Greg,
>Interesting site, but I see the neutrons were abt +1.5 on both 20th and
>21st. Prop was great on the 20th, but non-existent on the 21st. Must
>be another factor somewhere!
>
You make an important point about K5PC's comments.
When Bob NM7M and I co-authored the first article in the cosmic ray
series (in the November 2008 issue of CQ - Bob subsequently wrote
several more articles on this topic by himself), we had hoped that the
decrease in cosmic ray count would give us a daily indicator of long
distance propagation on 160m. But that was not to be. The log data
showed many instances of what you cited - good days and bad days at the
same decrease in cosmic ray count. In fact, a couple logs showed no
relationship between cosmic ray count decrease and distance - those
stations worked long distances regardless of cosmic ray count decrease
(your log data to Europe from 2005 through early 2008 is one such example).
I believe the cosmic ray count decrease parameter should be used as a
long term indicator of DXing - not as a sure-fire daily indicator. And I
agree with your last sentence - there is at least one other variable
(more than likely more than just one!) running around out there that we
don't have a handle on yet.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all.
Carl K9LA
_______________________________________________
160 meters is a serious band, it should be treated with respect. - TF4M
|