Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Chinese duplexers
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
There are calculators that will predict the isolation. ...... "Minimum Tx and Rx frequency difference: VHF 3.5Mhz" That's not going to work with 0.6MHz spacing on the 2m ham band. This is what a proper (Phelps-Dodge) 2m duplexer looks like: http://www.LearnByDestroying.com/k6bj/K6BJ%20Repeater/slides/2m%20duplexer2.html Note the much large size cavities. Thanks, that's exactly what I needed to know. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM Making your enemy reliant on software you support is the best revenge. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Chinese duplexers
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Take two radios, two j-poles and a lot of coax and make a repeater. Retch. Why? Don't you make experimental stuff? I did not say it was a permanent repeater, it's actually a test bed for some repeater/internet linking systems we are trying out. Budget is zero, but I can swing a roll of rg-6 and maybe a $60 duplexer if I don't buy anything else (radio/computer related) that month. Plugging into: http://awapps.commscope.com/products/bsa/_calculators/qhisolation.asp I get about 30dB isolation (assuming 2dBi antenna gains). The synthesizer noise belching from your xmitter is maybe -60dB down from the +43dBm xmit carrier. That puts the noise level at -17dBm at the receive antenna. Your receiver sensitivity is probably -106dBm, which means you need about 90dB of isolation. The antenna spacing will provide 30dB of that. You cavities are suppose to provide the remaining 60dB of isolation. That's not going to happen with tiny mobile duplexer cavities. OK, thanks. Hint1: You'll be close with vertical antenna isolation. Explain, do you mean just the distance if they are both vertical, or the distance AND one is vertical and the other horizontal? Hint2: Some radios have quite a bit of synthesizer noise, much of which will be on your repeater receive frequency. This is why some repeaters still use crystal oscillators instead of synthesizers. Also almost irrelevant. The radios wll be what I have, HTX-202s or what I can scrounge (TBD). I'd love to get my hands on 2 channel Maxtracs or similar radios out of taxis, but the people sitting on piles of them are much more interesting in refurbishing and enhancing them than selling them cheaply or giving them away. I'd be very happy with ones that receive only or have blown finals that I can get 2w or so out of. One will be used to receive a signal, the other to relay it. They both will be somewhere on the 144-146mHz band, with the output being a few watts with a max of 20. Somewhere? Duplexers are usually bench tuned to some specific frequency. It's not a trivial exercise and requires some expenditures in time and equipment. You can't easily move in frequency. I know, but I don't have a "pair" yet. I'm not even sure there are any available or a test one. So why be specific when I don't have that information yet, and why wait for it to ask a technical question, which will have the same answer no matter which frequencies I use? You can't improve things by simply adding more cavities. All you'll do is add more loss: Bigger cavities = higher Q and therefore closer frequency spacing. More cavities = deeper notch and therefore more isolation. And that's the answer I need. Thanks, Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM Making your enemy reliant on software you support is the best revenge. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Chinese duplexers
On 8/30/2011 6:01 AM, Rob wrote:
Geoffrey S. wrote: Rob wrote: No. There are two sides, one of them for the high frequency and the other for the low frequency. The filter response is such that it passes on one frequency and notches on the other. Ok thanks. Note that they are tunable anywhere in the 136-17? range. Assuming the pass side is set to pass 145.600 (the input) and the notch side is set to notch out 145.000 (the output) and they are connected in series, would that work? It is not a pass side and a notch side. Both sides are pass/notch. But on one side the pass freq is above the notch freq, and on the other side the pass freq is below the notch freq. On the Chinese duplexers you have found, the Q is probably not high enough to tune the pass and notch to frequencies 600 kHz apart. one might be able to cascade two of them, but Rob's point about Q is well taken. It depends on whether the problem is the "depth of rejection" or the "steepness of skirt". A single resonant unit has a narrow spike on top of gentle shoulders. Say one section has Q of 1000 (i.e. the 3dB bandwidth is 100kHz for 100MHz center frequency), but the rejection at 1 MHz away is only 20dB. I could cascade 3 sections, tuned exactly the same, and I'd have 9dB loss at 100kHz, and 60dB rejection at 1 MHz away. The 3dB bandwidth might be around 30kHz, or, you could stagger the tuning slightly to get a little broader flat top, but keep the 60dB (i.e. moving the center frequency of one cavity by 10kHz won't change the attenuation at 101 MHz) The design challenge is that you need to suppress the transmit signal (at, say, 50W, +47dBm) low enough so that the front end of the receiver can handle it without blocking (say, you want it down around -50dBm). With our not so hot cavities described above, you'd need to stack up 5 sections at 20dB per section to get the 100dB suppression. Well, that's not so great, because you probably now have a bunch of additional loss in the receive path, AND you've got a real tuning chore on your hands to make sure that all of them are tuned appropriately to get the required bandwidth. Enter the idea of a notch. Let's say our example is 101 MHz Tx and 100 MHz Rx. Rather than rely on the "far away" response of a resonator to suppress the transmit, I can put a 101 MHz notch filter on the input to my receiver. If I can get 30dB/section rejection, then 3 or 4 sections will knock the Tx power down low enough to not block the receiver's front end. But wait, there's more... that Tx isn't a narrow spike. It has phase noise sidebands that go out fairly far. Unfortunately, the run of the mill transmitter might only suppress "off channel spurious and noise" by, say, -50dBc (and a rig designed to operate half duplex is probably worse). That means that your 50W (+47dBm) transmitter is putting out -3dBm *at the receive frequency*, so no amount of filtering on the receive path will help. Again, enter the notch filter.. you put a 100 MHz notch on the output of the transmitter. Now.. as Rob points out, the Q might be kind of low. If the Q is, say, 100, then that 100MHz filter is 1MHz wide, and by the time you cascade enough to get the BW down, the loss will be huge. As you can see, this whole duplexer/diplexer/multicoupler design thing can get pretty complex, and there's not usually a simple cookbook answer. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Chinese duplexers
On 8/30/2011 8:29 AM, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
Allodoxaphobia wrote: We still don't have a clear description of what the OP is trying to accomplish. Take two radios, two j-poles and a lot of coax and make a repeater. Obviously I will need some sort of controller in between but that's irrelevant. I want to place one J-pole (or similar antenna) at one corner of my garden, and another at the other one (10 meters apart). This will actually help a bit The free space attenuation for 10 meters at 144MHz is 32.4+20*log10(0.01)+20*log10(144) 32.4-40 +43.2 = about 36dB. If your Tx is 20W (+33dBm), then the receiver is going to see about -3dBm at the Tx frequency. If you want to get the Tx signal down to around -40dBm or so, you only need 30-40 dB of attenuation at the Tx freq Then there's the Tx phase noise to worry about. Figure it's 60dB down, so +33-60-36 = about -63dBm.. probably enough to completely mask any received signals (what's your sensitivity.. -130dBM?) so you need a notch with 70dB rejection on the output of your Tx. You're 600kHz away, implying you need a Q better than a few hundred. If you just tune up some of those cans for that, and the Q is too low, then you'll be attenuating your transmitter. Any reason why you're using a split of 600kHz? Why not go to a non-standard split to make life easier. Pick two frequencies 3 MHz apart (assuming you can get them coordinated, which is more a political than a technical issue) One will be used to receive a signal, the other to relay it. They both will be somewhere on the 144-146mHz band, with the output being a few watts with a max of 20. Besides the distance, I was looking for a cheap way of not having the transmitted signal block the receiver. The duplexer in question is rated at 75dB isolation with a 3.5mHz split, I can only have .6 mHz. What I was wondering is that since at a .6mHz split, the isolation will be a lot less, can I somehow combine the two sides to make a better filter? Thanks, Geoff. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Chinese duplexers
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:29:03 +0000 (UTC), "Geoffrey S. Mendelson"
wrote: Jeff Liebermann wrote: Take two radios, two j-poles and a lot of coax and make a repeater. Retch. Why? Don't you make experimental stuff? I don't like J-pole antennas. I've also built too many repeaters in the past to know that they can't just be thrown together from available parts. One of my friends learned that expensive lesson with his 2m repeater. He started with two ham transceivers, went to two Maxtrac radios, and finally to a GE MSTR II. Duplexers went from 4 cavity junk, to a 6 cavity monster. I did not say it was a permanent repeater, it's actually a test bed for some repeater/internet linking systems we are trying out. Sounds interesting. Plan on everything costing at least 4 times what's predicted, and for things to take perhaps 4 times as long. Unplanned repairs and "tweaks" should double the required time. Budget is zero, but I can swing a roll of rg-6 and maybe a $60 duplexer if I don't buy anything else (radio/computer related) that month. Initial budget can be zero. Just plan on a replacement budget equal to the price of a proper repeater. How's this for an expensive mistake? http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/K6BJ-MSF5000/ I've burned about $800 on this mess and it's still not on the air. Wanna guess what went wrong? (Hint: it involves the internal duplexer). http://awapps.commscope.com/products/bsa/_calculators/qhisolation.asp Hint1: You'll be close with vertical antenna isolation. Explain, do you mean just the distance if they are both vertical, or the distance AND one is vertical and the other horizontal? Assuming vertically polarized monopole antennas, vertical isolation is from tip of one antenna to the tip of the other antenna. Horizontal isolation is just the horizontal spacing. If they're seperated both vertically and horizontally, then there's a problem. You only need to be offset horizontally slightly, for the antennas to couple. I ran into this problem when I tried to put two vertically seperated antennas on opposite sides of a tower. The isolation was better then they were directly in line with each other, on the same side of the tower. Incidentally, mounting one antenna upside down offers additional distance and improved isolation. Hint2: Some radios have quite a bit of synthesizer noise, much of which will be on your repeater receive frequency. This is why some repeaters still use crystal oscillators instead of synthesizers. Also almost irrelevant. The radios wll be what I have, HTX-202s or what I can scrounge (TBD). Retch 2.0. Radio Shock HTX-202 handhelds tend to stick on the air with low battery voltage. The receivers are also easily overloaded. We have the remaining few HTX-202 radios used for APRS WX packet. I would love to replace them, but nobody (including me) want's to spend the time. I'd love to get my hands on 2 channel Maxtracs or similar radios out of taxis, but the people sitting on piles of them are much more interesting in refurbishing and enhancing them than selling them cheaply or giving them away. Patience. On Jan 1, 2013, everything in the US is suppose to go narrow band. There should be tons of cheap radios available on eBay and from public safety outlets. I'd be very happy with ones that receive only or have blown finals that I can get 2w or so out of. Make sure you get the ones with the 16 pin accessory connector. Many of the Maxtrac's on eBay are actually cobbled together Radius or M120 radios, with odd boards and strange firmware. Caveat emptor. I know, but I don't have a "pair" yet. I'm not even sure there are any available or a test one. So why be specific when I don't have that information yet, and why wait for it to ask a technical question, which will have the same answer no matter which frequencies I use? Careful. Some repeater frequencies are a problem. For example, 146.760 is on the 41st harmonic of the common 3.579545MHz clock osc frequency. No problem at the repeater, but it will drive the users nuts. If co-located with other radios, be sure to do an intermodulation study. http://www3.telus.net/PassiveRF/ We found out too late that a mix of some of our transmit frequencies lands on one of our inputs. You can't improve things by simply adding more cavities. All you'll do is add more loss: Bigger cavities = higher Q and therefore closer frequency spacing. More cavities = deeper notch and therefore more isolation. And that's the answer I need. You might find it easier to build a UHF repeater. With 5MHz spacing, the cheap mobile duplexers will work with low power (25w) radios. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Chinese duplexers
Jim Lux wrote:
Any reason why you're using a split of 600kHz? Why not go to a non-standard split to make life easier. Pick two frequencies 3 MHz apart (assuming you can get them coordinated, which is more a political than a technical issue) Don't forget that in Region 1, the 2M band is only 2 MHz wide, the bottom 500 kHz is dedicated to SSB and the top 200 kHz is for satellite. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Chinese duplexers
On 8/30/2011 11:14 AM, Rob wrote:
Jim wrote: Any reason why you're using a split of 600kHz? Why not go to a non-standard split to make life easier. Pick two frequencies 3 MHz apart (assuming you can get them coordinated, which is more a political than a technical issue) Don't forget that in Region 1, the 2M band is only 2 MHz wide, the bottom 500 kHz is dedicated to SSB and the top 200 kHz is for satellite. Sure, that does make it harder. The OP is in region 2, though, where there's 4 MHz theoretically available) flame protective suit on And of course, a lot of the band plans are basically gentlemen's agreements and have no force of law. As long as you don't interfere with someone (challenging in some geographical locations), you can pretty much do what you want.flame suit off I wouldn't want to put input or output on 144.2, for instance. But looking at the ARRL band plan, you could put your input up at 147.6-147.99 and put your output at 145.5-145.8 (Misc and experimental, per ARRL).. not quite 3 MHz, but close, and a whole lot better than 600kHz. Here in the Los Angeles area, either TASMA or the anti-TASMA folks would probably round up people to have you tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail, no matter what you do. In any case, things move so slowly that unless you were hideously inconsiderate and egregiously interfering, you could probably run for a year or more before it would get too nasty. There is a 147.585/144.930 pair labeled for "portable repeater" in the TASMA plan (max 72 hrs/month).. that's 2.5 MHz apart (to make filtering easier). They also say 144.310-144.375 is for simplex unchannelized, but I've not heard much on the air there..for an experiment, it would probably work. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Chinese duplexers
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message ... snip Geoff. If your intent is to experiment with the cheap duplexer, what I have to offer is irrelevant. However, if you aim to build a repeater, consider getting your isolation over distance (much greater than 10m). Put the transmitter and receiver a few km apart and link them using another band authorized in your area (440?). I encountered this in Key West Florida some years ago. Worked fine there. "Sal" |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Chinese duplexers
Jim Lux wrote:
On 8/30/2011 11:14 AM, Rob wrote: Jim wrote: Any reason why you're using a split of 600kHz? Why not go to a non-standard split to make life easier. Pick two frequencies 3 MHz apart (assuming you can get them coordinated, which is more a political than a technical issue) Don't forget that in Region 1, the 2M band is only 2 MHz wide, the bottom 500 kHz is dedicated to SSB and the top 200 kHz is for satellite. Sure, that does make it harder. The OP is in region 2, though, where there's 4 MHz theoretically available) I think he is in Region 1. He posts with 2 callsigns, one is a 4X1 (Israel) and mentions: but my 2m band is only 144-146 mHz, and the repeater portion is really just 145-146. flame protective suit on And of course, a lot of the band plans are basically gentlemen's agreements and have no force of law. As long as you don't interfere with someone (challenging in some geographical locations), you can pretty much do what you want.flame suit off Sure, but to get a permit for unattended operation, at least over here, you'll need to abide to the band plans. (in fact in my country, Netherlands, it is even worse: the repeater frequencies are not coordinated by the ham community itself, but by the equivalent of the FCC. they work strictly by a set of rules originally drafted by the amateur societies, in the days the bands were still overcrowded. arbitrary figures were put in those rules regarding things like minimal desirable distance between repeaters, maximum height of antennas, maximum EIRP power, that were originally just there to regulate the inflow of new repeater projects a bit, so everyone would have a fair chance of running a repeater. if you were a few km too close, had an antenna a bit high, or similar, it usually wasn't a problem. but one day an amateur who got refused a license went to court claiming that others had gotten a license while not being within the rules, and as a reaction the authority now strictly follows the rules and refuses every application that does not fully conform to all the rules. of course, operating on one of the reserved repeater channels is one of the rules.) |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Chinese duplexers
Sal wrote:
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message ... snip Geoff. If your intent is to experiment with the cheap duplexer, what I have to offer is irrelevant. However, if you aim to build a repeater, consider getting your isolation over distance (much greater than 10m). Put the transmitter and receiver a few km apart and link them using another band authorized in your area (440?). I encountered this in Key West Florida some years ago. Worked fine there. It is done here on 10m, where the duplex offset is only 100 kHz and a duplexer is physically very large. However, what I hear from the repeater team is that one is in fact building and maintaining 2 repeaters, doubling the chance of any faults and problems. Setting up the 10m repeater was much more work than everyone envisioned, and many had experience on 70cm etc. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
New Duplexers | Swap | |||
Duplexers | Equipment | |||
Duplexers | Equipment | |||
wtb: 900 Mhz duplexers | Swap | |||
wtb: 2m duplexers | Swap |