FW: ARRL DX CW - K-index

frenaye at pcnet.com frenaye at pcnet.com
Wed Feb 21 00:57:12 EST 1996

Thanks to KY1H for pointing out a mistake in my original posting.  The 
contest was Feb 17-18 and I noted K-index numbers for Feb 18-19...  Guess I 
really needed some extra sleep...  

Note that the original information was the planetary K-index.  This is an 
index derived ("averaged"?) from magnetometer readings from nine locations in 
Canada and the USA.  The K-index reported on WWV is the single K-index 
measured at Boulder Colorado.

Here is information on both for the correct two days:

            Planetary  Boulder
	00-03	3	3
	03-06	3	3
	06-09	2	2
	09-12	2	2
	12-15	1	1
	15-18	1	1
	18-21	2	2
	21-24	2	1
	00-03	2	1
	03-06	1	1
	06-09	2	2
	09-12	2	3
	12-15	2	2
	15-18	2	2
	18-21	3	1
	21-24	3	3

---------------Original Message---------------

During the recent ARRL CW DX contest the usual WWV flux, A and K numbers were 
not reported every three hours on the local PacketCluster.  I wondered what 
the weekend's K-index numbers were so it might explain a few things - like 
why we only had a total of 25 QSOs during the 08-09-10Z hours on Sunday 
morning (and that was with 160-80-40 all looking and CQing!).   Remember that 
during the CQWW CW last fall the K-index was 0 or 1 for the entire weekend 
(we were spoiled!).  With the K-index in the 2-3 range the paths over the 
pole sure go downhill!  

Planetary K-index

	00-03Z	2
	03-06	1
	06-09	2
	09-12	2
	12-15	2
	15-18	2
	18-21	3
	21-24	3
	00-03Z	2
	03-06	3
	06-09	3
	09-12	2
	12-15	1
	15-18	0	
	18-21	1
	21-24	2

Information retrieved from:
Also check out:

Another interesting thing is that we worked more stations from LA-SM-OH-UA on 
80 meters than on 40 meters, though for almost all of the rest of Europe we 
had more QSOs on 40 than 80.  Actually, we had more QSOs on 160 than on 40 
from 04-07Z the first night, and from 01-07Z the second night!  I guess the 
MUF really did drop below 7 MHz as ON4UN noted, and then the geomagnetic 
activity (K-index) made it worse.  

73 - Tom 

E-mail: frenaye at pcnet.com  
Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box 386, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

----------End of Original Message----------

E-mail: frenaye at pcnet.com  
Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box 386, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

>From Steven Sample <aa9ax at iglou.com>  Wed Feb 21 01:13:45 1996
From: Steven Sample <aa9ax at iglou.com> (Steven Sample)
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 20:13:45 -0500 (EST)
Subject: IC-775DSP Failures
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960220194824.9842A-100000 at iglou>

On Tue, 20 Feb 1996, Charles H. Harpole wrote:

> ICOMs are delicate radios.  K4VUD

AA9AX writes:> 

Let me tell you how delicate I think Icom are:

A year or two ago, my friend was over here with a beta version of the 
Icom 736.  We were fooling around with it, just for fun, trying to see 
how it performed.  I unscrewed the coax from the back of my tuner and 
placed it on the 736 (I thought!)  We even decided to listen to the audio 
of the 736 on my IC-781.  I figured that since the antenna was 
disconnected from the tuner (which was connected to my 781), AND since I 
cranked-in 30 db of attenuation, I should be safe.  Well, the audio 
sounded good, and I headed out to McDonald's for a couple of sandwiched 
while my friend tried a few CQ's on the 736.  He noted that it hadn't 
autotuned easily on the normal mode, so he had taken off the bottom panel 
and set the tuner to "WIDE", which fixed the problem.  We figured it was 
just sensitive to my 160 meter loop.  He got full 100 watts out, and 
started on his mission as I left.

A short time later, I returned to find him standing in the driveway 
looking like a "beat dog"!  I knew something was wrong, but would  never 
have guessed the problem.

He explained in his "sickliest" voice that we had unplugged the wrong 
coax cable from the back of the tuner, and had instead plugged the 
transmit output of the 736 DIRECTLY into the receive jack of my 781!
Well, SHIT HAPPENS, and I told him to not worry about it, and I even 
found my idiocy somewhat humorous.  We went inside and checked the 781 
for performance.  Believe it or not, it worked VERY WELL indeed, and even 
surpassed the 736 on an A-B receive test.  I had already invited a bunch 
of young hams over for a fun (learning experience) SSB multi-op effort, 
so we went ahead with the contest all night.  We did as well as we 
expected to do, and the radio performed well.

That was possibly the most expensive dummy load ever used by an amateur. 
I'm only glad that my friend was getting many responses to his CQ's, 
because he may have worked dozens of 'em, shooting a hundred watts of RF 
right into the innards of Nellie Belle.

It was time for Nellie's tune-up anyway, so I boxed her up and sent her 
to Icom in Bellevue to my favorite tune-up man, Charles Rocha. (I see now 
that the repair date was 3/14/94.)  They "located and resoldered cracked 
and overheated joints on reg. unit.  Located and replaced burned 
components on RF and AT unit.  Repaired burned foil traces on RF unit.  
Replaced open pilot lamp.  Complete check-out and alignment as needed."  
>From my viewpoint, my 781 took a lickin' and kept on tickin'.  This 
places it in a catagory far from "DELICATE".  I hear lots of pros and 
cons about radios, but I LOVE MINE!  It's the "Daddy". (Whoops..."Momma")!

I've had a Kenwood TS-440SAT which played good but quit bigtime in the 
middle of Field Day in '90 or '91.  I've had the 765, with which I had no 
problems, and the 781 has served me well for years.  It is a tank.

Just one man's opinions.  (Not a very smart one, at that!)

Steve Sample / AA9AX  

Alias Steve Cannon (Read: Loose)
      Whitman Sampler
      Slim Whitman

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list