Maker Pro
Maker Pro

AM electromagnetic waves: 20 KHz modulation frequency on an astronomically-low carrier frequency

J

John Smith I

Jan 1, 1970
0
Don said:
AM is a process of frequency multiplication. Now you tell me where you
think such multiplication takes place on a phone line, and I'll follow-uo by
telling why you're full of crap.

SIMECS!

It is all right before your eyes, if you can't see it by now, forget it
.... perhaps at a later date. I know your frustration, I have seen the
mentally handicapped attempt to deal with the real world and it end only
in frustration ... perhaps a change of meds is in order ...

JS
 
D

Don Bowey

Jan 1, 1970
0
It is all right before your eyes, if you can't see it by now, forget it
... perhaps at a later date. I know your frustration, I have seen the
mentally handicapped attempt to deal with the real world and it end only
in frustration ... perhaps a change of meds is in order ...

JS

I see..... You finally admit you don't understand AM at all and can't
justify your statement. It's what I expected.

Now, run off and play in the street with your tinker toys.
 
R

RHF

Jan 1, 1970
0
- But a teacher MUST be rational.
- You rate Radium with more potential than I can.
- This most recent post is really off the wall.

"Radium" -and- 'Rational' now there is an Oxymoron !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

DB remember that I did write :
Actually "Radium" would appear to be an
In-Complete-Want-To-Be driven by the 'urge'
to Post these Forever Ponding Questions
for others to charge at like Don Quijote's
quest to slay Windmills {a fool's errand}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quixote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fool's_errand
 
J

Jeff Liebermann

Jan 1, 1970
0
Well, your math is correct. However, the so-called "atomic" wrist
watches receive their time signal from WWVB which transmits at 60kHz.

Yes, but the original derranged rantings required that *AUDIO* be
used. This was suppose to be some kind of replacement for cellular.
None of the long wave time standards belch audio like the short wave
WWV stations.

However, these time code transmitters operate at RF frequencies as low
as 20KHz (mostly in Russia). See:
How do they get that 1250 meter long antenna ( 1/4 wave at 60 kHz)
inside that itty bitty wrist watch case? ;-)

Touche and good question. Most of the desktop variety have a ferrite
rod loaded with lots of fine wire. I have several like this, one with
an external rod. However, that's obviously not going to work in a
wristwatch unit. I don't have any idea what's inside or how the
antenna done, but I can guess(tm). Here's one way:
<http://www.leapsecond.com/pages/atomic-bill/>

The question has been asked before:
<http://www.eham.net/forums/Elmers/148090>
However, no real description of what's inside the wristwatch.

Going to the source:
<http://tf.nist.gov/stations/radioclocks.htm>
NIST Recommended Practices for WWVB receivers.
<http://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/1976.pdf> (See section 8A)
"We recommend that RCC products should be sensitive enough
to successfully synchronize to signals from WWVB with a field
strength of 50 uV/m, if the signal to noise ratio exceeds 20 dB.
The RF bandwidth of the receiver should be narrow, typically
±10 Hz or less."
and:
"Wristwatch antennas should not be contained in the band,
so that RCC watch bands can be replaced in the same manner
as the bands of ordinary watches when they are damaged or
worn out."

So much for the antenna in the wrist band idea. So, the question is,
what type of tiny antenna will work with such a field strength at
60KHz. I dug through the FCC ID web pile looking for an inside photo
of Casio watch, but couldn't find anything. I'm gonna have to either
break one open, and/or calculate the field strength of a very small
ferrite rod antenna (later).
 
R

Radium

Jan 1, 1970
0
Yes, but the original derranged rantings required that *AUDIO* be
used. This was suppose to be some kind of replacement for cellular.
None of the long wave time standards belch audio like the short wave
WWV stations.

However, these time code transmitters operate at RF frequencies as low
as 20KHz (mostly in Russia). See:


Touche and good question. Most of the desktop variety have a ferrite
rod loaded with lots of fine wire. I have several like this, one with
an external rod. However, that's obviously not going to work in a
wristwatch unit. I don't have any idea what's inside or how the
antenna done, but I can guess(tm). Here's one way:
<http://www.leapsecond.com/pages/atomic-bill/>

The question has been asked before:
<http://www.eham.net/forums/Elmers/148090>
However, no real description of what's inside the wristwatch.

Going to the source:
<http://tf.nist.gov/stations/radioclocks.htm>
NIST Recommended Practices for WWVB receivers.
<http://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/1976.pdf> (See section 8A)
"We recommend that RCC products should be sensitive enough
to successfully synchronize to signals from WWVB with a field
strength of 50 uV/m, if the signal to noise ratio exceeds 20 dB.
The RF bandwidth of the receiver should be narrow, typically
±10 Hz or less."
and:
"Wristwatch antennas should not be contained in the band,
so that RCC watch bands can be replaced in the same manner
as the bands of ordinary watches when they are damaged or
worn out."

So much for the antenna in the wrist band idea. So, the question is,
what type of tiny antenna will work with such a field strength at
60KHz. I dug through the FCC ID web pile looking for an inside photo
of Casio watch, but couldn't find anything. I'm gonna have to either
break one open, and/or calculate the field strength of a very small
ferrite rod antenna (later).

--
Jeff Liebermann [email protected]
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558


Okay. I now extremely insterested and frustrated about how the
wristwatch can be so tiny yet receive so longwave signals.

Its probably something those FBI/CIA bastards are going to keep secret
from us.

Sick government f---scums. USA citizens should turn against the FBI/
CIA and molest the f---ing s--- out of their colons using bubbas' c--
ks.

I want to know how such a tiny device can operate at such a long
wavelength. Unfortunately, that info is classified by the FBI/CIA, and
then won't let me or any USA citizen find out about it.

I am getting so pissed off right now.

I am so interested in this wristwatch question yet I am so angry about
it because the FBI/CIA won't let me know about it.

F=== the CIA/FBI, may they be raped by big bubbas.
 
J

Jeff Liebermann

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jeff Liebermann said:
So much for the antenna in the wrist band idea. So, the question is,
what type of tiny antenna will work with such a field strength at
60KHz. I dug through the FCC ID web pile looking for an inside photo
of Casio watch, but couldn't find anything. I'm gonna have to either
break one open, and/or calculate the field strength of a very small
ferrite rod antenna (later).

I found a photo of the insides of a watch. See:
<http://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/1877.pdf>
on page 11-12. It's a small 2cm internal rod antenna.

There are some ferrite rod antenna design notes on the Temic/C-Max
chips used on some receivers:
<http://www.c-max-time.com/downloads/search.php?search=CME6005>
<http://www.c-max-time.com/downloads/search.php?search=CME8000>

There's some on antenna matching here:
<http://www.c-max-time.com/downloads/getFile.php?id=437>

Watch antennas:
<http://www.c-max-time.com/products/productsOverview.php?catID=5>
See the photos of the various antennas. Too bad there's no specs.

I'll grind out the field strength numbers later. I've been living in
the microwave region for so long, that I'm having problems with LF
calcs.
 
C

cledus

Jan 1, 1970
0
Ian said:
cledus said:
The fundamental answer is no, it is not possible to generate AM where
the baseband signal is a pure 20 kHz sinewave and Fc<20kHz. The
reason is that the modulated waveform consists of the sum of a
sinewave at Fc, a sinewave at Fc+20kHz, and a sinewave at Fc-20kHz.
If Fc<20kHz then one of the components becomes a "negative"
frequency. So the carrier must be greater than the baseband signal to
prevent this.
I'm afraid that this is not correct. The 'laws of physics' don't
suddenly stop working if the carrier is lower than the modulating
frequency. However, there's no need to get into complicated mathematics
to illustrate this. Here is a simple example:

(a) If you modulate a 10MHz carrier with a 1MHz signal, you will produce
two new signals (the sidebands) at the difference frequency of 10 minus
1 = 9MHz, and the sum frequency of 10 plus 1 = 11MHz. So you have the
original carrier at 10MHz, and sideband signals at 9 and 11MHz (with a
balanced modulator - no carrier - only 9 and 11MHz).

(b) If you modulate a 1MHz carrier with a 10MHz signal, you will produce
two new signals (the sidebands) at the difference frequency of 1 minus
10 = minus 9MHz, and the sum frequency of 1 plus 10 = 11MHz. The
implication of the negative 'minus 9' MHz signal is that the phase of
the 9MHz signal is inverted, ie 180 degrees out-of-phase from 9MHz
produced in (a). So you have the original carrier at 1MHz, and sidebands
at 9 and 11MHz (again, with a balanced modulator - no carrier - only 9
and 11MHz).

The waveforms of the full composite AM signals of (a) and (b) will look
quite different. The carriers are at different frequencies, and the
phase of the 9MHz signal is inverted. However, with a double-balanced
modulator, you will only have the 9 and 11MHz signal so, surprisingly,
the resulting signals of (a) and (b) will look the same.

[Note that, in practice, many double-balanced modulators/mixers put
loads of unwanted signals - mainly due the effects of harmonic mixing.
However, the basic 'laws of physics' still apply.]

Finally, although I have spoken with great authority, when I get a
chance I WILL be doing at test with a tobacco-tin double-balanced mixer,
a couple of signal generators and a spectrum analyser - just to make
sure that I'm not talking rubbish. In the meantime, I'm sure that some
will correct me if I'm wrong.

Ian.


Ian,

I believe your analysis is correct. But if you expect to build a
receiver that uses a filter centered at 1 MHz with a BW of 20+ MHz to
recover a DSB AM signal, I don't believe that the DBM approach will
accomplish this. With your approach, you could filter out the sidebands
by centering a filter around 10 MHz (the baseband freq). This could be
used to recover the baseband 10 MHz signal. But the OP asked about AM
of a carrier at very low frequencies. Good explanation of what happens
when using a DBM, though.

Regards,
-C
 
T

Telamon

Jan 1, 1970
0
< Snip >

Would you please have the decency to snip rec.radio.shortwave and other
groups from the newsgroup header. Thanks.
 
D

Don Bowey

Jan 1, 1970
0
< Snip >

Would you please have the decency to snip rec.radio.shortwave and other
groups from the newsgroup header. Thanks.

Would you please come and ask nicely. I don't like how you put your order.
 
J

John Smith

Jan 1, 1970
0
Don said:
...
Would you please come and ask nicely. I don't like how you put your order.

Get back on your meds and cease and desist from bothering the other
mental patients--else you get the straight jacket next! <grin>

JS
 
M

Michael A. Terrell

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jeff said:
Conventional TV is VSB (visidual side band)


Vestigal Sideband


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
 
D

Don Bowey

Jan 1, 1970
0
Get back on your meds and cease and desist from bothering the other
mental patients--else you get the straight jacket next! <grin>

JS

Your attempts at presumed humor, are as bad as your AM knowledge. :^)
 
D

Don Bowey

Jan 1, 1970
0
Get back on your meds and cease and desist from bothering the other
mental patients--else you get the straight jacket next! <grin>

JS

By the way, I looked at the wiki link you posted and I can see why you are
misinformed by it; it's author was either simply not clear in his own mind,
or he did not understand that the "undulations" on the telephone line DC
voltage is NOT amplitude modulation in the multiplier sense. It is not AM
as it is being discussed in this thread of Radium's original post. If you
prefer the math proof, multiply the DC voltage frequency (0) by the audio
frequency (pick a number between 200 and 3000 Hz), and the product is zero -
No new frequencies are present. There's more to it than that but I probably
already lost you.
 
J

Jeff Liebermann

Jan 1, 1970
0
http://www.c-max-time.com/downloads/getFile.php?id=423
Gives dimensions,No of turns,Inductance etc.

Thanks. I downloaded that yesterday and got a file with no extension.
I eventually figured out it's a PDF file and renamed it.

The site also has a rather sketchy article on antenna design at:
<http://www.c-max-time.com/tech/antenna.php>
I also found the chip sensitivity somewhere at
0.5uv typical
0.8uv max
with a field strength range of:
15-20 uV/m using a 10mm x 60 mm rod.

I'm currently slogging through the NIST web pile trying to find the
historical or estimated field strengths for the left coast area.
<http://tf.nist.gov/timefreq/stations/lflibrary.htm>
Ah, foundit:
<http://tf.nist.gov/timefreq/general/pdf/1383.pdf>
Table 2.4 shows signal strength in San Diego varying from 180 uV/m to
1000 uV/m. Now all I need to do is figure out how much S/N ratio is
required at the receiver input to properly decode the time signals.

All the information needed is probably there, scattered among an
assortment of documents, but I'm at a loss on how to estimate the
actual field strength sensitivity given the rod antenna
specifications. The formula #1 at:
<http://www.c-max-time.com/tech/antenna.php>
has all the right parameters, but I keep getting insane results when I
try to plug in real and estimated values. Maybe some coffee will
help.

I'll work on it more during the next few daze. It should be easy
(famous last words). However, paying work comes first.
 
Better still, Vestigial Sideband!

You're both wrong. It is VIRTUAL SIDEBAND because it isn't completely
real and the other sideband which isn't virtual carries the missing high
frequency modulation info. Once it gets into your second detector then
it becomes real due to the laws of product modulation.

Next, you will be telling people that VGA doesn't stand for "virtual
graphics array."
 
Top