The AM Forum

Arrgh.
http://earthsky.org/space/major-drop-in-solar-activity-ahead-scientists-say (http://earthsky.org/space/major-drop-in-solar-activity-ahead-scientists-say)

just means the end of the world is coming. Send me your money so I can get the word out.

They are already making predictions about Cycle 25? I remember a couple of years ago when even NASA was touting conclusive evidence that the current cycle would break all records, including that of Cycle 19 in 1957. Then speculation took an about-face and turned to the possibility of a new Maunder Minimum.

But the MM didn't happen. Sunspots began to return, although belatedly. Now, the Maunder Minimum really did happen after all, but it just won't become fully evident till Cycle 25.

Think maybe this guy had something to do with it?

(http://web.charter.net/api/hangar.php/c21hcnRjcm9wOjMwMDoxOTksc21hcnRyZXNpemU6MzAwOjE5OTox/http://newsimages.charter.net/ap_photos//dbda8af1-bd9b-4e9e-ab00-d1f0c6a33e0f.jpeg)

Q: How is a solar astronomer like a firefly?
A: They both brilliantly illuminate the immediate past.   >:(

More great conditions for the lower bands.

20M will be fun for a few hours a day and 10M will be like 6M...........magic

makes for some great local ragchewin'

And even some whirl wide chewin into the middle East on 40M.....

Major drop in reliable information, I say.

When is the solar max this cycle?

(http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif)

For bad eyes, go here:
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif

Considering the demographics, many if not most licensed amateurs in the US, and members of this board as well, don't have to worry too much about what band conditions will be like in Cycle 25.

Looks like whatever peak we were having has turned into a slump.

Just a point in time. Daily/weekly/monthly solar activities all have their cyclic adventures.

Here's another spin on the the projected cycle, from a meteorological perspective:

Earth may be headed into a mini Ice Age within a decade
Physicists say sunspot cycle is 'going into hibernation'

An immediate question is whether this slowdown presages a second Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period with virtually no sunspots [which occurred] during 1645-1715.

As NASA notes:

    Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715. Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age" when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes.

During the Maunder Minimum and for periods either side of it, many European rivers which are ice-free today – including the Thames – routinely froze over. (snip)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/

There was also the Dalton minimum as well. Though not as long as the Maunder minimum, still a significant event.   If we are at a 'minimum'  I wonder it the planet will cool down as it did during the MM?  Snow in summer & crop failures from the bad (colder) weather caused famines which enabled the plague to thrive in the middle ages. 

I wonder if these "dangerous" cosmic rays were responsible for weakened immunity systems during the cold periods which hosted the black plague that occured during 1348-1350?  We have no sunspot records then.   Also responsible for the bad times of the last mini ice age?  


It's interesting that current economic cycles point to a major bear market to continue into the next 50-60 years or so. Historically, major economic bad times tend to occur with plagues. There may be many inter-related reasons for this.  But the major solar minimums and mini ice age connections are intriguing.

Like anything, the 11 year solar cycle rides on many other longer cycles. These bigger cycles could be 22, 100, 300 years long, etc  and will squash the 11 year cycle like a bug when the bigger ones peak or trough.


T

All things have a natural rhythm, Sometimes on such a long scale that we ephemeral creatures will never be aware of them.

Indeed.

I guess it's time for us to drill here in the U.S. and start burning the fossil fuels in record numbers. Take the converters off our cars and start the global warming machine to head off this new mini ice age.  8)

Oh Crap we are all going to freeze.
Send me your money so I can get the word out

Major drop in solar activity ahead, scientists¹ say



1 - Charlatans and morons posing as scientists trying to obtain research funding (knowing full well some idiot in the government will fall for their crap and supply the money).

Cut off funding to scientific research.  We don't need it, since we already know all the answers and facts. The earth is flat, and the universe is 6000 years old.  

Eliminate science classes from the public schools; it's a waste of money and besides, the kids are entitled only to instruction in reading, writing and basic maths. It's the individual's personal responsibility to figure out what to do with all that reading, writing and 'rithmetic, once learnt.

My skool lernt me to talk gooder and look whar I am to day! ;D

God's middlemen have all the answers just send money and obey

I'm all for funding science. That's not what is being discussed here. This is junk science. Please stay on topic.

The sun might be headed for a rest period, according to according to a June 14 announcement by scientists at the National Solar Observatory (NSO) and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)... Research results, at the 2011 annual meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American Astronomical Society at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, suggest familiar sunspot cycle might be shutting down for a while...

http://www.nso.edu/press/

http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/SPD2011/

http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/jasonj/GROUP/index.html

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/AFRL/

Junk science? Charlatans and morons posing as scientists? Look like pretty respectable credentials to me.

....and Ah, yes.
more junk science Steve?

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/17/research-center-under-fire-for-adjusted-sea-level-data/ (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/17/research-center-under-fire-for-adjusted-sea-level-data/)

Never trust those with academic beards. ;D

Junk Science?  When you have hundreds of years of empirical data to back up your statement you are far better off than any one who stands on consensus.

All weather on this planet is driven by solar energy.  A relatively tiny change in solar output will create dramatic (to us) changes in the planetary weather patterns.  This can be due to an actual drop in sols output, or even by the solar system passing through a region of the galaxy containing large quantities of interstellar dust.  The same thing can happen if solar output increases.

The changing weather patterns of this planet is a very real event, and proven through geologic history via fossil records, glacial ice cores etc.  It's been going on for millions of years.  The effect of solar output, as measured through sunspots, has been correlated via a few hundred yeard of recorded data.

 Those who adapt to the new conditions survive.   Those who run around outlawing lightbulbs instead of figuring out how to grow more food in a changing environment will become extinct.

Weather in our atmosphere is a chaotic system. So is solar weather. Certain patterns can be observed and predictions can be based on them, but any prediction is only a probability, because there are too many uncertainties involved.  For example, just follow the 5-day local weather forecast. An excellent demonstration of chaos theory can be seen at the Exploratorium in San Francisco at the Compound Pendula (http://www.exploratorium.edu/complexity/exhibit/pendulum.html) display.


Like the maximum peak of the sunspot cycle, we won't know for sure where climate change will take us until well after the fact, and none of us will live long enough to see that.  If indeed human activity is partially or wholly responsible for the apparent global warming trend, it is almost certainly too late to reverse it or even stop it. The best we can do is damage control; that's what the current debate is all about.

Yes, Don, junk science. So called scientists gave dire predictions of an ice age in the 1970s. After no ice age occurred, the story was switched to global warming and that we'd all drown. Now it's back to an ice age. The track record of these predictions is horrible. Yes, junk science and scare tactics. It keeps the money coming and the uneducated public keeps buying it.

I've worked with real scientists for 30 years. I know the difference between the good ones and the bad/fake ones. I'd be interested in hearing your about your direct interactions with scientists and the scientific community and your methods for determining credentials and track records.


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914-1,00.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1176980,00.html

It's not about how many angels can stand on the head of a pin, which the smartest and most learned people argued about long ago.

We don't have enough information to get to the bottom of climate change, or not, yet.

As for all scientists-- Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.

Right on Bill. Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day. Scientists have alternately predicted warming or cooling regularly since at least the beginning of the 20th century. Below is an article from the Richmond Examiner on October 5, 1911 where it is claimed the climate of California will be changed due to wireless (radio) signals. Funny stuff.

I have read that the sun is getting brighter every year. If it's getting brighter, it must be running at a higher temperature.  It will continue to get brighter, thus higher temperatures here on earth. Does this make any sense?

Ah Ha!  So that is where the term "Cloud Burner" originated!!!!   As long as amateurs get the credit - er blame, for the global warming, I say "Turn up the wick and Strap!"

And why would one think that mother nature, given some time, can't counteract man's goings-on that may (or may not) have a small influence on our climate? It's a closed loop system after all.   

Why would anyone think that man is not an integral part of "Mother Nature"?  Or one of her many tools?

The concern is surviving a change when it comes, a process that will be greatly enhanced by knowledge of what's happening, why it's happening, and what it implies.

So my money is always with the scientist, as science is man's only real hope for long term survival.  But then I have no problem with leaving the ignorant to their bliss either, as long as they stay out of the way of progress.

73 Jack KZ5A

PS.... If you heard it on "Fox News" it is almost certainly BS. :o :o

I have noticed that teeth are getting brighter.

Blind faith in science is not the best hope for survival. Here's a claim that temperatures were warming from the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 12 Nov 1938.

Then in 1951 there were predictions of cooling and delayed/reduced sunspots (sound familiar). Of course we all know that the sunspot peak in 1959 was the largest in the 20th century. This guy worked at MIT, so he HAD to be right, at least to the blinder faithers.

I don't agree but then when making a statement like the above, it smacks of political BS that really doesn't belong here.

If were were to get a sudden mini ice age, what would happen to all our nuclear generators and holding pools for spent rods? would we have time to move and clean up the area?

Amid the cooling forecasts of the 1950's, there were also forecasts of warming, ice melting and a 150 foot rise in the oceans (sound familiar). Can you say clueless? According to the blind faithers we should have been wiped out long ago. Belief in stupidity posing as science is not our best hope for survival.

50% of all scientists finished in the bottom half of their class  ::)

 

It boils down to an inexact science, that is frequently abused by charlitans and hucksters who would make a buck by fear mongering.  Ethics requires that if a scientist finds something that could cause havoc with peoples lifes they should issue a warning.  (how about the approach of a giant asteroid instead of climate change).  The problem is that not everything is known about our climate, so into this gray area comes the hucksters, who deliberately cloud (no pun intended) the situation for their benifit.  Add in a healthy does of ignorant politician and populace and viola!  one big mess.

Some day the guy who was right willl shouted down and ignored.

You've nailed it Ed. The hubris of many so-called scientists drives them to claim they know more than they actually know or draw faulty conclusions from poorly gathered and insufficient data. Hey, they are the wizards after all and they know better than everyone else. We must blindly follow them. Add in human factors like lack of ethics, politics, greed and the desire for power and recognition (even though some claim such things do not exist in the scientific community) and lots of garbage gets out.

These proclamations are readily gobbled up by the science true believers and the brain-dead media even though they wouldn't know real solid science if it hit them in the face. Those who question are shouted down as non-believers and flat-earthers. Of course, blindly believing a scientist is the most unscientific thing you can do. That is lost on the true believers.

Jay, you always say just the right thing to get people to think, "Huh? What did he just say?"

If scientists were absolutely pure and incapable of being manipulated by politics or their own result-driven agendas, their data might be above reproach. My own observation is that they are human and not above making mistakes. When they cross into the realm of making predictions about future climate trends and solar activity, they might be right around 50% of the time.

I still enjoy it when pseudo-celebrity experts (like Danny Glover) start throwing percentages around, especially with things like the measurable rise of carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere. So, the next time someone starts screaming hysterically that carbon dioxide levels have risen 10% over the last 50 years, ask them what that means, given that carbon dioxide makes up only .03% of the total atmosphere. Hint: .03% x 1.10% = .033% for a net total change of .003%, (three-thousandths of one percent) in the make-up of the atmosphere. The truth is, no one really knows exactly what such a micro change in the environment means. The climate model is far too complex to draw any conclusions, but that doesn't stop various groups from trying.

No matter what is predicted by the experts for the next solar cycle(s), I'm still cranking my tower down, tilting it over, and putting something better up there for the upper bands. I want to enjoy the ride while I'm still here!

Rob W1AEX  

Keep an open mind. There isn't enough historical data and we don't live a thousand- or ten thousand years. I don't know if the best of computer models "get it" yet. Let's discuss again a century from now.

Ok

We won't be around in a century. But we can go back a century and see this nonsense has been going on since then. A century of false claims is more than enough to prove this climate change hyperbole should not be taken seriously.

That's the best we can do.  We won't even know the date when Cycle 24 hits its peak or what the maximum smoothed sunspot number will be until well after the fact.  The same with climate change.  We can speculate about the various possibilities and create computer models based on the data we have collected and each of those possibilities.

But fortunately, coming to our rescue (now play the fanfare), we have deniers who already know for sure that it's all junk science, a politically inspired hoax created by a bunch of charlatans, and true believers with pure faith in a 100% certainty beyond any reasonable doubt that it's going to happen exactly as predicted by infallible experts.

I just wish I were one of the enlightened few who know it all.

One thing that is true is that the earth "wobbles" on its axis. Making the upper regions get closer and travel further from the sun. This "wobble" make a complete rotation every 26,000 years. In 16,000(?) our north star will no longer be Polaris but Vega. But as been stated before, history holds the key.

You are Don. You believe in science. That's all that's needed. Facts and track records need not be consulted. No thinking is required. You're golden!

It's too easy to call anyone who questions the bogus predictions as deniers. Such an approach is completely unscientific and usually politically motivated. The use of the term in this context is actually quite insensitive and vulgar. It's a take-off on the Holocaust deniers. To compare the many who dare question certain people's belief on a rather open topic to those who deny that the Nazis killed 6 million Jews is downright disgusting. It shows just how far the true believers will go to squelch any discussion or differing viewpoints.

It's also a cop out to say let's wait 100 years. Many of the predictions aren't for 100 years, but for a much shorter time, like 5 years or ten years (read James Hansen's predictions of global warming made before the Senate in the recent past). I've posted a bunch of them here. We've seen these predictions proven wrong for at least 100 years now. That's a horrible track record. To continue to fall for such repeated nonsense defies logic.

I suppose most of you guys won't be reading Al Gore's latest book then.  It's tour d' force of electronic publishing, really quite a neat piece of work.  Here's a review:

http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/al-gore-invents-a-showpiece-e-book/

I have to admit I haven't read it but I did fool around with it on an iPad.  Quite cool, actually.

We won't have to wait that long. Just a couple of years till Cycle 24 reaches its peak.  Let's see if it beats out Cycle 19 (as predicted by some NASA scientists a couple of years ago), or if it turns out to be a disappointing dud like the most recent pass of Halley's Comet in 1986. Maybe that will help sort out who's the charlatan and who's the prophet.

What in the stretch of anyone's imagination could be a political motivation for fraudulently over- or under-predicting something as esoteric as the course of the next sunspot cycle?

http://listverse.com/2007/10/28/top-30-failed-technology-predictions/

Top 87 Bad Predictions about the Future (http://www.2spare.com/item_50221.aspx)

The essence of the scientific method is NOT to prove your theorem (and thereby yourself) correct, but to simply not be able to prove it is wrong.  This means that any scientific postulate remains unconfirmed for some time until enough others have had a stab at finding flaws, inconsistencies or other better theorems to describe the event.  Any 'scientist' who publishes something as incontrovertible fact probably falls into the huckster category.

Alas, real science is seldom as profitable as shuck-n-jive snake oil selling.   Mr. Gore has earns many millions of dollars for himself this way.  But then again, he did invent the internet, so he must be a bright fellow. :)
 

a few articles in Time do not validate the statement "So called scientists gave dire predictions of an ice age in the 1970s," particularly in light of the reality that the consensus in the climate science community of the '70s was that we do not know enough yet to decide the issue (see, e.g., http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm ).

OTOH, contrarian arguments du jour have for decades now been parlayed, one after the other as they're being concocted in "think tanks," as the "last nail in the coffin of global warming." It must be some coffin that takes so many "last nails" (and we haven't seen the last of them nails yet) before we could lower it into the ground. Denial of the anthropogenic nature of global warming simply does not pass the smell test. And there's a reason for this: the temperatures keep going up and the regional climates are shifting in step with the projections. Reality cannot be denied.

in the 20th Century, total solar irradiance peaked in the early '60s...

"Since 1975, global temperature has shown long term warming while at the same time, the sun has shown long term cooling."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/2009-2nd-hottest-year-on-record-sun-coolest-in-a-century.html

Seems you can't even trust NASA.



But he raises a good question;

Why was the earth much warmer when the Vikings were farming Greenland (a frozen wasteland now) during the Midevial Warming Period? They had no SUVs back then.
 (http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/nasa-study-shows-sun-responsible-for-planet-warming/ [/url)

Al Gore said he invented the Internet:  False

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

Many of the best quotes of all time including "I can see Russia from my porch" are misquotes, incorrectly attributed, or were never uttered at all:  

http://listverse.com/2009/03/08/15-notable-political-and-military-misquotes/

A weather forecast: "partly cloudy, 50% chance of rain" is almost always correct in the Summer.

Too right. It is the responsibility of the scientific community to test the integrity of any postulate by attempting to prove it wrong, and scepticism is one of the pillars of the scientific method. But those who dismiss a postulate or theory off hand, based on ideology or some pre-conceived belief system with no overwhelming evidence to back up their assertions, likewise fall into the huckster category.


I assume that was in jest.  Mr Gore's assertions probably fall into the realm of the unconfirmed postulate, which may or may not be correct but remain unconfirmed but also un-debunked, and no doubt made him a tidy sum off his books. But to be fair to Gore, he never claimed to have invented the internet, any more than President Eisenhower ever claimed to have gone out with shovel in hand to personally break ground for the interstate highway system.
 

Yes, the comment about Mr Gore was tough in cheek, hence the :)...

It does demonstrate the point that misinformation or comments out of context are hard to correct once released 'into the wild'.

I haven't read Mr Gore's latest book (don't have an i-book or e-book or whatever you call it), but I did go see Inconvenient Truth. What I most remember about it is that I had a hard time staying awake.

All you need is a pc to read an ebook.  I do not have a Kindle device, but I have downloaded the Kindle for PC app (free) and therefore I can buy, download and read books from Amazon.com.  There are many books available for free as well.  Most are usually a few bucks cheaper than the softcover or hardcover versions and provide instant gratification at 3 am if I want a book.  

On the other hand,  I can't readily pass that book on to others after I read it.  It also makes me wonder what will happen in thousands of years when future archeologists have no more written records to unbury.

The website you keep quoting most certainly has an agenda - "Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"

In any event I suspect the debate is not going to be resolved here with "my website quote can beat up your website quote" battles.

It's all confusing, all those articles.

So what does it really mean in plain terms, that the HF propagation is going to be poor for several years? That some bands will be better, others dead?

Yes, but only at times, depending on atmospheric conditions, time of day, sun activity, etc.


Yes, but only at times, depending on atmospheric conditions, frequency of use, time of day, sun activity, etc.

I read it on the Internet so it must be true.

They probably mean raw sunspot activity related to the higher bands compared to previous years.  I suppose the standard best for comparison would be the 1959 peak, which is called "good."  However, cornditions on the lower bands get more local (higher angle) during these peaks, which could be called "bad" depending on your point of view.


Somewhat off topic, I heard an interesting comment from a DXer on 20M yesterday.  He said that DX communication effectiveness was based on these items, IN THIS ORDER:

1) Propagation
2) Location  (The farther from the poles and closer to the equator, the better -  plus salt water, elevation, ground slope, quiet location, etc helps)
3) Antennas
4) Operator skill
5) Equipment

Notice that equipment is last.

If propagation is extremely poor, then all the other items will not help much.  
But if a guy is using poor equipment, he can do rather well if he has optimized the other four items.

T

the website I quoted is an aggregator of climate science research and contains references to the peer-reviewed literature that inform its articles. To discount it, one has to be prepared to discount mainstream climate science. I'm an applied mathematician who works on fluid mechanics problems and I understand the issues to enough an extend that I have decided that I cannot discount the relevant science. At some point one has to ask "given that the actual climate-related data measured in the world of objective reality contradicts the claims of the denialists why should I believe anything they have to say ?"


Indeed, I agree, but I thought informing my replies in the posts above with the actual data would have been desirable. IMHO, the scientific debate is already settled. OTOH, the "debate" we see in the media is akin to the kind of "debate" we see between pundits about whether the economy grows faster when the top marginal rate is low than when it is high. I strongly believe we here can do better than simply proclaiming the relevant scientists are crooks and therefore we should believe the PR con artists who, e.g., used to provide "science" that proved smoking was harmless before they got on the bandwagon of providing "science" that shows there's no problem in regards to climate.

73 de Peter

All that's fine, but this is an amateur radio forum, not a climate change website.  At least the original topic was tangentially ham radio related.

I can smell rain coming.
My dogs know when storms are coming.
6 meters has been open every day for the last several weeks.

Scary Stuff!
Over

Basically, the same as what we have been experiencing for the past few years:
160 and 80 should be quieter with longer skip. 75 will tend to "go long" more often.  40m will be different, more long skip, better DX condx, but less stable and poorer for domestic QSOs.  20 will tend to be open only during daylight hours and maybe for a few hours into the evening.  15, spotty if open at all. 10, more like a VHF band than HF. The best band for domestic evening activity will probably be 160.

The down side is the garbage spewed out by consumer electronic junk seems to be increasing exponentially, making 160m reception more difficult, plus the trend towards smaller living spaces and ever-increasing legal restrictions on what we are allowed to do on our own property in this supposedly "free" country.


This could be a boon to human space exploration, since astronauts would be in less danger of being fried by a solar eruption in the course of their flight.


The problem is that so much of own media have an agenda, particularly the major cable networks (e.g. Fox News and MSNBC). The major broadcast networks are looking at the bottom line, so they are looking for sensationalism, and too much coverage is wasted on garbage like trivial celebrity gossip. Instilling fear in the public sells news big time, something that has affected society, not for the better. That, and the endless strings of annoying commercials is the reason I rarely, if ever, watch TV news.

There is still some reliable news in the print media, public radio and (very selectively) over the WWW, but one should always check out their original sources when possible.  For example, when reading a blog or news story online, click on the links back to the original of whatever they are quoting. When listening to broadcast media, go to their website for the same story online, then click on the links. Often, when you finally get to the real story you will find it quite different from what was reported.

International short-wave has about fizzled, but thousands of radio stations world-wide stream their signals, and you can easily pick up many of the same radio broadcasts the locals listen to. I have been having a ball listening world-wide with the internet "radio" I picked up at Dayton this year. 

An amazing number of major world news events never make it through our filtered domestic media.  For example, in March, former French President Jacques Chirac went on trial for embezzlement. If convicted, he could be sentenced up to 10 years. Absolutely nothing about this in any local media, but closely covered on France Inter. Web search pulled up dozens of articles, but before hearing that news story I hadn't a clue.

Well, 6M was open wide into Europe today and as long as that happens for a few weeks the same time every year no matter what the sun is doing I frankly dont give a damn.

Carl

Not only could solar activity be about to drop; the magnetic poles on Earth could be about to flip.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/adjust-your-compass-now-the-north-pole-is-migrating-to-russia-2233610.html

"Weather tonight: dark. Turning partly light by morning."

                                                                                 Al Sleet

There are a huge amount of stations on iTunes. It would be great if there were a SW station section.

what is that "internet radio" that you picked up Don?

It was branded and sold by C Crane. Of course naturally, made in China. The app is Reciva at https://radios.reciva.com/ . Not sure if  the firmware in the radio device could be reprogrammed for iTunes or other apps.  If Reciva goes belly-up, I could be SOL.

With the device came a serial # that allows me access to Reciva on the computer as well as the box. You would probably have to pay to gain access without purchasing a box.  They say that when you purchase the box there is no annual subscription fee to maintain access. For a tiny box, the thing has excellent audio.  Also an audio jack to feed an outboard amplifier and speakers or to use headphones. It has just one monaural speaker built in, but the audio from the jack is full stereo.

You can also directly access the URLs of the individual stations with the computer without a special app, but like iTunes, the box allows you to rapidly surf the available stations and dial in what you want to listen to.  They claim to offer access to something like 18,000 stations.

For $100(Dayton special), it was worth the crap shoot, and the unit they had on display at the hamfest worked great. So far I have been pleased with it. The down side is that it operates off a wall wart and requires a.c. power.  There are other boxes from other companies that run off batteries just like a portable radio, but the ones I have seen advertised are a lot more expensive.

Thanks Don, I noticed on iTunes on the radio section there is a site know as "International/World. It has 932 radio stations on there.

Nothing ham related as far as station go but those you women singing in French sound sexy as hell! Too bad I don't understand french!