[CQ-Contest] Its not the Sunspots Folks

Ed Sawyer sawyered at earthlink.net
Tue Nov 1 06:13:09 EDT 2016

Doug and Hans


The shift that Karl is talking about is interesting and could have 160M
affect but that’s not what was going on last weekend.  It was an intense
Geomagnetic storm caused by a Solar Wind.  What effect a deep minimum has on
80 and 40 is not discussed in this context.  No offense to the 160 crowd but
its sad but not a game changer for contesting if 160 is depressed (we live
with 10 being depressed as well).  But when 80 and 40 are severely impacted
it does make things very different.


If Karl believes the affect he is talking about could be measurable on 80
and 40 as well, it would be an interesting post.  Karl?


Ed  N1UR


I'm thinking Cycle 28 will be awesome.


73, de Hans, KØHB

"Just a Old Man and his Radio"™

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 18:57 <kr2q at optimum.net> wrote:


> Sorry for the reposting, and hate to rain on your parade, but.....


> Message: 1

> Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 15:52:53 -0400

> From: Carl Luetzelschwab <carlluetzelschwab at gmail.com>

> To: topband at contesting.com

> Subject: Topband: what's in store for 160m



> About a week ago Wolf DF2PY posted a message here commenting on the recent

> adverse levels of geomagnetic field activity and how it will now change

> the good - giving us good 160m propagation.


> We'll certainly see less geomagnetic field activity as we move into

> but there's another issue we should be aware of. The Sun's magnetic field

> is weakening - probably to the lowest levels in our lifetime. With a weak

> solar magnetic field, more galactic cosmic rays will be able to get into

> the Earth's atmosphere. We are now seeing unprecedented high neutron

> (neutrons are one of the by-products of cosmic rays)


> Since galactic cosmic rays are mostly *very energetic* protons, they can

> get down to low atmospheric altitudes, causing collisional ionization in

> the D region (and lower E region). A cursory estimate using cosmic ray

> ionization rates confirms more ionization in the lower atmosphere. 160m is

> not very tolerant of more absorption, so we may see an adverse effect of

> the weakened solar magnetic field.


> Many of us think that "solar min is solar min is solar min". But maybe a

> solar minimum can be too deep for 160m. A good question to ask in the

> 2020s will be "how was 160m?" So stay active on 160m and let's see what

> happens.


> Carl K9LA

> _______________________________________________


More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list