Ham Operator Sets New Miles-Per-Watt World Record

DoctorPepper writes "A ham radio operator in New London, North Carolina correctly copied an 80 meter CW beacon in Wappingers Falls, New York, a distance of 546.8 miles. The kicker is, the beacon station, an Elecraft K1, was putting out 40.6 uW (40.6 millionths of a Watt) -- which works out to 13,467,980 miles per watt!"

Comments

Hmm.. check your math

[Ckwop]

I don't think the math is right there. If it's a straight mast then the wave front will spread out radially.

So increasing the power wouldn't give you a linear increase in distance like the OP seems to believe it would.

Simon.

Re:Hmm.. check your math

[rsw]

The correct way to do this is to distribute the radiated power over the surface of the sphere at the radius in question. Thus, one measures it in terms of power per square meter, i.e., field strength.

Whiners.

[RobertB-DC]

From the comments at the article site:

While the ability to receive a very weak signal is always interesting (and exciting for QRPP operators), converting results into "miles per watt" is an absolutely useless way to express results!!

The whiner goes on to say:

At 1.5 MHz data in CCIR Thirteenth Plenary Assembly (vol VI report 264-3 p 108) shows attenuation increases ~10 dB when path length goes from 500 km to 1000 km. Doubling skywave path length at 500 km when at 1.5 MHz increases loss 10dB, NOT 3 dB. Doubling distance again (same frequency) from 1000 km to 2000 km results in an additional ~15 db loss! 2000 km to 4000 km is about 22 dB more loss. This is based on measured data.

While most of the numbers leave me with a blank look, one thing is clear: the poster missed the point. The accomplishment is cool because of the geek factor, not because it's going to lead to a new radio in your car. Therefore, the measurement of the achievement doesn't *have* to be "useful".

Ham Radio Not Outmoded

[reallocate]

I'm not a ham, but it seems to me that there isn't much basis in fact for an assertion that amateur radio is "horribly outmoded".

My guess is that you think it has been made obsolete by the Internet. That strikes me as being palpably untrue, as well as a bit like saying the fact that so many people eat pizza means good restaurants are outmoded.

Two different technologies, two different sets of purposes and abilities.

Re:Ham Radio is Obsolete

[cepler]

Those cellphones don't work well in emergencies. Systems get overloaded, cables break/get washed away, towers crumble to the ground.

Just ask people from NY City how well phones worked on September 11th.

-- Chris A. Epler - K4UNX

Tell that to Port Blair residents

[Animaether]

Okay.. Ham Radio is dead, right ?

And you say this 2 days after the Slashdot article entitled :
Ham Radio Served as Main Link to Disaster Area
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/02/234325 6&tid=215

That's a quick death it died after having proved that it's still worth having as an alternative.

Less noise=Better Reception

[goneutt]

I'm thinking that this is a case where less traffic in the Ham world of frequencies has made it easier to get more distance. It's easier to hear someone in a empty room than one full of yapping people.

Anyone got any numbers on how crowded the frequency spectrum involved is, and how much it's changed.

This is stupid

[KFury]

'Miles per watt' is a stupid, meaningless metric. Since watts dissipate by the inverse square law, it's completely false to say that (for example) a an efficiency of 0.001 watts at one mile equates to 1 watt at 1000 miles.

If I wanted to break this 'record' I would simply replicate the experiemnt from a distance of 273 miles (half the distance) where I could pick up the signal with 1/4th the required signal strength (inverse square law) and suddenly I have a 'record' of 26,935,960 miles per watt! Heck, if we put the transmitter on the same circuit board as the receiver I could create an 'efficiency' that would let me contact quasars with a hamster wheel.

Bah.