You would have to go back to the early decades of the 19th century (cycles 6 and 7) to find worse, I suspect, and of course there was no radio back then. But in all honesty, Walt, though the current cycle maximum doesn’t compare well it has still been a lot better than the typical sunspot minimum, hasn’t it? They can’t all be like 1959! And since that monster we have endured five minima but ham radio continued, so it isn’t optimism, Walt, its realism!
Brian.
Interestingly, in the first few years of the Twentieth Century when Marconi was conducting his initial experiments with long-haul radio communication, there was a period of extremely low sunspot activity. Perhaps this is why the higher frequencies were written off as “useless” until the 1920s and 1930s when radio amateurs started to demonstrate their value for worldwide communication.
73,
Walt (G3NYY)
Swings and roundabouts OMs… Patience and a good ear needed…
HF Conditions are good today, big signals coming out of Germany on 20m, and 10m is produced good skip from Northern England to DL/HB9BIN/P, EA2LU/P and EA2IF/P in the last 20 minutes up to 0945z.
73 Phil
There was a talk about the Solar cycle at my local astronomical society a few months back. The speaker’s conclusion was that another “Maunder Minimum” wasn’t immediately on the horizon, but that the second half of the last century had been a period of exceptionally high Solar activity, and that the recent cycles were nearer average. Another point the speaker made was that exceptional bursts of Solar activity aren’t quite as well correlated with the peaks of the cycle as is generally implied.
I guess it boils down to “Keep your ears open, and give apparently quiet bands a try, just in case…”
The great thing about amateur radio is the choice we have. There will always be something that works. 40m has been bad, but the CW is still coming thought, maybe not loud and clear, but perfectly readable.
I think this article is quite good. Im not sure about the PCA data used, especially the old data, but the explanation about the 2 patterns makes a bit more sense.
Im not an expert though 
I agree with you Tacos that the bands have been very bad recently. However, back in the 80’s I decided to venture into QRP with 5 watts and home brewed kit. I was unfortunate that this coincided with a cycle low! However, during that low on 5 watts I achieved DXCC on 5 watts, DXCC on 1 watt and DXCC on 1 mW. OK it was using CW but it was still possible. The bottom line is don’t be disheartened, there will always be stations to work albeit on different bands.
73 Glyn
no ‘enchiladas’ is my name 
Yes thanks for the supportive ideas! I like QRP too, so I have to push learning CW a bit more
73s
Tasos
Sorry Tasos brain not working 
You don’t have to have CW, SSB QRP is still possible. G3ROO was very prolific at QRP SSB and was also successful during the low period.
to the local Brits,
Is there any local net or local spot that people hang out? I’d love some local elmer-ing 
as there isn’t any clubs near me and I thing Im lucking on local info!
thanks!
Every one of my several HF SSB activations have been 5 watts or less. I’m looking forward to the LF bands returning to normal 
72/73 de G4MD (G-QRP 3106)
Indeed, think positive.
Some folk can already see the future and are planning way in advance of the next few days
Long livers Pete, long livers…
I like the confidence that in 2038 KM4JHL will make the first activation of W4C/CM-034 ! Crikey that must be a hard summit to activate if it’s still expected not to have been activated by 2038!
Probably time these Alert posters cleaned up their error alerts.
Ed.
Im still hopping my cyborg clone can do the activations for me by then
2038 alerts happens regularly. See
Jim
Edit: They are mostly due to people mistyping the years entering things like 2105, or even 2915 instead of 2015
Hi Jim,
What amazing things ones learns on this reflector. Yes I had guessed at the 2025 typo of 2015 but I could work out how the activator had got 2038 by mistake. Now I know.
73 Ed.
Ed,
I suspect most of the November and December 2015 and all the 2016 alerts are due to typos. The contextual comments that cannot be right, tend to give it away.
Andrew vk1da/2uh
Yes but shouldn’t it “give it away” to the people entering the alerts as well, so that they can correct their errors?
I know if I enter an aleert, I check it is correct afterwards.
Ed.
From what you have seen Ed, that is not a universal action! Actually some people will enter an alert with a typo, not see the alert listed for a day or two ahead and re-enter it with the correct details. When that appears they’re happy and don’t go looking for what happened to the original.
The KD5ZZK alerts in October are correct.
