The average daily sunspot numbers this week were about the same as last week, while the average daily solar flux declined a little more than eight points to 128.9. Geomagnetic indicators were quiet. The average daily sunspot numbers of 95.3 for the week is considerably below the average for the previous 90 days, which was 120.8. Sunspot numbers for December 15-21 were 44, 60, 95, 103, 133, 139 and 93, with a mean of 95.3. The 10.7 cm flux was 124.2, 121, 119.6, 127.4, 128.2, 137.4 and 144.5, with a mean of 128.9. The estimated planetary A indices were 0, 0, 0, 1, 4, 3 and 3, with a mean of 1.6. The estimated mid-latitude A indices were 2, 2, 2, 3, 6, 5 and 5, with a mean of 3.6.
The solar flux has been climbing over the past week, after a low of 119.6 on December 17. The predicted flux values for the near term are 145 on December 23, 140 on December 24-27, 145 on December 28-30, then dropping suddenly to 120 on December 31-January 2, 125 on January 3-4, 128 on January 5-8, and then peaking at 130 on January 9-17. The predicted planetary A index is 5 on December 23 through January 4, 8 on January 5-6, and 5 on January 7-21. This is from NOAA and the U.S. Air Force Space Weather Operations. There is another opinion, of course: Geophysical Institute Prague predicts quiet conditions December 23, quiet to unsettled December 24, active conditions December 25, unsettled to active December 26, quiet to unsettled December 27 and quiet again on December 28-29.
Active conditions are quite different from an A index of 5, although the NOAA/USAF outlook is at least eight hours newer than the Prague prediction. But looking back 24 hours earlier to the December 21 prediction, USAF/NOAA has nothing different on December 25, although they do show an A index of 8 on December 29. You can check here for the latest prediction, which is updated daily after 2100.
Loyd C. Headrick Published Date Hits: 266
Category: ARRL
In a case that goes back more than 10 years, the FCC has told a Pennsylvania utility that the utility is responsible for paying for "efforts to locate and correct instances of [power line] noise"<http://www.fcc.gov/eb/AmateurActions/files/Duque09_08_07_5108.pdf>. At least one amateur has been complaining to the FCC since 2000 regarding harmful radio interference possibly caused by power line equipment maintained by Pittsburgh's Duquesne Light Company (DLC) <http://www.duquesnelight.com/>.
Bob Thacker, K3GT, of Allison Park, Pennsylvania -- a suburb just northeast of Pittsburgh -- first noticed harmful interference back in 1996. He told the ARRL that DLC would come out and fix things, but that he would soon hear noise again. After a few years of this, he complained to the FCC, and in 2005, the FCC notified DLC of the complaint. A month later, DLC responded to the FCC, detailing their efforts to resolve the matter and indicated that the most recent complaint was the result of changed conditions, not the continuation of an old problem.
According to the FCC, DLC again communicated with the FCC in a letter dated June 2, 2005, explaining the efforts they had taken to repair three lightning arrestors. During the latter half of 2005 and into 2006, Thacker continued to experience interference and continued to report these instances to DLC, requesting that DLC correct the problems. In 2007, he located a specific pole as one source of noise and advised a Mr Luther of DLC of this fact; Mr Luther advised Thacker that he would submit a work order.
In March 2008, DLC contacted Thacker, indicating that it had swept the area where the suspected pole was located and discovered no noise. DLC indicated that the noise source was a neon light. Finally, DLC stated that it had spent "significant amounts of time and money" attempting to address his concerns and that DLC would require him to pay for any additional efforts to locate and correct instances of noise.
Special Counsel for Amateur Enforcement Laura Smith responded to DLC in July of this year, saying "Such a response is not acceptable." She spelled out what she called "the most important rules relating to radio and television interference from incidental radiators," specifically:
47 CFR, Section 15.5: General Conditions of Operation <http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2002/octqtr/pdf/47cfr15.5.pdf>; 47 CFR, Section 15.13: Incidental Radiators <http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2002/octqtr/pdf/47cfr15.13.pdf>, and
47 CFR Section 15.15: General Technical Requirements <http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2002/octqtr/pdf/47cfr15.15.pdf>.
"Given the fact this case has been ongoing for quite some time without resolution and DLC has had ample time to locate the instances of interference and make the necessary repairs," Smith told the utility, "you are directed to respond to [me] within 60 days of receipt of this letter, detailing what steps you have taken to resolve the remaining instances of interference that are reported as being caused by your equipment. Should the remaining interference problems not be resolved within those 60 days, DLC will be required to provide [me] with a status update every two weeks going forward as to what progress, if any, has been made to resolve the matter."
ARRL Lab Engineer and power line noise expert Mike Gruber, W1MG, was pleased with Smith's decision, and said that amateurs should not be made to pay fees to the utilities to test for harmful interference by the same utilities. "It is not the responsibility of an Amateur Radio operator to track down and get rid of power line noise -- that's the utilities' job. I am pleased with the precedent that Laura Smith and the FCC have set here. Now maybe more utilities will take power line noise interference more seriously in the future."