Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Ham Operator Sets New Miles-Per-Watt World Record

Posted by timothy on Wed Jan 05, 2005 06:00 PM
from the bend-it-like-an-ionospheric-layer dept.
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!"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by fussili (720463) on Wednesday January 05 2005, @06:03PM (#11269947)
    Ham Radio continues to excite. I think there's something romantic about it that draws geeks towards its coils - how else do you explain the way it has enthralled so many in its history? The venerable Woz is one. Can anyone else recall any Ham Radio enthusiasts who went onto bigger things in Tech?
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Ask the people in Thailand how 'outmoded' ham radio is.
    • by Chatmag (646500) <editor@chatmag.com> on Wednesday January 05 2005, @06:14PM (#11270082) Homepage Journal
      Here is a list of some famous hams [tellurian.com]
    • by deglr6328 (150198) on Wednesday January 05 2005, @06:20PM (#11270131)
      This wattage/mile efficiency thing is always a neat trick. I doubt however, that anyone can beat what must be a record of some sort: the detection of the 10 watt (mostly) non-directional radio transmitter atop the Huygens probe [wikipedia.org] while falling into the atmosphere of Titan by the Very Long Baseline Array [nrao.edu] when nearly 1 billion miles away. A feat expected to be achieved [esa.int]next week. The power collected by one of the 70 meter dishes on earth will be comparable to what was detected from the feeble low gain antenna on the Galileo Jupiter probe. This power is in the ZEPTOWATT range. (zeptowatt [wikipedia.org])

      In addition to this, the VLBA will be used in interferometer mode (VLBI) in order to pinpoint the landing site of the probe on Titan to within 1Km!! This is equal to an angular resolution of approximately 170 microarcseconds. Thousands of times better than Hubble.
      • by palndrumm (416336) on Wednesday January 05 2005, @06:39PM (#11270329) Homepage
        I doubt however, that anyone can beat what must be a record of some sort: the detection of the 10 watt (mostly) non-directional radio transmitter atop the Huygens probe while falling into the atmosphere of Titan by the Very Long Baseline Array when nearly 1 billion miles away.

        Yeah, but this is a World Record - anything to do with an interplanetary space probe is an Out-Of-This-World Record...
      • Actually, I'm kinda more impressed by the ham record.

        Here's why:
        Huygens is about 750 million miles away right now. With 10W at that range, we're talking about 75 million miles/watt. Only about 8dB more than the ham record. And while a 1000' Beverage is a big antenna, it's no VLBA.

        On the other hand, the Huygens link has to work the first time. :)

        Now, the interferometer measurement *is* impressive. I didn't know about that.
    • by reallocate (142797) on Wednesday January 05 2005, @06:21PM (#11270146)
      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.
      • by KE6TNM (846821) on Wednesday January 05 2005, @08:25PM (#11271305)
        Many people have made the comparison to the internet or other wireless technologies. There may be some relation if your only purpose is to talk over a distance. There is however a big difference. All of the services (internet, phone, cell phone) in use by the majority of people require network support. A ham can communicate with none. In an emergency the phone and network services can be interupted by damaged circuits loss of power or just congestion making it impossible to get a message through. The last communication service funtioning will be the hams. Real life example from a call that I relayed. Power and phones were out in a section of the city and a man's wife collapsed. Luckily he was a ham and grabed his radio. I took his info and relayed to it to the fire department and the paramedics were there withing five minutes.
    • by retro128 (318602) on Wednesday January 05 2005, @06:26PM (#11270201)
      I'd get into HAM radio...Except I hate talking to people.
    • by s4ltyd0g (452701) on Wednesday January 05 2005, @06:40PM (#11270340)
      Outmoded you say? Here's a recent example that may make you change your mind on that one.

      http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-01-05-voa24.cf m [voanews.com]

      • Re:coils? (Score:4, Funny)

        by W2IRT (679526) <pjd@panix.com> on Wednesday January 05 2005, @08:19PM (#11271253) Homepage
        I think there's something romantic about it that draws geeks towards its coils

        Personally I find the capacitors to be that much more erogenous. Especially when they're discharging.

        I also like it when they resist a little.

        One night when his charge was pretty high, Mike Rofarad decided he would try to pick up a cute coil to let him discharge. He picked up Milli Amp and took her for a ride on his megacycle. They crossed the Wheatstone bridge, around by the sinewave, and stopped on a magnetic field by a flowing current.

        Fully attracted by Milli's characteristic-curves, he soon had his resistance at a minimum, and his magnetic field fully excited. He laid her on the ground potential, raised his frequency, lowered his capacitance, then pulled out his high voltage probe and hit resonance. He inserted it into her socket, connecting them in parallel, then began to short circuit her shunt. Finally, Milliamp cried MHO MHO MHO !

        With his plate tube generator at maximum plate dissipation, and her coils vibrating from the excessive current flow, Microfarad soon reached his peak also. They fluxed all night, trying various circuits and combinations, until his bar magnet lost all of its strength. Milliamp tried self induction and self excitation, but it damaged her solenoids. With his battery fully discharged, they were unable to excite their generators any further, so they reversed polarity, blew each others fuses, and went Ohm.

        • great story... but don't forget the credits!
          the above story was taken from webskulker [webskulker.com] or rec.humor [google.ca] and possibly other places.

          Yes be creative and pass the funnies along but please give credit where credit is due.

  • errrr... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Capt'n Hector (650760) on Wednesday January 05 2005, @06:04PM (#11269955)
    In english, please?
        • Re:errrr... (Score:3, Informative)

          The signal power does not decrease with distance, not even a tiny bit, losses in non-vacuum excepted.

          What happens, though, is that the wavefront becomes larger , and you have to build antennas also larger to capture the same amount of energy.

          But, for example, if you completely surround the transmitter with your antenna then you will reclaim all the transmitted energy. This is one of fundamental principles of the field theory. Mathworld [wolfram.com] has a very good explanation that leads into Maxwell equations.

          Also

  • Ham Geeks (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mark_MF-WN (678030) on Wednesday January 05 2005, @06:04PM (#11269959)
    Ham radio people are are truly the geeks' geeks. The mad-science of it all truly inspires.
    • I'm a female ham... and a rare breed, we are. Hams are often stereotyped as old, fat, geeky, hygenically-challenged white guys (actually, my one and only visit to a local hamfest somewhat confirmed this) but none of those traits describes me. Radio is old technology, but I have always found it fascinating, ever since my dad introduced me to the shortwave bands when I was a little kid. There was always something a bit magical about a signal traveling halfway around the world to be picked up on an old tube
  • by IntelliTubbie (29947) on Wednesday January 05 2005, @06:04PM (#11269962)
    So will this make it easier to bring Dennis Quaid back from the dead [imdb.com]?

    Cheers,
    IT
  • Previous record? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by UWC (664779) on Wednesday January 05 2005, @06:05PM (#11269977)
    Does anyone know what the previous record was? I'm not at all familiar with hamming, though it strikes me as quite interesting based on this and the recent tsunami-related story (primarily the ensuing comments).
  • Ummmmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by Prince Vegeta SSJ4 (718736) on Wednesday January 05 2005, @06:06PM (#11269981)
    Man A: A new record was set today

    Man B: what?

    Man A: 13,467,980 miles per watt

    Man B: What?

    Man A: Watt?

    Man B: What!?!?!?

    Man A: Watt!!!!

    Man B: Forget it, I'm not playing this stupid thing, go be an A$$.

  • HAM Geeks (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bender_ (179208) on Wednesday January 05 2005, @06:06PM (#11269983) Journal
    omg.. after reading that article I got the feeling that there are people even more geeky than computer geeks.

    "I'm thrilled the record was set by an all-American team using all-American equipment." The Ten Tec receiver is manufactured in Severville, TN and the Elecraft transmitter is produced in California and offered as a kit.


    yes, so relevant...
    • Actually, this IS kind of neat. Most of the ham market is owned by Japanese radios: Icom, Yaesu, and Kenwood. It IS neat using American gear.

      Plus, the Elecraft K1 is a kit. If you want one, you get a board, a metal box, and a bag full of parts. Some assembly required. For some people (like me), this is a feature, not a bug.
    • See, there's this association of amazing electronics coming from Japan. This goes to show that American stuff isn't dead. Yet.

      Now, who's for embargos on goods produced by underpaid workers? Let's bring the minimum wage to the developing world!
  • by Ckwop (707653) * <Simon.Johnson@gmail.com> on Wednesday January 05 2005, @06:06PM (#11269987) Homepage
    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.
    • 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.
    • by frdmfghtr (603968) on Wednesday January 05 2005, @07:55PM (#11271051)
      Right...the power drops off as the square of the distance, when you are operating in the far field.

      The far field of an antenna starts at a point where the radiated wavefront is practically flat. One such measure of this distance is

      2* D^2
      R = ----------
      wavelength

      where D is the largest dimension of the antenna. With a satellite dish, this is the reflector diameter typically; with a monopole ("stick") antenna it is the antenna length. There are other measures that are also used to calculate the start of the far field, but I can't recall them now; I will say that whichever one yields the furthest distance is the thumbrule used.

      Your orientation to the radiating antenna also plays a role. A "stick" antenna (dipole or monopole) has more energy radiated perpendicular to the mast than along the mast axis. In free space with no reflections, you can stand at either end of a stick antenna and not receive squat, as long as you are in the far field. Thus, you must also consider the gain of your antenna in the direction of interest. A stick antenna has about 3dB gain perpendicular to it, and negative infinity gain along the antenna axis.

      The actual equation to get the power density Pr when distance r from the source is:

      Pt * Gt
      Pr = ----------
      4pi*r^2

      Pt = Power radiated
      Gt = Gain of your antenna

      That's why the change in power to distance isn't linear. May have been long-winded but I spent most of the afternoon doing power density calculations so it was fresh in my head.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 05 2005, @06:07PM (#11269991)
    Watt did you say? Turn it up...

    Ohm my! That Hertz!

  • It is non-linear (Score:5, Informative)

    by frakir (760204) <ockhamrazorNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Wednesday January 05 2005, @06:08PM (#11270005)
    Even most directional antennas will not give you linear 'watt to distance' amplification.

    In worst case it is a power^1/3. So for 40 milliwatts to 1 watt amplification you'll get some 30x distance (at worst), but never 2500x, unless some wicked atmospheric conditions happen.
  • Whiners. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RobertB-DC (622190) * on Wednesday January 05 2005, @06:09PM (#11270015) Homepage Journal
    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".
  • Miles per Watt? (Score:5, Informative)

    by c++ (25427) on Wednesday January 05 2005, @06:11PM (#11270046)
    This seems an odd way to compare accomplishments. If you use this metric, then you reach the false conclusion that doubling wattage doubles distance. Since signal strength deteriorates with distance squared, a better metric might be miles^2 per Watt.

    Example using round numbers. Philip transmits 10 miles using a 10W transmitter. Sally transmits 19 miles using a 20W transmitter. If you use miles per Watt to compare, it looks like Philip achieved better results, when in fact Sally did.
  • Yawn (Score:4, Funny)

    by codepunk (167897) on Wednesday January 05 2005, @06:12PM (#11270053) Homepage
    My cell phone can talk around the world on it's itty
    bitty power output.
    • Re:Yawn (Score:5, Informative)

      by chill (34294) on Wednesday January 05 2005, @06:27PM (#11270208) Homepage Journal
      My cell phone can talk around the world on it's itty bitty power output.

      No, it can't. That is why there are those little bars showing signal strength. You're lucky the newer digital units can get two miles to a tower (where it is then pumped thru an ATM link over a T-1 to the landline network).

      Funny, fine. But to whomever modded that post "Informative" needs to go back to school.

      -Charles
  • by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) on Wednesday January 05 2005, @06:13PM (#11270070) Journal
    It's as sensible as measuring distance travelled/max acceleration of a car. There simply isn't a linear relationship between these things and so dividing one by the other doesn't give you anything interesting. If we start dividing random variables by each other and reporting the result on /. we'd never get to read any interesting news.
  • by WillWare (11935) on Wednesday January 05 2005, @06:15PM (#11270087) Homepage Journal
    40.6e-6 / (546.8 ** 2) = 1.35790386 × 10**-10

    The units here are watts per square mile. Your typical FM radio station has a range of maybe 50 miles and is running maybe 10 kwatts, so they're doing 4 watts per square mile. This guy is doing much better. My own power/distance record, back when I was active in ham radio, was 7000 miles on about 25 watts, or 5.10204082 × 10**-7 watts per square mile.

    You might wonder how it's remotely possible for there to be a gap of seven to ten orders of magnitude. Why aren't we bothered by FM radio stations on the other side of the world? There is a qualitative difference between the behavior of radio waves above and below about 30-50 MHz (the FM band starts at 88 MHz). Conditions permitting, the lower frequencies can refract in the ionosphere and come back down to earth along non-straight-line paths. That's why shortwave radio stations on other continents can be heard.

  • Spread spectrum (Score:5, Interesting)

    by morcheeba (260908) on Wednesday January 05 2005, @06:18PM (#11270114) Journal
    Commenting on his remarkable success, Bill said "I've spent 25 years on 80 & 160 listening to below noise level signals ..."

    Below noise signals sounds paradoxical, but people do it all the time. If you're in a noisy restaurant, you can pick out individual noises even though they are much quieter than everyone else. The key is that you have an idea of what you expect to hear - you generally know the tone of their voice, know what sounds make words, know what words make understandable sentences.

    Imagine if the signal had been spread-spectrum. Spread-spectrum signals are stealthy because, they to, can be recovered from below the noise floor. Basically, with an idea of what to expect, the receiver's processing can effectively raise the signal above the noise floor [maxim-ic.com]. Instead of sending short tones for each bit, a series of tones are sent for each bit (a chip) - one chip for zero, and a different chip for one. It's a lot easier process a sound and see which chip it sounds closer to than it is to see if one particular tone is there or not.

    So, in summary, this guy's brain played a lot in the reception to pick out a signal from the noise. I wonder if the next record will be set with a spread spectrum transmitted signal and a digital processing receiver.
  • by RichDice (7079) on Wednesday January 05 2005, @06:29PM (#11270235)
    What about the Voyager spacecraft? Signals from those are still being received, they're about 90 AU from Earth right now, and though (after around 3 minutes of looking) I couldn't find the watts they're putting into radio transmission, I did find that the whole spacecraft operates on 315 watts. (Or at least it did when it was at its full power -- which it isn't now.)

    For maximum pessimism, say that it's currently putting its maximum 315 watts into "phoning home" -- I work this out to 26.1 million miles per watt. (My guess is that realistically it's more like 1e3 times that.)

    Sorry HAM-guy, but Voyager still kicks yer butt.

    Cheers,
    Richard

    • by Gordonjcp (186804) on Wednesday January 05 2005, @06:59PM (#11270515) Homepage
      Voyager uses (iirc) eight watts. Yup, eight. Twice as much as a CB radio. To put this in perspective, turn on your car's sidelights (not dim-dip, just the parking light bulbs). That's about eight watts of light. Now imagine how hard that would be to see from the far end of a supermarket car park (try this late at night when the big Asda on the edge of town is shut). Now imagine how hard that would be to see from a mile away.


      Now imagine how hard that is to see from 7 billion miles away.

  • by leighklotz (192300) on Wednesday January 05 2005, @06:39PM (#11270333) Homepage
    The 1000 miles per watt award [qrparci.org] is fairly easy to get. I exceeded it twice recently, when I worked ES5MC in Estonia [wa5znu.org] from California with 4.5 watts with my Elecraft KX1 [elecraft.com] and a pack of AA batteries and a 28ft wire in a tree in central California, and OH9SCL in Santa Claus Land [wa5znu.org] (Rovaniemi Finland, news [mercurynews.com], news [nytimes.com]) with the same radio from a parking lot by the San Francisco Bay.
  • Shannon limit? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Wednesday January 05 2005, @06:49PM (#11270437) Homepage Journal
    Is there a theoretical maximum limit to how far a single bit can be propagated in 1.0 watt of laser power at, say, 1m wavelength? Photons don't seem to accelerate from their quantum ground state before emitting from an electron shell, so does their max-velocity travel consume any energy? Aren't the photons traveling in a spiral path around the axis of their direction, which consumes energy to move their tiny mass equivalence off their inertial path?
  • Ham Radio (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cantrade (125062) on Wednesday January 05 2005, @06:59PM (#11270504)
    Yes it is out moded and full of old geezers that sit in their garages and talk to others like them. But I never cease to be amazed that I can sit at my meager station and with 25 watts talk to someone in Nome, AK or in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Nerdy and Geeky for sure but still totally interesting.
  • by GrahamCox (741991) on Wednesday January 05 2005, @07:12PM (#11270659) Homepage
    Miles per watt indeed! What tosh.
  • This is stupid (Score:4, Insightful)

    by KFury (19522) * on Wednesday January 05 2005, @07:33PM (#11270848) Homepage
    '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.
  • by SETIGuy (33768) on Wednesday January 05 2005, @08:48PM (#11271448) Homepage

    What kind of unit is miles per watt? I could see watt per square mile, or preferably watt per square meter.

    If 80 meter radiation penetrated the ionosphere, the detection at a range of 880 km would be about 5*10^-17 W/m^2. I'm fairly sure 80 meter bounces both from the ionosphere and the earth itself, which results in some amplification over the inverse square law value.

    In contrast the detection threshold for SETI@home is about 5*10^-25 W/m^2, or a factor of 100 million smaller.

  • by Daath (225404) <lp@code r . dk> on Wednesday January 05 2005, @10:37PM (#11272141) Homepage Journal
    In my amateur radio days, I was a very popular conversation - I had a small 5W radio, and I built my own di-polar antenna, I was in Nuuk (capital of Greenland), and I had conversations with southern Brazil, Japan and others - I talked to a lot of people in the UK, and they had trouble believing that I was in Greenland - They said that it sounded like I was in their back yard with a 50W radio ;)
    They were all VERY happy to receive my QSL-card ;)
    Oh, if anyone remember me, I was 45SR101 ;)
    • If memory serves it was a transoceanic QRP transmission from Alaska to California (don't hold me to it.)

      The record is quite impressive given that there is more land and civilization between the new points of the new record. Still probably used ionsphere to bounce it forward, but there would be less ground effect in the new record than in the old.

      These guys have advanced antennas but its still way cool that with a QRP rig and even a simple wire antenna, you can communicate over great distances with the