Project TouCans is rock locked, meaning that it operates on a single frquency: 14057.4 kHz at teh moment. This leads to station operation that looks a bit different from most. Notice that while we do use the RBN, it's mostly as a wellness check for TouCans. For us to call a station, they have to be on frqueqncy, so we also use the tool shown in the terminal window to the left, rbn_telnet.py. We can start it with a signal range such as
python3 rbn_telnet.py -b 14057 -e 14059
The tool then connects to the RBN's telnet feed and filters for only calls between the -b and -e arguments in kHz.
Immediately after getting TouCans back on the air a few days back, I was presented with the opportunity to see a few things about how the rig works and whether or not its antenna angle might be an issue.
W6CSN shared a post about his POTA outing with his KH-1 on the same day. I inquired as to the power he used. He replied that he was running 4 Watts into his EFHW antenna from San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge, US-0212.
I have, for a long time, wanted to find out if the Rocky Mountains barrier faced by TouCans during the day is a feature of the rig, the ionospher, or the rig's antenna angle, (sloping down a hill in the backyard.) Based on Matt's QSO report and RBN spots vs. my RBN spots for the day, it looks like the barrier might be an ionosphere thing:
Matt's QSOs on 9/2/2024
Notice the cutoff with no QSOs past Utah and Arizona. That's what I saw during the same day for TouCans on the RBN:
Project TouCans RBN Spots 15:00 UTC to 22:00 UTC
Here, you can see that only one spot made it out as far as as th Kansas/Missouri border. Also note that the rig was spotted at 34 dB, (34 dB into anywhere is a hefty signal for TouCans), in LA which fits with W6CSN remarking about his unusal QSOs to the South.
The ionospheric causation idea holds up looking at W6CSN's RBN spots for the same day 24/09/02:
Of course, as with all things ionosphere and HF, I don't have a conculsive answer, there are too many variables. I'm going to go down a not strictly robust path here and say that the difference in antenna types, (kinda vertical EFHW vs. dipole), and sites, (plain at sea level at San Pablo Bay vs. hillside in SF proper a few miles to the South), make the ionosphere on the 2nd more of a likely culprit for the similar results.
Why was the ionosphere doing the things it did? I don't know yet, but I'll keep you posted.
I thought it would be interesting to compare a couple maps. First map is a repeat. It's the Reverse Beacon Network map from Sunday's FOBB outing.
Now this is where my signal was being picked up by skimmers. Basically, computers that can detect signals, even those beneath the noise floor, that other ops might not be able to hear.
A wee bit different, wouldn't you say? I did not work any stations as far as Arizona or Western Canada. But I did work a few stations where the skimmers did not pick me up.
Moral of the story - RBN is a good guide, but it's not gospel. Just because you're being picked up by a skimmer doesn't necessarily mean that a pair of human ears at the same location would be able to pick you out of the noise. As they say on TV, "It's for entertainment purposes only."
Rule of thumb that I picked up from Joe N2CX. If you're going to go by what you see on RBN, pay attention to the s/nr levels. If it's double digit dB numbers, a good receiver and a good set of ears should be able to pick you out of the mud.
That all being said - that's for QSOs between humans. If you're working the digital modes, or just testing out a new antenna to see how it gets out, you'd have to interpret the RBN results a little differently. In those cases, what you see is probably what you're going to get, especially with FT8 and the like.
Login
