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.
ARRL Published Date Hits: 228
Category: ARRL
Acting on behalf of an ARRL member in Midwest City, Oklahoma -- who had been sent a notice by the town asserting that he was in violation of a town ordinance regarding radio frequency interference (RFI) -- the ARRL notified Midwest City officials that only the FCC is empowered to regulate such matters. Two weeks after ARRL General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD, sent the letter to town officials, Midwest City Assistant City Attorney Randal D. Homburg sent an e-mail to the ham to let him know “the previously delivered notice is hereby rescended [sic]. There will be no citations issued and thus, the issue is moot.” Midwest City is in the Oklahoma City metropolitan area.
Calling the ordinance “null and void,” General Counsel Imlay said the notice stated the ham “was in violation of the ordinance as the result of radio frequency interference appearing in a neighbor/complainant’s home electronic equipment. The licensed radio amateur was ordered to remedy the problem in one day, under penalty of a sanction assessed against the real property of the radio amateur.”
The ordinance in question -- Midwest City Ordinance 27-3(9) -- reads: “In addition to other public nuisances declared by other sections of this Code or law, the following [is] hereby declared to be [a] public nuisance: Operating or using any electrical apparatus or machine which materially and unduly interferes with radio or television reception by others.” Section 27 of Midwest City’s Ordinances deals with nuisances.
“As previously indicated, it is the city’s position that the ordinance cited in the notice, MCO 27-3(a)(9), does not apply to RF transmission devices licensed by the FCC as to their operation and use pursuant to the license,” Homburg’s letter read. “In the event there are future complaints from any citizen about a neighbor's use of these licensed devices, the city will direct the complaining party to file their complaints with the FCC.”
Homburg went on to say that there is no issue with the language of the ordinance: “This council adopted the ordinance over eleven (11+) years ago, pursuant to the procedures for adoption such ordinance provided for under the city’s charter. Your issue with the ordinance has been with the application of the cited section to the use of your licensed transmitting device. That is no longer an issue. This e-mail is the official position of the city. There should be no need for further inquiry from any other city official.”