Wireless Waffle - A whole spectrum of radio related rubbish
Noisy Neighbourssignal strength
Thursday 30 October, 2008, 22:23 - Amateur Radio
Posted by Administrator
It may appear to have been quiet here at Wireless Waffle over the past couple of months, but that's because a number of things have piqued the interest and we've been doing a bit of experimentation and investigation. The first of them is the issue of Power Line Telecommunications (PLT) also known as Broadband over Power Line (BPL) and in particular the problems being experienced by many UK short-wave radio listeners with it. One of these devices could recently be heard, albeit quietly, across the HF spectrum (oddly it has since disappeared) at Waffle HQ but it raised the question as to how many more there were in the area. To find out, I fitted and HF antenna to my car and connected it to an HF receiver and then drove around a nearby housing estate to see what could be heard.

The antenna used resonated in the 18 MHz (17 metre) amateur band but received perfectly well in the 17 MHz (16 metre) broadcast band. Tuned to a clear channel around 17460 kHz, the car was driven around the area under test. Over the area covered by a small local estate, three devices were detected. Two were almost certainly the 'Comtrend' device, sounding just as the ones that UKQRM has demonstrated on YouTube. The third (shown in red on the map) emitted a more continuous tone, interrupted by occasional blips; the range of this device was somewhat less than the other two. Their range at other frequencies was not tested but anecdotal evidence driving round the area using other antennas and the same receiver suggests that the coverage on frequencies around 27 MHz is similar.

plt bpl interference rangeI've plotted the approximate location of the three devices identified together with the area over which they were clearly receiveable on the map on the right (the map covers approximately a 500 metre by 500 metre area). The blue device had the largest interference range and within the areas marked it is unlikely that any short-wave reception would be possible.

The density of these devices means that over the whole estate, short-wave reception would be virtually impossible. A cursory glance around the area indicated no amateur radio antennas so it is likely the devices are going undetected (or just unreported!) Not a positive result and unless the powers that be do something to halt the spread of these devices, it would be easy to foresee a situation where HF reception could be pretty much impossible over whole towns and cities, in residential areas for certain.

One piece of positive news is that Ofcom have set up a special team to deal with PLT interference and appear to have begun taking the problem seriously. Let's hope that this is more than just paying lip service to the problem before the whole HF spectrum is lost to the laziness of those who can't be bothered to use WiFi or put a piece of wire between various bits of equipment in their home. These devices are a disgrace and a menace and before they wipe out all short-wave reception and neighbour-on-neighbour war breaks out, serious action by the authorities is absolutely necessary.
add comment ( 1409 views )   |  0 trackbacks   |  permalink   |   ( 3 / 13886 )

A Noisy Noise Annoys (Part 3)signal strength
Sunday 27 July, 2008, 09:12 - Amateur Radio
Posted by Administrator
The European Telecommunications Standard Institute (ETSI) is currently in the process of finalising a standard for in-home Power Line Telecommunications (PLT). This is equipment that allows internal electrical wiring in a house to be used as a local area network, to carry computer and other data signals around without having to re-wire your house to do so. Whilst wireless networks do much the same, the advantage of PLT is that it could be built into, for example, a television, to allow it to interconnect with a video server or even a set top box, without the need for additional leads and connectors.

comtrend pltThese devices (for example those sold by Homeplug) work by sending signals around the mains wiring at frequencies between around 3 and 30 MHz. Now the wiring in a typical house is designed to carry signals at 50 or 60 Hz, depending which country you are in, and although it is possible, with sufficient brute force and ignorance, to get signals in the short-wave (high frequency or HF) frequency range from one socket to another, the network is very (very) leaky. Much of the signal leaves the wiring in the house with the potential to cause interference to any HF user in the vicinity (say, within 100 metres or so).

Much of the work being done by ETSI is to try and find ways of stopping these PLT devices from causing interference. To start with, the specification requires that there be notches in the transmitted spectrum in all the amateur radio bands to try and reduce interferece to radio amateurs. This is a good start but does not solve the problem for short wave listeners (e.g. those who like to listen to international short wave broadcasts).

short waveThe most recent studies that have been done have been to address specifically this issue and the result is a specification which attempts to monitor the various short-wave bands and if it senses activity in a band, will not use frequencies in that range. So if the device detects a signal on, say, 5.9 MHz, it will not use frequencies in the 49 metre band. There is a little more intelligence than this included, such that if only signals on low frequency ranges can be detected, the device will assume it is night-time (when few high frequencies propagate) and vice versa, and from this information will make further informed decisions about which frequencies might be clear to use.

This is fine, as long as: (a) the detection algorithms work properly and (b) the frequencies allocted to the short-wave broadcast bands remain as is and don't get expanded or moved around. Of course such a system will not protect out-of-band broadcasters or other services which use HF frequencies such as the military, maritime and aeronautical communications. Nonetheless, it at least shows a willingness to take account of domestic short-wave radio usage where the impact of the devices will be greatest.

Step up to the podium, then, BT Vision who have begun using PLT technology to connect their set top boxes into televisions (the two usually being in different rooms in the house) through the electrical wiring. However the devices they are using were developed prior to the completion of the ETSI standards and do not have the sensing mechanisms in place. One device in particular, made by Comtrend (Model DH-10 PFUK to be specific). It provides a 200 Mbps connection between sockets and can be bought independent of BT from various suppliers.

noisy noiseThis device (and some others like it) have started to cause enormous headaches to domestic HF reception, both amateur and broadcast. You will find various videos on YouTube demonstrating the problem and a Yahoo! group (UKQRM) has been set up for users to share experiences with these devices. What is encouraging is that Ofcom is taking the situation seriously. One radio amateur reports that after having reported the problems to Ofcom, action was taken and the offending devices replaced with alternative ones which seemed to cure the problem.

Driving around the town where I live, I have noted three of these devices, each blocking out reception right the way across the HF frequency bands over a range of around 100 metres. Thankfully none of them are in the immediate vicinity of my own station but the threat exists. If you are suffering this kind of interference, I would urge to you take a look at the UK QRM site or contact Ofcom.

Apparently BT are aware of this problem, with the specific units in question, and will replace them if contacted by their subscriber. This, however, requires anyone who is affected to determine where the interfering signal is coming from and then speak to the person whose house the equipment is installed it. If this is a friendly neighbour, you are fine. If it is not, then your only recourse is through Ofcom. Bon chance!
add comment ( 1475 views )   |  0 trackbacks   |  permalink   |   ( 3 / 11258 )

The World's Simplest Harmonic Filtersignal strength
Saturday 31 May, 2008, 08:23 - Amateur Radio
Posted by Administrator
One problem that radio amateurs (and professionals for that matter) regularly stumble across, is the problem of adequately surpressing the harmonics that are produced in their transmitter. Harmonics are frequencies which are on multiples of the actual signal being produced (e.g. a transmitter at 100 MHz will produce harmonics on 200, 300, 400, 500 MHz and so on...) and are a natural and largely unavoidable bi-product of the transmitter.

Normally a low pass filter is used to try and stop harmonics from reaching the aerial. Such a filter will be designed to allow the wanted frequency through with little or no attenuation, whilst attenuating harmonics by 30 dB or more (the level of filtering required depends on how bad the harmonics being produced by the transmitter are). However, there are some instances where the surpression offered by a low pass filter might not quite be enough to reduce the harmonics to a level where they are no longer a problem. The diagram below illustrates the typical response of various low pass filters.

low pass filter response

Imagine an amateur radio station transmitting on 50 MHz. The second harmonic of this transmission is on 100 MHz, right in the middle of the FM broadcast band. If this happens to be the frequency of a local FM station, then even tiny amounts of harmonic radiation may upset neighbours trying to tune in.

Years ago I stumbled across a device which is one of the simplest (and cheapest) harmonic filters around. It comprises of... a piece of coax. Yes, it's that simple. Or almost that simple. It's called a stub and works like this:

A quarter wave transmission line (i.e. a quarter wavelength of coax, twin feeder or similar) has the weird property that the impedance at one end of it will be the reciprocal of the impedance at the opposite end of it, at the frequency where it is a quarter wavelength long (this has to take account of the velocity factor of the line - more of this later). So, if one end of the quarter wave is a short circuit, the other end will be an open circuit.

A half wave transmission line exhibits the property that the impedance at one end, will be exactly the same at the other end (which is why some folk recommend making all patch leads a half wavelength long).

So how can these facts be used to make a harmonic filter. Simple! Using the previous example, if we cut a piece of coax to be a quarter wavelength long at 50 MHz and then short circuit one end of it, the other end will show an open circuit at 50 MHz so we can place it across the output of the transmitter with no effect (if you aren't sure how to connect it across your transmitter output you shouldn't be playing with transmitters in the first place). At 100 MHz, however, it will be a half-wave long and the short circuit at one end will appear at the other end. It will therefore allow the 50 MHz signal to pass and block the 100 MHz signal - the perfect harmonic filter.

However, this pattern repeats such that the same 'stub' will also pass signals at 150, 250, 350 MHz and so on, and will block signals at 200, 300, 400 MHz and so on. Whilst this means that some harmonics are still passed unchanged, it does block half of them and in our particular example means that the problem signal that interferes with our neighbours' reception of the local FM station is addressed. Alternatively, it would simplify the design of the necessary low pass filter, potentially reducing the component count and hence cost. The frequency response of the stub (as connected across the output of a transmitter) is shown in the diagram below.

stub filter response

Making a stub couldn't be easier. Let's assume we are using standard RG-58 (URM-76) coax cable. This typically has a velocity factor of about 0.66 (meaning, freakily, that radio signals travel at only 0.66 times the speed of light inside the cable, compared to the speed in free space). Velocity factors vary between about 0.66 and 1 (foam filled coax has a factor of about 0.8).

stub filter diagramA quarter wavelength at 50 MHz is 1.5 metres long (300 divided by 50 MHz divided by 4). Multiplying this by the velocity factor gives a resulting stub length of exactly 1 metre. So, if we get 1 metre of coax, and short circuit one end of it, whilst connecting the other end across the output of our transmitter, it should have no effect whatsoever on the 50 MHz signal, but will short out the 100 MHz signal to the best of its ability.

Typically stubs of this nature attenuate the second harmonic by 30 dB. Careful tweaking to ensure that the second harmonic 'notch' is right on the second harmonic frequency can increase this to maybe 50 dB. Multiple stubs, separated by further quarter wave lengths of coax can be used to make the notch deeper.

The downside of such a filter is that it is frequency specific, so if we re-tune our transmitter to 52 MHz, with the harmonic falling now at 104 MHz, the second harmonic attenuation will be less (again multiple stubs, each on a slightly different frequency to the next can help here). Also, stubs of this type would be very large for low frequency operation (the same stub would require 14 metres of coax if the wanted frequency were in the 80 metre, 3.5 MHz band).

Nonetheless, the tuned stub harmonic filter has to be one of the simplest and cheapest ways to reduce harmonic emissions that anyone could make.
add comment ( 1888 views )   |  0 trackbacks   |  permalink   |   ( 3.3 / 8187 )

A Noisy Noise Annoys (Part 2)signal strength
Monday 10 March, 2008, 18:25 - Amateur Radio
Posted by Administrator
<rant> Whilst visiting Oxford this week, a quick scan around the 70cm band yielded a number of repeaters that aren't normally receiveable from my regular location. Amongst these was GB3WO, near Witney in Oxfordshire. Nothing unusual there. Except that upon setting the right CTCSS tone and firing up the repeater, it was distressing to find that it remained open and was emitting a horrid buzzing/whining noise like someone was attacking it with a chainsaw. The culprit for the noise was clearly one of the many low-power licence-exempt data links used for devices such as weather stations, doorbells and the like.

keyfob womanI've already discussed the issue of allowing these devices into the UK 70cm repeater band and poor GB3WO was suffering the consequences (of course, the addition of a requirement for all transmissions to have CTCSS as some repeater operators have done would help the situation but would not stop the repeater input being jammed by such a device, only stop it being relayed). I've also recently highlighted the problems of being a secondary user in the 70cm band and the associated difficulties in getting interference dealt with.

gb3ns attackedBut it seems that the problem is getting even worse. Repeater GB3NS in Banstead, Surrey had to be taken off-air because of these low power devices. It used to operate on RB10 (output frequency of 433.250 MHz) but was forced to cease operation when it was shown that it was causing blocking of car key-fob receivers in a nearby car-park which was in turn causing the car rescue organisations to be repeatedly called out to cars that wouldn't open or start. It was eventually shown, following practical on-air tests, that a change to a 70cm wide-space (7.6 MHz split) channel assignment circumvented the problem and eventually 'NS was re-licensed and radio hams can now use this repeater again (output is on 430.925 MHz and input on 438.525 MHz which also keeps the input frequency thankfully free of these annoyances). So this is a real example of a secondary user of a band being forced to cease transmissions to protect a tertiary or non-interference basis 'NIB' user - clearly in this band, radio amateurs are not just second-class citizens but have no rights at all.

Worst still, through an almighty lack of foresight, many of the new, digital D-Star repeaters have been given frequency assignments with an input frequency of 433.9125 MHz - just 7.5 kHz down from the 'centre' of the low-power licence-exempt band. Interference at this frequency is so bad that one repeater has already had to be taken off-air until a new assignment can be allocated, as the following press-release tells:
A newly operational D-Star repeater in the United Kingdom has been forced off the air due to interference on its input from unlicensed devices. The Radio Society of Great Britain's Emerging Technology Co-ordination Committee website reports that the GB7YD-C, 70cm D-Star system has been removed from service until an alternative frequency can be found. According to the coordinating committee, problems have been experienced at other United Kingdom 70 cm D-Star repeaters with an input on 433.9125 MHz.

The most annoying aspect of this situation is that the rules under which these low-power licence-exempt devices operate require them to accept any interference that they might experience, and not to cause any interference to licenced users of the frequencies on which they operate. Yet (in the UK at least) they are being given privileges that are greater than that of secondary users whose status is legally higher. They are certainly becoming more than just a noisy annoyance, but can anything be done to rectify the situation?

A review conducted by the European Radiocommunications Office, known as the Detailed Spectrum Investigation Phase II (DSI 2) and published on 13 March 1995 (i.e. 13 years ago) specifically recommended:
an allocation be agreed for a general low power band at 403-404.5 MHz intended for new applications and to avoid placing new equipment at 433 MHz unless absolutely essential, the 433 MHz band to be subject to a general review at an appropriate time.

It made this recommendation because:
Amateurs in CEPT countries, particularly suffer from ISM interference in the 433.92 MHz ISM band. Similarly manufacturers of low power systems using this band are concerned at the interference potential of amateur emissions.

So this problem was identified, and a solution proposed, so long ago that it could now be something of the past. Obviously something has changed at the ERO, who now seem intent upon converting radio amateurs (who have been responsible for much of the propagational and technical research and innovation that drives today's wireless industry) into operators who can do little more than clean up the sweepings on the spectrum floor and be content with any titbits they might be thrown. Might this change of heart be something to do with the fact that at the time of the DSI, the head of the ERO was a radio amateur (OZ3SDL) but it is now headed by Mark Thomas, ex-Ofcom, a man who abolished the minimum bit-rate for UK DAB radio services and of whom Google brings up the thoughts (check for yourself if you don't believe me):
Gone to ERO in Denmark, and good bloody riddance

ero militiaSo, it seems, radio amateurs are right royally stuffed! Having realised this, one thought springs to mind - why not take away lots of the amateur bands that are lightly used (30m, 12m, 23cm, 13cm, 9cm and so on) and instead allow amateurs to 'roam free', and use any frequency that is otherwise available. This is the concept being argued for by proponents of cognitive radio, whereby sensitive receivers sweep available frequencies to identify unused ones and then communicate on those - if a transmission on that frequency is later detected the cognitive radio senses this and moves elsewhere. Now amateur radio systems are almost all set up with the intention of being able to detect weak signals, and thus if any frequency appears unused at a given location, there's a fair chance that it is unused in that neighbourhood. And instead of being controlled by software, an 'amateur cognitive' transmitter would be controlled by a living, thinking person with a respect for the radio spectrum and its users. Indeed amateurs could once again be at the forefront of technology by conducting real-life assessments of the potential for cognitive radios to cause interference and thus informing the wider discussion on the use of such devices.

Maybe, just maybe, taking some action now might return amateur radio and its users to a position of innovation and respect amongst the wider radio community instead of just being viewed as bolshy CB operators? </rant>
1 comment ( 1563 views )   |  0 trackbacks   |  permalink   |   ( 3 / 7254 )


<<First <Back | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | Next> Last>>