Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old February 14th 04, 10:53 PM
R J Carpenter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
Old February 15th 04, 04:25 PM
Pete KE9OA
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Old February 15th 04, 04:25 PM
Pete KE9OA
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Old February 16th 04, 07:13 PM
Steve Nosko
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Old February 16th 04, 08:42 PM
Richard
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Old February 16th 04, 10:00 PM
Steve Nosko
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
Old February 16th 04, 10:56 PM
Richard
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Old February 16th 04, 10:56 PM
Richard
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Old February 16th 04, 10:24 PM
Avery Fineman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Old February 16th 04, 10:00 PM
Steve Nosko
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New antenna technology??? Chuck...K1KW Antenna 25 June 10th 04 02:35 AM
FS, Book, 'Electromagnetic Waves and Radiating Systems' & 'Transmission Technology..." BigS Antenna 0 November 25th 03 10:40 PM
RFI caused by BPL soon resolved ? Thierry Equipment 74 October 27th 03 12:34 AM
Internet trials and the European EMC directive Thierry Equipment 0 October 3rd 03 12:45 AM
Internet trials and the European EMC directive Thierry Equipment 0 October 3rd 03 12:45 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:01 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017