Re: [IRCA] for those with propagation interests

[Russ Edmunds <wb2bjh@xxxxxxxxx>]

Interesting in that he didn't comment on the distirbution of your data by frequency in that your receptions of the two lower-frequency stations was significantly more frequent - and that your receptions of 1548 ought not to be all that much different from 160, relatively speaking.

I have become somewhat jaded over the years in some of the efforts of some of the 160m ham community to try to force conclusions on propagation on that band and also on MW, although this may not be happening here. 

My personal feeling is that there are other factors at work here. I've been reading with some interest some recent scientific studies which offer significant changes in what scientists thought they knew about how various atmospheric and geomagnetic operations actually work which could have some significant impact on radio hobbyists' view of propagation. 



Russ Edmunds
Blue Bell, PA ( 360' ASL )
[15 mi NNW of Philadelphia]
40:08:45N; 75:16:04W, Grid FN20id
<wb2bjh@xxxxxxxxx>
FM: Yamaha T-80 & Onkyo T-450RDS w/ APS9B @15'
AM: Modified Sony ICF 2010 barefoot


--- On Wed, 9/16/09, Nick Hall-Patch <nhp@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: Nick Hall-Patch <nhp@xxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [IRCA] for those with propagation interests
> To: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2009, 4:50 PM
> This is a work in progress, but an
> analysis has been done by Carl, K9LA, a 160
> meter band propagation expert, on whether this sunspot
> minimum has been better
> for DX than the last one.  The upshot, not as good on
> 160 meters, but the medium
> frequencies seem to have better DX this minimum.
> 
> http://mysite.verizon.net/k9la/Is_This_Solar_Minimum_Better_or_Worse.pdf.
> 
> **********
> Nick Hall-Patch
> Victoria, BC
> Canada
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IRCA mailing list
> IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca
> 
> Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are
> those of the original contributors and do not necessarily
> reflect the opinion of the IRCA, its editors, publishing
> staff, or officers
> 
> For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org
> 
> To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 


      

_______________________________________________
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca

Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers

For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org

To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx