Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [dxatlas] 90-day SSN data for HamCAP

Expand Messages
  • Alex, VE3NEA
    Since HamCap is just a front end to VOACAP, you should use the same parameters with this program as you would use with VOACAP itself. VOACAP expects the
    Message 1 of 17 , Apr 8 2:07 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Since HamCap is just a front end to VOACAP, you should use the same
      parameters with this program as you would use with VOACAP itself.

      VOACAP expects the 13-month average SSN which can be found, in particular,
      at
      ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/SMOOTHED/

      Unfortunately, this index if published with a 6-month lag due to averaging.
      Unless you want to see what the propagation was half a year ago, you should
      use some other SSN index that is close enough to the 13-month average but is
      available for the current month.

      One possible solution to this problem is to use the predicted smoothed SSN
      that NOAA publishes at
      ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/SUNSPOT.LST
      Keep in mind, however, that these predictions are not always accurate.
      HamCap has a list of such predictions, published at the time of program
      release, in the file called SSN.dat. These data are used to populate the SSN
      box in the program when the month changes. You can open the file in Notepad
      and compare its content to the current NOAA predictions.

      Another solution that I like more is to use the 90-day SSN that IonoProbe
      calculates by averaging the daily SSN over the last 3 months (you may have
      to use the Download Old Data command in the program to ensure that enough
      daily data are available).

      73 Alex VE3NEA




      >
      > Good question -- I see that IonoProbe displays a value for this parameter
      > -- currently 47, not 20. I, too, could not find a source for the 90-day I
      > average. Iam not sure if it is downloaded or automatically calculated
      from
      > the daily numbers provided in one or another of the standard reports. I
      > did note, though, that if you have IonoProbe, it automatically links with
      > Hamcap to provide the necessary updated number.
      >
      > 73, Pete N4ZR
      >
      > At 09:26 AM 4/8/2005, bill_w4zv wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > >Alex or anyone:
      > >
      > >HamCAP apparently wants the 90-day smoothed sunspot number in the
      > >Parameters screen. I can't seem to find that on any of the NOAA
      > >databases. Is it the same as the projected number on the following
      > >graph for the current month? It's not clear to me what period they
      > >are smoothing over for this graph.
      > >
      > >http://www.sel.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/sunspot.gif
      > >
      > >If I am interpolating correctly, the current smoothed SSN is about 20.
      > > Is that the correct number to input to HamCAP?
      > >
      > >73, Bill W4ZV
    • Bob Lafont
      Alex, I am trying to find out how to upgrade my version of DX Atlas from v1.5 to 2.25. I followed the instructions on the DX Atlas web site and sent an email
      Message 2 of 17 , Apr 8 4:37 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Alex,

        I am trying to find out how to upgrade my version of DX Atlas from v1.5 to
        2.25.

        I followed the instructions on the DX Atlas web site and sent an email with
        my registration info but haven't heard anything back.

        Can you help me find out what I need to do to upgrade?

        Thanks


        73-Bob
        WA2MNO






        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Pete Smith
        I think the thing that is confusing Bill (and me, for that matter) is the large divergence between the various sunspot numbers available to plug into Ham Cap.
        Message 3 of 17 , Apr 9 4:00 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          I think the thing that is confusing Bill (and me, for that matter) is the
          large divergence between the various sunspot numbers available to plug into
          Ham Cap. For example, for April 2005:

          Ham Cap's built-in number (old NOAA predicted): 30
          Current NOAA predicted smoothed SSN: 28.5 (pretty close)
          IonoProbe's computed 90-day smoothed SSN: 47 (!)

          The difference in the outcome is meaningful -- for example, with the SSN at
          30, for my short path to 3B8, 15 M opens only briefly, although there is a
          long period when the MUF is predicted to be right below 15. With the SSN
          set at 47, 15M is predicted to be open for essentially the same fairly long
          period, and a second night-time 20M opening is also predicted.

          Like Alex, I think I prefer IonoProbe's number, not because of the outcome
          but because it seems to reflect what is more currently happening than a
          projection from 6 months ago. On the other hand, I understand that VOACAP
          is really built around the 13-month number, so during a period when the
          90-day number diverges substantially upward from the 13-month average, the
          predictions may be unduly rosy.

          While we're on the subject, a question I have wondered about -- why do Ham
          Cap's charts not have a graduated hour scale on the X axis? Have I missed
          an option to turn them on?

          73, Pete N4ZR


          At 05:07 PM 4/8/2005, Alex, VE3NEA wrote:


          >Since HamCap is just a front end to VOACAP, you should use the same
          >parameters with this program as you would use with VOACAP itself.
          >
          >VOACAP expects the 13-month average SSN which can be found, in particular,
          >at
          >ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/SMOOTHED/
          >
          >Unfortunately, this index if published with a 6-month lag due to averaging.
          >Unless you want to see what the propagation was half a year ago, you should
          >use some other SSN index that is close enough to the 13-month average but is
          >available for the current month.
          >
          >One possible solution to this problem is to use the predicted smoothed SSN
          >that NOAA publishes at
          >ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/SUNSPOT.LST
          >Keep in mind, however, that these predictions are not always accurate.
          >HamCap has a list of such predictions, published at the time of program
          >release, in the file called SSN.dat. These data are used to populate the SSN
          >box in the program when the month changes. You can open the file in Notepad
          >and compare its content to the current NOAA predictions.
          >
          >Another solution that I like more is to use the 90-day SSN that IonoProbe
          >calculates by averaging the daily SSN over the last 3 months (you may have
          >to use the Download Old Data command in the program to ensure that enough
          >daily data are available).
          >
          >73 Alex VE3NEA
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > >
          > > Good question -- I see that IonoProbe displays a value for this parameter
          > > -- currently 47, not 20. I, too, could not find a source for the 90-day I
          > > average. Iam not sure if it is downloaded or automatically calculated
          >from
          > > the daily numbers provided in one or another of the standard reports. I
          > > did note, though, that if you have IonoProbe, it automatically links with
          > > Hamcap to provide the necessary updated number.
          > >
          > > 73, Pete N4ZR
          > >
          > > At 09:26 AM 4/8/2005, bill_w4zv wrote:
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > >Alex or anyone:
          > > >
          > > >HamCAP apparently wants the 90-day smoothed sunspot number in the
          > > >Parameters screen. I can't seem to find that on any of the NOAA
          > > >databases. Is it the same as the projected number on the following
          > > >graph for the current month? It's not clear to me what period they
          > > >are smoothing over for this graph.
          > > >
          > > >http://www.sel.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/sunspot.gif
          > > >
          > > >If I am interpolating correctly, the current smoothed SSN is about 20.
          > > > Is that the correct number to input to HamCAP?
          > > >
          > > >73, Bill W4ZV
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • bill_w4zv
          ... is the ... plug into ... Yet the average montthly sunspots for the past 3 months are: 2005 01 31.3 2005 02 29.1 2005 03 24.8 Average = 28.4, which is
          Message 4 of 17 , Apr 9 5:29 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com, Pete Smith <n4zr@c...> wrote:
            > I think the thing that is confusing Bill (and me, for that matter)
            is the
            > large divergence between the various sunspot numbers available to
            plug into
            > Ham Cap. For example, for April 2005:
            >
            > Ham Cap's built-in number (old NOAA predicted): 30
            > Current NOAA predicted smoothed SSN: 28.5 (pretty close)
            > IonoProbe's computed 90-day smoothed SSN: 47 (!)

            Yet the average montthly sunspots for the past 3 months are:

            2005 01 31.3
            2005 02 29.1
            2005 03 24.8

            Average = 28.4, which is very close to the built-in 30 and current
            NOAA predicted 28.5.

            ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/MONTHLY.PLT

            How can IonoProbe's computed 90-day SSN possibly be 47? This is
            different by nearly a factor of two!

            73, Bill
          • bill_w4zv
            ... Could IonoProbe s calculation be off by one year? I notice 47 is very close to the SSN numbers for this time last year: 2004 52.0 49.3 47.1 45.6
            Message 5 of 17 , Apr 9 5:40 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              I wrote:

              > How can IonoProbe's computed 90-day SSN possibly be 47? This is
              > different by nearly a factor of two!

              Could IonoProbe's calculation be off by one year? I notice 47 is very
              close to the SSN numbers for this time last year:

              2004 52.0 49.3 47.1 45.6 43.9 41.7 40.2 39.2 37.5

              ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/SMOOTHED

              And the average of 49.3, 47.1, and 45.6 is 47.3. Maybe the logic of
              the calculation has an error somewhere in its data collection.

              73, Bill (...using 29 for now)
            • Pete Smith
              Bill, aren t those numbers predicted from 6 months ago? I looked at the graphed SSNs for the last three months from IonoProbe and they seem much more
              Message 6 of 17 , Apr 9 6:10 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Bill, aren't those numbers predicted from 6 months ago? I looked at the
                graphed SSNs for the last three months from IonoProbe and they seem much
                more consistent with the 47 average.

                73, Pete

                At 08:29 AM 4/9/2005, bill_w4zv wrote:



                >--- In dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com, Pete Smith <n4zr@c...> wrote:
                > > I think the thing that is confusing Bill (and me, for that matter)
                >is the
                > > large divergence between the various sunspot numbers available to
                >plug into
                > > Ham Cap. For example, for April 2005:
                > >
                > > Ham Cap's built-in number (old NOAA predicted): 30
                > > Current NOAA predicted smoothed SSN: 28.5 (pretty close)
                > > IonoProbe's computed 90-day smoothed SSN: 47 (!)
                >
                >Yet the average montthly sunspots for the past 3 months are:
                >
                >2005 01 31.3
                >2005 02 29.1
                >2005 03 24.8
                >
                >Average = 28.4, which is very close to the built-in 30 and current
                >NOAA predicted 28.5.
                >
                >ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/MONTHLY.PLT
                >
                >How can IonoProbe's computed 90-day SSN possibly be 47? This is
                >different by nearly a factor of two!
                >
                >73, Bill
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
              • bill_w4zv
                ... Definitely so. The current 90 day average (1 Jan 05 - 31 Mar 05) is 28.4 using this data:
                Message 7 of 17 , Apr 9 6:12 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  I wrote:

                  > Maybe the logic of
                  > the calculation has an error somewhere in its data collection.

                  Definitely so. The current 90 day average (1 Jan 05 - 31 Mar 05) is
                  28.4 using this data:

                  ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/RIDAILY.PLT

                  I don't have IonoProbe, but it must have a problem if the 47 number
                  Pete quoted for the IonoProbe calculation is correct. Anyhow, now I
                  know what to use and will probably just go with the NOAA forecast
                  which seems to be fairly accurate at this stage of the cycle.

                  73, Bill
                • Alex, VE3NEA
                  ... I am not sure how monthly values presented on that page are calculated. IonoProbe just averages the last 90 daily values from
                  Message 8 of 17 , Apr 9 9:40 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > Yet the average montthly sunspots for the past 3 months are:
                    > 2005 01 31.3
                    > 2005 02 29.1
                    > 2005 03 24.8
                    > Average = 28.4, which is very close to the built-in 30 and current
                    > NOAA predicted 28.5.
                    > ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/MONTHLY.PLT
                    > How can IonoProbe's computed 90-day SSN possibly be 47? This is
                    > different by nearly a factor of two!

                    I am not sure how monthly values presented on that page are calculated.
                    IonoProbe just averages the last 90 daily values from
                    http://www.sec.noaa.gov/ftpdir/latest/DSD.txt and
                    http://www.sec.noaa.gov/ftpdir/indices/old_indices/




                    > Could IonoProbe's calculation be off by one year? I notice 47 is very
                    > close to the SSN numbers for this time last year:
                    > 2004 52.0 49.3 47.1 45.6 43.9 41.7 40.2 39.2 37.5
                    > ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/SMOOTHED
                    > And the average of 49.3, 47.1, and 45.6 is 47.3. Maybe the logic of
                    > the calculation has an error somewhere in its data collection.

                    IonoProbe does not have access to the data from the last year.


                    > Definitely so. The current 90 day average (1 Jan 05 - 31 Mar 05) is
                    > 28.4 using this data:
                    > ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/RIDAILY.PLT

                    These are the RI indices, not daily SSN values.



                    > Anyhow, now I
                    > know what to use and will probably just go with the NOAA forecast
                    > which seems to be fairly accurate at this stage of the cycle.

                    You may want to enter the latest NOAA forecasts in the SSN.dat file using
                    Notepad, then HamCap will use these data automatically.


                    73 Alex VE3NEA
                  • Bob Lafont
                    Has anyone upgraded DX Atlas from 1.x to 2.x ? And if you have how did you go about getting the upgrade? 73-Bob WA2MNO [Non-text portions of this message have
                    Message 9 of 17 , Apr 9 9:47 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Has anyone upgraded DX Atlas from 1.x to 2.x ?

                      And if you have how did you go about getting the upgrade?



                      73-Bob
                      WA2MNO






                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Alex, VE3NEA
                      ... HamCap is an interactive application. When you move the mouse cursor over the chart, the time and all other parameters of the point under the cursor are
                      Message 10 of 17 , Apr 9 9:56 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > While we're on the subject, a question I have wondered about -- why do Ham
                        > Cap's charts not have a graduated hour scale on the X axis? Have I missed
                        > an option to turn them on?

                        HamCap is an interactive application. When you move the mouse cursor over
                        the chart, the time and all other parameters of the point under the cursor
                        are displayed on the status bar.

                        I tried to make the HamCap window as small as possible so that it could be
                        used during contesting and DXing when screen space is a valuable resource,
                        so I removed all unnecessary elements form the user interface, including the
                        time scale on the chart.


                        73 Alex VE3NEA
                      • Alex, VE3NEA
                        A while ago I did some comparisons of median SNR predictions from VOACAP to the observations of NCSXF beacons. Ingemar SM5AJV developed a program that measures
                        Message 11 of 17 , Apr 9 10:10 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          A while ago I did some comparisons of median SNR predictions from VOACAP to
                          the observations of NCSXF beacons. Ingemar SM5AJV developed a program that
                          measures the SNR of beacon signals using a sound card and an FFT
                          transformation. A correlator is used to compare the received waveform to
                          that of the beacon's callsign, to make sure that the signal actually comes
                          from the beacon. Ingemar was kind enough to send me his logs for June 2004,
                          these logs cover about 24% of the month.

                          I developed a viewer utility for the logs that converts the observed SNR
                          values
                          into dB-Hz, calculates medians, and plots both predicted and observed median
                          values along with the observation points for the selected beacon and band.
                          The program lacks a sophisticated user interface, which I may develop in the
                          future if there is sufficient interest. A few screenshots of typical plots
                          are here: http://www.dxatlas.com/Private/SnrPlot.zip .

                          For those who want to play with the viewer, I uploaded it to
                          http://www.dxatlas.com/Private/VoaAnal.zip .
                          The zip file also includes the observation data, with permission
                          from Ingemar. Please preserve the directory structure when unzipping.

                          Though this is just the first alpha version of the program and thus it may
                          contain errors, the plots it produces are very interesting. The shape of the
                          VOACAP prediction chart is very close to that of the observation chart,
                          though the absolute values are way off. On average, VOACAP underestimates
                          the SNR by 20+ dB.

                          Also, these charts explain why the median SNR is a bad indicator of
                          propagation conditions. The median value makes sense only for unimodal
                          distributions, while the distribution of SNR is bi-modal at best (that is,
                          has two or more peaks). One peak is formed by the observations that where
                          performed when the path was open with a good propagation mode, and one or
                          more peaks come from the days when only very lossy modes were available or
                          the path was closed.


                          73 Alex VE3NEA
                        • Pete Smith
                          OK - thanks! Makes sense. 73, Pete
                          Message 12 of 17 , Apr 9 11:27 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            OK - thanks! Makes sense.

                            73, Pete

                            At 12:56 PM 4/9/2005, Alex, VE3NEA wrote:



                            > > While we're on the subject, a question I have wondered about -- why do Ham
                            > > Cap's charts not have a graduated hour scale on the X axis? Have I missed
                            > > an option to turn them on?
                            >
                            >HamCap is an interactive application. When you move the mouse cursor over
                            >the chart, the time and all other parameters of the point under the cursor
                            >are displayed on the status bar.
                            >
                            >I tried to make the HamCap window as small as possible so that it could be
                            >used during contesting and DXing when screen space is a valuable resource,
                            >so I removed all unnecessary elements form the user interface, including the
                            >time scale on the chart.
                            >
                            >
                            >73 Alex VE3NEA
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                          • Pete Smith
                            [With apologies to readers of the VOACAP list, who are joining this in mid-thread, I feel that Bill and I are floundering fairly far out of our depth in this
                            Message 13 of 17 , Apr 9 11:32 AM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              [With apologies to readers of the VOACAP list, who are joining this in
                              mid-thread, I feel that Bill and I are floundering fairly far out of our
                              depth in this discussion that began on the dxatlas list. The question
                              began as what SSN to use in Ham Cap, a simplified front end for
                              VOACAP. HamCAP comes with a table of predicted international SSNs, but can
                              also link with IonoProbe, which downloads daily SSNs from the SEC. VE3NEA,
                              the author of Ham Cap, prefers the SEC numbers, but the variance from the
                              international SSns is considerable, with the SEC number typically running
                              much higher. Any advice appreciated!]

                              Bill, there's some apples and oranges, or something going on
                              here. IonoProbe gets its numbers from the Joint USAF/NOAA Solar and
                              Geophysical Activity Summary. Here's a sample:

                              "SGAS Number 099 Issued at 0245Z on 09 Apr 2005
                              This report is compiled from data received at SWO on 08 Apr
                              A. Energetic Events
                              Begin Max End Rgn Loc Xray Op 245MHz 10cm Sweep
                              None
                              B. Proton Events: None
                              C. Geomagnetic Activity Summary: The geomagnetic field was quiet.
                              D. Stratwarm: Not Available
                              E. Daily Indices: (real-time preliminary/estimated values)
                              10 cm 088 SSN 056 Afr/Ap 005/004 ...."

                              Ionoprobe's retrospective record of these reports shows March 12 (chosen
                              randomly) with a SSN of 67, versus 42 on the table you cite. March 18 is
                              37 versus 25, and so on.

                              I have no idea what the explanation is, though I do note that there is
                              another table, ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/2005
                              , which gives the numbers just for this year to date and states that
                              "Values are preliminary after Dec 2004."

                              There is an interesting explanation of how various sunspot numbers are
                              calculated in
                              ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/sunspot.predict. It
                              seems clear from this explanation that the international sunspot number is
                              a highly-massaged, worldwide average number that does not become final for
                              some months after the date of observation. By contrast, the number cited
                              in the SGAS is the SEC's every-six-hour figure, and must be based strictly
                              on its own observations. An interesting graph at
                              http://www.nwra-az.com/spawx/comp.html speaks to this. To quote from the
                              caption:

                              " This plot illustrates the differences between the "real" sunspot number
                              (SSN), which is calculated from optical observations of the sun, a sunspot
                              number derived from the 10.7cm solar radio flux (SSNf), and a sunspot
                              number derived from fitting an ionospheric model to ionospheric
                              measurements. All of these indices are used as inputs to models of the
                              ionosphere for use in communications-performance predictions - this plot
                              shows that they don't always agree as to what the SSN should be in that
                              particular context.

                              Note: The F10.7-derived SSN (SSNf) is calculated from the 10.7cm solar
                              radio flux (the Penticton Radio Observatory noon value) using the following
                              relationship:

                              F10.7 = 63.74 + 0.727*SSNf + 0.000895*SSNf**2

                              So, where does this leave us? Where it left me, frankly, is wondering why
                              we use sunspot numbers at all, rather than solar flux and A/K indices, or
                              at least the SSNf, which would be closer to the values Bill cited than to
                              the current high value of optically-observed SSN. On the other hand, Alex
                              argues that results from using the lower SSNs seem to run consistently low
                              in terms of predicted vs. observed S/R ratio.

                              It would be interesting to pass this discussion over to the VOACAP list and
                              see what the gurus there, particularly including Greg Hand and George Lane,
                              think of it. In fact, I have done that, and it will be interesting to see
                              what comes of it.

                              73, Pete N4ZR



                              At 09:12 AM 4/9/2005, bill_w4zv wrote:



                              >I wrote:
                              >
                              > > Maybe the logic of
                              > > the calculation has an error somewhere in its data collection.
                              >
                              >Definitely so. The current 90 day average (1 Jan 05 - 31 Mar 05) is
                              >28.4 using this data:
                              >
                              >ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/RIDAILY.PLT
                              >
                              >I don't have IonoProbe, but it must have a problem if the 47 number
                              >Pete quoted for the IonoProbe calculation is correct. Anyhow, now I
                              >know what to use and will probably just go with the NOAA forecast
                              >which seems to be fairly accurate at this stage of the cycle.
                              >
                              >73, Bill
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >Yahoo! Groups Links
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                            • bill_w4zv
                              ... wondering why ... I agree. Seems like measured solar flux, which supposedly shows the actual effect of sunspots on the ionosphere, would be better. After
                              Message 14 of 17 , Apr 10 4:40 AM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com, Pete Smith <n4zr@c...> wrote:

                                >
                                > So, where does this leave us? Where it left me, frankly, is
                                wondering why
                                > we use sunspot numbers at all, rather than solar flux and A/K indices,

                                I agree. Seems like measured solar flux, which supposedly shows the
                                actual effect of sunspots on the ionosphere, would be better. After
                                all, when there is a large CME, we often can see little effect on the
                                ionosphere depending on how it's directed toward Earth, which way Bz
                                points, etc. Of course if VOACAP was originally based on SSN's, then
                                maybe they should be the input. Hopefully Greg Hand will respond, and
                                please post anything of interest here since I am not on that list. No
                                model is any better than its input..."Garbage In Garbage Out" as
                                someone said.

                                73, Bill
                              • bill_w4zv
                                I wrote: The current 90 day average (1 Jan 05 - 31 Mar 05) is 28.4 using this data: ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/RIDAILY.PLT VE3NEA
                                Message 15 of 17 , Apr 10 12:50 PM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  I wrote: The current 90 day average (1 Jan 05 - 31 Mar 05) is
                                  28.4 using this data:
                                  ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/RIDAILY.PLT

                                  VE3NEA wrote: These are the RI indices, not daily SSN values.

                                  Alex, the NOAA site below calls these "Provisional International
                                  Sunspot Numbers, so what do you mean they are not daily SSN numbers?
                                  See especially their comments preceded by ***** below:
                                  ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/sunspot.predict

                                  >The provisional daily Zurich relative sunspot numbers, Rz, were based
                                  upon
                                  observations made at Zurich and its two branch stations in Arosa and
                                  Locarno
                                  and communicated by M. Waldmeier of the Swiss Federal Observatory.
                                  Beginning
                                  January 1, 1981, the Zurich relative sunspot number program is
                                  replaced by
                                  the "Sunspot Index Data Center" (c/o Dr. P. Cugnon, 3 av. Circulaire,
                                  B-1180
                                  Bruxelles, Belgium).


                                  ***** The determination of the provisional International Sunspot
                                  Numbers Ri results from a statistical treatment of the data
                                  originating from more than twenty-five observing stations. These
                                  stations constitute an international network, with the Locarno
                                  (Switzerland) station as the reference station, to guarantee
                                  continuity with the past Zurich series of Rz.*****

                                  >The definitive International Sunspot Numbers Ri are evaluated by a
                                  similar method based on a network of observing stations selected for
                                  their
                                  high number of observations, their continuity during the whole year
                                  and an
                                  existing series of observations during the last years. Also taken into
                                  account is the stability of the K monthly factors with reference to the
                                  Locarno station.

                                  *****These relative sunspot numbers are now designated Ri
                                  (International) instead of Rz (Zurich).*****

                                  It seems to me Ri is exactly what should be used, but am really
                                  waiting to see what Greg Hand, etc. of VOACAP have to say.

                                  73, Bill
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.