At 04:13 PM 2/16/2005, Tom Rauch wrote:
> > Bringing up a very interesting point... Is it
>theoretically possible (with
> > unlimited processing power and perhaps a lot of receiving
>elements
> > available) to cancel the noise? After all, a gain antenna
>helps a bit
> > (because it "sees" less of the noise), but that's a
>directivity thing, not
> > a "gain" thing.
>
>I started trying this in the 70's Jim. Signal phase and
>level varies rapidly even at distances as close as several
>hundred feet on 160 meters. That means when combining
>elements spaced over a distance of a few wavelengths, the
>combining system would have to recognize and track a desired
>signal. That's a big technical problem for random signals on
>random frequencies.
>
>I can't directly combine arrays spaced more than 1000 feet
>or so on 160 meters with manual or fixed phasing, and
>automatic phasing is not practical with noise floor random
>signals.
I would agree that doing by hand is impossible, since you would need to
update your weights on a millisecond by millisecond basis.
But these days, you CAN do the automatic tracking of random signals (albeit
with a fair amount of real time computation). Algorithms like MUSIC or
ESPRIT do just this, and, if you can tolerate some short delay, can even
use what is coming in "now" to process what came in a short time ago.
Here's one shortK(but kind of math-heavy, unfortunately) summary of this
sort of thing:
http://www.ece.utexas.edu/~bevans/courses/ee381k/lectures/13_Array_Processing/lecture13/lecture13.pdf
This one's a bit better and approaches the problem as a "blind beamforming"
http://cas.et.tudelft.nl/education/et4147/sheets.html
Start with #1, and then look at the ESPRIT one.
here's 50 pages from the IEEE Proceedings
http://wsl.stanford.edu/~ee359/godara2.pdf
(the first part of the article is at
http://wsl.stanford.edu/~ee359/godara1.pdf
)
Essentially, these techniques rely on looking at the data and doing
direction finding on all the signals that are present, then, using that
information to create an optimum filter for each of the desired
signals. Narrow band signals (like CW or PSK31) or signals with a lot of
structure (like vowel sounds in SSB speech) should be almost ideal for
these algorithms.
Obviously, there hasn't been a lot of research in the professional world
into CW or SSB speech.. they're more interested in various and sundry
digital coded signals.
In the acoustic world, there IS a fair amount of research in doing what's
called "speaker localization" where you try to separate multiple people's
voices out of a combination recorded by a set of microphones. (It's also
called the "cocktail party" problem.) This is fairly similar to the ham
radio problem.
Ham radio is somewhat unique in that we use many-to-many links that share a
channel (a "party-line" in analog telephone terms), while most digital
links are one at a time, with sharing done by creating separate channels
(either by time, code, or frequency division, or some combination of
them). There is no such thing as a "pileup" in the digital world.
>What I settled on is using the largest possible size antenna
>array, and then picking wider spaced cells as "pairs" to run
>in stereo on phased locked receivers. The more directivity
>you can get in a limited area, the better it will work.
Wherein you are using a very high quality adaptive speaker localizer (e.g.
the original cocktail party adaptive filter) to do the work. However, your
processing isn't easily usable by another ham (Vulcan mind-melds being only
fictional to date), nor is it necessarily well suited to filtering out a
new and novel form of interference (at least not without a lengthy training
period), such as that from BPL.
For the ham world, the big hangup right now is not the availability of the
processing power (since it exists in cheap desktop computers), it's the
peripherals. You'd need some sort of fairly high dynamic range
multichannel receiver that produces multiple digital audio streams for
processing. I don't know.. maybe something in the music business might
serve as a high dynamic range multichannel A/D, and then, all you'd need is
an array of appropriate RF front ends to downconvert to audio.
Today, it would be expensive (perhaps $1K/channel, by the time you're
done), but clearly, there ARE people who have that kind of cash to
spend. Maybe some Silicon Valley millionaire is looking for a new
challenging hobby, and multichannel HF receivers for busting pileups on the
lowbands is it...
>73 Tom
_______________________________________________
See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather
Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions
and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|