751
European Pirates and Private Stations / UNID 6270 AM 0945 UTC 23 December 2018
« on: December 23, 2018, 0959 UTC »
Close down show of Sunshine 101 in Dublin.
Shortwave Pirate Radio In North America And Around The World, And Other Signals That Go Bump In The Night
We seek to understand and document all radio transmissions, legal and otherwise, as part of the radio listening hobby. We do not encourage any radio operations contrary to regulations.
Always consult with the appropriate authorities if you have questions concerning what is permissable in your locale.
This is something that I could never figure out when looking at those reports. The MUFs listed at the bottom for 100, 200, 400 km are usually > foF2. At those distances the angle of incidence is pretty high, i.e., "near vertical", and I could not rationalize the two competing thoughts that:
In any case, we're still back to my original complaint about the spacew.com maps on the propagation page. I don't know what they are showing on those maps but it doesn't seem to actually be foF2 and they should not be labelled that way.
Yes, of course.
Of course, this is your speculation as to whether that is what the the spacew.com map is showing. I wrote to spacew.com to ask them why there is this discrepancy. I am waiting for an answer.
For entertainment I just checked the spacew.com map versus the FxI and foF2 for the three or four soundings over the past hour at three digisonde stations far apart from each other with somewhat different propagation conditions overhead (Hermanus, South Africa; Fortaleza, Brazil; Point Arguello, California, USA) and there is no agreement. The spacew.com map is showing something that is well above the reported FxI and foF2 by these digisondes. There isn't even any sort of systematic offset or correlation that I can tell. So I am not seeing any validation of your speculation.
That's not what I am reading from Idaho ARES, who seemingly have a vested interest in getting this right:
http://www.idahoares.info/tutorial_hf_nvis_band_selection.shtml (scroll down to the very bottom)
They (and everybody else) is saying stay below foF2. (FxI tends to run slightly above foF2.)
OK great. However, if you go onto their web page for a description of what Critical F2 is (http://www.spacew.com/www/fof2.html) , you get this:
"the maximum radio frequency that can be reflected by the F2-region of the ionosphere at vertical incidence (that is, when the signal is transmitted straight up into the ionosphere)" is the definition of foF2. Note that Spacew.com use "foF2" and "critical frequency" interchangeably in that last quoted paragraph.
When you look up the definition of foF2 elsewhere, it is defined as "the critical frequency", which I take to be "critical F2": https://www.wmo-sat.info/oscar/variables/view/64
So we can pretty well dispense with the thought that the two things are different.
And we are back to my original question as why these maps would be be so different. I don't know. Given that spacew.com is updating their map on their website every 5 minutes, it doesn't seem like it is is any sort of prediction of the future but rather more real time. All I can say is that spacew.com's map is a heck of a lot higher frequency than the SWS map and the ULowell databases.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
752
European Pirates and Private Stations / Radio Cuckoo 6263.94 AM 0950 UTC 23 December 2018
« on: December 23, 2018, 0955 UTC »
Excellent signal on Dutch SDR. Some splatter from 6270 KHz.
0950 Blur "Boys and Girls".
0955 'You're listening to Radio Cookie"? Into "Santa Baby".
1000 "Midnight Train to Georgia"
1007 ID. Very clear, with email address.
1200 Checked back and heard last ID then dead air. TX went off at 1202 UTC.
0950 Blur "Boys and Girls".
0955 'You're listening to Radio Cookie"? Into "Santa Baby".
1000 "Midnight Train to Georgia"
1007 ID. Very clear, with email address.
1200 Checked back and heard last ID then dead air. TX went off at 1202 UTC.
753
European Pirates and Private Stations / Atlantic Radio 1611.24 AM 0920 UTC 23 December 2018
« on: December 23, 2018, 0938 UTC »
ID in Dutch at 0930 UTC. Near continuous schlager-like Dutch and German music.
754
European Pirates and Private Stations / Radio Uniek 1619.85 AM 0850 UTC 23 December 2018
« on: December 23, 2018, 0916 UTC »
Dutch music. Good signal throughout Holland and adjacent parts of Germany on various SDRs.
ID in Dutch at 0912 UTC.
ID again at 0941 UTC. Into a Dutch version of John Lennon's "So It's Christmas". This time caught them on a SDR with groundwave reception. Correcting the ID from "Radio Monique" to "Radio Uniek". (Radio Unique in English.)
Checked back at 1101 and still there. Playing typical organ music - the usual staple of many Dutch MW pirates.
ID in Dutch at 0912 UTC.
ID again at 0941 UTC. Into a Dutch version of John Lennon's "So It's Christmas". This time caught them on a SDR with groundwave reception. Correcting the ID from "Radio Monique" to "Radio Uniek". (Radio Unique in English.)
Checked back at 1101 and still there. Playing typical organ music - the usual staple of many Dutch MW pirates.
755
North American Shortwave Pirate / Wolverine Radio 6960 USB 0103 UTC 23 December 2018
« on: December 23, 2018, 0103 UTC »
Just happened to catch the interval signal while looking at SDRs. OK signal on west coast of North America. SINPO 34344. Some OTHR just lower in frequency.
0117 - "Why Do Fools Fall In Love"
0129 - "Won't Get Fooled Again". Propagation is shifting and the signal is weaker.
0215 - SSTV
0217 - off the air
0117 - "Why Do Fools Fall In Love"
0129 - "Won't Get Fooled Again". Propagation is shifting and the signal is weaker.
0215 - SSTV
0217 - off the air
756
European Pirates and Private Stations / Re: Radio Harmony 5785 AM 1610 utc 14 dec 2018
« on: December 14, 2018, 2135 UTC »
2134 UTC - "Beautiful music on shortwave. This is Harmony.", by Irish-accented male between songs.
757
European Pirates and Private Stations / Re: Charleston R. Int. 5150>5140 AM 1939 utc 14 dec 2018
« on: December 14, 2018, 2117 UTC »
2115 UTC - SINPO 24333 on SDR in Germany (with active antenna). Programming is the usual stuff. 1930's music with German lyrics.
758
European Pirates and Private Stations / Re: Charleston R. Int 5140 AM 1519 utc 09 dec 2018
« on: December 09, 2018, 1928 UTC »
Seems that they went off the air around ~1915 UTC.
759
European Pirates and Private Stations / Re: Unid 6325 AM 1554 utc 09 dec 2018
« on: December 09, 2018, 1916 UTC »
1845 UTC - SINPO 43444 on SDR in Italy with periodic data bursts on 6327 KHz.
1915 UTC - Signal is deteriorating SINPO 22222 with continuous techno/dance music. No ID heard so far.
1915 UTC - Signal is deteriorating SINPO 22222 with continuous techno/dance music. No ID heard so far.
760
Propagation / Re: foF2 Map Discrepancy
« on: December 07, 2018, 2104 UTC »
And not to be too stupid when I say this:
Of course, this is something that we already know. In daytime, skip is longer at higher frequencies, for example, and clearly signals that are at frequencies > foF2 propagate. They just may not be reflected straight back down because they are > foF2.
Quote
This is something that I could never figure out when looking at those reports. The MUFs listed at the bottom for 100, 200, 400 km are usually > foF2.
Of course, this is something that we already know. In daytime, skip is longer at higher frequencies, for example, and clearly signals that are at frequencies > foF2 propagate. They just may not be reflected straight back down because they are > foF2.
761
Equipment / Re: Tesla R4
« on: December 07, 2018, 1644 UTC »
Despite Nicola Tesla being Serbian, the electronics manufacturer Tesla is Czech/Slovak. I don't know Czech(o-Slovak) but I recognized those accent marks immediately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_(Czechoslovak_company)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_(Czechoslovak_company)
762
Huh? / Escape the noise!
« on: December 07, 2018, 0155 UTC »
Finally, somewhere I can go to get away from the neighborhood buzzies and interfering devices!
https://www.space.com/42647-china-moon-far-side-mission-change4-ready.html
I bet 43 and 48 meters are hopping with pirate activity up there.
Quote
The lunar far side always faces away from Earth, so it's is free from interference from our planet's ionosphere, human-made radio frequencies and auroral radiation noise. Solar radio emission is also blocked during the lunar night.
https://www.space.com/42647-china-moon-far-side-mission-change4-ready.html
I bet 43 and 48 meters are hopping with pirate activity up there.
763
Propagation / Re: foF2 Map Discrepancy
« on: November 28, 2018, 2315 UTC »You can see the effect of fxI in the suggested MUFs for 100, 200, 400 km distances (typical of NVIS), displayed in text at the bottom of most of the Lowell Digisonde ionograms.
You will notice that the furthest right hand green fish hook scattering (fxI frequency) often tends to correspond with the 100 km or 200 km MUF in the Lowell Digisonde ionogram text.
This is something that I could never figure out when looking at those reports. The MUFs listed at the bottom for 100, 200, 400 km are usually > foF2. At those distances the angle of incidence is pretty high, i.e., "near vertical", and I could not rationalize the two competing thoughts that:
- anything above ~foF2 should just pass right through the F2 and out into space
- the maximum usable frequency at high angles/short distances (corresponding to what is generally considered NVIS) is generally > foF2.
In any case, we're still back to my original complaint about the spacew.com maps on the propagation page. I don't know what they are showing on those maps but it doesn't seem to actually be foF2 and they should not be labelled that way.
764
Propagation / Re: foF2 Map Discrepancy
« on: November 28, 2018, 2039 UTC »Quote
The maps are based on a melding of ionosonde data from various geographically separated ionosonde sources.
The map algorithms average the differential between the ionosonde curves and that forms contours.
Yes, of course.
Quote
Also, there's the "Spread F index, or fxI, upon which the MUFs are calculated, and may be utilized for map source data.
Of course, this is your speculation as to whether that is what the the spacew.com map is showing. I wrote to spacew.com to ask them why there is this discrepancy. I am waiting for an answer.
For entertainment I just checked the spacew.com map versus the FxI and foF2 for the three or four soundings over the past hour at three digisonde stations far apart from each other with somewhat different propagation conditions overhead (Hermanus, South Africa; Fortaleza, Brazil; Point Arguello, California, USA) and there is no agreement. The spacew.com map is showing something that is well above the reported FxI and foF2 by these digisondes. There isn't even any sort of systematic offset or correlation that I can tell. So I am not seeing any validation of your speculation.
Quote
The best NVIS propagation frequency usually happens between the foF2 and the fxI.
That's not what I am reading from Idaho ARES, who seemingly have a vested interest in getting this right:
http://www.idahoares.info/tutorial_hf_nvis_band_selection.shtml (scroll down to the very bottom)
They (and everybody else) is saying stay below foF2. (FxI tends to run slightly above foF2.)
765
Propagation / Re: foF2 Map Discrepancy
« on: November 28, 2018, 0252 UTC »The maps show different things.
One is the Critical F2.
The other is the foF2.
OK great. However, if you go onto their web page for a description of what Critical F2 is (http://www.spacew.com/www/fof2.html) , you get this:
Quote
The following image is a recent high-resolution global map of F2-layer critical frequencies. This corresponds to the maximum radio frequency that can be reflected by the F2-region of the ionosphere at vertical incidence (that is, when the signal is transmitted straight up into the ionosphere). ...
This map can be used to determine the frequencies that will always be returned to the Earth. Transmitted frequencies higher than the indicated contours (which are given in MHz) may penetrate the ionosphere, resulting in lost power to space. Frequencies lower than the indicated contours will never penetrate the ionosphere. Lower foF2 values indicate a weaker ionosphere and correspond to regions with lower Maximum Usable Frequencies (MUFs). Higher foF2 values indicate a stronger ionosphere and correspond to regions with higher MUFs.
"the maximum radio frequency that can be reflected by the F2-region of the ionosphere at vertical incidence (that is, when the signal is transmitted straight up into the ionosphere)" is the definition of foF2. Note that Spacew.com use "foF2" and "critical frequency" interchangeably in that last quoted paragraph.
When you look up the definition of foF2 elsewhere, it is defined as "the critical frequency", which I take to be "critical F2": https://www.wmo-sat.info/oscar/variables/view/64
So we can pretty well dispense with the thought that the two things are different.
And we are back to my original question as why these maps would be be so different. I don't know. Given that spacew.com is updating their map on their website every 5 minutes, it doesn't seem like it is is any sort of prediction of the future but rather more real time. All I can say is that spacew.com's map is a heck of a lot higher frequency than the SWS map and the ULowell databases.
