Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

rsgb_lf_group
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: LF: Re: WRC-2012 proposal for 'near' 500kHz band(s)

To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: LF: Re: WRC-2012 proposal for 'near' 500kHz band(s)
From: Andy Talbot <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 16:36:09 +0000
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=2X1g7eZ2UTZHaFVljAo4j9nl16PG+E/XRiFUq7r7J0g=; b=gnztZKpj66G9bUlh3qJ+k+kbCWVnuzZEQrRHmqbAdMj5MuvPwJIf2JZ9rn1EFpx2SC wVkR8ZQJQ0f0uCCYant+6290cXG7aTV6AKHPnFsnMtQNI2rtDft5bItZ+8aTYBKU9IoK DSlPkq5813rm62V8YWF652irhL86jAkEw6w6U=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=QS3ThM2NI+76QWlB7cgJ7J0tRcTcibv4Ab7S1XMJthnzHrFJ7fpYgw5DvBoOr2hrOH Bm/7rbRj5fI30fEnMnZHNspRlMRoBBu/NFktWLwz/noSc0ym8Mjhw2aXNf3d09WEoTlb M3AHNcRvF6XZ1zgCRncJsQ6upUndE3qdMvbZw=
Domainkey-status: good (testing)
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <80823E80F3B94DCEB2B95EA9A57C72C4@JimPC> <[email protected]>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
Or help me programme in a lower divider ratio into the DDS
 
'JNT
 


 
On 2 March 2011 16:20, M0FMT <[email protected]> wrote:
 
Wonderfull! and maybe you can help me grind all my crystals lower in frequency as well Jim.
 
73 es GL Pete M0FMT IO91UX



From: James Moritz <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wed, 2 March, 2011 15:43:25
Subject: LF: Re: WRC-2012 proposal for 'near' 500kHz band(s)

Dear David, LF Group,

Having poked around inside quite a few radios over the years, I think 465/470kHz IFs were common in the days of discrete transistors and tuned IF transformers, but are mostly ancient history now. Most of the more modern broadcast radios use either 455kHz or 450kHz - the former being the default centre frequency for ceramic filters, the latter especially for radios with PLL synthesisers (it works out quite nicely with a 4.500MHz reference crystal and 9kHz or 10kHz channel spacings). At least in theory, the more modern cheap broadcast radios should have better IF rejection, since these single-chip receivers have double balanced mixers, rather than the old single-ended, self-oscillating, discrete designs.

The trouble with trying to avoid broadcast RX IF frequencies is that there is now a wide range to be avoided. With f0 possibly of 450, 455, 465 or 470kHz, +/- tolerance, and a bandwidth typically around 9kHz, a big chunk of frequencies from say 440 - 480kHz would have to be excluded on these grounds. It would be a great waste of spectrum to say these frequencies must be off-limits for all eternity for the sake of the inadequacies of cheap receivers used by an ever-decreasing number of listeners. Anyway, these frequencies always have been used by high power maritime telegraphy, NDBs, etc.

Another consideration is that the proposed maritime "super-Navtex" that might be centerd on 500kHz will inevitably have big powerful transmitters, using OFDM modulation with several kHz bandwidth. Although the out-of band emissions for this type of modulation is in principle very small, there will inevitably be some "spectral re-growth" due to imperfections in transmitter linearity. The high power levels compared to amateur signals, and wide coverage areas will mean this would be a major problem for amateurs if we have to operate on adjacent frequencies (not unlike the problems with utilities on 136k). There would be no way of convincing the maritime users they should take remedial action - they would just reply that their transmitters were fully within spec, which they would be. So if the maritime proposals go ahead, a large spacing between any amateur band and 500kHz would be a good thing. I volunteer to help struggling experienced non-appliance operators to wind a few more turns on their VFO coils if this happens ;-)

Cheers, Jim Moritz
73 de M0BMU




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>