tech stuff – Page 30 – Engineering Radio

Brazil: The place where they test tech before it is implemented

After extensive testing of Both HD Radio and DRM, the Secretary of the Ministry of Communications Electronic Communications, Genildo Lins, said the tests of the two technologies have had poor results, especially high-power FM . The testing demonstrated the digital signal coverage is approximately 70% of the current analog signal. “The future of radio is digital, but that future is not yet. We are unable to make a decision on these results.” A polite way of saying “This is not the digital radio we were hoping for.”

These are just a few brief excerpts of the FM HD Radio test reports from Sao Paulo. The method of testing:

The transmission system was located in the center of the city of São Paulo. The signal HD Radio digital broadcast was extended hybrid mode combined with the analog signal in the air, with separation of 163.8 kHz from the carrier’s analog FM signal and the carriers of HD Radio digital signal in sub-upper and lower sidebands. The power used in transmitter for the analog signal was 27 kW, and for the digital signal of 1 kW. Attaching the FM and HD Radio systems in their respective transmission antennas, the power Isotropic Effectively Irradiated (EIRP) of the analog signal was 112.3 kW and the digital signal of 1.12 kW. Thus, the protection ratio (EIRP power ratio between the analog and digital signals) was 20 dB (sic). During the measurement campaign, two commercial FM receivers were used analysis of analog reception, both to verify their potential impacts on receiving due the introduction of the digital signal, as to assist in verifying the coverage area of the signal analog.

The results of this testing:

Checking the results on each route, the route R1 radial (southeast direction), the stretch P1 to P2, that extends to 10.88 km (7.3 miles) of distance from the transmitter, the audio decoding was 71.6% of the digital audio frames received, and in the remaining sections of the route were little digital coverage.

In radial route R2 (southwest direction) was decoding of digital audio throughout the stretch to P1 P2, which extends up to 10.7 km (6.6 miles) of distance from the transmitter. In the following passage (P2 P3), the first blend was 17 km (10.5 miles) from the station. Following the passage P3 to P4, 26.4 to 44.9 km (27.9 miles), there was only 21.8% decoding of digital audio frames received within that stretch. In the last section (P4 to P5), from 44.9 km, there was almost no coverage digital.

In R4 route (northwest), there was decoding of digital audio throughout the stretch P1 to P2, extending up to 11.8 km (7.3 miles) of distance from the transmitter. In the following passage (P2 P3), from 11.8 to 24.9 km, was 62.5% of decoding digital audio frames received within that stretch. Following the stretch from 24.9 to 47.5 km (29.5 miles), (P3 to P4) the percentage was 24.3%. In the last stretch, from 47.5 to 61.7 km (P4 to P5), no digital coverage.

In route R6 (northeast direction), the stretch up to 9.8 km (6 miles), (P1 to P2) was 74.7% decoding of audio frames. In the passage P2 to P3 from 9.8 km to 29.8 km (18 miles) of the station, there was audio decoding 100% of the received frames. Following the stretch from 29.8 to 45.3 km (28.1 miles) (P3 to P4), the percentage was 87.2%, and in the last stretch, from 45.3 to 60.9 km (P4 to P5), the percentage was 47.9%.

Routes are shown on a map:

Using unbiased real-world testing, HD Radio does not look so hot. One caveat; the digital carrier level is -20dBc. That being duly noted, results show a 112 KW EIRP analog station with a 1.12 KW digital carrier that is unusable 6 miles from the transmitter site in some areas. It is almost hard to believe. Original documents can be found on the Government of Brazil Ministry of Communications website (in Portuguese). They are interesting reading, although you may need to parse them through Google translator.

AM HD Radio (no surprise) and DRM have similar or worse results.

Thus the myth “Digital is better,” is called to question. I am not opposed to new technology, provided it works better than the technology it is replacing.

The neighborhood Mesh Network

Wireless IP Ethernet (802.11) technology has been around for a while. Many know it as “WIFI” but you could also call it “WLAN” or something similar. Like many other Ethernet technologies, WLAN relies on a spoke and hub connection system. The hub is the wireless access point or router and the individual hosts (PCs, tablets, phones, etc) are the end point for each connection. In a wired network, it is usually some type of switch that forms the center of the network data distribution system.

With a wireless mesh network or ad hoc network (802.11s), each wireless device can connect to any other wireless device within range. In this type of peer-to-peer network, there is no central access point, although something can act as an internet gateway or there can be several gateways. This type of topology functions much like the public network (AKA the internet), where there are many different paths to anyone (major) destination. If any one of those paths goes down, another route is quickly found.

This technology was developed by several vendors for military communications systems and for OLPC (One Laptop Per Child) programs in Africa and other places. Each link acts to extend the boundaries of the network, thus the more users there are, the more useful the network becomes.

Advantages of mesh networking:

Networks are self-forming; once the nodes are configured and can see other network nodes, the network automatically forms
Networks are self-healing; if one node drops offline, traffic is automatically routed to other nodes. If the node comes back up, it is included back into the network
High fault tolerance; in areas where many nodes exist and can see each other, the failure of any single node does not affect the rest of the network
Low cost to deploy; mesh networks use standard off-the-shelf WLAN (802.11) devices. The choice of software will dictate which hardware will work the best
Crowd-sourced infrastructure; as each network node is owned by an individual, the cost and responsibility is shared among the community

Several specific routing protocols have been developed for the network side of the system. Hazy Sighted Link State Routing Protocol (HSLS), BATMAN, OLSR HWMP and others. These work well with the existing 802.11 a/b/g wireless network hardware currently available.

On the host side, a good IBSS-capable wireless network adapter is needed, which many of the newer ones are. Several of the software programs have lists of WLAN adapters that work with their software. Open Garden is a free App for Windows, Mac OSX, and Android, and they are working on an iOS version. This leaves out certain devices like tablets and iPhones for now.

Since existing wireless adapter drivers do not yet support mesh networking, usually an additional piece of software is needed. There are several interesting ones, including HSMM-MESH, which was developed by Amateur Radio operators. Open-source programs for Linux, Free BSD and other are available as well as commercial versions for Windows.

I was thinking that this might be useful for broadcast applications. For obvious reasons, this type of system would work best in densely populated urban and suburban areas, which is exactly the type of area in which LPFM licenses might be hard to come by. For those who do not have the time or wherewithal to apply for an LPFM license, or for those that simply don’t get a license due to scarcity of available channels, this could be a great way to cover a neighborhood or section of a city. The more people participate in the mesh network, the stronger the network becomes. Additionally, by using FCC type accepted part 15 FM and AM transmitters as broadcast nodes, carrier current transmitters, and leaky coax systems, the presence of the mesh network can be advertized to potential listeners, including directions on how to take part.

Wireless mesh network example, courtesy of Meraka Institute

Wireless LAN bridges or broadband internet connections can act as a backbone between distant nodes.

For bandwidth efficiency sake, AOIP services should be limited to multicast addresses.

A good site with more wireless mesh network information is http://wirelessafrica.meraka.org.za/

Two subreddits on the subject: /r/meshnet and /r/darknetplan

Then there is project meshnet and the project meshnet wiki

Oh, by the way, go ahead and ask me what I have been learning about in school these days…

Oh, damn: Una Parte

Guess what caught fire this time? It’s this thing, which has become the newest piece in my burned-up shit collection:

If you give up and are totally flummoxed, this is the IPA power supply regulator for a BE FM35A transmitter. Here it is in better days when it was actually working. The IPAs are in pull-out drawers on the right side of the transmitter cabinet, below the FX-30 exciter.

Said transmitter is aging not so gracefully, as it turns 26 this year. There does seem to be a finite life to transmitting equipment, something that should be kept in mind when planning out next year’s capital expense budgets. Regardless of all that, this event naturally occurred the day after Thanksgiving.

The good news, and there is always good news, we have many spare IPA regulators and PA modules in the shop ready to go. Upon investigation, there were numerous other problems with this transmitter, which have been or will be addressed.

Ubiquiti Nanobridge M5 IP radio

I am in the process of installing a pair of the Nanobridge M5 units as an IP network link between a transmitter site and the studio location. The path is relatively short, about 1.5 miles over mostly water. The main reason for this is to replace the analog phone lines used for remote control data and backup programming delivery to the transmitter site. One added benefit, we are also installing several IP cameras to keep an eye on the place. We purchased the Nanobridge system for $80.00 per side. The price is pretty good, but the configuration and testing are a bit intensive.

There are many versions of these spread spectrum radios, some are licensed, and some are license free. These are inexpensive, license-free links that I would count on for short paths or use in non-congested areas. In congested areas, licensed (Part 101) links should be used, especially for critical infrastructure like STLs.

Since I dreamed up this idea, I figured I should make sure it is going to work before recommending it to the powers that be. I have learned the hard way, almost nothing is worse than a failed project with your name on it. Better to over-study something than to go off half-cocked, spend a bunch of money, then realize the idea was flawed from the start. See also: Success has a thousand mothers but failure is an orphan.

Nanobrige path study, 5.8 GHz, moderate noise floor, 1.5 miles

Looks pretty good. 300 MB/s bi-directional which is faster than the Ethernet port on the unit. This will be set up in bridge mode with pretty robust encryption. The transmitter site side is configured in the router mode, creating a second class A network at the remote site.

Next step, configuring the units. The Nanobridge units were set up in a back to back configuration in the engineering room. Each end comes with a default IP address of 192.168.1.20. The units were several steps behind the latest firmware version, therefore the firmware was upgraded first. The default admin user, password, and IP addresses were changed. There is no greater security risk than default user and password. The wireless security feature is enabled using WPA2-AES PSK and a greater than 192-bit access code. The unit allows for any access code length up to 256 bits. With a key of between 192 and 256 bits, the number of possible solutions is between 6.2771 E 57 and 1.1579 E 77, which should be pretty hard to crack. By way of reference, a 192-bit password has 24 ASCII characters and a 256-bit password has 32 ASCII characters.

The system requires an access point, which is configured for the studio side making the transmitter site stub network the station side. The access point is configured not to advertise its SSID, thus it should be transparent to anyone sniffing around. The WLAN is configured as a layer two bridge, which will cut down on the data overhead, as layer three framing will not need to be opened between the two units. The transmitter site network is set up with SOHO router function built into the Nanobridge. One static route is needed to get to the main network. Once the security cameras are installed, PAT may need to be used to access individual camera units via the public network.

Next step, deploy the units and aligning antennas. These are 22 dBi gain antennas, which have a pretty tight beam width. Maximum transmit power is 23 dBm, or 200 mW. The transceiver/antenna unit has a handy signal strength meter on the side of the unit, which is good for rough in. The web interface has a more precise meter. In addition to that, there is a java based spectrum analyzer, which is very handy for finding open channels in congested areas. These units can also be used on UNii frequencies with special requirements.

According to the manufacturer, UV-resistant shielded Category 5e cable should be used for outdoor installations. We have several spools of Belden 1300A, which fits the bill. The shielded Cat 5 is necessary for lightning protection as the cable shield offers a ground path for the antenna unit. The antenna mounting structure is also grounded. I did not take the equipment apart to examine, but I believe the POE injector and antenna have 15KV TVSS diodes across all conductors. It will be interesting to see how these units do at the transmitter site, where there are two 300-foot towers that likely get struck by lightning often.

More pictures of the installation when it is completed.

Next step, put the system into service and monitor the link. At the transmitter site, a re-purposed 10/100 Ethernet switch will be installed for the cameras, computer, IP-RS232 converter, and anything else that may need to be added in the future. One thing we may try is an Audio of IP (AoIP) bridge like a Barix or Tieline for program audio and room audio.