![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Aaron Coolidge wrote in message ...
Sydney, have a look at the fcc link I posted a couple messages ago. It lets you look up towers' owners by lat/long. Your tower is owned by KTVI chan 2. Thanks. : Do other aircraft report the same interference? : Not that I've heard, but then, I might not have heard. : Or, like us, they might have assumed it was a problem in : their airplane. Update: I talked to a local DE who is also doing piles of instrument instruction. She says she's flying in beaucoup planes in that area, without the same problem. So it *is* something specific to our plane I guess. Although it's an intermittant problem for us, too. : We didn't have this problem before last spring. Did channel 2 recently add a digital TV transmitter? Like, last spring? I believe so, yes. So here's what I'm thinking. That tower is TV Channel 2 (60-65 MHz I think?) Channel 5 which is nearby would be 79-84 MHz. This makes me think that marker beacons, at 75 MHz, are the logical suspect for causing a problem. But can the marker beacon antenna, by itself, be somehow bringing signals into the plane to be received by the rubber whip antenna of our handheld? If this is a possibility, how do we safely remove the marker beacon antenna for testing purposes? Do we need to put some kind of load on the cable heading for the marker beacon receiver, since we can't turn the MB off while the power in the plane is on? If removing the MB antenna seems to cure the problem, what do we test or do? Is the antenna itself likely to be bad and in need of replacement, or is this likely to be a ground type issue where maybe we should replace the coax, or at least redo the connections? If it seems far-fetched that the MB antenna itself is the culprit, where next do we look? Thanks, Sydney |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
: Sydney, have a look at the fcc link I posted a couple messages ago. It lets
: you look up towers' owners by lat/long. Your tower is owned by KTVI chan 2. : Thanks. Cool, I thought that you might have kill-filtered me for some reason, because no one other than me seemed to be getting my messages! ![]() : So it *is* something specific to our plane I guess. : Although it's an intermittant problem for us, too. Aha, I think we're on to something. : : We didn't have this problem before last spring. : : Did channel 2 recently add a digital TV transmitter? Like, last spring? : I believe so, yes. On further reflection, this may be a red herring. Digital TV is in the 220+ MHz region. : So here's what I'm thinking. : That tower is TV Channel 2 (60-65 MHz I think?) : Channel 5 which is nearby would be 79-84 MHz. : This makes me think that marker beacons, at 75 MHz, : are the logical suspect for causing a problem. Channel 2 is 54 to 60 MHz, the 2nd harmonics of are 108 to 120 MHz. This leads me to suspect one of the *NAV* radios. Can you physically remove them from your plane, one at a time, and leave them in your car? This would take their front end circuitry out of the area. Then try the other one. The COM radios would also be out of the picture. Perhaps you've already done this? The reason that I'm harping on radios is that intermodulation distortion needs a detector or a modulator to occur, such as in the RF front end of a radio. I don't think that an antenna by itself is sufficient to cause it. Also, you might try taking out the nav antenna splitter. I'm not sure that this should make any change, but if we're using buckshot methods... Since I changed jobs I don't have my trusty HP 8591E spectrum analyzer anymore, if I did I'd consider a trip to St Louis! : But can the marker beacon antenna, by itself, be somehow : bringing signals into the plane to be received by the : rubber whip antenna of our handheld? If you disconnect the MB antenna from the MB receiver, it is unlikely that the end of the coax could act as much of a radiating element. I have made a passive radiator before, but that's 2 antennas connected to each other. : If this is a possibility, how do we safely remove the : marker beacon antenna for testing purposes? Do we need If you've got the bent metal rod kind, disconnecting the little floating wire will disconnect the MB antenna from the in-plane electronics, though I'm inclined to dismiss the MB system. If you wish to electrically remove the antenna from the plane while leaving it physically in place, you can get a "terminator" cap from most electronics stores that cater to the ham radio crowd. I'm not sure Radio Shack sells them. You'd want a 50-ohm terminator, and whatever adapters are needed to connect it to the end of the antenna coax. If I were doing this, I'd probably terminate the RF input to the radio, as well. Please keep us (me) informed, we're trying to help the best we can! -- Aaron Coolidge (N9376J) |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Snowbird wrote: Aaron Coolidge wrote in message ... Sydney, have a look at the fcc link I posted a couple messages ago. It lets you look up towers' owners by lat/long. Your tower is owned by KTVI chan 2. Thanks. : Do other aircraft report the same interference? : Not that I've heard, but then, I might not have heard. : Or, like us, they might have assumed it was a problem in : their airplane. Update: I talked to a local DE who is also doing piles of instrument instruction. She says she's flying in beaucoup planes in that area, without the same problem. So it *is* something specific to our plane I guess. "Not necessarily", although it _is_ likely. Different radios _do_ have different degrees of susceptability to intermod interference. It _is_ possible that you have 'unlucky' radios. I repeat: "possible", yes; "probable", no. Although it's an intermittant problem for us, too. The _definitive_ test -- to confirm that it *is* something with your plane -- is to get her, in one of her planes that does *not* exhibit the problem, to fly in the area, *WITH*YOUR*HAND-HELD*, at a time when you _are_ able to reproduce the problem on *your* radios. If the hand-held does _not_ misbehave, then it _is_ confirmed to be something in your plane. There is _also_ a REMOTE possibility that, *because*the*hand-held*is*aboard*, The in-board radios _will_ hear interference. This would be conclusive proof of 'front end overload' in the hand-held, with it _re-radiating_ the spurious signal, which is then being picked up by _their_ recievers. : We didn't have this problem before last spring. Did channel 2 recently add a digital TV transmitter? Like, last spring? I believe so, yes. So here's what I'm thinking. That tower is TV Channel 2 (60-65 MHz I think?) 54-60 mHz carrier at 55.125 Channel 5 which is nearby would be 79-84 MHz. 76-82 mHz carrier at 77.125 This makes me think that marker beacons, at 75 MHz, are the logical suspect for causing a problem. No particular reason to suspect the marker beacons. 'intermodulation interference' occurs when the frequencies of two (or more) transmitters add/subtract to give a result that is the same as the "real signal" you're looking for. Frequently, the 'source' signals are _far_removed_ from the frequency that is getting fouled. e.g. a Tx at 400.0mhz, and a 2nd one at 526.50mhz, combining to give a spurios signal at 126.50 mHz. (note: I'm pulling figures out of thin air here, *no* reason to believe there's anything at 400.0, or 526.5, in your area. But can the marker beacon antenna, by itself, be somehow bringing signals into the plane to be received by the rubber whip antenna of our handheld? yes, and no. grin *Any* place where two _dis-similar_ pieces of metal come into contact is a "low grade" transistor junction, providing a place where 2 or more signals can "mix", generating a 'spurious' hetrodyne, or intermodulation product. This "generated" (low strength) signal can then 'radiate' from _any_ antenna-like piece of metal that is electrically connected to the point where the mixing occured. If this is a possibility, how do we safely remove the marker beacon antenna for testing purposes? Do we need to put some kind of load on the cable heading for the marker beacon receiver, since we can't turn the MB off while the power in the plane is on? If removing the MB antenna seems to cure the problem, what do we test or do? Is the antenna itself likely to be bad and in need of replacement, or is this likely to be a ground type issue where maybe we should replace the coax, or at least redo the connections? If it seems far-fetched that the MB antenna itself is the culprit, where next do we look? There are _still_ two possibilities to deal with -- 1) it _is_ something inside the plane, 2) it is *not* something inside the plane. The fact that you've got a hand-held that will 'hear' the problem is a good start at a 'signal sniffer'. A "sniffer" needs two capabilities that aren't 'standard' on the hand-held. One, a way to reduce the incoming signal strength to a point where you can 'hear' or 'see' (on an s-meter, if present), comparatively small changes in signal strength. And, two, a 'directional' antenna. Assuming the hand-held has a -removable- antenna (probably the so-called "rubber duckie" type), this is all relatively _easy_ to do. Step 1 is to build a 'variable attenuator'. The ideal enclosure to build this in is a small "U-box" (available from radio shack, among other places -- all metal, 2 pieces, each shaped sort-of like the letter "U"). several minature DPDT switches, each of which switches an attenuator stage (of varying degree). the attenuator stages consist of a series resistor, and a resistor to ground, so as to provide a constant impedence. Eached switched stage is wired in series to the next switch, so you can "add" attenuation, just by switching in additional stages. Without having _any_ idea of signal levels, I'd suggest 5 stages -- one at 3db, one at 6db, one at 10db, and 2 at 20db ea. This lets you cut signal strength in 3db increments (cutting the signal seen by the reciever in half) all the way to nearly 70db of attenuation (enough to drop out a fairly high-powered source at close range. Step 2, a 'directional antenna' is required. It doesn't have to be an 'efficient' antenna, just 'directional'. In fact, 'efficieny' in _this_ application is *not* a good thing. A simple one can be manufactured with nothing more than: (a) a piece of co-ax, (b) a short board to serve as a 'handle' (something like a 12" piece of 1x2 is near-ideal), and a 'medium' (circa 6" across the top) _metallic_ funnel. Drill a hole through the board, a couple of inches down from one end. big enough that the spout of the funnel just fits in it. Take the piece of coax, and strip back the outer cover, and shielding, about 2/3 of the distance from the top of the funnel to the tip. strip off the inner dielectric as well, but _leaving_ a section that is roughly the length of the spout. "Apply" the coax to the funnel, from the spout end, so that you have the bare center wire sticking up in the middle of the funnel. Solder the shield to the tip of the spout. Lastly, fit this 'monstrosity' back into the hole in the wooden 'handle'. Now, by simply 'waving the stick around', you can point the funnel in any direction you choose. ![]() Run this 'antenna cable' to the attenuator box, and cable from the box to the antenna connection on the radio. Ok, you're equipped for 'transmitter hunting'. *grin* A little experimenting with a "known" station -- say a 'weather' announce loop, will show how the beastie works. Starting with all the attenuation 'switched out', hold the stick upright, and rotate it 360 deg. If you hear the station at all angles, start switching in some attenuation. You'll get to a point where you only hear the station when the funnel is pointed "more or less" in it's direction. The station is located roughly in the middle of that arc where you can hear it. *NOW* you're ready to see what's to be seen about the source of your interference. Fly into the problem area, and tune to the interference. and locate what direction it's coming from. Now, make another pass through the area, on a course 90 degree removed from the first attempt. When you localize the direction _this_ time, one of two things will occur. either the _absolute_ direction will be the same (e.g "due East"), or it will be the same _relative_bearing_ (e.g. 45 degrees left of 'straight ahead'). If it's the first, the problem is *outside* the plane. If the second, it _is_ in the plane. If the source is outside the plane, you're conclusively dealing with front end overload intermodulation interference. There are two possible solutions: 1) high-Q bandpass filtering, to eliminate the out-of-band interference sources. 2) replace the radios, with ones that aren't as suceptable to interference. If the source is in the plane, you keep hunting. Do the direction check from different places in the plane. Remember to check on all axis (roll,pitch, yaw) too. (maximize on one axis, then hunt 90 degree _relative_ to that one, and confirm by using 3rd 90) By kicking in additional attenuation, you should be able to get fairly narrow arcs where you can hear the interference, and tell "something" about where problem is located. if it shows 'straight ahead' when checked near the left window, but 45 deg. left of straight ahead when checked from the right window, this tells you a _lot_ about where to look. Admittedly, if the problem is 'way back in the tail', you're not going to get a very precise indication. Unless you get "Mini-Me" to go back there with the antenna stick, that is. guffaw |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Aaron Coolidge wrote: : Sydney, have a look at the fcc link I posted a couple messages ago. It lets : you look up towers' owners by lat/long. Your tower is owned by KTVI chan 2. : Thanks. Cool, I thought that you might have kill-filtered me for some reason, because no one other than me seemed to be getting my messages! ![]() : So it *is* something specific to our plane I guess. : Although it's an intermittant problem for us, too. Aha, I think we're on to something. : : We didn't have this problem before last spring. : : Did channel 2 recently add a digital TV transmitter? Like, last spring? : I believe so, yes. On further reflection, this may be a red herring. Digital TV is in the 220+ MHz region. : So here's what I'm thinking. : That tower is TV Channel 2 (60-65 MHz I think?) : Channel 5 which is nearby would be 79-84 MHz. : This makes me think that marker beacons, at 75 MHz, : are the logical suspect for causing a problem. Channel 2 is 54 to 60 MHz, the 2nd harmonics of are 108 to 120 MHz. This leads me to suspect one of the *NAV* radios. Can you physically remove them from your plane, one at a time, and leave them in your car? This would take their front end circuitry out of the area. Then try the other one. The COM radios would also be out of the picture. Perhaps you've already done this? The reason that I'm harping on radios is that intermodulation distortion needs a detector or a modulator to occur, such as in the RF front end of a radio. I don't think that an antenna by itself is sufficient to cause it. Also, you might try taking out the nav antenna splitter. I'm not sure that this should make any change, but if we're using buckshot methods... Since I changed jobs I don't have my trusty HP 8591E spectrum analyzer anymore, if I did I'd consider a trip to St Louis! : But can the marker beacon antenna, by itself, be somehow : bringing signals into the plane to be received by the : rubber whip antenna of our handheld? If you disconnect the MB antenna from the MB receiver, it is unlikely that the end of the coax could act as much of a radiating element. I have made a passive radiator before, but that's 2 antennas connected to each other. Doesn't have to be -- _strong_ out-of-band signals can be picked up, albeit inefficiently, 'mix' at any dissimilar metals contact, genrating a signal to which the antenna is tuned, and which _will_ then re-radiate. All in a single-antenna system. : If this is a possibility, how do we safely remove the : marker beacon antenna for testing purposes? Do we need If you've got the bent metal rod kind, disconnecting the little floating wire will disconnect the MB antenna from the in-plane electronics, though I'm inclined to dismiss the MB system. If you wish to electrically remove the antenna from the plane while leaving it physically in place, you can get a "terminator" cap from most electronics stores that cater to the ham radio crowd. I'm not sure Radio Shack sells them. You'd want a 50-ohm terminator, and whatever adapters are needed to connect it to the end of the antenna coax. If I were doing this, I'd probably terminate the RF input to the radio, as well. Recommendation is to put a terminator on the receiver input, but simply *short* the antenna cable center-lead to the shield. Putting a terminator on the antenna cable encourages re-radiation, *if* the problem is coming from a 'diode-ing' spot somewhere closer to the antenna. Shorting tends to suppress any passive re-radiation. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Mark Hickey" wrote in message
... (Jay) wrote: In very high fields with amplitude modulation you can get what's often called "detection by overload". Some people have reported picking up radio on their fillings in their teeth. I used to be able to turn OFF my car radio and STILL get a loud "bbBBBRRRRrrrrzzzz" every time the long range radar swept past my car You can get that sitting in the car on top of one of the car parks in Heathrow. Paul |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
We've got one here but it may be a bit far to come.
Paul Guildford, UK. "Aaron Coolidge" wrote in message ... Since I changed jobs I don't have my trusty HP 8591E spectrum analyzer anymore, if I did I'd consider a trip to St Louis! |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bear in mind that the radios involved may have different front
ends. It might just be a coincidence that your handheld and panel radios are affected and nothing to do with the airframe. How about 127.00-10.7 (IF mixer) = 116.30 116.30/2 = 58.15? (i.e. mixing of the second harmonic of 58.15MHz) Ok, unlikely, just playing with numbers! Paul G1YJY "Snowbird" wrote in message om... Update: I talked to a local DE who is also doing piles of instrument instruction. She says she's flying in beaucoup planes in that area, without the same problem. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
September issue of Airman available | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | September 2nd 04 04:39 AM |
Bogus Issue | jls | Home Built | 2 | August 15th 04 04:47 AM |
RF interference issue again (esp. for E Drucker and Jim Weir and other RF wizards) | Snowbird | Home Built | 78 | December 3rd 03 09:10 PM |
Aviation Conspiracy: Bush Backs Down On Tower Privatization Issue!!! | Bill Mulcahy | General Aviation | 3 | October 1st 03 05:39 AM |
September issue of Afterburner now on line | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | September 9th 03 09:13 PM |