you peace.

God Bless from Wayne Dillon - KC0PMH

Joshua 24:14-15
2 Cor 5:17
1 Jn 2:17
 

4 State QRP Group NCS - 40m & 160m
4SQRP #95
FPQRP #342 (Flying Pigs QRP Club)
G-QRP-C #11504
NAQCC # 0759
QRP-ARCI #11505
SKCC #1155C
SOC #848
30MDG#1176
NEQRP #693
GORC #192


Re: QRZ.com "distance" reports are different.

Julio Jimenez <ak4vl.qrp@...>
 

Oh ok then, FB on getting that sorted out.

Yeah, that's why I quoted "official", I meant it more in the sense of convenience, not as an attempt to make things more strict or difficult.

I feel honored to process KMPW's, 'cause besides the simple form, I get to hear the awesome stories of how some of these contacts were made.

So keep those applications coming, regardless of how you measure power or distance.  You guys and gals are truly an inspiration!!

VY 72
Julio

On Thursday, August 15, 2013, Glen wrote:
Julio,

I wrote a response, which I had hoped would clarify the 'real' problem I experienced
Don't see it in this listing, however.

So, the 'real' problem was that a dozen records contained incorrect grid specs. 
I fixed them all by re-"Locating" each within the QRZ site software. 
Mine is EM55ce, but the one listed was something strange, pointing to Wichita, Kansas. 
That error in the computer record amounts to maybe 465 miles, plus/minus going east/west. 
QRZ uses my personal grid locator to lookup and calc distances. 
If my personal grid locator is wrong on file with them, then they will have the wrong distance. 

MY Problem was NOT an error caused by using different cartographic calculations, 
it was a simple error in the data contained in my own personal (QRZ) locator data. 

I don't suggest running around the bush to solve a larger than life problem, 
... unless that is something you are especially good at, and enjoy it. 

If the KMPW certificates are going to based on 
1) millimeter measurements of a convoluted non-spherical earth,  in constant undulations, 
2) micro-watt accuracy of power input/output,  
3) mill-dB ratings of one 10 element Log Trap beam vs my 150 foot longwire, suspended on the back fence, 
4) using only RF probes with matched 1N34A diodes,  and .001% caps,  and a probe length of 44.707 millimeters.
Then it might be just toooooo much.    

I am very pleased to have used 0.2 W into a telephone cable strung through the walls and attic, 
and participated in a contact On 2013, March 17, 1700 EST, on 20M 14.041,
between WY4J and KK4LPG, at 862 miles.  That calculates to 4310 miles per watt.   
I don't need a certificate to have a good feeling about QRP operations.  

I have since 
1) obtained a really fine running 1977 HW-8, 
2) put up a genuine Long-Wire (hanging on my back fence and across the rose bushes), 
3) plugged in my 1946 Bug.   
This is the way I remember ham radio in my youth, 1958 when I was 21.  

This is a really GOOD Discussion.   Keep up the Good Work. 
I agree that 
"""building an "official" calculator specifically for the 1000 miles per watt award 
based on some of the above research"""  
will be a good thing. 
Due to the contstant undulations of the earth's crust, I don't see any 'exact' accuracy. 
Somewhere along the line, a compromise will be made. 
At least the problems will have been considered, and we will ALL be doing things the same way 
... in regards to receiving 4SQRP awards. 

Julio, 
I am sure you will resolve these issues of Award Winner Accuracy.
But right now,    I think I hear a California station,    about S2,    and I need to listen closely. 

Glen,  KK4LPG   (bio on QRZ.com)


--- In 4sqrp@..., Julio Jimenez wrote:
>
> This is a good discussion y'all. I've put some thought into the same
> subject after following in AA4XX's footsteps as the QRP ARCI awards manager.
>
> I have no clue what algorithm QRZ uses for distance calculations, but based
> solely on my research I've found that calculation based on the Haversine
> formula can have a 0.3% error (3m per km), especially if the distance is
> not parallel to a latitude line, given that Haversine assumes the earth is
> a sphere, from what I understood.
>
> I also found the Vicenty formula, which takes into account the elliptical
> (or spheroidal?) shape of the earth, with a margin of error of 1mm per km,
> or whatever that percentage is...0.001%?
>
> Aaaaanyways, I've been thinking about building an "official" calculator
> specifically for the 1000 miles per watt award based on some of the above
> research. What do y'all think?
>
> Oh, and someone let me know if I was way off track with the math-talk above.
>
> VY 72 DE AK4VL
> Julio Jimenez
>
>
> On Thursday, August 15, 2013, Todd F. Carney / K7TFC wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Glen,
> >
> > I just checked the QSOs in my QRZ log and all the distances agree. I would
> > be interested in knowing what software (or function on the internet) QRZ
> > uses to calculate these distances. I think I'll cast about the web looking
> > for online distance calculators.
> >
> > I do think it's cool that QRZ include this service, but for an award I'd
> > be inclined to use a good-sized map and measure with an good-quality ruler.
> > What's good sized? Well, at least 2x4 feet perhaps. The U.S. Geological
> > Survey has excellent maps. So does the National Geographic Society. They
> > have one of the United States that's 30x43" with a scale of 1:4,560,000.
> > http://shop.nationalgeographic.com/coupon.jsp?code=NG20214&url=%2Fproduct%2F304%2F1293%2F173%2Ehtml.
> > Like most maps, it has a scale reference in the legend box--miles/inch, or
> > (easier to calculate) miles/mm.
> >
> > I would like to hear what QRZ says.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > K7TFC / Medford, Oregon, USA / CN82ni / UTC-7 (PDT)
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Glen glene77is@... wrote:
> >
> > **
> >
> >
> > Guys,
> > I wonder if anyone else has spotted this intermittent problem at QRZ.com ?
> >
> > I have noticed a difference in
> > 1) the QRZ.com reported "Distance"
> > vs.
> > 2) the "Bio page" "Detail map" reported "Distance".
> >
> > Sometimes it may be 40% milage off.
> > Most of the time it is the same.
> >
> > Here is a sample QRZ log comment entry,
> > /Start Quote/
> > #59401804 Log
> > Date: 2013-08-13 23:04:33 MST
> > QSO Start: 2013-08-13 23:03:00 UTC:
> >
> > 20LW. 941. Dale WC7S in WY
> > 2nd time today.
> > QSB flutter 73.
> > Think Dale parks at 14.060.
> > *QRZ "Bio" "Detail" (via Google) reports "Distance: 908.5 mi (1462.1
> > km)". *
> > *QRZ "log page" reports "Distance: 464.0 mi
> > / 746 km" *
> >
> > Glen, updated.
> > /End Quote/
> >
> > *So, the question next is, running QRPp , *
> > *if I apply for a "1000 miles per watt certificate", *
> >
> >
> >
>


Re: QRZ.com "distance" reports are different.

Glen <glene77is@...>
 

Julio,

I wrote a response, which I had hoped would clarify the 'real' problem I experienced
Don't see it in this listing, however.

So, the 'real' problem was that a dozen records contained incorrect grid specs. 
I fixed them all by re-"Locating" each within the QRZ site software. 
Mine is EM55ce, but the one listed was something strange, pointing to Wichita, Kansas. 
That error in the computer record amounts to maybe 465 miles, plus/minus going east/west. 
QRZ uses my personal grid locator to lookup and calc distances. 
If my personal grid locator is wrong on file with them, then they will have the wrong distance. 

MY Problem was NOT an error caused by using different cartographic calculations, 
it was a simple error in the data contained in my own personal (QRZ) locator data. 

I don't suggest running around the bush to solve a larger than life problem, 
... unless that is something you are especially good at, and enjoy it. 

If the KMPW certificates are going to based on 
1) millimeter measurements of a convoluted non-spherical earth,  in constant undulations, 
2) micro-watt accuracy of power input/output,  
3) mill-dB ratings of one 10 element Log Trap beam vs my 150 foot longwire, suspended on the back fence, 
4) using only RF probes with matched 1N34A diodes,  and .001% caps,  and a probe length of 44.707 millimeters.
Then it might be just toooooo much.    

I am very pleased to have used 0.2 W into a telephone cable strung through the walls and attic, 
and participated in a contact On 2013, March 17, 1700 EST, on 20M 14.041,
between WY4J and KK4LPG, at 862 miles.  That calculates to 4310 miles per watt.   
I don't need a certificate to have a good feeling about QRP operations.  

I have since 
1) obtained a really fine running 1977 HW-8, 
2) put up a genuine Long-Wire (hanging on my back fence and across the rose bushes), 
3) plugged in my 1946 Bug.   
This is the way I remember ham radio in my youth, 1958 when I was 21.  

This is a really GOOD Discussion.   Keep up the Good Work. 
I agree that 
"""building an "official" calculator specifically for the 1000 miles per watt award 
based on some of the above research"""  
will be a good thing. 
Due to the contstant undulations of the earth's crust, I don't see any 'exact' accuracy. 
Somewhere along the line, a compromise will be made. 
At least the problems will have been considered, and we will ALL be doing things the same way 
... in regards to receiving 4SQRP awards. 

Julio, 
I am sure you will resolve these issues of Award Winner Accuracy.
But right now,    I think I hear a California station,    about S2,    and I need to listen closely. 

Glen,  KK4LPG   (bio on QRZ.com)


--- In 4sqrp@..., Julio Jimenez wrote:
>
> This is a good discussion y'all. I've put some thought into the same
> subject after following in AA4XX's footsteps as the QRP ARCI awards manager.
>
> I have no clue what algorithm QRZ uses for distance calculations, but based
> solely on my research I've found that calculation based on the Haversine
> formula can have a 0.3% error (3m per km), especially if the distance is
> not parallel to a latitude line, given that Haversine assumes the earth is
> a sphere, from what I understood.
>
> I also found the Vicenty formula, which takes into account the elliptical
> (or spheroidal?) shape of the earth, with a margin of error of 1mm per km,
> or whatever that percentage is...0.001%?
>
> Aaaaanyways, I've been thinking about building an "official" calculator
> specifically for the 1000 miles per watt award based on some of the above
> research. What do y'all think?
>
> Oh, and someone let me know if I was way off track with the math-talk above.
>
> VY 72 DE AK4VL
> Julio Jimenez
>
>
> On Thursday, August 15, 2013, Todd F. Carney / K7TFC wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Glen,
> >
> > I just checked the QSOs in my QRZ log and all the distances agree. I would
> > be interested in knowing what software (or function on the internet) QRZ
> > uses to calculate these distances. I think I'll cast about the web looking
> > for online distance calculators.
> >
> > I do think it's cool that QRZ include this service, but for an award I'd
> > be inclined to use a good-sized map and measure with an good-quality ruler.
> > What's good sized? Well, at least 2x4 feet perhaps. The U.S. Geological
> > Survey has excellent maps. So does the National Geographic Society. They
> > have one of the United States that's 30x43" with a scale of 1:4,560,000.
> > http://shop.nationalgeographic.com/coupon.jsp?code=NG20214&url=%2Fproduct%2F304%2F1293%2F173%2Ehtml.
> > Like most maps, it has a scale reference in the legend box--miles/inch, or
> > (easier to calculate) miles/mm.
> >
> > I would like to hear what QRZ says.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > K7TFC / Medford, Oregon, USA / CN82ni / UTC-7 (PDT)
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Glen glene77is@... wrote:
> >
> > **
> >
> >
> > Guys,
> > I wonder if anyone else has spotted this intermittent problem at QRZ.com ?
> >
> > I have noticed a difference in
> > 1) the QRZ.com reported "Distance"
> > vs.
> > 2) the "Bio page" "Detail map" reported "Distance".
> >
> > Sometimes it may be 40% milage off.
> > Most of the time it is the same.
> >
> > Here is a sample QRZ log comment entry,
> > /Start Quote/
> > #59401804 Log
> > Date: 2013-08-13 23:04:33 MST
> > QSO Start: 2013-08-13 23:03:00 UTC:
> >
> > 20LW. 941. Dale WC7S in WY
> > 2nd time today.
> > QSB flutter 73.
> > Think Dale parks at 14.060.
> > *QRZ "Bio" "Detail" (via Google) reports "Distance: 908.5 mi (1462.1
> > km)". *
> > *QRZ "log page" reports "Distance: 464.0 mi
> > / 746 km" *
> >
> > Glen, updated.
> > /End Quote/
> >
> > *So, the question next is, running QRPp , *
> > *if I apply for a "1000 miles per watt certificate", *
> >
> >
> >
>


Re: QRZ.com "distance" reports are different.

Julio Jimenez <ak4vl.qrp@...>
 

This is a good discussion y'all.  I've put some thought into the same subject after following in AA4XX's footsteps as the QRP ARCI awards manager.

I have no clue what algorithm QRZ uses for distance calculations, but based solely on my research I've found that calculation based on the Haversine formula can have a 0.3% error (3m per km), especially if the distance is not parallel to a latitude line, given that Haversine assumes the earth is a sphere, from what I understood.

I also found the Vicenty formula, which takes into account the elliptical (or spheroidal?) shape of the earth, with a margin of error of 1mm per km, or whatever that percentage is...0.001%?

Aaaaanyways, I've been thinking about building an "official" calculator specifically for the 1000 miles per watt award based on some of the above research.  What do y'all think?

Oh, and someone let me know if I was way off track with the math-talk above.

VY 72 DE AK4VL
Julio Jimenez


On Thursday, August 15, 2013, Todd F. Carney / K7TFC wrote:
 

Glen,

I just checked the QSOs in my QRZ log and all the distances agree. I would be interested in knowing what software (or function on the internet) QRZ uses to calculate these distances. I think I'll cast about the web looking for online distance calculators. 

I do think it's cool that QRZ include this service, but for an award I'd be inclined to use a good-sized map and measure with an good-quality ruler. What's good sized? Well, at least 2x4 feet perhaps. The U.S. Geological Survey has excellent maps. So does the National Geographic Society. They have one of the United States that's 30x43" with a scale of 1:4,560,000. http://shop.nationalgeographic.com/coupon.jsp?code=NG20214&url=%2Fproduct%2F304%2F1293%2F173%2Ehtml. Like most maps, it has a scale reference in the legend box--miles/inch, or (easier to calculate) miles/mm.

I would like to hear what QRZ says.

73,

Todd
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
K7TFC / Medford, Oregon, USA / CN82ni / UTC-7 (PDT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Glen <glene77is@...> wrote:
 

Guys, 
I wonder if anyone else has spotted this intermittent problem at QRZ.com ? 

I have noticed a difference in 
1) the QRZ.com reported "Distance" 
vs.  
2) the "Bio page" "Detail map" reported "Distance".  

Sometimes it may be 40% milage off. 
Most of the time it is the same. 

Here is a sample QRZ log comment entry, 
/Start Quote/
#59401804 Log 
Date: 2013-08-13 23:04:33 MST 
QSO Start: 2013-08-13 23:03:00 UTC: 

20LW. 941. Dale WC7S in WY 
2nd time today. 
QSB flutter 73. 
Think Dale parks at 14.060. 
QRZ "Bio" "Detail" (via Google) reports "Distance:  908.5 mi  (1462.1 km)". 
QRZ "log page"                           reports "Distance:  464.0 mi   / 746 km" 

Glen, updated.
/End Quote/ 

So, the question next is, running QRPp , 
if I apply for a "1000 miles per watt certificate", 


Re: QRZ.com "distance" reports are different.

John Lonigro
 

There is a simple trigonometric method for computing the great circle distance between any two points on earth.  If the earth were a perfect sphere, the accuracy of the method would depend solely on how well you know the coordinates of the two points.  Because the equatorial radius is slightly greater than the polar radius, the method isn't exact, but using an "average" earth radius should be accurate enough for most purposes.  Measuring the distance on a map probably won't give the correct answer, since you need to be computing great circle distance, the shortest distance between two points on a sphere. 

If anyone is interested, I'll see if I can dig up the equations. They aren't very difficult.  Or you could do a Google search and come up with them yourself.

72's,

John AA0VE


On 08/15/2013 02:39 PM, Todd F. Carney / K7TFC wrote:
 
Glen,

I just checked the QSOs in my QRZ log and all the distances agree. I would be interested in knowing what software (or function on the internet) QRZ uses to calculate these distances. I think I'll cast about the web looking for online distance calculators. 

I do think it's cool that QRZ include this service, but for an award I'd be inclined to use a good-sized map and measure with an good-quality ruler. What's good sized? Well, at least 2x4 feet perhaps. The U.S. Geological Survey has excellent maps. So does the National Geographic Society. They have one of the United States that's 30x43" with a scale of 1:4,560,000. http://shop.nationalgeographic.com/coupon.jsp?code=NG20214&url=%2Fproduct%2F304%2F1293%2F173%2Ehtml. Like most maps, it has a scale reference in the legend box--miles/inch, or (easier to calculate) miles/mm.

I would like to hear what QRZ says.

73,

Todd
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
K7TFC / Medford, Oregon, USA / CN82ni / UTC-7 (PDT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Glen <glene77is@...> wrote:
 
Guys, 
I wonder if anyone else has spotted this intermittent problem at QRZ.com ? 

I have noticed a difference in 
1) the QRZ.com reported "Distance" 
vs.  
2) the "Bio page" "Detail map" reported "Distance".  

Sometimes it may be 40% milage off. 
Most of the time it is the same. 

Here is a sample QRZ log comment entry, 
/Start Quote/
#59401804 Log 
Date: 2013-08-13 23:04:33 MST 
QSO Start: 2013-08-13 23:03:00 UTC: 

20LW. 941. Dale WC7S in WY 
2nd time today. 
QSB flutter 73. 
Think Dale parks at 14.060. 
QRZ "Bio" "Detail" (via Google) reports "Distance:  908.5 mi  (1462.1 km)". 
QRZ "log page"                           reports "Distance:  464.0 mi   / 746 km" 

Glen, updated.
/End Quote/ 

So, the question next is, running QRPp , 
if I apply for a "1000 miles per watt certificate", 
which figures do I use ?  

Have submitted a Service Requist to QRZ.com. 
This example is just the latest, 
not the big one, at 1600 miles on a Watt of power. 
This problem is not 100%, just often enough to be spotted. 

Anybody else spotted this problem ?   




Re: Net Report

Johnny AC0BQ
 

Ge Charles 
Yes I agree 40 m signals were much better on the second net. 
Tnx for your participation 
72
Johnny

On Thursday, August 15, 2013, Charles Moizeau wrote:
 

With an additional hour of darkness, 40m signals in NJ were stronger for the second net than the first. However, strong SSB QRM kept me from repeating my earlier QNI.

On 80m nothing was heard here.

72,

Charles, W2SH



To: 4sqrp@...
From: jomatlock@...
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 06:20:16 -0500
Subject: [4sqrp] Net Report

 
Gm:
Here are the net reports for last night, not too bad, lots of QRN!

7:30 40 M

WB5CTS STEVE
KV6Z BILL
K2HT DICK
W2SH CHARLES

80 M
N9RLO JOHN

8:30 40 M

KC0PMH WAYNE
N9RLO JOHN
N0YJ/P BERT
AA5CO BRUCE
KV6Z BILL

Thanks to all that all that tried and all who made it in, it was fun!
72
JOHNNY AC0BQ

Sent from my iPad