Definition for QRP
Prepared on 11th August 2006
Ian Brown G3TLH
Steve Rawlings GW4ALG
recommends that the Radio Society of Great Britain ('the Society') adopts
and implements a standard definition for 'QRP' low power operation as soon
as practicable, and in any event from January 2008.
'QRP' is often
used by radio amateurs to indicate a particular (maximum) transmitter output
power. Over the past two decades, low power radio clubs and national
amateur radio societies have sought to establish a common understanding of
what is meant by 'QRP operation'. The main reasons for seeking an
international definition for QRP are to avoid ambiguity, and to establish a
level playing field for those participating in QRP operating events and
does not appear to have adopted any particular definition for QRP. This
often means that contests are organised with sections having power
categories that lack consistency, and which are often out of step with
internationally recognised standards for QRP operation. As a result, such
events often fail to attract participants from the QRP community.
appear to be a number of opportunities for adopting and applying a
consistent definition for 'QRP' in line with internationally accepted
definitions for QRP. It is acknowledged that the Society would need to
allow sufficient time for RSGB departments and committees to implement a
respectfully propose that the Society:
4a) adopts the following definition for 'QRP' low power operation as
soon as practicable and, in any event, from January 2008:
CW and Data: Maximum 5 watts output from the transmitter.
SSB: Maximum 10 watts PEP output from the transmitter.
4b) applies this definition whenever the term 'QRP' is used in any
RSGB document to indicate a particular maximum power level; and,
4c) seeks to align the rules of new and existing RSGB contests with
the definition above, giving due regard to the interests of QRP operators.
To add your name to this list, send an email to me at:
This Proposal has the support of the following radio
G3MCK, Gerald Stancey
G3MFJ, Graham Firth
G3ROO, Ian Keyser
G3TLH, Ian Brown
G3VGR, Dave Aldridge
G3YMC, Dave Sergeant
G4DDL, Mike Pemberton
G8BOU, Clive Hollins (also M5CHH and VE3CHH)
GM3OXX, George Burt
GM4HQF, Dave Lindsay
GM4XQJ, Brian Waddell
GW4ALG, Steve Rawlings
M0AYF, Des Kostryca
M0CVB, John Sherbourne
M0XDF, David Ferrington
the 10 watt section of National Field Day, Dave
Sergeant, G3YMC has
written to say: "You might also add that the HF NFD rules call it a Low Power section but the tabulated results and write up
refer to it as QRP..."
13/08/2006: There has
been much discussion within the UK QRP community about the limit for QRP
Data. Options include 2.5 watts; 5 watts; or 10 watts - depending
which model you use when comparing data modes with CW.
Dave Aldridge, G3VGR
writes: "I think your proposal of defining QRP data modes at 5 watts
is correct. My PSK20 runs around 2-3 watts output & seems to give similar
results to 3 watts of CW on 20 metres."
14/08/2006: John Sherbourne, M0CVB
writes: "I hope that the RSGB accepts the proposal and I agree with the 5
watt limit for data and CW modes."
14/08/2006: Brian Waddell, GM4XQJ
emailed me to say: "I have written to the RSGB
over the years suggesting that they set the power levels for QRP contest
sections the same as internationally recognised QRP power levels. I
even said that if the HF Field Day QRP power level was set at a maximum of 5
watts I would enter....but I never got a reply."
15/08/2006: Clive Hollins, G8BOU
wrote: "Please add my name to those proposing
the adoption of the definition of QRP as 5 Watts TX output power for CW and
Data modes and 10 Watts PEP for SSB."
17/08/2006: Des Kostryca, M0AYF
wrote: Put me down as supportive of an
agreed 5W limit for QRP operation for both CW and Data modes. From my
perspective the QRP SSB limit could also be 5W, but since the established
convention seems to be 10W I guess we may have to live with that."
20/08/2006: David Ferrington, M0XDF
has written to say: "Although I
currently don't run QRP and have no immediate plans to do so, I support the
proposal because I believe it is important to support those who do run QRP
and that there definitely should be a clear and consistent definition for
To add your comments here (supportive or otherwise!), send an email to me at: