From: g4gvw <g4gvw@aol.com>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
In-Reply-To: <4E4AC760.3000202@kabelmail.de>
References: <4E4AC760.3000202@kabelmail.de>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:17:29 +0100
Message-ID: <1313525849.4751.14.camel@pat-compaq-evo>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0  
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,none
Subject: Re: LF: Remote Receiving Antenna: UHF-Link
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
x-aol-global-disposition: G
X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:478812576:93952408  
X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0  
x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d61874e4ad08a72e2
X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25
X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none


Hi Tom,

While it may not be practical at your location, an "optical link" does
not HAVE to rely only on optical "cable" link but might also comprise a
projected light beam in free space. A distance of 100Metres need not be
prohibitive. Just a thought!

73

On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 21:39 +0200, DK1IS wrote:
> Dear LF-Group,
> 
> from time to time UHF-links are mentioned to carry radio signals from
> a remote receiving antenna positioned in a low QRM-region to the main
> station. At least Wolf, DL4YHF, seems to have such an arrangement.
> Having a high local QRM level at the site of my main station I would
> like to try an active receiving antenna (e.g. mini-whip) about 100
> meters apart on the flat roof of my garage standig in an open area
> without individual QRM sources. Available power there is 12 V DC from
> an 120 Ah accu fed by solar cells for activating the radio controlled
> garage door. Now the question is how to carry the received signals to
> the shack. Due to the specifics of the site cables (electric or opto)
> are impracticable, so I`m thinking about an UHF-link.
> 
> For a preliminary test I purchased one of the well-known cheap
> 2.4-GHz-audio-video-links for wireless connection between tv sets and
> their periphery. They always offer a video channel and two audio
> channels for stereo signals. First I analysed the link with signal
> generator and selective level meter on the workbench. The video
> channel has a flat response between 3 kHz and about 6 MHz with good
> linearity in the range from -50 dBm to 0 dBm input/output. Without TX
> input the RX noisefloor is about  -94 dBm at 24 Hz bandwidth which
> should be overcome with a preamplifier at the TX input. The audio
> channels work between 0.2 kHz and about 20 kHz with a strong
> preemphasis, they are fairly linear between -50 dBm and -10 dBm with a
> noisefloor of about -80 dBm at 24 Hz bandwidth. In my imagination I
> alredy saw a mini-whip with the video channel from LF to 80 meters and
> two crossed loops for vlf with the audio stereo channels on my
> garage ... but a second test with real band signals at the station RX
> showed the desaster: due to obviously muliplexing the three channels
> for transmission there were bad QRM spectra about 500 kHz with a lot
> of sidebands and intermodulation. Strange that home entertainment sets
> can accept this but for ham radio it`s absolutely impossible. So my
> question is how to do it better. 
>       * Obviously one has to use a single channel link without any
>         multplexing. 
>       * Obviously FM is the right transmission mode - are there
>         ISM-bands and link units which offer a signal bandwidth of
>         about 4 MHz?
>       * Could you imagine to feed the whole spectrum of an active
>         antenna with certainly more than 100 dB dynamic range and a
>         bandwidth of 4 MHz via such a link or should one insert band
>         pass filters for the frequencies of main interest to reduce
>         the dynamic range being needed?
>       * Do you know any offers for such UHF link modules?
>       * Did you have a similar challenge? How did you manage it?
>       * Any other ideas are welcome!
> 73,
> Tom, DK1IS

-- 
73 es gd dx de pat g4gvw
 qth nr felixstowe uk
(east coast, county of suffolk)