Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

rsgb_lf_group
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: LF: Receivers for LF and MF 136 KHz @ 477KHz ???

To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: LF: Receivers for LF and MF 136 KHz @ 477KHz ???
From: "Graham" <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 14:41:11 +0100
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <776311A518F6F642962EC561A9184090D582E7469F@THSONEP02CMB01P.one-02-priv.grp>
References: <F2308B40167B42B486EAD4657D9D78F6@AGB> <[email protected]> <D300C456F3F2421E913AD4C9D41EE57C@AGB> <776311A518F6F642962EC561A9184090D582E15B35@THSONEP02CMB01P.one-02-priv.grp> <FAA71B6A9A894028BC63ACFCCF4C4894@AGB> <776311A518F6F642962EC561A9184090D582E7469F@THSONEP02CMB01P.one-02-priv.grp>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
Ok Paul

The Navy has extra IF , the slow motion tune is another down conversion to , I think 50KHz IF ?

I was not involved with the remote versions , but , yes the boards are similar , the ra1778 has a memory board , which makes servicing a problem , but the 1.4 MHz free tune bfo is a little under hand for such a price ! the ra6790 bfo is locked in 10 Hz steps , main tune 1 Hz , so its possible to tune to 1 Hz , its reasonably stable , or can input a external reference , I use ma1723 exciter for mf .

Tnx-73 Graham

ps , there is a working Atalanta at gb4fpr . I have the Electra in the loft octal version hihi

--------------------------------------------------
From: "REEVES Paul" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 12:47 PM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: LF: Receivers for LF and MF    136 KHz  @ 477KHz   ???

Hi Graham,

I don't think the '117 had a beam deflection mixer either but I'm not sure. I've got one in the garage awaiting (for several years now....) renovation - will have to have a look. I didn't think the Navy version had any significant differences apart from possible mods (a 7360 fits the bill there) or external preselector for co-site tx operation but I think the only one I have seen was at the museum at HMS Collingwood - and no details, alas. All the rest of my Racal bits are 1772 and relatives, generally remote control versions (6775? etc) - all work ok and show no signs of deterioration (yet...). At least they provide spare boards for the 1772 if needed!

I have used the AFEDRI on 136 - worked quite well but was behind a preselector adapted from a set of front-end coils for a Marconi 'Atalanta'. Proper coils and capacitors -keeps all the rubbish out!

73s

Paul     G8GJA

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Graham
Sent: 08 August 2014 12:13
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: LF: Receivers for LF and MF 136 KHz @ 477KHz ???

Hi   Paul,

Yes , the later version , may be the 117 or the fine tune version for
the  Navy  used  the  7360 , probably  about  as  good  as  it  gets , I
spent  some  time  on production  test  when the  ra1771/2  was first
produced , that was long ago , I have a ra1778 and ra6790gm , with the
lf  front  end ,  the start this  year , I sold all  the  ra17  set  up  ,
ra17, pan adaptor , lf  adaptor [with rad-haz mixers] ssb adaptor , all of
which , I had  not used  for  decades, all had failed  in one way or the
other , working  or  not , seems  little  difference  in the  price , must
of used   3  cubic yards of  cardboard packing ! the  sets  are  now  all
round the  world .

Noted on the SDR , yes , I assume thats needed due to lack of 'bits' ,
there  was  an idea to  use  a  24 bit a/d  as  a  0>1 MHz sdr , aimed  at
the   low  frequency  bands , but as yet  , waiting ..

one of  the  £5 dongles would  work  as  pan adaptor  , showing  the  2/3
MHz IF out , only problem, if the ra17 has the original IF amp , then the LO carrier also shows on the trace , 100KHz from the tune point ,
I fitter the  modification , but the  rx-noise increased  , due to the
second  valve  ,


Q Have you  used  the  AFEDRIxx  on 136 . 477  ?


73-Graham
G0NBD



--------------------------------------------------
From: "REEVES Paul" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 7:49 AM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: LF: Receivers for LF and MF    136 KHz  @ 477KHz   ???

Hi Graham,

RA17 with beam deflection mixer? Surely not.......
I would certainly agree with you about the RA1772 (and extended family)
but I like using both - and a (fairly) complete set of RA17/MA79 plus
accessories really beats anything else in terms of looks! And it glows in
the dark too:)
I use an AFEDRIxx too. Works fine but really needs a preselector on HF
unless used as a panadaptor (behind an RA17 perhaps....), fortunately
Racal made nice preselector units too.

73s
Paul     G8GJA

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Graham
Sent: 07 August 2014 21:36
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: LF: Receivers for LF and MF 136 KHz @ 477KHz ???

Yes Tobias,

All  is not as it  seems , but as you say , adding  filtering , reduces
the
problems  , and  with  direct conversion  , the  noise  floor  is the
lowest possible , stability  is  at maximum , having only  1 oscillator ,
In
have  good  decode  results  on 477 using  the  £5 dongle  , behind  the
TX
atu and inv L ae

For the  £150  sdr , the  description  lists  80 msps , which  , I assume
moves the  image  problems  out  side the  HF spectrum ? at  12 bits  ,
that
starts to  provide a  reasonable  , post processed  dynamic range ?

12- bit 80 MSPS A/D conversion

I would  not  link the  barlow-wadley , too  closely  to  lack  dynamic
range , may  be a lack of  engineering  integrity , the  RA17  with
pentode
rf  stage  , then  later  cascode  , with  beam deflection  mixer , was
reasonable , though there was a pre selector for use at close tx/rx
sites ,  the  ra1771/1772  was  the  first  to  better the  ra17 , but
again
that also tends to  question the  models before ..   the  ra1772/1  is
fitted  with  rf-pre selector , for those 'unexpected' situations ,  the
ra6790gm , with no pre-amp is the closest I have seen to a bullet
proof  front  end , that  runs , where  the  ra1778 needs  the
pre-selector

But in terms  of  noise  etc , one of these  'reasonable  sdr's'  may be
better .. I don't think I would  recommend any one  go  down the  racal
path  these  days !

73-G,

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Tobias DG3LV" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 4:16 PM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: LF: Receivers for LF and MF    136 KHz  @ 477KHz   ???

Hi Graham !

This type of device has a dynamic range of 48dB at maximum (8 Bit), so
they need help from a narrow-band frontend plus input-attenuators to
reduce the load to the A/D-converter. The conversion speed is variable
from 1 to 3 Megasamples/second, leading to a Nyqist-frequency of 0.5 to
1.5 MHz.

This filter should have a deep attenuation above the Nyqist-frequency to
avoid unwanted reception at harmonics/aliases of the sampling frequency
(=
"undersampling").

The advertized usage of 100kHz to 30MHz (in direct-sampling method) is
based on this normally unwanted harmonics/aliases, i.e. the receiver uses
a method that has become "famous" with the ancient "Barlow-Wadley"
all-band receivers. (at least equivalent to). Their
(large-signal-)problems of the past are reborn at the direct-sampling
method of these DVB-T sticks. Without narrow-band selective frontends
this
is just a "proof of concept" and not a usable receiver.

For the use at 136 kHz and 475 kHz a steep lowpass-filter (7 to 9 pole
Tscheby with toroids) at (e.g.) 500kHz would be mandatory. An actual
bandpass may not be necessary. Equipped with such filters the lack of
resolution (8 Bit) will become more acceptable. Using a pre-amplifier
without using filters will do no good.

When home-brewed, such filters will not cost much, but it takes time,
measurement-tools and effort to build and tune them.

73 de dg3lv Tobias

Am 07.08.2014 14:13, schrieb Graham:
Receivers for LF and MF136 KHz@ 477 KHz

A question,

Startingat the£5dongleriggedfordirectsample , as
acheapeffectivestartingpoint

A pre amp and  pre - selector [ band pass filter ] would  help  for
lf/mf

Whatwouldbein a scaleofincreasingperformance[ notcost !]

be seen asreasonable in terms ofconfigurationand hardware ?

Any particular equipments  stand out   as  good cost/performance
choices ?

Tnx

Graham

G0NBD







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