Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25258 invoked from network); 19 Nov 2001 13:00:46 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received: from unknown (HELO warrior.services.quay.plus.net) (212.159.14.227) by excalibur.plus.net with SMTP; 19 Nov 2001 13:00:46 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: (qmail 5855 invoked from network); 19 Nov 2001 13:00:49 -0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by warrior.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 19 Nov 2001 13:00:49 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.33 #2) id 165nrP-0003Y6-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 12:49:15 +0000 Received: from hestia.herts.ac.uk ([147.197.200.9]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #2) id 165nrO-0003Y1-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 12:49:14 +0000 Received: from gemini ([147.197.200.44] helo=gemini.herts.ac.uk) by hestia.herts.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1) id 165nqd-0000yg-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 12:48:27 +0000 Received: from [147.197.232.252] (helo=rsch-15.herts.ac.uk) by gemini.herts.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #2) id 165nqc-0007Hb-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 12:48:26 +0000 Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20011119112735.00a76080@gemini.herts.ac.uk> X-Sender: mj9ar@gemini.herts.ac.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 12:48:25 +0000 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org From: "James Moritz" Subject: LF: Long-Baseline Phased Arrays on LF MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: Dear LF Group, Well, it works for radio astronomers and early warning radars, so why not on LF? Here are a few comments: The basic idea seems to be to coherently add together receiver outputs from different locations; the signal amplitudes would add directly, whereas the non-correlated noise would only increase as the square root of the number of stations, so you would get 3dB more SNR for 2 receivers, 6dB for 4, etc. By doing this, one would also effectively obtain a strong directional pattern The implicit assumption is that the noise at the different locations will come from different sources and so not be correlated, wheras the signal comes from the same source and will be. However, under reasonably good receiving conditions, most of the noise seems to come from atmospheric QRN, usually at great distances. So the receivers will probably all be hearing the same static crashes, and the noise at the different locations will be correlated to a significant degree. A lot of the local, artificial noise is connected in one way or another with the mains, which since it is all connected to the same national grid, will presumably be correlated to some extent too. So I suspect there will not be a great gain in SNR. You could argue that distant sources of noise could be rejected by synthesising a directional pattern with nulls in appropriate places, provided there was not a thunderstorm in the same direction as the desired signal. The nulls are effectively produced by cancelling the noise signals arriving at different receivers from the offending direction against each other. As well as needing accurate relative phase information to do this, accurate relative amplitude information is also required, needing some means of performing real-time gain calibration on all the receivers and antennas in the array. My recent experience of performing about 300 field strength measurements showed that a standard deviation of about 1dB in amplitude, with individual readings up to +/- 3dB out, occurred due to environmental factors, even though the same receiver and antenna was used at all locations. Although variations at different locations seemed to be fairly constant over a period of a couple of weeks, it is difficult to know what long-term variations might happen. On HF, at various times diversity reception seems to have been popular. These systems basically had a number of ganged RXs with separate antennas, and summed the demodulated outputs so that whichever receiver was getting the strongest signal contributed the most to the overall output. Obviously not coherent in any way, but seems to have been quite effective against selective fading. Fading is also a problem on LF, especially for the very slow transmission modes, so might this cruder approach also work for LF? It would depend on fades occuring at different times at different receiving locations. I seem to remember we found this was the case during the group monitoring experiment we tried on the CFH signal last winter ( see http://www.qsl.net/on7yd/t181200.htm). If so it could be done for QRSS by simply superimposing spectrograms obtained with the same settings received at different locations; it would be a bit harder with something like Wolf, requiring accurate timing info to combine a number of recordings. Cheers, Jim Moritz 73 de M0BMU