Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard" wrote in message ... Can you make a circuit that responds only to the wanted station when it is just fractionally stronger than the unwanted station? That's called "capture ratio". Better receivers have lower numbers - smaller difference required to suppress unwanted station. They have numbers like a VERY few dB. To get this you need very flat IF within the passband - no ripples in response. A wideband limiter and wide and very linear discriminator. The National "Criterion" series of tuners from 50 years ago were among the first to attempt this. IIRC, there were HH Scott tuners like this as well. All bets are off if you're trying to recover stereo. 73 de bob w3otc |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I believe that you are asking about narrowing the I.F. bandwidth. If you use
narrow filters, this is quite possible. Since FM stereo stations occupy a 150kHz bandwidth, you would be clipping the sidebands, resulting in lost information. If you are only receiving in mono, this wouldn't be an issue. Pete "R J Carpenter" wrote in message ... "Richard" wrote in message ... Can you make a circuit that responds only to the wanted station when it is just fractionally stronger than the unwanted station? That's called "capture ratio". Better receivers have lower numbers - smaller difference required to suppress unwanted station. They have numbers like a VERY few dB. To get this you need very flat IF within the passband - no ripples in response. A wideband limiter and wide and very linear discriminator. The National "Criterion" series of tuners from 50 years ago were among the first to attempt this. IIRC, there were HH Scott tuners like this as well. All bets are off if you're trying to recover stereo. 73 de bob w3otc |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I believe that you are asking about narrowing the I.F. bandwidth. If you use
narrow filters, this is quite possible. Since FM stereo stations occupy a 150kHz bandwidth, you would be clipping the sidebands, resulting in lost information. If you are only receiving in mono, this wouldn't be an issue. Pete "R J Carpenter" wrote in message ... "Richard" wrote in message ... Can you make a circuit that responds only to the wanted station when it is just fractionally stronger than the unwanted station? That's called "capture ratio". Better receivers have lower numbers - smaller difference required to suppress unwanted station. They have numbers like a VERY few dB. To get this you need very flat IF within the passband - no ripples in response. A wideband limiter and wide and very linear discriminator. The National "Criterion" series of tuners from 50 years ago were among the first to attempt this. IIRC, there were HH Scott tuners like this as well. All bets are off if you're trying to recover stereo. 73 de bob w3otc |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I believe he is talking about adjacent channel signals which are much
stronger than the desired and trying to see if there is a way to "fix" that. Capture does not apply for this situation. Capture is a co-channel effect and is better the wider the whole system is, not just the IF. -- Steve N, K,9;d, c. i My email has no u's. "R J Carpenter" wrote in message ... "Richard" wrote in message ... Can you make a circuit that responds only to the wanted station when it is just fractionally stronger than the unwanted station? That's called "capture ratio". Better receivers have lower numbers - smaller difference required to suppress unwanted station. They have numbers like a VERY few dB. To get this you need very flat IF within the passband - no ripples in response. A wideband limiter and wide and very linear discriminator. The National "Criterion" series of tuners from 50 years ago were among the first to attempt this. IIRC, there were HH Scott tuners like this as well. All bets are off if you're trying to recover stereo. 73 de bob w3otc |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Steve Nosko wrote:
I believe he is talking about adjacent channel signals which are much stronger than the desired and trying to see if there is a way to "fix" that. Capture does not apply for this situation. Capture is a co-channel effect and is better the wider the whole system is, not just the IF. Capture effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_effect It's an intersting phenomena, and potentially useful. If I could phase null (at the antenna) the local stronger signal then it would dissappear as inteference if it was a few db below the wanted signal. Only problem is, is that if you cannot get the inteferring signal below the wanted one, it's works very bad for you, because you cannot listen to an inteferred with signal. Which is better than nothing I guess in some cases. Pity that somehow you cannot design circuitry which recognises a 100Khz difference between the wanted FM station and the unwanted FM station and proceed to demodulate the wanted one only. If it were possible, it would have been done by now. Maybe you could do it digitally,I dunno. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard" wrote in message ... Steve Nosko wrote: I believe he is talking about adjacent channel signals which are much stronger than the desired and trying to see if there is a way to "fix" that. ... Capture effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_effect It's an intersting phenomena, and potentially useful. But I believe not here. Only for co-channel interference. If I could phase null (at the antenna) the local stronger signal ... if you cannot get the inteferring signal below the This is a sticky problem if the undesired is only 100kHz off center with the standard 200kHz system design. I this case you can have significant energy within the Rx passband coming from the undesired. I can't say how low the undesired needs to be. Pity that somehow you cannot design circuitry which recognises a 100Khz difference between the wanted FM station and the unwanted FM station and proceed to demodulate the wanted one only. If it were possible, it would have been done by now. Maybe you could do it digitally,I dunno. As you have surmised, the "null in the antenna pattern" is probably your best bet. This is done in some rather dificult situations. One is on a radio equiped copter where the undesides TX is on board! ( the TX output itself can be sampled) The antenna with a null would be my first path. I also have an FM band adjacent channel problem I'd like to solve and will (when I get time) try a nulling antenn. The "adcock" type would be one of the easiest. Two vertical dipoles (probably folded, but not necessary) fed out of phase. There are two nuls toward the "flat side" or broad-side. Point the null at the undesired. The "two vertical cardioid" is just as easy. I think it is two vertical dipoles spaced (I think) 1/4 wave apart with a 3/4 wave coax (electrical) between and fed at one of the dipoles. The 1/4 wave (free-space) physical s pacing gives 90 degrees and the 3/4 (in coax) gives another 90 for a total of 180 - thus cancelling. 3/4 coax is needed because 1/4 will be shorter that the free-space 1/4 spacing of the dipoles. I recently saw both of these in the Ham transmitter hunting book. They are probably both on the net if you know where to look. Try amateur radio DF or ARDF. http://members.aol.com/BmgEngInc/Adcock.html Probably the transformer is not needed. I took a quick look and can't find more, so Here's a web ring on DF: http://m.webring.com/hub?ring=foxhunt Other DF sites, but I don't know if they have for U. Some have more links. http://www.panix.com/clay/ham/rdf.html http://www.ardf-uk.co.uk/index2.html http://members.aol.com/fdecker/rdf.htm http://members.aol.com/homingin/index.html Dual null & cardioid figures, prpbably not helpful. http://members.aol.com/homingin/hfinderfix.html Lota' links http://members.aol.com/homingin/links.html Another technique would also handle the afore mentined multipath problem. This I will call the "Secondary Antenna & Canceller" (SAC) technique. It is used in the military and commercial arena to solve some sticky strong signal problems. A secondary antenna is used and fed to an amplifier which has phase and amplitute adjustments (under computer control for automatic tuning). The output of this is fed back into the RX line (where the desired and undesired signal are) and tuned for minimum interference. This amounts to a custom antenna null. MFJ makes two for HF http://www.mfjenterprises.com/contact.php MFJ-1025 1.5 - 30 MHz Noise Canceling Antenna MFJ-1026 1.5-30 MHz Deluxe Noise Canceller http://www.mfjenterprises.com/produc...rodid=MFJ-1025 http://www.mfjenterprises.com/produc...rodid=MFJ-1026 -- Steve N, K,9;d, c. i My email has no u's. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Steve Nosko wrote:
"Richard" wrote in message ... Steve Nosko wrote: I believe he is talking about adjacent channel signals which are much stronger than the desired and trying to see if there is a way to "fix" that. ... Capture effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_effect It's an intersting phenomena, and potentially useful. But I believe not here. Only for co-channel interference. If I could phase null (at the antenna) the local stronger signal ... if you cannot get the inteferring signal below the This is a sticky problem if the undesired is only 100kHz off center with the standard 200kHz system design. I this case you can have significant energy within the Rx passband coming from the undesired. I can't say how low the undesired needs to be. In the UK, where I am, the spacing between channels is 100Khz. And that is a real problem, because, as you say a lot of RF energy from the undesired station gets into the IF passband. And so basically I was wondeting if the technolgy exists for the RX to know that energy from the undesired station, 100Khz off frequency, is to be ignored in the demodulation. I don't think it can be done, but if it could somehow the electronics would have to associate the unwanted energy with a non wanted station, and in a sense, ignore it. Just wondering if the technoloy is around to do that. Probably not. Only likely possible thru digital computing methods maybe. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Steve Nosko wrote:
"Richard" wrote in message ... Steve Nosko wrote: I believe he is talking about adjacent channel signals which are much stronger than the desired and trying to see if there is a way to "fix" that. ... Capture effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_effect It's an intersting phenomena, and potentially useful. But I believe not here. Only for co-channel interference. If I could phase null (at the antenna) the local stronger signal ... if you cannot get the inteferring signal below the This is a sticky problem if the undesired is only 100kHz off center with the standard 200kHz system design. I this case you can have significant energy within the Rx passband coming from the undesired. I can't say how low the undesired needs to be. In the UK, where I am, the spacing between channels is 100Khz. And that is a real problem, because, as you say a lot of RF energy from the undesired station gets into the IF passband. And so basically I was wondeting if the technolgy exists for the RX to know that energy from the undesired station, 100Khz off frequency, is to be ignored in the demodulation. I don't think it can be done, but if it could somehow the electronics would have to associate the unwanted energy with a non wanted station, and in a sense, ignore it. Just wondering if the technoloy is around to do that. Probably not. Only likely possible thru digital computing methods maybe. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "Richard"
writes: Steve Nosko wrote: I believe he is talking about adjacent channel signals which are much stronger than the desired and trying to see if there is a way to "fix" that. Capture does not apply for this situation. Capture is a co-channel effect and is better the wider the whole system is, not just the IF. Capture effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_effect It's an intersting phenomena, and potentially useful. If I could phase null (at the antenna) the local stronger signal then it would dissappear as inteference if it was a few db below the wanted signal. Only problem is, is that if you cannot get the inteferring signal below the wanted one, it's works very bad for you, because you cannot listen to an inteferred with signal. Which is better than nothing I guess in some cases. Simplistic explanations of "capture effect" don't help here. The main, major cause of such strong signal interference is due to the FM receiver's LIMITER stage. That stage (usually there are 2 to 3 of them) is biased such that a strong signal is going to clip or that it will actually develop enough self-bias to clip even further. The end result is that a limiter output is primarily composed of the strongest signal's RF energy. The action of a limiter is basically that of accepting only the strongest signal and "pushing down" the energy of weaker signals, including noise at the noise floor of the front end. THAT is what insures the FM "clean signal" quality. It is also a sort of automatic AGC so that all signals of the same modulation index will be demodulated to the same audio level...even though the antenna input signal can vary considerably. Such limiters have been used for some pulsed RF reception with the ability to "push down" offending pulsed carrier frequencies' envelopes. Pity that somehow you cannot design circuitry which recognises a 100Khz difference between the wanted FM station and the unwanted FM station and proceed to demodulate the wanted one only. If it were possible, it would have been done by now. Maybe you could do it digitally,I dunno. Not with "phasing" alone and not with limiters still in the IF chain. But, it has been done by other means - The brute force method is to use a many-pole crystal bandpass filter ahead of all limiters. Even Heathkit did that. This cuts out very strong adjacent signals and the limiters will be less affected by such. With steep skirt selectivity, offending adjacent channel attenuation can be 60 db or greater. A second method is to discard the limiter stages and try for a Ratio detector instead of the Foster-Seeley discriminator variants plus AGC on the non-limiting IF stages. Not a perfect solution but does work to some extent. Most NTSC TV receivers use a variation of that for TV sound, originally started many years ago as the "intercarrier sound" system to replace a separate limiter-discriminator IF strip; the first TV receivers actually had TWO IF strips...:-) The most obvious way, and least familiar, is to use a large-bit digital A-to-D system and high-speed microprocessor to (1) Do the channel bandpass filtering with a "brick-wall" filter routine; (2) Do the FM demodulation directly after digital bandpass filtering by summing the sideband components of the FM signal; (3) Converting the demodulated IF in digital form back to analog audio. That's been done but the production costs for consumer electronics systems has only lately come down enough to warrant such use. All of the methods I've given are prior art. Len Anderson retired (from regular hours) electronic engineer person |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard" wrote in message ... Steve Nosko wrote: I believe he is talking about adjacent channel signals which are much stronger than the desired and trying to see if there is a way to "fix" that. ... Capture effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_effect It's an intersting phenomena, and potentially useful. But I believe not here. Only for co-channel interference. If I could phase null (at the antenna) the local stronger signal ... if you cannot get the inteferring signal below the This is a sticky problem if the undesired is only 100kHz off center with the standard 200kHz system design. I this case you can have significant energy within the Rx passband coming from the undesired. I can't say how low the undesired needs to be. Pity that somehow you cannot design circuitry which recognises a 100Khz difference between the wanted FM station and the unwanted FM station and proceed to demodulate the wanted one only. If it were possible, it would have been done by now. Maybe you could do it digitally,I dunno. As you have surmised, the "null in the antenna pattern" is probably your best bet. This is done in some rather dificult situations. One is on a radio equiped copter where the undesides TX is on board! ( the TX output itself can be sampled) The antenna with a null would be my first path. I also have an FM band adjacent channel problem I'd like to solve and will (when I get time) try a nulling antenn. The "adcock" type would be one of the easiest. Two vertical dipoles (probably folded, but not necessary) fed out of phase. There are two nuls toward the "flat side" or broad-side. Point the null at the undesired. The "two vertical cardioid" is just as easy. I think it is two vertical dipoles spaced (I think) 1/4 wave apart with a 3/4 wave coax (electrical) between and fed at one of the dipoles. The 1/4 wave (free-space) physical s pacing gives 90 degrees and the 3/4 (in coax) gives another 90 for a total of 180 - thus cancelling. 3/4 coax is needed because 1/4 will be shorter that the free-space 1/4 spacing of the dipoles. I recently saw both of these in the Ham transmitter hunting book. They are probably both on the net if you know where to look. Try amateur radio DF or ARDF. http://members.aol.com/BmgEngInc/Adcock.html Probably the transformer is not needed. I took a quick look and can't find more, so Here's a web ring on DF: http://m.webring.com/hub?ring=foxhunt Other DF sites, but I don't know if they have for U. Some have more links. http://www.panix.com/clay/ham/rdf.html http://www.ardf-uk.co.uk/index2.html http://members.aol.com/fdecker/rdf.htm http://members.aol.com/homingin/index.html Dual null & cardioid figures, prpbably not helpful. http://members.aol.com/homingin/hfinderfix.html Lota' links http://members.aol.com/homingin/links.html Another technique would also handle the afore mentined multipath problem. This I will call the "Secondary Antenna & Canceller" (SAC) technique. It is used in the military and commercial arena to solve some sticky strong signal problems. A secondary antenna is used and fed to an amplifier which has phase and amplitute adjustments (under computer control for automatic tuning). The output of this is fed back into the RX line (where the desired and undesired signal are) and tuned for minimum interference. This amounts to a custom antenna null. MFJ makes two for HF http://www.mfjenterprises.com/contact.php MFJ-1025 1.5 - 30 MHz Noise Canceling Antenna MFJ-1026 1.5-30 MHz Deluxe Noise Canceller http://www.mfjenterprises.com/produc...rodid=MFJ-1025 http://www.mfjenterprises.com/produc...rodid=MFJ-1026 -- Steve N, K,9;d, c. i My email has no u's. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
New antenna technology??? | Antenna | |||
FS, Book, 'Electromagnetic Waves and Radiating Systems' & 'Transmission Technology..." | Antenna | |||
RFI caused by BPL soon resolved ? | Equipment | |||
Internet trials and the European EMC directive | Equipment | |||
Internet trials and the European EMC directive | Equipment |