Wednesday 25 August, 2010, 04:10 - Pirate/ClandestineBack in October 2009, Wireless Waffle brought to your attention the HF (short-wave) monitoring data produced on a quarterly basis by the ITU. Within these reports were a number of short-wave pirate stations and the original list of stations brought a lot of interest from these stations, both to see who had been 'caught' and to see how close the ITU had gotten to identifying their exact location. Based on the e-mails that were received following the article, it seems like some had hit the nail a little too closely on the head for comfort.
Posted by Administrator
Posted by Administrator
To see how the ITU were getting along, and who had been spotted more recently, a trawl of the montoring reports from January to June 2010 has been conducted and the results presented below. Those stations whose name is shown in CAPITALS were directly identified by the monitoring station concerned. Those in lower case have been identified using the various on-line blogs that report pirate reception.
|Date||Time (UTC)||Freq (kHz)||Monitoring Station||Location||Station|
|03 Feb 10||0600-0600||4025||Berlin, Germany||UK||Laser Hot Hits|
|23 Feb 10||0000-0630||4025||Tarnok, Hungary||Laser Hot Hits|
|23 Feb 10||1830-2359||4025||Tarnok, Hungary||Laser Hot Hits|
|21 Apr 10||1830-2400||4025||Berlin, Germany||Laser Hot Hits|
|02 May 10||0600-2359||4025||Rambouillet, France||0W10 52N01 (Baldock, UK!)||Laser Hot Hits|
|23 May 10||0000-0630||4015||Tarnok, Hungary||Laser Hot Hits|
|16 May 10||1900-2212||5814.7||Rambouillet, France||0E17 52N45 (King's Lynn, UK)||Radio Telstar South|
|16 May 10||0700-0915||5815||Rambouillet, France||6E11 52N30 (Zwolle, Netherlands)||Orion Radio|
|27 Jun 10||0630-0820||5820||Tarnok, Hungary||Orion Radio|
|11 Apr 10||0854-0908||6203||Vienna, Austria||Radio Scotland International|
|09 Feb 10||1048||6210.2||CCRM, Belgium||Netherlands||MISTI RADIO|
|10 Jan 10||1818-2246||6220||El Casar, Spain||11E24 44N27 (Bologna, Italy)||Mystery Radio|
|20 Jan 10||1812-2350||6220||El Casar, Spain||11E24 44N27 (Bologna, Italy)||Mystery Radio|
|30 Jan 10||2002||6220||Baldock, UK||10E0 43N50 (Pisa, Italy)||MYSTERY RADIO|
|28 Feb 10||1100-1137||6220||Vienna, Austria||11E0 44N0 (Prato, Italy)||RADIO MARABU|
|06 Mar 10||1800-2350||6220||El Casar, Spain||11E24 44N27 (Bologna, Italy)||Mystery Radio|
|21 Mar 10||2012-2355||6220||El Casar, Spain||11E24 44N27 (Bologna, Italy)||Mystery Radio|
|06 Apr 10||1852-1917||6220||Vienna, Austria||Italy||MYSTERY RADIO|
|10 Apr 10||1900-2359||6220||El Casar, Spain||11E24 44N27 (Bologna, Italy)||MYSTERY RADIO|
|13 Jun 10||1730-1800||6220||Klagenfurt, Austria||12E0 43N0 (Perugia, Italy)||Mystery Radio|
|14 Jun 10||1700-1900||6220||Rambouillet, France||10E43 43N45 (Prato, Italy)||MISTERY RADIO|
|15 Jun 10||0700-0800||6255||Rambouillet, France||Netherlands||Cool AM|
|19 Jun 10||1530-1645||6374.1||Rambouillet, France||4E13 51N59 (Den Haag, Netherlands)||Radio Baken 16|
|09 Feb 10||0944||6299.2||CCRM, Belgium||RADIO RAINBOW|
|30 Apr 10||1918-2005||6375||Vienna, Austria||Netherlands||Radio Relmus|
|09 Feb 10||0914||6376.6||CCRM, Belgium||Netherlands||RADIO DUTCH WING|
|20 Jun 10||1015-1600||6399.9||Rambouillet, France||1W45 51N21 (Marlborough, UK)||Laser 558 relay|
|11 Mar 10||1815-2200||6870||El Casar, Spain||9E7 45N18 (Milan, Italy)||RADIO PLAYBACK INT|
|11 Apr 10||1500-1700||6959.9||Rambouillet, France||4E39 51N41 (Breda, Netherlands)||Radio Jan Van Gent|
|03 Jan 10||0800||7610||El Casar, Spain||Italy||RADIO AMICA|
|10 Apr 10||0600-2115||7610||Rambouillet, France||12E56 43N55 (Pesaro, Italy)||RADIO AMICA|
|11 Apr 10||0530-0600||7610||Rambouillet, France||12E56 43N55 (Pesaro, Italy)||RADIO AMICA|
|10 Apr 10||1247-1407||7610||Vienna, Austria||11E30 44N30 (Bologna, Italy)||RADIO AMICA|
Please be assured that it is not our intention to name and shame these stations in any way, nor is the Wireless Waffle team opposed to hobby broadcasting (for want of a better word) but we do believe that the stations concerned should be aware that their location may not be as secret as they had hoped.
The question of how accurate these measurements are is a good one. The level of concern that seemed to arise from the previous list suggests that they may be relatively good. However, let's take a real example. There are 10 measurements relating to Mystery Radio. Of these, five different locations are logged. The map below shows the position of these loggings.
The distance between the closest of all these measurements is around 20 miles (32 km). It is possible that this is the best resolution that some of the monitoring stations can achieve. At this kind of resolution, a ground-based receiver would be unlikely to hear the transmitter. Ground wave signals would not travel this far, and it is the ground wave signal which is required for a person on the ground to be able to 'home in' on the location of a transmitter.
So should pirate radio stations be concerned about being tracked down as a result of the work of the ITU. From the evidence above, it seems that this data alone is probably insufficient to allow a station's location to be identified in one simple move. However, if you are running one of these stations and the location which is shown is more accurate than those for Mystery Radio - and certainly if its within 5 km at which point a man on the ground would be able to track you down - perhaps it's time to up sticks and find a new site!
Tuesday 10 August, 2010, 05:17 - BroadcastingOne of the most common questions that the Wireless Waffle team are asked by those setting up radio transmitters is, "How much power do I need to cover an area X miles wide?". Such a question is virtually unanswerable as there are so many factors to take account of including the frequency of operation, the topography of the area, the kind of structures (buildings, trees) which are in the required coverage area, what kind of receivers people are using and much more. The observant will note that these factors are not ones which can necessarily be changed by the person operating the transmitter - unless they fancied chopping down a forest for example. What can be changed at the transmitting site are two relatively simple factors: the height of the antenna, and the power of the transmitter.
Posted by Administrator
Posted by Administrator
Such discussions therefore end up focussing on how high the antenna needs to be and what power the transmitter should be. But which is most effective in increasing coverage: height or power?
Let's tackle height first. Assuming we are trying to provide a signal over the earth and that there are no obstacles at all and that the earth has no undulations (hills and so on), then the range of a transmitter can easily be calculated from a simple line-of-sight rule. This tells us that for a particular height above the ground, the horizon (and thus the edge of the coverage area) will be a specific distance away. One oddity in this is that radio signals tend to get defracted a little by the Earth's atmosphere which has the effect of making the planet appear slightly less curved and thus extends the radio horizon about a third beyond the optical horizon. The chart below shows the optical and radio horizons for a transmitting antenna mounted at a certain height.
With an antenna about 10 metres above the ground, the radio horizon is about 10km away. If the height of the antenna is increased to 50 metres, the radio horizon increases to about 24 km - a very healthy improvement. It's perhaps worth noting that 'height above ground' could be generated by raising the height of the antenna, or by mounting it on top of heigh point (eg a hill).
Increasing the transmitter power also increases coverage, but not in quite the same way. Getting signals much beyond the radio horizon relies on various odd propagation techniques including refraction, defraction and scatter. In free space, increasing the power by a factor of 2 will increase the distance at which the signal is of equal strength by the square root of 2. So, if the signal is 30 dB at a distance of 10km, increasing the power by a factor of 2 will move the point at which the signal is 30 dB to a point approximately 14km away from the transmitter. Sadly, the Earth is not generally a 'free space' environment and signals fall away much quicker than this, even before the horizon is reached. The chart below shows a simulation of coverage for different transmitter powers, assuming an antenna height of 20 metres.
The distance to the radio horizon for a 20 metre heigh aerial is 15 km and in 'free space', in this example, this is reached by a power of 10 Watts. For the 'real life' example, 10 Watts only achieves a distance of around 10 km because of the fact that the Earth is not a free space environment. To achieve 15 km in 'real life' requires a power of nearer 50 Watts. What is immediately clear is that enormous increases in power are required to extend coverage. Even with 100 Watts, in our theoretical example, the distance acheived is still less than 20 km.
Increasing the height of the transmitting antenna is therefore, theoretically, a much more effective way of increasing coverage than turning up the power. Of course, it's not always possible to put up a high antenna, and in this situation more power is clearly better, but in general height wins every time. To show the difference, the map below (made using Radiomobile) shows the coverage for a transmitter nominally located in the centre of Oxford. It's animated (oo-err!) and cycles through the coverage which would be acheived for:
* A 10 Watt transmitter with an antenna height of 10 metres
* A 40 Watt transmitter with an antenna height of 10 metres
* A 10 Watt transmitter with an antenna height of 20 metres
The coverage achieved in the latter two cases is very similar, however in the map with the higher antenna, the coverage is more 'solid' than that with higher power. If this were a radio station, the higher antenna would provide a more reliable signal, especially for people on the move, than the lower antenna with higher power. The extent of the advantage of height over power means that it is generally more beneficial to identify an elevated transmitter site towards the edge of an area where coverage is required, rather than settle for one which is nearer the centre but lower. A transmitter on a hill overlooking a town will provide more solid coverage in the town for the same transmitter power than a site in a town centre. Hopefully, those now considering how best to maximise their coverage will think beyond Watts and consider that factor well understood by estate agents, location, location, location.
Tuesday 27 July, 2010, 17:20 - Radio RandomnessLast summer, here at Wireless Waffle, we came up with a design for an increadible piece of beach-wear for the short-wave listener which we cristened the 'Wireless Waffle Super Signal Holiday HF Antenna Apparel'. Not only has this become the must have item for improving reception whilst soaking up the sun, devotees have coined the nickname, 'SuSi' and it's an idea that has clearly caught on. At the end of our revelation of this unbelievable breakthrough in summer attire last year, we asked you to submit your own photos of the 'SuSi' which we would then share with other Wireless Waffle readers. And submit them you did! Here we present the 2010 SuSi Snapshot Selection. Together with the original device, it is enthralling to see so many variants in use, however we have our doubts about how effective some of the modified versions might be - so together with your photos, we have also included our view on how well the device pictured might perform.
Posted by Administrator
Posted by Administrator
This first picture was sent in by Jim Thrisby of Humberside and was taken in his laboratory with the device under test conditions, rather than out in the field. The unit in question has been modified to include a double, side-mounted dipole which will imbue it with some directionality. The use of an interconnecting cross-bar, however, will act as a short-circuit at higher frequencies and may limit the broadband functionality of the device. The inclusion of three distinct connection pads does, however, offer the wearer some flexibility in adopting the best position for reception whilst allowing the interconnecting wires not to get in the way.
This next image came from Tyrone Mulligan from South Carolina and shows a similar variant to that sent in by Jim. In this case, however, the horizontal interconnecting cross-bar is missing and its omission should ensure a wider frequency response. The three interconnection pads are also present, however the triangular (instead of square) shape and blue paint used to make them 'look pretty' may introduce a high impedance into the connection which is undesirable. The use of a conductive gel or paint will ensure a more solid contact. The modified SuSi is shown in use under good conditions and is clearly being well received by the wearer.
Tuning of a SuSi should not require any user intervention, however some experimenters such as Dave Brookes of Sydney, Australia, have suggested that some manual adjustment to the position of the various connecting wires can improve the clarity of reception. His photo shows a relatively standard SuSi but in which the support structure has been angled so as to increase the capture of incoming waves. Dave tells us that by using the device in this way, it is possible to receive many more short-waves and even some medium and long waves, but that effectiveness was reduced as it was too easy to get 'Chile' (or that's what we think Dave said).
This photo, which arrived by e-mail from Harman Tallow of Newquay, Cornwall, is apparently an attempt to use some Cornish witchcraft to improve the device's effectiveness. Whilst there addition of the two 'tuning coils' may improve the reception in some directions they also act to obscure significant amounts of the underlying support structure and may even weigh it down to produce a highly undesirable 'sag' in performance at some wavelengths. According to Harman, the field trials were relatively successful in that it was easier to mount the device on the support structure compared to the original design, but that overall, the reception was disappointing.
We were particularly impressed by the efforts of Damian Hextonwick. Damian doesn't tell us where he's from but does indicate that using multiple devices in the form of a 'phased array' produces one of the largest increases in the achievable range of the device that he has witnessed (though we once again note the erroneous use of the bandwidth restricting horizontal cross-strut). His attempt to join four such devices together as shown in his picture, produced sufficient voltage to excite receivers which were at a significant distance from the array. Whereas it is necessary to connect directly to a single device to get its benefits, standing in close proximity to multiple interconnected devices has impressive results.
Finally, Heinz Wiedemann of North Germany has attempted to take the concept of the SuSi one step further and produce a device which can be used for satellites. By expanding upon the concept of a mesh dish, he has produced this mesh SuSi which has an integral 'low navel block' (LNB) at its lowest point which focuses incoming signals. Unfortunately, the alignment proves very critical and without careful hands-on positining of the LNB, the supporting structure becomes badly distorted leading to highly unsatisfactory reception. Heinz does add, however, that the hands-on nature of this variant of the SuSi has many distinct benefits which he then refuses to scientifically quantify, rendering the results of his experiments somewhat suspect.
Overall, we have been highly impressed by the look, feel and ingenuity of the various models of SuSi that have been submitted to us. Please keep up the experiments and remember to send pictures your results to us. We can't wait to see what the next year of experimentation may bring and to share the joyous fruits of your labours and to enjoy the summer sunshine wherever you may be.
Sunday 13 June, 2010, 11:43 - Radio RandomnessMost short-wave listeners would probably love to know whether reception conditions are good or not at any given time on any particular band. One way to do this might be to use an on-line tool, such as the one shown on the right, which tries to interpret solar conditions (eg sunspot numbers) to provide an indication of whether specific frequencies are likely to perform well. This is a good start but gives no idea of from which areas signal are being received. Knowing that frequencies below 10 MHz are suject to 'fair' propagation tells you little about whether this is to the East, West, North or some other direction.
Posted by Administrator
Posted by Administrator
Another way, therefore, might be to try and tune in to radio broadcasts from specific areas to see what can actually be received. This works pretty well and tools like that provided at short-wave.info can help you find where signals are being transmitted from and thus what else you might be able to hear.
But radio broadcasts are not the only short-wave transmissions which can be regularly received. There are many other signals which can give indications of propagation. Radio amateurs have networks of worldwide beacons. These can be found on frequencies of 14100, 18110, 21150, 24930 and 28200 kHz and each beacon sends its callsign in morse code at a relatively high power (100 Watts) and then decreases the power down to a few milliWatts. Once it is done, another beacon uses the frequency, with the frequencies time shared between them. These beacons (and other amateur beacons which operate) provide an alternative means of testing propagation. Of course if you can't read morse code (CW) then they are of little use. Also, frequencies below 14 MHz are not well served and though 100 Watts is a relatively strong signal for radio amateurs, it is not in the kiloWatt region which radio broadcasters use and thus may be more difficult to hear for the average short wave listener.
At Wireless Waffle it was realised that it would be useful if there were other means of checking propagation which didn't rely on knowing morse code, covered more frequencies, was easy to receive, and would give an idea of in which direction signals were coming from. Step up the the challenge volmets! A volmet is a radio broadcast of weather information (meteo in French) for aircraft (vol is French for flight). Volmets exist in many countries around the world and there are several on short-wave which use relatively high power transmissions (normally between 1 and 10 kW) on various frequencies ranging from 2.8 to around 15 MHz. Most frequencies are shared between multiple volmets who take it in turn to broadcast local weather conditions for 5 minutes and then pass the frequency on to the next station (sound familiar?)
There is a relatively up-to-date list of active, inactive and planned volmets available on-line. One evening recently a receiver was set on 6676 kHz. This is the frequency used by a series of Asian volmets in Australia, India, Thailand, Pakistan and Singapore, each of which uses the frequency for 5 minutes at a time, suprisingly at least three of these were clearly heard (though there was some interference from the Echo Charlie band radio pirates who also use these frequencies!) The following evening on the same frequency, nada, nix, nothing. None of them were audible. An almost perfect example of the use of these stations as propagation beacons.
An even odder one but of startling usefulness is the frequency of 13270 kHz. This is used by two volmets, one in the USA (New York) and one in Canada (Gander). It is also used for a digital HF radio system for aicraft to report their position when outside of radar coverage called ACARS by a station in Hat Yai in Thailand. Tuning to this frequency recently, both the volmet and the ACARS service could be heard! The New York volmet weather man was churning out temperatures and dew points and the like, whilst over the top came the occasional 'beep fluff' noise of ACARS. It seems a little odd that two aeronautical services would be put on the same frequency but when you consider that Hat Yai is 9190 miles from New York (as the crow flies - though he would get pretty cold whilst going over the north pole) then the probability of interference is probably too small to worry about under normal circumstances. It makes a very handy propagation beacon though - almost around the whole world on one frequency!