Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Average sunspot numbers but excellent propagation???  (Read 30860 times)

AE5HL

  • Member
  • Posts: 25
Average sunspot numbers but excellent propagation???
« on: December 21, 2014, 08:41:58 PM »

I'm pleading ignorance here but have a question, particularly if you have been doing this for some time...  As I understand it, the higher the sunspot number = higher bands are more effective.  I've been licensed a short while, a little over 10 years but I have NEVER seen 10 meters so active and at the low spot of a solar cycle???  I'm in Albuquerque and this has been going on for months.  I'm even considering getting a whip antenna for 10 to work some DX.

Spent time overseas, in the US, etc, tried working 10 but never heard a peep, 2005-2008 in Guam, tried working 10, nothing.  2003-2005 Pacific Northwest, little activity, 2008-2009 little if any propagation, maybe my radio was deaf on this band...

What am I missing here?  Can the sunspot numbers be average yet higher bands very effective?

No flames please, just some education...

Garry
Logged

WD4ELG

  • Member
  • Posts: 377
RE: Average sunspot numbers but excellent propagation???
« Reply #1 on: December 21, 2014, 10:51:59 PM »

Garry

We are in a "second peak" of the current sunspot cycle. 

There are a lot of hams active on 10, which helps.

A better day-to-day indication is the solar flux, or SFI.

Something that helps (from my observations) is when there is a high SFI (over 200) and no magnetic disturbances for a week or two.

I remember working JA's from west coast of USA on SSB with a low dipole on 10 meters back in 1979 (two cycles ago), with 100 watts, as late as 10 PM during the summer. 

Tonight I was hearing JA's on an inverted V from the East Coast at 9 PM local.  That surprised me, as I have not heard that in awhile.  So conditions DO appear to be pretty good.

I worked a TON of DX with 10 watts from a mobile in my car on 10 meters SSB back in the summer of 2001 (peak of the last cycle).  Give it a shot, you will be amazed at the results.
Logged

AE5HL

  • Member
  • Posts: 25
RE: Average sunspot numbers but excellent propagation???
« Reply #2 on: December 22, 2014, 07:49:26 AM »

Thank you, I guess I need to check my calendar...  And I am really enjoying a band which I had previously considered not very interesting...
Logged

WD4ELG

  • Member
  • Posts: 377
RE: Average sunspot numbers but excellent propagation???
« Reply #3 on: December 22, 2014, 04:19:15 PM »

Garry

Checkout http://www.solarham.com and http://www.spaceweather.com.  I read those sites daily...also http://prop.hfradio.org/
Logged

W1VT

  • Member
  • Posts: 6071
RE: Average sunspot numbers but excellent propagation???
« Reply #4 on: December 23, 2014, 06:17:49 AM »

Yes, solar flux is a better indicator of propagation.  But, we still use sunspot numbers because records go back 400 years. Sunspot numbers are much more useful when attempting to make historical comparisons.

Zack W1VT
Logged

W2EV

  • Member
  • Posts: 4
RE: Average sunspot numbers but excellent propagation???
« Reply #5 on: January 01, 2015, 12:00:38 PM »

There are all sorts of "indicators", but nothing beats actually transmitting and receiving.

There is an active network of PSK31 operators who auto-ID 24/7 on 10 meters using an APRS-like protocol.  They actually probe the ionosphere in real time and report their findings to a web page.

How "hot" is 10 meters RIGHT NOW?  http://propnet.org/catch3.php?band=HY&last=1&call=&center=US

These stations have an added advantage.  They are Automatically Controlled Digital Stations that will respond to your call if they copy THEIR callsign once, "de", and YOUR callsign twice, followed by a "KN" and CR/LF.

An early OSCAR satellite used to do the same thing on CW.

This system has been in place for a decade, with propagation data stored in a database.  How was propagation on 10 meters on a specific date?  http://propnet.org/catch3.php?band=HY&date=2010-01-01&call=&center=US

'hope this is helpful.

Full info at: http://www.PropNET.org
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up