Dear Mal, LF Group,
I received your screen shot taken at 2158utc. I see you copied it to the
reflector, but it was probably too big an attachment to get through, so I
have cropped out the relevant piece.
It is clear the noise level at G3KEV is lower than at M0BMU - I was
monitoring Jay's frequency on and off within a few minutes of when this
screen shot was taken. XGR/2 was not visible at all here, neither were the
vertical streaks in the background noise typically caused by QRN. At my QTH,
there is some as-yet unidentified source of broadband noise that raises the
noise floor by several dB in a roughly E-W direction, which would probably
have swamped Jay's signal at this time, since in your screen shot the signal
is not greatly above the noise level.
When Jay was running the WSPR beacon tests, XGR/2 gave a visible trace on
the WSPR spectrogram, so no doubt also have been visible here as a QRSS
signal. But then the trace was only visible at the peaks of the QSB, which
only lasted a few minutes. So while a QRSS beacon signal would have been
easily identifiable here, it would have been difficult to read the complete
callsign, locator, and power out information that appears in the WSPR
decode, without several repetitions. So as a means of transferring
information, I think WSPR out-performs QRSS under these circumstances.
Cheers, Jim Moritz
73 de M0BMU
capt00001.jpg
Description: JPEG image
|
