Antenna Design Basics + Amplification
Posted 12 May 2006 - 12:21 AM
Unfortunately you have to read the crap that James is writing which has thrown everyone off the beaten track!
Now I will try to explain in another way what the problem is with what James is saying.
Basically what James is trying to say is that he can filter out interference, even after an amplifier.
THIS IS WRONG. Please look back to my previous post where I gave the example of 2 modulators connected together Via a 2 way splitter in reverse and both modulators Output on the same frequency/channel.
This was an example (AND ONLY AN EXAMPLE FOR UNDERSTANDING PURPOSES) so that people can understand that if you do not attack the interference problem before the actual amplifier (in the example case it was a Splitter but the same analogy) you will NOT be able to remove the interference.
If anyone did not believe me, then by using the example given, anyone who is half a technician could have set it up and tested it for themselves for peace of mind. Ie: FACTUAL EVIDENCE!
If you have a real life scenario where there is an interference carrier very close to the original carrier that you wish to distribute, it will be more difficult to do this AFTER an amplifier than before because:
A) The amplifier will clip if the Interference carrier is amplified and is greater than the maximum output of the amplifier spec (could be around 115 - 125 dBuV)
Then because filters can effectively attenuate the particular frequency by around 40dB (Yes sure there are better filters but I have used this number for example purposes) you will not be filtering enough of the interference carrier so that it does not impact on the adjacent carrier (in this particular example).
However if you filter this interference BEFORE the amplifier, you are dealing with a carrier (interference) much lower in power and hence able to nearly, if not completely, eliminate the offending carrier.
Just think, it is easier to filter a 50dB carrier with a 40dB filter than it is to filter an 80dB carrier !
I hope you can understand what I am saying now.
With regards to overdriving the amplifier...remember that to find the maximum input of an amplifier you must use the following formula: Maximum Output - (minus) Gain = Maximum Input
The Output and Gain figures of the amplifier are from the SPECIFICATION of the particular amplifier that you are using. So if the amplifier you will use on this particular example might be Max Out = 120dBuV and Gain = 30dB, then your Maximum Input would equate to 120 - 44 = 76dBuV
This means if you input more than 76dBuV into the INPUT of the amplifier you will overdrive it and it will start to clip/distort etc... the signals. I hope you can see the relevance of the max input when you combine it with the high level interference carrier...
Finally, CNR and MER are sort of the same thing.
If possible, please imagine, CNR = Carrier To Noise Ratio and MER = Modulation Error Ratio
Now think of CNR, MER and BER all Mathematically linked together. If you want the Mathematical formulas to prove this statement I can provide them but I can tell you now it will be a few pages of calculations and will bore the crap out of everyone including myself.
However, where CNR fails in a Digital measurement is when a carrier or interference is present UNDERNEATH or BEHIND the actual carrier that you are wishing to distribute.
If there is an interference, but you can't see it because it is on the same centre frequency of the TV carrier you wish to distribute, you will not be able to get an accurate measurement of the actual carrier to noise.
Whereas with MER, it will measure the carrier, digitally so to speak, and therefore advise of the real scenario. I could go into much more detail here if you like. Just let me know.
In any case, MER is not the most important measurement, it really is BER. BER IS KING and will tell you straight away what sort of signal you are working with, and by the way is an excellent anti-hair-loss product :-)
I hope that this has helped you understand more.
And no, I do NOT know everything, but the little I know I now wish to share with everyone with the hope it can make everyone's life more easyer when installing and without a baffling with bulldust explanation.
Posted 12 May 2006 - 02:23 PM
The statement I made was very simple but I'll try to make it even simpler, just for you, but I'll type slower this time.
It is incorrect to state that the filter must always be placed before the amplifier.
Posted 12 May 2006 - 09:29 PM
I think you will have to give me your postal address so that I can send to you a complimentary truck load of sorbent toilet paper (no not paper napkin) because you abviously need it to wipe your mouth quite often with all the crap that is coming out of it
Your debating skills remind me of some Kindergarten children that I know...
And now I will type slower for you to understand...
IF YOU THINK THAT I AM INCORRECT, PLEASE SHOW ME WHY WITH A LOGICAL EXAMPLE!
If you can't show me with an example, you are just confirming to me and everyone that is reading this now very silly thread, just how ignorant you are of RF.
All you know how to do is say that I am wrong but you don't give any realistic proof to back up your claims.
The least we could do is debate it like civilized humans with realistic & logical examples and maybe we can all learn something out of it, however sadly this is not the case.
All you are telling me and everyone is that you just don't know and you are shooting your mouth off in a last bid of desperation because you have realised that you are not as intelligent as you think you are and now everybody knows it!
You keep saying that I am wrong so...SHOW ME WHY !!! PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS, OTHERWISE STOP POSTING TO THIS THREAD!
Give it a rest quite while you are ahead so that you don't damage your reputation more than it is now literally hanging from a thin thread...
Posted 12 May 2006 - 09:57 PM
You have some good ideas. Some bad one's too! Seeing your new here it would be good to have some background to how you know all this stuff. By the way I'm a broadcast tech andfind all the info on here very valuable. The on the job experience and efforts of all the other members and administrators is very credible.
Anyway Welcome. )I think!)
Posted 12 May 2006 - 10:05 PM
Thanks for your nice comments and warm welcome. It is a pleasure if I can be of some assistance...even though I can get a bit silly sometimes...
But I am very curious to know what the bad Ideas I have given...Could you please let me know what they are possibly???
It's all in good fun anyway...thanks
Posted 12 May 2006 - 10:29 PM
At May 10 2006, 09:38 PM my reply explained the application of an amplifier before a filter. I assumed you could read!
Posted 12 May 2006 - 10:55 PM
IT'S VERY CONVENIENT TO BE ABLE TO EDIT A POST LONG AFTER YOU HAVE WRITTEN IT!
It's a shame this forum doesn't display when, if and how many times the post has been edited...
Unfortunately for you I have a good memory and I can remember what you wrote at the start.
YOU HAVE CHANGED WHAT YOU ORIGINALLY WROTE QUITE EXTENSIVELY And that shows just how shifty you really are!
But, never the less, your explanation is still incorrect! and you are grappling at straws to save your reputation!
Why? Because you said...
then you said
But if you knew anything about RF you would know that
A) Good quality filters can have a loss factor of less than 1dB (Sometimes .5dB) so by eliminating the interference BEFORE you amplify it, the amplifier will amplify ONLY the carriers that you wish it to amplify, not the interference.
B ) Each time you add an amplifier into the system you Add Noise. This is FACT AND A LAW OF PHYSICS Doesn't matter what type of transistors or technology you use, Hence your Carrier To Noise will be reduced because you are raising the noise floor by the amount of noise that the amplifier generates.
C) If you have an interference carrier that is high enough to overdrive the amplifier, doesn't matter what filtering you insert, the amplifier will be clipping/distorting because you have inserted the filter AFTER the amplifier AMPLIFIES the signal.
So in a nutshell, putting the filter AFTER the amplifier in YOUR example will achieve absolutely NOTHING!
Just think about points A, B & C very carefully tonight and tomorrow morning you should realise that you are wasting your time and better go back to school and learn more about RF before posting such rediculous and misleading information, which includes CHANGING what you had written initially...VERY SHIFTY !
(I JUST ADDED THIS LITTLE LINE - TODAY THE 13th MAY 2006)
Posted 12 May 2006 - 11:25 PM
Posted 13 May 2006 - 12:27 AM
The next post after the one I quote occurs 8 minutes later, is it possible to edit a post after the next post is placed? I don't think so and I didn't. Your comprehension and understanding may be the issue here.
OK lets do it your way and have a play with your Questions A, B & C now because I'm beginning to think you don't believe what I write.
A. Firstly, yes filters can present an insertion loss below 1dB. So let me set the scene in the same way I have all along. You are operating in an area with very low receive levels and there is reasonable C/N ratio and there are some local significant signals, what can be done?
(1dB insertion loss filter before the amp) If we try this way the C/N ratio that is presented to the amplifier will be reduced by 1dB through the loss in the filter. If this amplifier has low gain and therefore it should be understood that this amp inherently would be low noise, at best the result would be the original C/N ratio minus 1dB, an admirable result.
(1dB insertion loss filter after the amp) This way the C/N ratio that is presented to the amplifier is maintained. Again by the use of a low gain inherently low noise amp two things become possible. Firstly the best C/N ratio possible would be close to the input C/N and secondly the low stage gain enables the other significant signals to be amplified but because of the low gain, there's no saturation (no clipping).
I am not the first to use this method effectively for television, I don't feel any concern over you not being aware of it. Not to mention the disastrous effect your theories would have on LNA's for satellites, GPS receivers and mobile phones. This application of filtering after amplification is everywhere and is heavily reliant on the characteristics of the receive antenna.
B. Can't argue with amplifiers introducing noise. However you are missing the point again, the level of noise introduced by an amplifier increases with gain. With low gain devices the opportunity presents itself to amplify signals with very little introduced noise.
C. The amplification of high level signals will not necessarily result in overdriving the amplifier if it is low gain. You must know what you are doing though to make this work.
Don't you know its wrong to cast nastertiums?
Posted 13 May 2006 - 12:01 PM
This is all a huge windup
The ACMA plans that the transmitters are separated physically to not give co-channel interference except in rare circumstances. The exception to this is Single Frequency Networks. These networks have identical frequencies and signal delays so that the signals match as much as possible. Where this is not achieved filtering will have no effect. The only alleviators are highly directional antennas of the correct polarisation.
As far as adjacent channel interference goes, the ACMA tested this problem prior to digital commencing. This is why the power of a digital transmitter is 1/4 of its adjacent analog PAL transmitter. If there is adjacent channel digital transmitters, the powers are identical within that band. Very high Q filters will work prior to any amplification but not afterwards where you have another signal "under" the other one.
Let us consider this matter closed.
Posted 13 May 2006 - 05:08 PM
Actually the problem is that in James' example, there is no basis and no real example to prove that inserting a filter AFTER the amplifier is better. Just saying "It is better and has been in use for quite some time bla bla bla"... That just isn't good enough. There is no real factual evidence that was brought forward and no actual examples to prove his theory so until as such time as James properly explains this, I will always promote filters MUST be installed before amplifiers, In this particular example.
Sure there are other examples of filters being inserted after amplifiers but that is usually to remove channels in a particular section of a network, or something like that anyway.
But as far as interference is concerned...Why do we have single channel amplfiers/filters or channel processors? Because they only amplify the selected carrier and then distribute only that particular carrier throughout the network. And there is nothing anyone can say that will change this. The Single channel amplfiers are infact filters and they only pass the selected carrier or bandwidth. Hence, your final output will be nice and clean free from unwanted stuff. If you have ever connected a single channel amplifier headend together, you will understand that the incoming signal will arrive straight from your antenna. (And sure it might be from a mast head amplifier but even then you can have filtering). We can go deeply into this too.
Then the comment about LNAs (LNBs) is another classic example of filtering and when it was mentioned by james that my theory would have a disasterous effect on LNBs is another display of the lack of understanding about filtering.
Persons that read this forum that play with C-BAND satellite TV that live in Sydney area would know about filtering, especially when the word UN-WIRED is mentioned! Right? And that the problem with UN-WIRED is that they have a carrier, I think around the 3.4GHz Region, which is so high in power relative to the C-BAND LNBs (C-BAND, including Extended C-BAND is from 3.4GHz to 4.2GHz) that the LNB goes into overload and will either shut down or not work properly. You can solve this in two ways. Either purchase a filter, which connects between the flange of the LNB and the FEED (If you have the ADL type feedhorns with separate LNB) Therefore, remember that the satellite signal departs from the satellite, arrives at your dish, bounces off the dish into the focal point, through the feed horn and Into the LNB. The filtering here is done INBETWEEN the Feed and LNB.
Another solution can now be purchased from Gary Cratt which is a modified LNB that will FILTER out this UN-WIRED interference, BEFORE the amplfier kicks in... So all in all, another silly theory from james bites the dust yet again!
Then the last point C, where James says that "The amplification of high level signals will not necessarily result in overdriving the amplifier if it is low gain"...ABSOLUTELY REDICULOUS!
Well just remember the mathematical example given previously. Max Input = Max Output - Gain.
If an amplifier has output spec at 120dBuV and a Gain of 44dB and the calc = 120 - 44 = 76, then if you input more than 76dBuV (IN THIS PARTICULAR EXAMPLE) then you will ALWAYS overdrive the amplifier.
Sure if you have a 20dB Input attenuator you can use the input attenuator to reduce the input signal but then you will not have anymore a 20dB Attenuation (can also be referred to as Gain control).
But in the scheme of things, if the 20dB Attenuation is not used, you WILL ALWAYS overdrive the amplifierand that is for Input stage amplifiers. With Mid stage amplfiers the problem is even worse.
Even if the amplifier is Low gain, the same rule applies. If you have a Low gain amplfier with max output of 100dBuV and 20dB Gain then Max Input = 100 - 20 (80) so therefore if you input more than 80dBuV, you WILL ALWAYS OVERDRIVE THE AMPLFIER ! Simple like that! (Of course not taking into account the input attenuation control but I am sure you know what I mean).
To Finish off, the reason for the lower transmission power of the Digital Transmitions is because the Digital carrier actually occupies more surface area than an Analogue channel in a particular given bandwidth.
And before anyone corrects this, and YES there are many other factors here...You want me to go into them? Just let me know...But I am trying to keep it simple seeing this thread is getting a quite boring and past it's expiry date. A little like me I suppose
So if the Digital ADJACENT channel is at the same power as the ADJACENT Analogue carrier, it will cause digital interference with the analogue picture (ie. Very defined white dots etc...). The Digital Carrier must be around 10dB lower than the Analogue carrier. I can go into this in more detail if you like but I am sure you know already.
The SFN scenario is another issue altogether and not the correct place to debate this unless you wish to.
Look, I know I might seem nasty or very harsh, but I am really tired of reading alot of the crap that some so called experts, or really ignorant people, that profess to know the answer.
It's not fair to the guys who are just trying to learn and end up wasting precious time chasing dreams when they could have money in pocket and sitting back with beer in hand relaxing after a hard days work.
It seems to me that anyone that debates with factual evidence is not liked on this forum and it also seems that most people prefer to stick thier heads in the sand and talk BS because it sounds like a better solution instead of working through the problems rationally and logically. Therefore I will cease to post on this forum because what I have to say is not appreciated. Thanks for reading anyway...
P.S. AND YES YOU CAN MODIFY A POST EVEN A FEW DAYS AFTER POSTED. LOOK AT POST #57
JAMES YOU ARE FULL OF BS INCLUDING EVERYTHING YOU WRITE. PERIOD.
Posted 13 May 2006 - 07:37 PM
Posted 13 May 2006 - 07:44 PM
Posted 13 May 2006 - 08:56 PM
You wouldn't know me from a bar of soap and yet you say that I would be someone who kicks sand in the little persons face because I can...hmmm well ACTUALLY it is NOT like that at all. If you knew me you wouldn't say that. I would never do anything like that. Guys like you just can't handle the truth thats all.
You would rather stick your head in the sand and listen to BS cos it sounds good and what you want to hear.
I know I can be a little on the RAW side but that is because I tell it how it is straight up with no nonsense and backed with factual evidence.
I am not going to whinge about it anymore. I just won't post anymore so you can be spared from your boredom...Sorry to bother you.
But remember, when you need REAL information backed up with factual evidence...don't wait for me to post because I will not anylonger.
Yeah, and have a nice day!
P.S. Dig2all, Thanks for your nice down to earth comment. It is a good idea and I appreciate it. Thanks.
Posted 27 May 2006 - 07:32 AM
Suffice to say, if you find yourself in the situation described, give it a try, you may be pleasantly surprised.
Posted 27 May 2006 - 01:28 PM
We receive our digital and UHF signal off Como due to ghosting issues off Mt Dandenong.
In this GROWING city our neighbors are building a 3 story monstrosity over the fence.
While the analogue signal remains adequate we are having clasic weak signal problems on digital now. (ABC were ALWAYS a bit weak.
We have a vertical antenna for Como.
Can I add a digital antenna facing the Dandenongs (OK line of sight) and not get the ghosting problems of analogue? (I need to keep the Como reception for non digital VCR and for Ch31 viewing)
Do a need a 'joiner' for a single coax?
What antennas are recommended and WHERE CAN I BUY ONE? (self installation)
AlanH has given great advice to us when setting up for digital last year. Much Thanks to him.
Posted 21 July 2006 - 09:53 PM
Posted 25 July 2006 - 08:33 AM
As my digital signal is as marginal as my analogue signal, a 4 times boost in power would indeed be heaven sent. Is this a possiblity when analogue is finally switched off?
Posted 26 July 2006 - 01:37 AM
There may be selected cases of an increase in power in 2012, but I doubt it as a general rule.
To those who are commenting on high gain amplifiers. I think it is absolutely essential to have a band pass filter within the amplifer or just prior to it. This band pass must only have the bandwidth of the channel range to be used. I not only include the rejection of power mains related harmonics, FM transmissions and any analog TV transmissions outside the targetted channels. I also reject the 230-576 MHz band for mobile and UHF CB radios. At the other end of the spectrum is mobile phone repeaters which may also cause overload effects.
Posted 25 October 2006 - 08:46 AM
I do not live anywhere near you. However, if you give me the name of the suburb in which you live I will give you the direction to point your antenna.
I think Alan lives in the UK ( going by what I read earlier in his original post).
Posted 10 November 2006 - 04:43 PM
I've been reading through all of the information on this site, trying to get an understanding of the digital service. We've recently installed a digital box, but the only channels we're receiving are Seven, SBS, and Ten. ABC and WinTV (9) are also broadcasting from the exact same location as the other stations, but we don't pick them up at all, whereas the others come through very clear with no interference. The transmitter we are tuned to is Rockhampton (Mt Hopeful).
I noticed this bit of info:
I think Rockhampton uses 12 for ABC and 11 for WinTV, and I'm pretty sure our antenna is a Log Periodic. We recently had an antenna man out to our house, and all he said was that the signal wasn't strong enough, he didn't offer any suggestions for what to do about it. Would purchasing an antenna other than a Log Periodic, like a Yagi, potentially solve the problem? We live in a rural area, about 50km from the transmission tower, but the coverage map on the ABC website shows we are in the Adequate Coverage area.
Any help or enlightenment would be much appreciated!
Edited by Sarah Ellerton, 10 November 2006 - 04:49 PM.
Posted 02 December 2006 - 05:18 PM
QUOTE(alanh @ Dec 15 2004, 11:34 PM) *
Log periodics drop rapidly in sensitivity outside their design range which is why the older style combined antenna will not receive channels 11 & 12.
this is abit like saying 2+2=5! the subjects are not related.
fracarro logs in the 15 years they have been available in australia have always worked very well on all of channels 11 and 12, whilst australian made antennas did not need channel 12 until digital started (say 5 years ago) so few older antennas work properly on ch12.
alanh's observation may relate to the terrible performance of all logs on ch2, but as the capital cities need ch12 now for abc digital, it only matters to those chasing abc analogue - which continues on ch2.
now its clear as mud!
Posted 03 December 2006 - 12:32 AM
Log Periodics were invented in the early 1950s. Hills were making the EFC series in the 1970s and they had log periodic sections.
The characteristics of any log periodic antenna is that they have a flat frequency response in their design range and fall off rapidly outside that range.
I am yet to see a Fracarro antenna designed for 47-230 MHz. Their current range only contains
band 1 antennas which are all Yagis mainly designed for the Italian market.
band 3 new range is Yagis This is what I have been recommending.
I wonder why Fracarro do not make log periodics for band 3 only?
When SBS first started in Sydney & Melbourne they were using channel 0 which is 45-52 MHz.
For the amount of metal used the narrower the frequency range the more the gain, so we were wise to make antennas which are insensitive to channels which are not used. If these the original antennas from Fracarro were used near airports they would have also picked up direction finding for aircraft as well as interference. This is not now the case as these devices now use UHF.
I would also like to point out that the ABRQ (ABC) in Rockhampton is and has always been on channel 9. RTQ now WIN) has always been on channel 7. SBS, 7 Qld and Southern Cross are on band 4. For digital band 3 & 5 are being used.
So Rockhampton has never needed or used band 1-3 antennas like capital city people.
I give out information relevant to their site, not capital city-centric advice.
Sarah as you can see this is a site specific application of the theory.
At 50 km and during those tropical downpours I would suggest a band 3 and a band 5 antenna, connected together via a V/U diplexer.
Read Get the Best Reception, Regional Queensland and read the links. Please post further posts in the Regional Qld Viewers' forum which is at the bottom of the main forum home page.
Posted 02 January 2007 - 12:07 PM
They are the same price at the shop, I am getting DTV from Mt Canobolas in Orange (my old 34G died in a storm), so which should I get, the f-type and get some f-connectors to screw on the antenna cable, or just the saddle clamp one?
I'm out in the sticks on a property, so no interference problems.
What is the benefit on the F over the FG? (or vice versa)