View Single Post
  #9   Report Post  
Old June 8th 07, 09:55 PM posted to sci.electronics.basics,rec.video.desktop,rec.radio.shortwave,uk.radio.amateur,rec.arts.tv
Radium[_2_] Radium[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: May 2007
Posts: 78
Default I want to see SHF FM video signals.

On Jun 6, 10:35 pm, "Smarty" wrote:
Radium,

Some television is actually transmitted using FM modulation schemes, but not
for commercial broadcasting. Examples of FM TV are ham/amateur ATV/SSTV,
unlicensed 2.4 GHz surveillance links, and a number of point to point and
studio to transmitter systems. FM signaling provides benefits in noise
immunity and also permits better channel re-use, since it exploits one of
the best features of FM called "the FM capture effect", wherein nearly equal
strength signals which would otherwise interfere in AM systems will cause an
FM receiver to "capture" only the stronger signal and ignore the weaker,
even if differences of 1 dB of signal strength exists.

There is no specific answer to what you would see as far as video patterns,
and there is no reason whatsoever to expect to see sawtooth waveforms in
particular. The demodulated signal from FM will conform to the spectral
changes just as the demodulated signal from an AM detector would conform to
amplitude changes, and random noise would be considered "snow" in either
case. Unless a transmitted signal with a frequency ramp (sometimes called "a
chirp") is present, the video would have no sawtooth. A Doppler radar, for
example, could generate such a waveform, since some radars create chirped /
swept signals. The video scan rate(s) would additionally need to be in the
range of the chirp rate to create the appearance of a sawtooth.

FM disturbances in the SHF band are likely to be man-made and not
atmospheric, and thus only "viewable" if the "FM Video Receiver" you
envision had a demodulator / discriminator whose bandwidth was tailored to a
specific transmitted waveform, and even then only if sweep rates were
suitable. Absent a man-made transmitter, the SHF environment is mostly
thermal noise (both circuit and atmospheric) and only a radio telescope or
other enormous aperture / antenna will see beyond the atmosphere.

The choice of using AM versus FM is really way more complicated than "AM for
audio" or "FM for digital video". When designing communication systems of
any type, the engineer is faced with balancing many issues, and the channel,
media, noise environment, interference sources, power budget, multipath,
complexity, and cost are only a few of the considerations involved. A highly
reliable cable modem to transmit fast digital content may indeed by phase
modulated with an amplitude trellis; a secure and interference resistant
link may use spread-spectrum frequency hopping AM for digital signaling; and
FM winds up being used heavily in many voice communication systems mostly
because the capture effect reduces co-channel interference.

The closest I can suggest to what you might enjoy exploring would be a
satellite dish and receiver designed for L band which will see and decode
some broadcasting which is unprotected / unencrypted. It gets you into the
range of SHF, has true TV signaling for public viewing, and is a hobbyist
activity with others involved.


Smarty, big thanks for your detailed response. One big advantage [that
I could imagine] to using FM -- instead of AM -- to carry the
luminance (Y) signal, is that you can run on your treadmill without
seeing those lines on the screen mask your favorite shows. The
magnetic signals generated by the electronics in the treadmill causes
blinding interference on AM video. FM video is be immune to such
disruptions.