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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 17 , Apr 9, 2005
    • 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 2 of 17 , Apr 9, 2005
      • 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 3 of 17 , Apr 9, 2005
        • 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 4 of 17 , Apr 9, 2005
          • 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 5 of 17 , Apr 9, 2005
            • 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 6 of 17 , Apr 9, 2005
              • 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 7 of 17 , Apr 9, 2005
                • 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 8 of 17 , Apr 9, 2005
                  • 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 9 of 17 , Apr 10, 2005
                    • 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 10 of 17 , Apr 10, 2005
                      • 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.