[IRCA] Fw: ARLP005 Propagation de K7RA

["Art Blair" <artngwen@xxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "W1AW Mailing List" <w1aw-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <artngwen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <W1AW List:>
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 9:00 AM
Subject: ARLP005 Propagation de K7RA


> SB PROP @ ARL $ARLP005
> ARLP005 Propagation de K7RA
> 
> ZCZC AP05
> QST de W1AW  
> Propagation Forecast Bulletin 5  ARLP005
>>From Tad Cook, K7RA
> Seattle, WA  February 3, 2006
> To all radio amateurs 
> 
> SB PROP ARL ARLP005
> ARLP005 Propagation de K7RA
> 
> Solar activity is very low. Average daily sunspot numbers for the
> week were down over 40 points to 9.1. Average daily solar flux
> dropped nearly 11 points to 80.6. Geomagnetic conditions, with the
> exception of January 26 were stable and quiet. On January 26 the
> interplanetary magnetic field, which can shield the earth from solar
> wind if it is pointing north, turned south, and the mid-latitudes
> experienced some moderate geomagnetic activity, with the A index for
> the day at 15. Polar regions saw a lot more activity, with the
> College A index in Alaska going to 36.
> 
> Currently the sun is spotless since January 29. Daily readings of
> zero sunspots could continue for another week. We will observe more
> and longer periods such as this as we head toward the solar minimum,
> still expected about to occur about a year from now. Geomagnetic
> conditions should remain quiet, and solar flux around 77. This may
> not begin to rise again until February 10.
> 
> January is over, so let us examine the average daily solar flux and
> sunspot numbers for the month compared with previous months.
> 
> The average daily sunspot numbers for the months January 2005
> through January 2006 were 52, 45.4, 41, 41.5, 65.4, 59.8, 68.7,
> 65.6, 39.2, 13, 32.2, 62.6 and 26.7. Average daily solar flux for
> the same months was 102.3, 97.2, 89.9, 85.9, 99.5, 93.7, 96.5, 92.4,
> 91.9, 76.6, 86.3, 90.8 and 86.6.
> 
> As expected, the solar cycle is declining, but there is a lot of
> variation from month to month.
> 
> Richard Buckner, who wrote the ACE-HF and ACE-HF Pro System
> Simulation and Visualization Software for propagation prediction
> mentioned in response to last week's bulletin that ACE-HF can do 160
> meter predictions, but with some limitations. He sent along a quote
> from the ACE-HF Basis for Predictions tutorial, written by George
> Lane:
> 
> "160-m Prediction Accuracy. 160-m frequencies are rounded to 2.0 MHz
> to conform to VOACAP's lower frequency limit. VOACAP 2-MHz
> predictions are reasonably accurate for NVIS and short-range
> predictions out to about 1500 km. But when path distances are very
> long, VOACAP becomes less accurate at night. At night, a residual
> E-layer exists with a MUF usually above 2 MHz. It is this phenomenon
> that permits AM broadcasts in the medium-wave bands to propagate
> thousands of kilometers during nighttime hours. VOACAP, however, is
> based on data that was collected at frequencies of 4 MHz and higher.
> Extrapolation was used to cover the lower frequencies, but funding
> limitations prevented the collection of further data to support
> those extrapolations. Unfortunately, computed absorption values are
> excessive in the extrapolations and the nighttime predictions thus
> become excessively attenuated as path distance increases. For this
> reason, 160-m nighttime predictions at long path distances should be
> used with caution."
> 
> You can find more information on ACE-HF at,
> http://home.att.net/~acehf/.
> 
> We heard again from Charles Lewis, S9SS of Sao Tome (an island off
> the West African coast, west of Gabon). On January 20 he wrote,
> 
> "I made 150 - 160M contacts last week. 51 were in North America,
> coast to coast. It was, as usual, very slow, tedious going. E-mails
> to me cited large pileups. As usual, I heard no pileup. Usually, I
> hear only one, occasionally two, stations cresting my high level
> noise. Even most "big gun" stations only get through when their
> signal is enhanced greatly by whatever propagation phenomenon. Even
> "little guns" find themselves all alone in the spotlight on my stage
> now and then, despite all the better equipped callers. There is no
> such thing as cracking the pileup on me on 160 meters since I never
> hear it."
> 
> Charles continues, "In the Stew Perry, I heard only five NA stations
> in close to three hours of listening and worked all five easily. It
> was interesting that I heard one station on and off for nearly two
> hours, while I heard the others only briefly for one period."
> 
> He goes on to say, "An interesting quirk here is a rogue LU 10 meter
> beacon that I hear often on the IARU beacon frequency for hours at a
> time when the band is so dead that I hear none of the IARU beacons.
> Weird!! I favor the W3VD beacon when I am specifically looking for
> an opening to the USA on 10M since, unlike 4U1UN, it transmits
> continuously on 10 M."
> 
> He continues, "I used to experience the antipodes enhancement
> phenomenon on the upper bands often when I was A22AA in 89-92. I
> would often work Hawaiian hams (and hear WWVH) when the bands were
> nearly in a blackout condition."
> 
> If you would like to make a comment or have a tip for our readers,
> email the author at, k7ra@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> For more information concerning radio propagation and an explanation
> of the numbers used in this bulletin see the ARRL Technical
> Information Service propagation page at,
> http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/propagation.html. An archive of past
> propagation bulletins is found at, http://www.arrl.org/w1aw/prop/.
> 
> Sunspot numbers for January 26 through February 1 were 24, 29, 11,
> 0, 0, 0 and 0 with a mean of 9.1. 10.7 cm flux was 86.9, 83.5, 80,
> 79.5, 78.8, 77.6, and 77.6, with a mean of 80.6. Estimated planetary
> A indices were 29, 8, 6, 3, 1, 2 and 4 with a mean of 7.6. Estimated
> mid-latitude A indices were 15, 7, 4, 1, 0, 1 and 3, with a mean of
> 4.4.
> NNNN
> /EX
> 
>

_______________________________________________
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://arizona.hard-core-dx.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