Observing the 2019 Lyrids Meteor Shower using KIWI-SDR Receivers

I have previously described on this blog use of receivers on the KIWI-SDR network to make a QRSS grabber, http://pensacolasnapper.blogspot.com/2019/02/using-receivers-on-kiwi-sdr-network-s.html.
In this post I will describe the use of the KIWI's to record meteor pings using signals from WWV on 25 MHz and CHU on 14.7 MHz.  This is not QRSS but let me explain.

A group of the QRSS Knights in the UK have been able to record pings from their network of 10m QRSS signals.  It was my intention to join them during the recent Lyrids by using KIWI receivers around southern England where the QRSS transmitting stations are located but, alas, nothing was seen during two nights of observations.  The problem seems to have been with the lack of sufficiently strong pings as the UK stations that had previously seen good pings saw just one this year.

To see what the 2019 Lyrids looked like I decided to use signals from WWV and CHU as received by  KIWI receivers nearby on the day after the predicted peak.

For the WWV signal I chose two stations in New Mexico and one in Utah while for CHU a single station in New Hampshire was selected.  The choices were based on Signal to Noise Ratio data provided at the website operated by IS0KYB.  Here's a map of the stations involved:

Figure 1.  Location of Stations Used in This Experiment

The distances involved were:

WWV to Corrine, UT               373 mi/600 km
WWV to Albuquerque, NM     381 mi/625 km
WWV to Las Cruces, NM        577 mi/930 km
CHU   to Pittsford, VT             189 mi/304 km

Here's a grab showing typical pings for all stations:

Figure 2.  10 Minute Grab Showing Meteor Pings for All Stations

A comparison of pings shown in Figure 2 needs several comments.  Firstly, Las Cruces is  about  100 miles further away from WWV than Albuquerque yet has more and stronger pings.  This is simply because the former has a better antenna and lower local noise.  I also noted that a significant ping from Alb. usually coincided with a strong ping from Las Cruces. 

Secondly, Comparing Corrine, UT to Las Cruces the ping densities are similar when allowing for the different distances but those from Corrine are short and choppy while those from Las Cruces are much longer lasting.  This might be due to the path directions, i.e., East-West vs North-South but I have no reference for this.

Thirdly, the pings between CHU and Vermont are stronger and longer lasting.  The distance is much shorter that from those out West and as frequency goes lower pings last longer since higher electron densities are needed to support reflections at higher frequencies.

If you would like to read more about meteor pings and their signatures this is a good paper  on the subject by Peter Martinez, G3PLX.

In conclusion it appears there were plenty of rocks from the 2019 Lyrids stream but the strength and density must not have been sufficient to produce pings from the 100 to 200 milliwatt QRSS transmitters in the 10m UK network.

Appendex

Take a look at the study I did using a local QRSS station, KD5SSF, during the 2018 Geminids Meteor Shower which covered several days before and after the predicted peak.  It gives some idea of the statistical nature of showers for which in this case the predicted peak did not occur on December 23 but a day later.