On Dec 13, 2021, at 11:20 AM, Pat <pat.ring1@...> wrote:

?I've mentioned this before, but I have always felt that the onus was on the QRP aficionados to send the best signal possible, using the best equipment possible.? I am humbled and appreciate the efforts of other hams to try to pull my weak signal from the ether, or perhaps pull me out of a crowd of other calls.? I recently read an article that mentioned the same, trite saying about life being too short for QRP and it just skewed my opinion of the author's discussion a bit after that.? It makes me wonder about how challenging it is to use 50w, a 100w, 1000w, etc.? If you catch a fish with every cast, how soon would the novelty of fishing wear off?? That's how I feel about QRP.? If I can't be heard with 3w, I'll try another day.? I know not every QSO attempt is going to be successful, which always makes successful QSOs a thrill.? Now, I will concede that there are events when you want to make regular contact with a net, a group of friends for morning chat, etc. I consider that a different form of ham radio, and I see nothing wrong with QRO power for those activities when necessary.? But, fishing for QSOs using hundreds of watts and giant Yagi antennas?? I'd quickly grow tired of the hobby.?

My opinion, of course.? I am curious how others feel about QRO.? I have been a ham for nearly 30 years and have never used more than 15w (and that was only recently when I upgraded the firmware on the KX3) on HF.? Using the power required to maintain a QSO, would you use a kilowatt to make a contact?? Would that satisfy you?? I MIGHT use 100w to fish a bit, but I am so used to using less, I'd more likely just try the next day.??

73
pat