New WSPRer!

Having a daughter living in Lima, Peru, I was delighted to start hearing OA4DKJ on 14MHz WSPR last night - a DX distance of 9991km.

MW1CFN receiving OA4DKJ, 2019 September 26

I'm hoping Eduardo will stay on WSPR for many years to come!
 

Lima: a great place for radio!

Better late than never. Better never late...

RadCom, the RSGB's monthly magazine (not available in any shops), is, by any standard, a pretty poor offering.

As such, the magazine gets put in the bathroom, where I pick it up and put it down until the next month's pointless text arrives.

This month (October 2019), I was interested to see the EMC section dealing with the 'novel' RFI source that are CCTV camera systems.

Novel, that is, to the RSGB.  I first noticed RFI from a wireless image transmission system around 2009.  I wrote about a later, entirely wired system, in 2014.

So, congratulations to the RSGB for catching up - eventually.

There is something else that struck me as very, very odd in this month's EMC section.  In relation to some work by one operator to minimise RFI, it's implied that a reduction to the point where the 'S' meter does not register a signal is an indication of success.

Well, this would certainly not be acceptable for my WSPR reception.

I can switch on a number of poorer SMPSUs around the house, and they will produce copious amounts of RFI.  The CCTV system I reported on in 2014 is the only one I've seen trigger the 'S' meter.  Typically, SMPSUs will raise the noise floor by several dB without triggering the 'S' meter at all. So use something like an SDR receiver or spectrum analyser to determine the success or otherwise of EMC efforts, so that you get an objective, numerical assessment.

Looking forward already to summer, 2020.

As I've mentioned a few times on this blog, 2m SSB and digimodes is something I would really like to try.

Unfortunately, whilst a mobile 2m FM transceiver can cost less than £100 in the UK, a SSB unit somehow costs a minimum of £685 for the FT-857D - but I don't want HF!  The top-end VHF/UHF rigs don't bear thinking about: £1795 for the new, albeit very nice ICOM IC-9700, for example.

So, I had a look around at various used transceivers with 2m multimode capability.  The FT-857Ds are fairly common on E-bay, but are so sought-after that their used price is not sufficiently below that of a new one.  Ergo, there is no sensible point in buying them.

Eventually, I found a very clean ICOM IC-746 for £495 from a reputable seller specialising in amateur radio.  That was at least £200 below the used price for the same rig from one of the big radio outlets, so I bought it!  It's even being delivered in person by car, so that it won't get thrown around by delivery companies!

The 746 isn't a rig absent of problems, such as a well-known, overheating display screen backlight transistor.  But these are minor things that are either inconsequential, or else easily repaired.  There are plenty of online videos to guide people like me.  My first job will be to add a heat sink to that transistor, so that it helps avoid the problem in the first place.

So, the next step is a decent 2m antenna.  Although they are very easy to build, this time I'm going to buy a Innovantennas 10, maybe 12 element LFA Yagi.  For 2020, it will beam permanently across the Atlantic.

New for 2020: a 10, or maybe 12-ele LFA for 2m DX.

I'm quietly confident that, armed with some terrain analysis and a good antenna, I might be able to break the Brendan challenge. Some people think I'm stupid, and that enormous ladder Yagis and enormous power is needed for this to succeed.

But look at the terrain analysis for my location (100m up, sloping all the way down to the Irish Sea), which is for a notionally low (3m above ground), 8 element Yagi (largest available under the software), not the intended 10/12 antenna I will eventually acquire.  A total gain at extremely low angles of nearly 25dBi!  Gain remains above 14dBi until 8 degrees.

In other words, assuming I can get a good 26dBi out of a slightly larger antenna, a sensible input of 25W from the transceiver magically appears as just under 1kW from the antenna.  If I make the rig sweat at 90W into the antenna, the effective output rises to 36kW!  This is definitely worth pursuing!

Spectacular low-angle gain available, even for a modest, 8-ele Yagi.

Terrain in the direction of the US: an antenna on a 3m pole here is effectively 100m high!

Whilst some think there is too much atmospheric extinction at 2m for low angles to be usable, I have to beg to disagree - based on experience with SO-50 satellite.  My best DX with SO-50 came when I worked a Canadian station using a 5W FM handheld into a 5-ele 2m quad; the satellite was computed to be about a degree above the horizon at that point, not allowing for refraction effects that close to the horizon.  The fact I could clearly hear the other station on 70cm downlink also means that atmospheric extinction is not a barrier to low angle VHF working.

Field-portable market hots up!

Wow!  This soon-to-be-launched QRP rig, which seems to have outstanding mechanical engineering, really has my attention:  https://lab599.com/

Nice!

Non-linearity, straightened out.

Last week, a strange WSPR anomaly was causing some headaches for me.

The problem was that G0CCL, a very useful beacon in Cambridgeshire that switches its output from 1W to 5W at intervals, was receiving strange signal reports in that the 7dB switch from 1W to 5W yielded, at various receivers I selected, a 12.5dB improvement in signal.

This seemed to be odd to me, so I asked the keeper of G0CCL to examine the setup, in case settings had drifted over time.

In the true spirit of ham radio and scientific enquiry, Jonathan Kelly, G2HFR, attached an antenna to his spectrum analyser, and found...a 12.8dB difference between the nominal settings of 1 and 5W!  A person of lesser integrity would have made excuses, failed to respond, or even denied the anomaly.  So, very much credit is due to Jonathan.

Something not quite right.  A supposed 7dB power setting change yields a 12.86dB difference in actual output.  Image courtesy Jonathan Kelly.

The agreement between analysing remote receiver reports and a local spectrum analyser assessment is remarkable - just 0.3dB difference!  I was rather happy with that, and the fact that it pointed to a problem that needed resolving with the drive amplifier of the Raspberry Pi system in use at G0CCL.  Jonathan is going to change it for a log amp with more steps next week, as a result of this finding.

As this had complicated my analysis of seaside and inland stations somewhat, I bought another WSPRlite transmitter, and set off for the beach one, last time this afternoon.  The temperature was hitting the upper 20's Celsius, which was really quite amazing for the end of September.

Warm weather won't last much longer.  At IO73rf, Traeth Llydan, west coast Anglesey.

Now I could compare two identical elevated 1/4 wave verticals with 2 radials, one at home, one at the beach, each putting out 200mW for a couple of hours.  As the tide was high when I began, and the beach slope steeper than when it's lower, I was able to keep the seaside antenna with its feet right at the water's edge throughout, occasionally being washed by waves.

The results are very interesting - and very different from fully inland stations, which are worse than my hilltop, home vertical only a few km from the coast.  My seaside antenna produced about 2dB better reports across all distances and all stations, increasing to 8dB as the distance reached long-haul DX at beyond 6000km or so.  Most eastern US stations were reporting a 5dB better signal from the seaside.

This is broadly comparable to the ~10dB improvement seen from earlier coastal work, although there were no dramatically better signals this time.  Signals to the east (landward) were a maximum of 3dB better but, generally, they were marginally (0.5-1.5dB) weaker from the seaside.

Sadly, I'm reluctant to compare with others' inland stations, because there are too many things that we can't know about them.  Some use rubbish antennas, others are surrounded by buildings, and the significance of these isn't always appreciated by the users.

As with other work, I found a significant number of stations - up to 40% - that heard me from the seaside, but not at all from home.  Those are perhaps more telling and important than the other comparisons.

Another crucial element to examine was the frequency (how often heard) of spots for each station, which is very revealing: the more inland antenna had, on average, only a quarter the number of spots from any given station that the seaside antenna did. 

All distances, all stations = 2dB improvement from the seaside.

Eastern side of US reporting 5dB improvement from the seaside.

8dB improvement from the seaside for far west US receivers.

Tidying up at the beach

During the past 24 hours, I decided to gather more WSPR data by comparing identical (elevated, 1/4 wave vertical, 2 radials) antennas, one located at the seaside, the other at home.  Previous work had tended to compare a mobile whip with a delta loop at home, or used more distant stations for comparison, both approaches having advantages and disadvantages.

'Home' means 100 metres up on a ridge overlooking the sea.  In the direction of the eastern seaboard US, the sea is about 12km distant, and visible.  In the direction of the west coast US, the sea is 7km distant, and visible.

West coast Wales, listening to the US.  My old runaround car has hit a fair few boulders in its travels!

Whilst I had been back-calculating to compensate for power output differences between my own station on the beach and my reference inland station, G0CCL, I had to abandon this method.  That was because there is a very clear and consistent disparity between reception reports at 5W, and those at 1W.  That is probably an effect of the ionosphere and/or noise local to the receivers, and not anything to do with G0CCL.

So, the simplest option was to resort to listening instead.  This also removed the 20 minute delay in propagation changes that occur as a result of the longitude difference between me and G0CCL.

The outcome of the evening listening to the US was a +10dB advantage to the sea side.  The range was +14dB to +4.5dB.

To the east, in the morning, there was a +12.5dB advantage to the sea side antenna.  The range here was +19dB to +10dB.

East coast listening in the morning.

In both cases, there were several stations that were not heard at all by the vertical at home.  In the case of JA9TTT, which was heard at -14dB at the seaside, and not at all back home, the inferred signal enhancement there, based on WSJT-X's detection limit being -34dB, might be as high as 20dB.  I've seen up to 29dB enhancements with other stations in earlier work.

So, I've now run out of time and energy for this work, and will soon ruck out of luck with the very fine weather we have had for most of September.

The basic story is that being at the coast, without actually having to be in the water, typically boosts your performance by roughly 10dB, or a ten-fold increase in signal, with a good number of paths showing enhancement of about 14dB (25 times), and occasional ones nearly 30dB (1000 times).

WSPR - a peculiarity.

Seaside WSPR, 16/09/19, Anglesey west coast.

Just as I was getting ready to do some more analysis on seaside operating with WSPR, I came across an interesting anomaly.

To my simple mind, if one increases the output of a transmitter by 7dB (1W to 5W), then the improvement in signal strength at the receiver might be expected to be of a similar order.

But in using a reference station - G0CCL - with which to compare my own results, I found that increasing the power by 7dB resulted in a quite consistent 13dB improvement at a distant receiver (in this case, US receivers).

G0CCL is operated by quite experienced electronics whizzes, so I doubt that the power outputs are not correctly set or indicated - though it's always possible and I have asked them to check.

If anyone has any ideas, I'd be interested to hear of them under 'comments'.  One idea from elsewhere has been that noise may vary at the receiver.  That may well be true, especially as the overwhelming majority of receivers are in noisy environments where noise may vary substantially.  The proof of this idea must be to select a station like DP0GVN as a receiver in future work.  I noticed that, when I chose TF4M in a remote and RF-quiet part of Iceland, changing the output by 7dB resulted exactly in a 7dB change in received signal strength.

More data from the beach.

Yesterday was another lovely sunny day, albeit with a steady 30 knot wind blowing from the south.  A good day for more beach WSPR work, using my daughter's callsign.

Dying days of summer.  Rhosneigr beach, Anglesey (IO73rf).  Note 1/4 and 1/2 wave markers in sand!

There are still a fair number of tourists around, who tend to pose occasional problems in terms of managing adult, child and dog safety near the antenna.  Luckily, the stiff wind had kept all but a small number away from the seaside!

The beach I used has a very wide open aspect from SSW to NNW - Rhosneigr Beach, on the west coast of Anglesey.  This is much easier to work from than Newborough, my previous site, as it has a steeper slope, with no need to move the antenna for over two hours.

Operating site.

I started work at low tide, but the water's edge hardly moved during the first two hours, as the water on the incoming tide simply filled a depression in the beach; very useful!  The antenna was at just over 1/2 a wavelength from the water's edge at its furthest point, and 1/4 wavelength as I neared the end of the run.

Now I'll turn some attention to that working distance first.  Just about anybody who writes about working at the seaside will conclude that you have to be within 1/4 of a wavelength to see the enhancement effects of the water.  They claim that useful gain due to the water is lost beyond 1/2 a wavelength.  A lot of the claims are based on American computer modelling, and not on real world operating.  Those models use a flawed version of reality, where there is something called 'sea' that stops at a single, discrete point, and everything beyond that is termed 'land'.

The reality it very different at the beaches I work from: the water's edge may be so-and-so metres away from you, but on a gently sloping sandy beach, the sand remains fully saturated with seawater,which is often a mix of slowly percolating water left behind as the tide goes out, and upward migrating water from the water 'table' just below the surface.  If you cut a hole in the sand, it immediately fills with water all the way to the sandy surface.

So, in my situation, whilst the antenna seemed initially to be physically away from the sea/land interface it was, electrically, still positioned directly over seawater, which also extended to the landward side.  You can actually see this in the photo above, as the large rock embedded in the sand is surrounded with seawater; it's not a pool as such, because the sand is permeable, and the water would otherwise quickly seep out. 

This reasoning, and its expectations, is supported by a couple of plots I prepared for two stations.  You can see that, even though the tide was advancing very slowly towards the antenna, decreasing from just over 1/2 to 1/4 wave with time, there is no evident enhancement due to the water's edge itself getting closer:

As for the results, well, they were very pleasing, with up to +17dB available, over and above G0CCL, a very reliable and efficient station in Cambridgeshire, which alternates between 1 and 5W output, for which allowance is made in the computations:

So, at the highest enhancement level, you could set 1W on your transceiver and enjoy an effective output of 50W.  Now that's worth going down the beach and getting covered in wet, sticky sand!

Very interestingly, when I looked at a couple of German stations lying to landward (east), my beachside location yielded a 26dB enhancement for DL1DAF, and 29.5dB for DF5FH, relative to G0CCL.  I don't know what the actual mechanism for this very large enhancement to the landward side may be.

When I tried to run a comparison with the only other 100mW station I could find (G4SGI) on SOTABeams' DXPlorer site, it was impossible to do, because G4SGI's signal never made it further than 1010 km!  Unfortunately, DXPlorer doesn't currently make automated, output-compensated computations between stations; I've suggested that such a column in their tables should be included.

14MHz, 0.1W WSPR coverage over ~2.5 hours from IO73rf.

Tantalising.

Warm weather returned to North Wales for this weekend, allowing a good chance to take a vertical and WSPRlite down to the beach.

Friday evening, with everybody taking to weekend radio operating, isn't the best time for WSPR.  I had also forgotten to change the settings on the WSPRlite from 5mW to something a little higher.

Still, I set up in front of the advancing spring tide, and set the little box off at 14MHz.  The beach, though exceptionally beautiful, is not ideal because of mountains to the east, and some low ground to the west.  The clear path is to the south.

Nothing quite like beach operating.

Well, I didn't manage to get terribly far!  The tide was also so big, and the beach so shallow sloping, that I had to keep moving the antenna every ten minutes or so.

Still, I did manage to get a -08dB signal into EA8BFK, which is on a direct, sea-only path from the beach.

So what?  You might say.

Well, if we take the three other stations being heard by EA8BFK at or very nearly the same time, things become exciting:

My 0.005W gave -08dB.  G0CCL, at 5W (30dB more power than mine), gave +4.  Allowing for the power difference, my signal was 26dB stronger than G0CCL.

A station in Jersey, GJ7RWT in a nice middle-of-the-sea location, achieved -17dB fro 0.2W.  Allowing for the power difference, my signal was 25dB stronger - matching the situation found with G0CCL.

Meanwhile, 2E0NPL managed -14dB from 0.5W.  That equates to my signal being 26dB stronger - once again, very beautifully matching the previous two results.

So, this admittedly very limited result gives us a tantalising glimpse of what is possible from the water's edge at the beach: a mean signal enhancement of 26dB over non-coastal sites.  This compares with an advantage of about 15dB I saw on listening tests with my mobile whip from the car, with a greater distance from the water.

In other words, dial in 1W on your portable transceiver, and you get the equivalent of 398W out!

I'll now build on this result and set-up again on a beach with a clearer aspect.  I'll also raise the radials a little.  Even though those mountains and other areas only reach about 2 or 3 degrees in apparent height, those low angles they obstruct are crucial.

Now enjoy a couple minutes' relaxation, exploring SW Anglesey:

An evening's listening.

As ex-tropical storm Gabrielle gave way to clearing skies this evening, I spent an hour (17:52-18:52UT) listening on 14MHz WSPR from the car by the sea.

Once again, the results with a simple, and very cheap whip vertical were excellent.  Of 17, US stations heard regularly, the coastal location yielded a modal enhancement, relative to my full wave 14MHz delta loop, of 7dB, or a power factor of 5.

That sounds quite modest, until you look at the range, which is from 14.5dB to 1dB, or a power factor of between 28 and 1.25 times.  The highest enhancement was to the signals from the best DX stations of AA7FV and K5XL, at 8147 and 7315km, respectively. 

Lovely sunset, and great results!

With the new ICOM portable all-band transceiver now adding to the still fairly limited range of field-portable rigs, this and my other results clearly show the way in getting the very most out of the 10-15W such rigs typically produce at their higher settings.

At 10W into a simple vertical within a few tens of metres of the sea (and not 'feet wet' style, which is probably even better, but a lot less convenient), you could be effectively putting out 280W in the direction of the sea.  Or, looking at it another way, 56W ERP from dialling-in just 2W on your rig!

If you think those claims are somehow special or unachievable in practice, have a look around the internet for those who operate pedestrian mobile by the sea, or listen to how they have 5/9 SSB QSOs with VK and ZL on a few Watts, whilst you can't even hear those stations!


And remember, this was just a one hour test!  The results around greyline time in the morning to the antipodes are certain to be impressive.  One morning, I'll get around to it.  Until then, here's what you can do with half a Watt or less:

WSPRs from the High Arctic.

Some interesting WSPR spots on 14MHz over the past few days, from way up in the Arctic.

8S8ODEN, the icebreaker Oden, makes its presence known fairly regularly on WSPR, on this occasion, as a receiver of my 1W.  At the moment, it's off the NW coast of Greenland, up at around 78 degrees north:

Oden.  Image: Wikimedia Commons.

Another ship, this time the German Research Vessel,  Polarstern, has also appeared infrequently as DP0POL, and is a new station for me.  Last heard sending a high output of 20W from off the west coast of Svalbard, at almost the same latitude as Oden, 79 degrees north:

RV Polarstern.

Tackling USB RFI.

These days, the use of various USB-based power cables and supplies is pretty much universal.

You might think that using battery-powered USB supplies doesn't produce RFI that harms amateur radio reception.  Sadly, that isn't always true.

The most common problem is that where a small transformer steps down 12VDC to USB's standard of 5VDC.

In field tests with my mobile setup, I've found that connecting a USB cable to the outlet of such a transformer - even when the other end is not connected to a load, produces very considerable levels of RFI - on my TS480's lazy 'S' meter, it reaches about S7.  WSPR reception is not an option with that kind of interference!

Yesterday, I had forgotten to bring my lithium power bank with me, which I normally use to power my Raspberry Pi, because it doesn't lead to any RFI at all.  Having come a fairly long way, I looked around to see what I had in the car that would let me use the car's USB outlet without RFI.

It turns out I had two good quality TDK split ferrites around the sound card interface.  That was probably redundant, so I used it to put three rounds of the USB power cable around the core, immediately where the cable left the transformer outlet.

Immediately, the RFI dropped dramatically, with the S-meter now not registering, though there was a small amount of weak residual hiss.  Using the second, smaller ferrite at the computer end, the RFI was eliminated altogether, provided one eliminated any stray capacitive paths by careful positioning of the Raspberry Pi itself.

On a later outing, I found the solution to the residual RFI was to wrap the USB connector from the Raspberry Pi to the soundcard interface around a large ferrite (see below for details).  Now I had absolutely no RFI at all.

With these measures, and with the results obtained on WSPR as reported in a previous post, I was able to turn a day spoiled by RFI into a successful mobile outing.

The specific ferrites I used were a large TDK ferrite, type ZCAT 3035-1330 (13mm inner diameter), originally supplied with my TS480SAT for interface RFI suppression, and the smaller one, a TDK ZCAT 2032-0930, 9mm inner diameter.  Both are widely available online, albeit at about £5 or more each, but be careful to choose a reputable supplier, to avoid cores made of river mud, rather than the proper mixes!

 

As more proof were needed...

This morning, between 08 and 09UT, I visited Red Wharf Bay, which has a wide, open sea horizon to the eastern hemisphere.  Last year, I had great DX results with low power from mobile whip and magnetic loop antennas.

Today, I decided just to listen from the car whilst the delta loop was also listening back home.

At Red Wharf Bay, September 2018, when the tide was at its highest.

Once again, the results are spectacular, and firmly highlight why, if you can, you should get a HF station down to your nearest beach.  The tide need not be in; it was about 2km away from me this morning, although the vast sandy bay was saturated with sea water.

In four out of seven cases, my simple mobile whip for 14MHz, coupled to a TS480SAT and Raspberry Pi 3B+ running WSJT-X, latest edition, could hear stations that my full wave delta, even though it is on elevated and highly mineralised ground and in an open environment, could not hear at all.

MW1CFN/M (beach), where the same stations were not heard at home:

JA9TTT, spots = 4, median S/N= -13dB.  
R2ARX, spots = 3, median S/N= -22dB
OH8GKP, spots = 5, median S/N = -04dB
UB1NDF, spots = 4, median S/N = -24.5dB


Here are the comparisons for those stations that were heard by both antennas, although the beach location produces more spots, and the difference in strengths is fairly small:

RA6AAW, beach spots = 5, median S/N = -2dB, home spots = 1, median S/N = -07dB
UR5KHL, beach spots = 9, median S/N = -20dB, home spots = 3, median S/N = -24dB

Proving that very low angle radiation is important in producing these differences, my delta was hearing the nearby PA1JT stronger than at the beach, although with the same number of spots:

PA1JT, beach spots = 4, median S/N = -3.5dB, home spots  = 4, median S/N = +07dB

It's very satisfying to obtain these results, especially when one recounts the words of the late Les Moxon, G6XN, when he thought (p. 168, HF Antennas for all Locations) about what the seaside could bring - without the benefit of WSPR and other digimodes that make his suggested experiments now, 26 years since his book's second edition, so easy and objective:

"At the Seaside.

...This is a complicated situation which is diffiult to analyse, though it can be assumed that, for some very low angle (possibly well under 1 degree) even the near edge of the [Fresnel] zone will be pushed out to sea.  This suggests dramatic possibilities but (from the lack of published information) either these have not yet been explored or there is a hidden catch somewhere.  It is hoped that readers in suitable locations will be encouraged to experiment on these lines." 

Well, Les, you were right. The effects are, indeed, dramatic!  A quick comparison with G0CCL, putting out 7dB more power than me, yet getting far weaker reports from VE6EGN, suggests a minimum 18dB advantage conferred by being near the sea. Wow!  Take a 10W QRP transceiver, and you could be putting out the equivalent of 640W!

JT9 Activity day results are...?

Well, with an official 526,132km total, I managed tenth place out of 185 participants in the August 24-25 JT acitivty days of the RDRC.  This was my first ever involvement with any contest, with which I am quite pleased, given I was operating a non-directional delta loop and fairly low power (15W in most cases) for almost all the QSOs.

There is also a curious, roughly 10,000km discrepancy between my log total and the RDRC's computation, but there we are.  Perhaps it is best not to be too tempted by contests, lest it change my attitude towards radio.

A good place to revise the RDRC's contests would be to abandon the 48 hour format, which is way too long, and replace it with the now more common, 12UT - 12UT, 24 hour format.

How low can you go?

The autumn evenings are rapidly closing in on us now.  Being a little bored, and perhaps thinking a little of those poor people in the Bahamas being flattened by Hurricane Dorian, I wondered: 'can I get out with a wire antenna just thrown on the ground?'

For this, I just unrolled 10m of wire attached to a 9:1 balun - a multi-band end-fed antenna, and laid it on the ground.  I fed it with about 15-20W RF, and sent out a few CQs on FT8, to see what the reports looked like.

I think the results are quite remarkable, and certainly more than good enough to produce QSOs out to reasonable distances.  At 40m, I even managed to get a -18dB signal across the Atlantic!

So, if you have rubbish neighbours, a windy location, or some other restriction on erecting a tall antenna, these new digimodes really do allow you to continue your hobby effectively, regardless.

I think this might prompt a lot more experimentation!

Results at 40m; terminator correct at time of transmissions.

80m results.

Results at 60m.

Icom IC-705

Well, it seems it's my turn to comment on the new portable rig from Icom, the IC-705.

I won't be covering its details - that is covered elsewhere, such as by blogging colleague, VK3YE, here. 

What I would comment upon is the way in which operators are taken for mugs by dealers.  Various outlets in the UK are offering to reserve the first IC-705s for you, in exchange for something like £100 deposit.  They can't even tell you when the rig will be available, with some people thinking it may be into spring, 2020.

Remember, at least in the UK, paying a deposit makes you liable to pay the balance of the full eventual price.  The trouble is, nobody actually knows what the selling price will be. I would certainly not advise anyone to put themselves in that position, because if you change your mind, or can't find the balance, the dealer doesn't have to refund you, and can force you to pay the full amount.

I think operators should be far more considered in their approach to new stuff.  Whilst firmware updates make overcoming early-adopter problems easier these days, they don't entirely eliminate all problems.

Why not sit back, let the more foolish amongst us buy things before they know when they'll be available, and at what price, and get our own when all the problems are ironed out. 

Where I agree with VK3YE is in his comment about power demands of the screen, and operating in salty and sandy environments: the IC-705 clearly isn't cut out in its pre-production guise for that kind of thing.  Cue: someone to make an after-market silicone front cover - yours for just £139.99!

Wipe out!

14MHz WSPR reception was wiped out entirely through the late evening and early morning period, in a very close response to active, G2 conditions. 

Z component.  Image: Tromso Geophysical Observatory.

All dead between 22:42 and 03:08UT.

Not a good weekend for contests!

Almost as soon as the first World Wide Digi DX Contest started yesterday, the geomagnetic field had ideas of its own about propagation.

A picture (Z component, east Greenland station) speaks a thousand words:

Image: Tromso Geophysical Observatory.

Image: NOAA/SWPC.

Not that the rough conditions made any difference to me.  Being a 'digi' modes contest peculiarly limited to the Joe Taylor modes of FT8 and FT4(Taylor even called me twice, but he couldn't hear), this was a particularly mindless and manic points-gathering exercise.  It took me 20 minutes to decide this really wasn't a contest for me - at all.  For those who do want to take it seriously, propagation is really very tough.

Luckily, all the FT mode stuff kept the contesters that might otherwise be on RTTY, obliterating WSPR, at bay.  In terms of reception, it was practically dead; the whole night can be shown in one, small table:

In terms of stations hearing me, it was the same - except for TF4M and TF1VHF - who provided enough data to show a nice peak as the Z component bounced back from a southerly deviation: