[CQ-Contest] RE: Receiver tests

Eric Scace K3NA eric at K3NA.ORG
Wed Mar 19 12:08:10 EST 2003

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Ussailis [mailto:ussailis at equinox.shaysnet.com]
Sent: 2003 March 19 Wednesday 11:59
To: eric at k3na.org
Subject: Receiver tests

Once upon at time...

I was involved with a large military airframe, where everybody wanted to 
talk. They were adding 14 military UHF band trabsceivers to the beast. 
These units were freq hopping.

An intermod nightmare, to say the least.

At a meeting at the airframe mfg, in Seattle (who shall remain nameless), 
I was told that 3rd order, two-tone IMD was the worst condition. To which 
I replied, "Balderdash!" I had to translate that too.

Then I spent the next month calculating three and four tone IMD. I found 
what you might expect. There is more energy in three and four tone IMD, 
because there are more signals...Duh!

I also found that much of this IMD falls in-band, for second order 
signals. Of course second order IMD is more powerful than thrid order 
because it involves second order harmonics, rather than third 
order harmonics...Again, Duh!

I also predicted a particular fourth order product that would be 6 dB 
more than an adjacent third order two-tone product. I set up an 
experiment, and foumd the predicted product at 5 dB more than the third 
order product. Close enough.

Several papers were accecpted for presentation at Mil-Comm, but I left 
the company I was working for before I could finish them.

So, what do I think of using a noise test? Probably very interesting. If 
enough noise is used it might well simulate contest conditions. And, it 
is certianly a lot easier to instrument than a four-tone test.

I don't know about notching out the channel of interest tho, I think I 
would fill the channel of interest and many adjacent channels with noise, 
then add a signal into the channel. Adjusting the level of noise and 
signal independantly might prove interesting.

Filling adjacent channels would simulate signals getting into the 
receiver front-end, which for many receivers is as broad as a barn door.

You might also consider two signals in the band of interest, in addition 
to the noise. This could simulate the conditions I heard on this past DX 
contest. Noise represents the "mush" of stations calling a rare one, 
while the two signals represents the realitivity strong signals that one 
is trying to listen thru. I had that experience while trying to work a 
multiplier. The rabble wouldn't shut up while I tried to get the guy's 
call correct.

At the time I wondered how much of the "mush" was real, and how much IMD.

It is a measurement that needs to be developed. I would suspect that the 
math behind it would follow something like McKay's two-tone IMD stuff. 
(Electronics, 2 Feb, 1967, I think).


Your email has been forwarded to me by a friend, from some reflector. Would 
you please add this to that reflector. Thanks.

Jim Ussailis, W1EQO

National Wireless, Inc.

jim at nationalwireless.com

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list