VE7CNF's Lightwave Cloubounce / Scatter Tests

After our recent lightwave CW QSO, described here, Toby (VE7CNF) has been re-focusing on refining his lightwave system for weak signal non-line-of-sight (NLOS) cloudbounce and scatter mode experiments.

His testing to date has been limited to within his own suburban yard, with the transmitter being set up on the south side of the house and the receiver set up on the north, while basically pointing things straight up.

Several tests have already been done with exciting results, including audible CW being returned from a low (5,000') cloud ceiling and weaker returns noted on clear air scatter but readily detected in the CW QRSS mode. Toby has also interfaced his PC audio, via amplifier and FET driver, to enable him to use WSPR and JT9 modes, resulting in positive signal returns using these two digital modes of modulation.

Toby described some of his results and methodology in a recent e-mail updater:

I've done some lightwave backscatter experiments this last week. The transmitter is on my front deck, pointed straight up as verified using a level across the lens end of the box. The receiver is in the back yard and pointed up also. Between the two, the house is about 30ft high and blocks any direct light.

Last night May 8 UTC was clear and I was getting a QRSS10 level signal with the receiver pointed at elevations from 70 to 85 degrees, through the transmitter beam. There was nothing received from straight up, so the clouds were too high for cloud backscatter. At 80 degrees elevation I got the best signal. I've attached an Argo screen grab of QRSS10 (FSK CW with the 570 Hz tone as key-down). 

QRSS10 CW clear air scatter return signal

During my tests I used the QRSS3 speed setting of Argo to point the receiver around and find the signal. It was pretty weak but still visible at that speed. When I slowed to QRSS10 it became easy copy.

WSPR2 was decoding consistently and JT9 was about 70%. I tried JT65, BPSK31, and MFSK8 but the SNR was too low for those to work.

JT9 cloudbounce return signal 14,000 - 24,000 FT

Here's Vancouver Airport cloud data for last night:

May 8, 2016 UTC CYVR clouds and temperature/dewpoint data:
0500 FEW CLOUDS (1/8 - 2/8) 14000 FT, SCATTERED CLOUDS (3/8 - 4/8) 24000 FT, 14 C / 11 C
0600 FEW CLOUDS (1/8 - 2/8) 14000 FT, SCATTERED CLOUDS (3/8 - 4/8) 24000 FT, 14 C / 9 C
0700 FEW CLOUDS (1/8 - 2/8) 12000 FT, FEW CLOUDS (1/8 - 2/8) 22000 FT, 13 C / 7 C
 
... I'll try CW and digital again when there's some lower cloud conditions. That’s tough to get without rain at the same time.

I did get dew on the receiver last night, so I'll be adding heating resistors inside the boxes to keep the lenses warm. Electric heating has worked great to keep dew off the optical surfaces of my telescope. I'll also look at adding shrouds to shield the lenses from the cold sky.

More from May 15th:

Last night was good for backscatter from low clouds, at 1300 to 1900 ft according to airport weather. I had to stay up late though, as the cloud didn't move in until midnight.

I've attached a couple of CW recordings. Early on the signal was weaker with QSB. Later it was strong and solid.

I've also attached a screen grab of WSPR2. Signals were up around 0dB this time. 

WSPR cloudbounce return signals 1300 - 1900 FT

I played with a bunch of digital modes and FMHELL and SSTV. Everything was working pretty well off the clouds.

 

SSTV cloudbounce return signal

The nextstep is to move the rx farther from home, then to try sending signals over to John or Steve by cloud bounce.

You can find more information and all equipment details, including schematics, on VE7CNF's lightwave web pages here.

Toby's nearest lightwave neighbour, VA7MM, is in mid-build and is working to complete a system capable of running overnight cloudbounce / scatter tests between their two respective backyards ... the NLOS distance is about 15 km. Although the path includes some bright commercial lighting QRM, with narrow-band modes such as QRSS or WSPR, it may not be a problem. I suspect one of the biggest problems will be getting suitable weather as, here on the west coast, dense clouds usually turn into rain very quickly, especially near the coastal mountains where Toby and Mark are located.

I find Toby's results to be both encouraging and exciting! It will be interesting to try some cloudbounce between their respective stations and my own and maybe hopping the NLOS path across cloudy Georgia Strait. It may well be possible to do this in one of the quicker QRSS CW modes such as QRSS3 or QRSS10, both of which can have fairly fast exchanges of the required information (calls, signal report and final confirmations). Failing that, slower QRSS30 or one of the weak signal digital modes such as JT9 / WSPR which have the ability to dig deep (-30db) into the background noise may be the answer ... there is much to learn yet!

Clear Air Scatter Tests On 458THz

After patiently waiting for the bright moon to clear the early evening skies, I was finally able to venture out for my first clear-air scatter test this past Sunday night. I had plotted the path on my Mayne Island map and determined bearings as best I could, but the path was going to be very tight. If the path plan was right, my signal should just clear the high beachfront bluffs at the chosen sea-level receiving site.

After carefully aiming the light, I set off for the receive site at around 7:45PM and was all set up with the new lightwave receiver about 30 minutes later. The site appeared fairly quiet and the Argo screen confirmed that there was little QRN coming from the local houses up on the bluff. I listened for over an hour, trying various slow changes in pointing ... varying the azimuth a few degrees at a time, and then the elevation. Unfortunately not the slightest indication of my ~549Hz tone was seen. I was confident that the system was working as several strobes were heard from distant aircraft (near Vancouver), as their flashing lamps skimmed the edge of the far treeline.

It seems likely that either my aiming or bearing calculations (or both) were off and that the signal was probably slightly to the west of me, with the bluff blocking any hope of reception ... I knew it was going to be close but was hoping for a little luck.

I left the transmitter outside overnight (it was set up two properties to the SE) and decided to try a second shot on Monday night. This path, although shorter by a mile, would require the signal to pass over two high hills ... the first topping out at 667' and the second at 567'. The overall direct-path distance was 1.7 miles (2.7 km). A cross-section of the signal path is shown below as it hugged the edges a little lower than the peaks:

courtesy: http://www.heywhatsthat.com/profiler.html

I have been using a 'compass' app on my I-Pad to determine directions when aligning the transmitter and receiver setups. I'm not 100% convinced of its accuracy at all times, as readings can sometimes be a bit flaky. Before doing any more testing, I'll need to solve this, either with a better app or with a real compass.

The transmitter was set up just before darkness, pointing right at the edge of the treeline along the 667' ridge and elevated at a 28 degree takeoff angle. The deep-red, 640mw LED, was switched-on just before departure at around 8:30PM.

It didn't take long to get set up in the back of the CRV, with the receiver temporarily set in no particular direction and plugged into the computer.

When Argo came to life, I went to the front of the car to grab the I-Pad so that the receiver could be aligned but was surprised to see a bright line at 549Hz when I came back! It seems that my 'rough' placement of the receiver was spot-on, and not exactly where I had originally intended. In fact, there appeared to be about a 10 degree error in where I had planned to point. I later traced the error to my path drawn on the paper map as it was difficult to determine my exact receiving location on the older map, which didn't show the new road where I had set up on.

Monday night's path

I was eventually able to fine-tune the aiming and hone-in on the best spot but was surprised that there was a broader degree of acceptance in both azimuth and altitude. At around 8 degrees of elevation, and although I was pointing well into the nearby trees, the signal was still observable with just tiny patchs of sky poking through behind the trees. At 10 degrees I was above the trees, with a solid signal. Surprisingly, the signal was not lost until pointing past ~ 15 degrees ... I had expected sharper pointing.

With the strength of signals recovered on this path, two-way communication could have easily been established on any of the CW QRSS modes ... if quieter, probably on normal audible CW. Signal strength indicated that there was still plenty 'left in the bucket' for greater distance paths, probably much further than I am able to test here on the island.

This was the first thing I saw, at the QRSS60 mode in Argo ... a fairly narrow passband and a ~25+ db dig into the noise.

Backing off to a wider bandpass (less sensitive) but faster QRSS10 mode showed the signal still very apparent:

The almost 'real time' QRSS3 mode, although showing a much weaker signal, indicated that the signal would have been almost audible had it not been for the high level of background noise at this site. Don't confuse the lightwave signal with the much stronger 9th harmonic of 60Hz on 540Hz!

The ferry terminal was just down the hill about 1/2 mile and with several kilowatts of spectrum-polluting 60Hz sodium vapor lighting, the cloudy skies were a sea of bright-pink. There was a high level of audible hum in the phones, right from the start, that unfortunately, masked any hope of an audible detection. The waterfall screen capture shown below, illustrates the massive QRM at this otherwise nice site!

The night was not going to be complete without a strobe signature, captured on Argo from a high passing jet aircraft:

strobes

All-in-all, it was a very successful outing, considering the obstructed path and the $5 fresnel lens used in the portable receiver! I've examined the island map for any other possibilities and there are not many suitable candidates. I had hoped for one other possibility towards the west, which would stretch the path by almost another mile, but I'm not really sure that I can get a clear shot without hitting the very close treeline at this end.

I think the next round of testing will be in the other direction ... across Georgia Strait, with John, VE7BDQ, who has expressed interest in doing some deep overnight Argo searches for my signal in the clouds.

I'm not sure which mode would offer the best chance ... 'clear air scatter' or 'cloudbounce'. John has a very good receiver, with a slightly larger and better-quality fresnel than the one used in these tests. Working from his suburban backyard, directly across the strait at 13 miles (21 km) distant, his direct path to me is somewhat obstructed and will require an elevation angle of around 30 degrees at his end. I think, ideally, we would both like to be skimming just above the ocean, with only a slight elevation. A lower and less obstructed shot from his yard would mean an oblique path so this also remains a possibility. We will play with what we have and hope for the best ... even just a trace of signal would be a measured success.

I think that a non-line-of-sight (NLOS) contact would make an exciting challenge and a great project for two amateurs living in the same city or town, and ... you really don't even need a ticket!

For more technical details on the equipment used in this test, see "A West Coast Lightwave Project" describing the activities between here and Markus, VE7CA. We have just learned that this article will be published in the 2016 Radio Amateur's Handbook ... hopefully inspiring  more new lightwave activity!

New Lightwave Modulator

Yesterday I completed the construction of the crystal-controlled tone generator which will be used to modulate my lightwave transmitter during future clear-air / cloudbounce tests.




It was installed on the lightbox, right beside the original 556 CW beacon / tone generator.

The crystal-controlled oscillator uses a CD4060 IC as an oscillator-divider and produces a ~550Hz or a ~1098Hz squarewave from the 4.5MHz crystal.

4500KHz xtal divided by 8192 showing 549Hz output

The original 556 tone generator will be kept for aural CW and beacon modes as it provides a stable enough signal for this purpose but for the very narrow bandwidths that I plan to use when digging into the noise with Argo, I reasoned that the signal needed to be more stable.

As can be seen by comparing the two oscillators (crystal on the left and 556 on the right), the 556 has a lot of drift (although it looks like it might eventually stabilize) and, as well, produces several spurious signals ... probably robbing power from the main tone. The crystal-controlled signal is rock solid and doesn't appear to generate any parasitic signals in the process. The trace below the crystal signal is unrelated to the oscillator.

When I first wired the unit up, I found an unstable low frequency oscillation from the 4060 during key-up conditions, due no doubt, to the lengthy leads inside the box. This was cured by adding a pull-up resistor to the keying line as shown in the final schematic below.

Now it's on to building another fresnel-lens receiver box which will be needed for any field work here on the island.

ET Call Home

Late last week I received an interesting e-mail from Thomas Pell in Winter Haven, Florida.
It seems that Tom has been doing some building after reading my series of blogs about my lightwave adventures and has started his own adventure. As he told me initially:



"... I'm retired with too much time on my hands, and I'm tired of the big gritty hobby projects ... after reading about Harvard U's optical SETI project, which looks for extraterrestrial laser signals with a 48 inch, then 72 inch mirror. I thought it would be fun to build a setup like theirs, but at audio frequencies instead of the RF laser signals ... my purpose was to get light signals from other amateur laser dx experimenters or even ET ... better than watching my wife's TV shows. Also a giant telescope that costs almost nothing is fun too."

Tom built up the PIN diode detector shown in my notes, which was a slight variation of the one developed by Roger, G3XBM (see his great lightwave notes here) and based on an earlier plan by K3PGP.

Along with the receiver, Tom built a substantial optical antenna ... a 48" Mylar-based parabolic mirror!

"... it is a wood structure ... round piece of 1/2 inch plywood, 48" in diameter ... around the perimeter a 4" wide strip of 1/8" plywood is wrapped and glued with epoxy putty. On the upper end of 1/8 ply is another circular plywood flange inside. This flange is to glue mylar sheet. The mylar is then tensioned with tape on the side. It is something like a round guitar in appearance... a box ... you suck the air out ... I use a shop vacuum with 1/4 in rubber tube taped to vacuum hose ... hose barb epoxied to hole inside of mirror ... not ideal but if you seal it up well with epoxy, it works..."

courtesy: Thomas Pell

"At 48 inches, this is second largest mirror in eastern US ... second to the Harvard SETI 72 inch mirror experiment. The film mirror was developed by Dr. Waddell, University of Strathclyde, Scotland. It works very well for this purpose, but I don't have the proper mount yet. Very similar setup to the Harvard setup but they are only looking for nano pulse signals ..."

It seems that there is now an active movement amongst some SETI enthusiasts to search for optical beacons rather than radio beacons. When you think about it, it would seem to make just as much sense, if not more, to beacon with a modulated optical signal than with a radio signal ... and the optical signal might be far easier to detect. Some of the papers suggest that an optimum frequency would be in the near IR or deep red part of the spectrum, right where most optical amateur two-way work is presently being done.

During his first few tests of the new mirror, Thomas stumbled upon one signal (the only one) which came from just one single point in the sky ... almost directly overhead in Orion.

"At 9:30 pm 3/5/2015, using the amplifier circuit you use in your optical communication receiver connected to a 48 inch parabolic mirror, I received an apparently modulated optical signal originating in center of Orion constellation. Signal was audio frequency low to high pitch and lasted for more than an hour. I located the signal by moving the mirror back and forth across the sky for nearly an hour until I found a "blip", then focused the mirror exactly on the spot to listen to it, incredible experience."

"Received signal again last night from same location. I am becoming convinced it is information of some kind.Very irregular rapidly pulsed. This was only a test of amplifier ... I never expected this result, was totally unprepared. Meanwhile time is passing and I can't seem to contact anyone to have it confirmed before it disappears from the sky. It seems, no one has a setup like this ... this signal is either very important or it's nothing ... I think. Will let you know about outcome."

At this point, Tom is just trying to figure out what type of signal he has been hearing and will be attempting to get a better recording of it over the next few nights. I have heard his initial recording, just done with an I-pad held close to the amplifier's speaker output and it does sound suspiciously like a data train of clicking pulses. Hopefully Tom will solve the mystery soon!

Measuring The New Lenses

Yesterday I had the chance to have a closer look at the two lenses recently purchased for a new portable lightwave receiver. The initial testing procedure of the page-size fresnel (actual size is 200mm x 270mm) proved incorrect and required more space than the bench top could provide. Eventually the focal length was measured as ~ 368mm +/- for an f/d, or F number, of 1.36 ... a convenient value and much better than the 'other' common fresnel page reader focal length of ~ 600mm. This jibed nicely with the recommendations given in Clint's (KA7OEI) website optical information:

"For practical reasons, it is recommended that an optical system using Fresnel lenses be designed using lenses that have an F-number in the range of 0.5 to 1.5 - that is, around 1. Remember: The "F-number" is the focal length divided by the diameter of the lens, so for an F-number of unity or one, the diameter of the lens would be the same as its focal length."

The lens was able to bring a small LED flashlight (consisting of an array of 21 white LEDs) into surprisingly sharp focus although the shot below does not reflect that due to my camera's poor focus in the darkened room.

The glass 4.5" magnifying lens proved to have a focal point of 203mm for an F number of 1.8. This lense produced an even sharper image of the same light source and may be the best candidate for the portable receiver although the larger aperture of the fresnel might not be worth counting out at this point.

The fresnel may work well for a transmitter and will likely require a small (inexpensive) secondary focusing lens between the LED and the fresnel, in order to have the LED efficiently illuminate the fresnel. The secondary should effectively gather and focus as much of the emitted LED light to just within the boundaries of the fresnel without any wasted light energy being lost to spill-over at the edges.

It would be great to have a permanent lightwave 'beacon' that one could test various receiver lenses and combinations but at present there is very little activity here in VE7 land ... although that is changing, with the interest of another local, VE7IGH (Greg) near Vancouver and right across Georgia Strait from my location. Grant has already built a receiver and will soon start on transmitter construction ... way to go Greg! 

'29 MOPA / NLOS Lightwave Progress

Courtesy: http://www.arrl.org/

I've now completed a set of tank coils for the new'29 MOPA project. These were wound with 3/16" copper tubing which has become very difficult to source. Luckily, after much searching, I was fortunate enough to find several rolls locally at a very attractive price. Although I do see it quite often on e-bay, sellers either refuse to ship to Canada or their shipping charges are far too high to make it worthwhile. The larger 1/4" rolls are still readily available, but for any given inductance, will take up a lot more room on the breadboard if space is an issue.

These coils cover the amplifier tank, the Hartley oscillator's tank, and the antenna coupling link. Respectively, the coils measure 4.9uH, 4.0uH and 1.9uH.

Winding these is always fun but the method used requires that the needed length be predetermined and cut from the roll beforehand. The first time I did this, when building my TNT transmitter, I learned the hard way to always add at least another foot to cover the additional length eaten-up by turn-spacing and for coil end flattening and mounting.

While visiting Vancouver for a few days I was able to find a couple of pieces needed for my non-line of sight (NLOS) lightwave experiments.

I purchased a nice 4.25" magnifier lens, with suitable focal length, as well as an inexpensive page-size fresnel magnifying lens. What is particularly pleasing is that the fresnel is a rigid lens, about 2 mm thick, unlike most page magnifiers that are thin and floppy. I have yet to test its blur circle or determine its focal length.

I plan to use one or the other of these lenses in a small, portable lightwave receiver module that I can carry to the other side of the island to listen for the main large transmitter, aimed slightly above the horizon, in beacon-mode. If the smaller fresnel does the job, it will be an inexpensive source for anyone else needing a simple lens for either transmitting or receiving.

If the deep-red light tests prove successful, I'll switch the system to IR light but at this stage I'm not sure how focusing and optimizing receivers and transmitters can be done with a light source that is essentially invisible? Perhaps using an IR source that is right on the edge of deep-red will still have enough visible light to allow finding the optimum focus more easily.

More information on NLOS experiments can be found in  G3XBM' s 481thz blogs.

As well, anyone in the Vancouver lower mainland (as far as the northern Sunshine Coast area) that might be considering lightwave ... I'd love to work you! Pretty well any high spot in this region is direct LOS for me.

Lightwave Article From 'TCA'

VE7SL Backyard Test

I have recently received permission from Radio Amateurs of Canada (RAC), our national organization similar to the ARRL, to post a copy of an article that I wrote for their bimonthly journal, 'The Canadian Amateur'. I have posted a link to the article on my main web index page..."A West Coast Lightwave Project", which describes the building and operating adventure, shared with Markus, VE7CA. This link will also take you to the page.

VK4EBP's NLOS Lightwve Experiments - Part 3

F1AVY's Cloudbounce System

 "Returning to Steve's questions and our general discourse:

..is it (the RX) fairly small and portable...and lensless?

I do have a lens in the RX I now prefer to use - although it happens to be a convex lens from a tabletop magnifier - about 7x12cm giving me a narrow reception beam and a fair bit of gain compared with naked photodiode. There seems to be a general agreement that increasing the size of receiving aperture will capture more light and is the best way to greater gain.

Here I need to qualify gain requirements for my particular applications. I am currently exploring relatively short-distance NLOS paths in urban environments with abundant QRM from city and suburban lights, and this already limits my gain requirements. I developed my own qualitative test of satisfactory sensitivity - by pointing my receiver at individual stars in the sky. If I can hear them twinkle (yes they do twinkle!!!) then I am generally satisfied with the project.

On cloudy nights, pointing the RX into the clouds brings an interesting combination of mains harmonics and general hash from neon lights, clicking pulses from aeroplane lights, sweeping sounds from airport and marine lighthouses. In an environment like this, going to extreme lengths as one would do for very long-range cloudbounce or LOS comms in dark and secluded areas is simply not required and uneconomical. I initially did invest time and money in large receiving boxes with the best components there are, only to find that, unless I moved out into the bush, I could not take a real advantage of the improved performance, and did equally well with smaller and more wieldy portable designs.

"Is the idea, when talking about NLOS, to light up as much sky as possible...and that is why no focusing lenses are employed? Would a focused emitter, as produced by the typical Fresnel lens light box, produce too narrow a beam than desired? It would seem likely that with precise aiming combined with the gain to be had by utilizing fresnels (for example), would produce longer paths??"

There are several separate issues there. One is the implied requirement for a large Fresnel lens in order to obtain a narrow beam. First, how narrow is narrow enough? If we can be satisfied with say +- 5 degrees then there are more wieldy solutions available - most of the high power LEDs now have clip-on small spot lenses awailable separately - usually from third-party manufacturers. These were unheard of until recently. Standard-sized LEDs are available with very narrow radiation pattern, e.g. the SFH4550 at barely +-3 degrees. And one would expect an array of 200+ of them to behave quite like our stacked Yagis, many times over! Hence narrow beam is quite possible even without an external lens.



Osram SFH4550 IR LED

Of course the extremely narrow beams that one would prefer for LOS DX comms would be next to impossible to align in NLOS situation. (Invisible infrared is not a problem in LOS as it can be easily supplemented with e.g. a plain strobe light for alignment purposes.) I find my +-3 degrees array (with similar +-3 deg aperture at receiving end) hard enough to align over the horizon, and it is probably the limit of how narrow one can go to remain practicable in NLOS.

"to light up as much sky as possible..."

It is possible that cloudbounce and obstruction-bounce will develop into separate NLOS techniques, along with atmospheric scatter.  Of course one can think of all of these in some topographies.

I had some success in inter-suburban cloudbounce with high beam elevations at both ends - 30 to 60 degrees. Also with 45 degrees or less elevation with TX and RX about 1km apart side by side and pointing at the same cloud in the distance. Power used around 10-20W, beamwidth +-5 to 10 degrees, red and infrared with similar results (including 950nm). The received signal was just strong enough for telegraphy or qrss, but never near enough for any type of voice modulation. Results were affected by the height of cloud cover necessitating frequent elevation adjustment, and an additional liaison channel on VHF. Signals disappeared entirely as soon as the clouds started producing rain.

I never got any usable results with clear night sky and the TX and (imaginary) RX beams crossing each other at similar elevations. Only at very close distances - the best signals being received with blue and infrared. Presumably Rayleigh scatter with blue. (This raises the possibility of usable atmospheric scatter with UV?)

Only recently I commenced preliminary tests with close-to-ground, low-elevation NLOS and immediately the infrared proved itself to be a clear winner with quite reliable and repetitive results. (Needless to say the signal strengths are marginal compared with direct LOS over similar distance.) Intuitively, one would suspect general scatter and bouncing of nearby objects being the main sources of some of the energy reaching over the horizon, with some contribution perhaps of atmospheric/dust/aerosol scatter.

This adds an additional dimension to your question.. to light up as many objects around the TX(or around RX, or around the obstruction) as possible, or send the focused beam as far as possible? I guess it will very much depend on topography. I can imagine a situation where I would prefer to use a broad floodlight rather than a focused beam - e.g. to illuminate as many as possible of the surrounding tall buildings if transmitting from a ground floor apartment. Or from the foot of a mountain. An opposite rule would apply if it is the receiver that is just behind an obstruction - here a focused TX beam and a broad RX aperture might prove advantageous. And where the main obstruction is midway between TX and TX than the usual narrow-beam configuration would apply at both ends. I think it might be worth trying an infrared TX with interchangeable lenses, and same for the RX...
The portable TRX image shows the general view. Most of the electronics is contained in a plastic box and includes an SLA battery, the RX audio bandpass filter, power amp and speaker, and most of the PWM AM TX circuitry except the final LED driver. The DIN socket provides connection to external RX front end TX output drivers and LEDs, usually held together on a tripod. The header socket is for the external microphone connection, and there are switches for power and speaker and a headphone jack. The crudely made corflute box beside it is the RX front end with lens, photodiode and preamp.

The RX detail 01 shows the business end of the photodiode, and the separate lens box (slides in and out for focus adjustment). Detail 02 shows the preamp with interchangeable photodiode modules - SFH213 for visible to 850nm, and the SFH213-FA for 850nm and below.

Multi-wavelength TX 01 (front and back image) includes several groups of fat LEDs (red, blue and 850nm) with matching lenses providing approx. +-5 degrees apertures. Also the PWM driver on 2x CAT4101 in parallel, external high current power connection, intensity control, and a PICAXE-controlled strobe or audio callsign/frequency sweep beacon.The whole assembly connects to the TRX control box (above) and can provide power to it, draw power from it, or have both DC sources in parallel.Enclosure includes a photo tripod mount on the bottom plate, and velcro strips on top to hold the RX front end.

Pocket-sized 10W IR TX is a small holiday project and still work in progress. The 7x LEDs are 2W each SFH4783 with an intrinsically narrow beam of +-10 degrees - quite appreciable for a naked LED of this size and possibly obviating the need for external optics in some applications. My usual CAT4101 drivers are included and capable of providing 2A at 50% duty cycle. Another Picaxe beacon is on the other side of the heatsink, and the voice modulator is still in progress.

The low-power multi-wavelength TX is another one day project, built to compare relative performances of 850 and 950nm IR. Three almost identical beams of red, 850 and 950 are transmitted in sequence with approx 100mA PWM running each diode. Unique CW ID has been coded for each wavelength.

6x SFH213 photodiode with individual preamps - quite a respectable low noise, high sensitivity front-end that works very well without external optics (SFH213 have a +-10 deg intrinsic apertures). A matching array of small fresnel lenses has been built and tested for narrow-beam reception, but a permanent box is yet to be added.. Some of the other gadgets seen in the foreground."

As mentioned earlier, Jan's experiments with NLOS signals utilizing IR is of particular interest to myself as I would like to continue experiments with VE7CA, on the other side of Georgia Strait...hopefully with Markus not having to move to a LOS position, but simply aiming across the Strait in a direct path, from his yard. Using Argo and QRSS3 mode, it will be interesting to see if any signals can be recovered from the cloud bottoms on some overnight runs.

Don't forget Clint's (KA7OEI) superb Optical Communications / Moduulated Light pages!

VK4EBP's NLOS Lightwave Experiments - Part 2

Courtesy: http://www.ledsmagazine.com

Once again, from Jan...

"Visible LEDs and optics: Some of my favourites include the LZ1 and LZ4 series from LedEngin used with matching spot lenses, or thick condenser lenses from old visual projectors. Also various Golden Dragon varieties with matching small plastic spot lenses. Average beam divergence with either configuration is about +-4 degrees. (Happy to provide detailed parts numbers.)

Infrared LEDs: Here we have a some good products from Vishay (TSHG series), with narrow beam (some go down to +-2 degrees) in the standard 5mm packages and max current of 100mA.



They can make nice pencil-beam arrays in combined series/parallel with 200 or more LEDS and no optics required, at less than 40c per LED. Lots of soldering though :). For the 950nm range (not extensively tested yet) the Vishay TSAL range of LEDs will do nicely.

LED drivers: I found a very neat IC to PWM-drive the LEDs at up to 1A - the CAT4101 from ON Semiconductors.

Usually have two in parallel for a peak of 2A at 50% duty cycle, giving me 1A average to drive the LED string.

At the reciving end I am now using a preamp loosely based on Clint's no-feedback design with some hum filtering and other post minor post-processing feeding to an audio amp, or to SpectrumLab."
"...tonight I am trying to compare 830nm against 940nm on a 600m short NLOS path. For this, I have just built a small TX with two "naked" LEDs - TSAL6100 (940nm) and TSHG8200 (830nm). Both have identical shapes of their radiation patterns with +-10 degrees. Each mounted inside of a square cross-section black cardboard tube side by side to ultimately give them a very uniform square beam of approx +-4 degrees. Each driven with 440Hz square wave at 100mA with unique morse identifier for each.

There is a third visible LED as well with its own cardboard collimator and morse ID, to serve as aiming tool and a kind of reference.

The purpose is to see whether 940nm would offer additional advantages in NLOS situations, due perhaps to better/different reflection, scatter, refraction or whatever physical processes might be involved.
An additional advantage might be removing my setup further away from visible light pollution. With the growing popularity of LED lighting in both household and the industry we are having a chance of less and less infrared pollution from traditional incandescent or similar sources - and making light comms more practical in urban environments - all with a simple IR filter at the receiving end.


Tonight's tests were not as productive as anticipated, but somewhat educational nevertheless. First of all the receiving location I picked on the map suffered from severe QRM from sodium street lights. I picked strongly all my "big" IR transmitters, but the visible and the "naked" ones were lost in the QRM, if present at all. I returned home, pointed the 150mW TX into nearby bushland and went for a walk. The red light reception vanished immediately after loosing sight of TX, followed quickly by the 940nm with the 830nm persisting the longest up to perhaps 100m - with the beam fired parallel to ground from upper storey into the crowns of the trees. Reception required pointing the receiver slightly up, intersecting the TX beam somewhere in the tree branches.

Briefly - I confirmed what I already knew: - IR is far superior to visible for NLOS work - indeed visible light is of no use.
- Low elevations and scatter from ground objects is superior to high beam elevations.

A new observation (that I would like to confirm) is that 900+nm is not worth bothering about. It is known that 950nm suffers from greater scatter in atmospheric particles than 850, but this proved to be more of a hindrance than help in NLOS work.
Another practical observation is that the 950nm version of the common SFH213 photodiode (SFH213-FA) works very well in receiving 850nm whilst filtering out lots of the visible pollution (well, perhaps except the sodium lamps!).
I started tonight's session before sunset and got very good NLOS reception of my large IR TXs - in what could be described as quite a bright twilight. (I carry two plug-in front-end modules each with one of the two photodiodes and the input FET.)
Another holiday project - a pocket-sized 10W TX! I found new IR LEDs - SFH4783 - rated at 2W, barely 1.65V of Vf, and intrinsically narrow angle of +-10 degrees. This means no optics, and up to seven of them in series on a small heatsink can be run from a 12V SLA battery.



Osram SFH4783

This reminds me of yet another observation - out of my several large 850nm TXs the best performers are the naked narrow-angle multiple LED arrays - and the one containing 3 high power broad-beam LEDs with spot optics performing the worst. Well the lenses are designed for visible LEDs and I have no guarantee that the material refraction angles and loses are acceptable in the IR range... 

 Returning to Steve's questions and our general discourse:

..is it (the RX) fairly small and portable...and lensless?   (cont'd)...

VK4EBP's NLOS Lightwave Experiments - Part 1

A recent posting by Jan, VK4EBP, to the Australian Optical DX Group in now defunct Yahoo Groups, has given me renewed hope when it comes to trying some non-line-of-sight (NLOS) lightwave tests. My initial interest in this was spurred by the excellent experimental work undertaken by Roger, G3XBM, all chronicled in great detail in his daily blog postings. A complete chronology of his efforts, filtered for NLOS experiments,  may be found by clicking here... but be warned...his information will have you wanting to break out the soldering iron and trying some of these things for yourself or, better yet, with another nearby amateur.

Jan's posting was chalk-full of useful "hands-on" information and was just what I needed to hear and led to some extensive and interesting conversation, well worth passing on to others. I could summarize Jan's work in point form but I think it is more interesting to let Jan describe it himself.


"Finally some success with over-the-horizon light. Briefly - several transmitters of several watts each were fired
simultaneously with the beams aimed at the tops of nearby trees, each
transmitter sending unique combination of tones (direct AM).


Osram SFH213-FA

Reception was performed 1km away with the SFH213 photodiode/amp and a
plastic lens approx. 7x12cm. Receiver was aimed towards the TX site and
pointed just over the horizon.

Aural reception of 850nm infrared signals was very good. There was no
trace of TX signals in visible or near-visible spectrum. Signal quality on
850nm was further improved with an infrared-filtered photodiode (SFH213FA, 950nm peak) which provided some attenuation of suburban lights QRM.


My earlier series of experiments over the years was aimed at achieving NLOS short-range communications in a light-polluted metropolitan
environment. I had limited successes with high-elevation cloudbounce over
several km distance using both red and infrared. Very poor results with
high-elevation scatter in clear air, with blue light appearing the best,
and green and yellow the worst for the purpose. More recent tests
suggested that low elevations with infrared light offer a reliable link,
and today's results seem to confirm that.
More to follow! 10km test tomorrow night. 73 de Jan vk4ebp"

Jan has been testing several different TX emitters / wavelengths, simultaneously, each with a different CW identifier. His path started with a 1km hop through his local residential neighbourhood, with significant obstructions shown below. Later the path was stretched to 10km. His observations involving IR were particularly helpful:
 

1km NLOS Path

"I was firing all transmitters at once, each with either pre-recorded tones or a picaxe generator. The transmitter  in the black box contains: 1x LZ
deep red 10W with condenser lens, 3x1W Golden Dragon 850nm IR LED with
+-4deg spot lenses, and 3x 4W LZ1 blue with +-5 deg spot lenses. Manually
switchable by my very patient family members on request via walkie talkie
from the receiving site. The two multi-LED arrays are approx 10W each in
total, one containing a multitude of +-3 deg SFH4550, and the other
+-10deg some other LEDs - do not remember after many years since building it. The small heatsink block contains 4x LZ1 far red, run at about 8W
total."





"At the NLOS location 1km away I was able to copy all the 850nm TXs and
none of the visible/borderline ones.Last night I tried 10km distance.

The topography is theoretically line-of-sight, but isolated from the receiving site by a thick bushland in nearby park. I was firing the transmitters about 3 degrees above what
would be line of sight, thus having about half the beam into the air and
another half scattered in the tree tops near the TX site.


I was able to weakly copy only one of the transmitters - the array of 200 or so of the +-3deg IR LEDs. At the moment I am not certain whether it was from atmospheric or tree scatter.

From earlier tests I observed that IR penetrates very well into the bushland, long after the visible beams were lost both visually and electronically. Similarly, it seems to propagate well into suburban
streets. Presumably the longer wavelength is "seeing" rough surfaces like tree trunks and brick walls as actually shiny and reflecting...."

".... a bit more about my transmitters.    (cont'd....)

On Making Nanowaves - Part 6

After several weeks of reading, planning and homebrewing, both the transmitter and the receiver boxes were finally finished....at both ends of the path!

After the transmitter and the receiver had been accurately focused (the receiver's photodiode at the fresnel's focal point and the transmitter's secondary lens properly positioned) both enclosures were screwed together and mounted on a tripod.



Markus, VE7CA, had checked-out a suitable location not far from his home QTH on the road to one of the local ski-hills. This gave him an unobstructed view to my location on Mayne Island, about 54km to the southwest. I had planned to set up in my front yard, about 15' above sea level and on the eastern shoreline with a direct shot to Markus.

Even though we were using LEDs rather than lasers, I still felt somewhat uneasy as our path crossed directly over the runways at Vancouver International (around the path midpoint) as well as the main ferry lane between Vancouver Island and the B.C. mainland. Considering the distances involved, I probably need not have worried as the light, although bright, would cause no physical harm other than possible momentary distraction or curiosity. If one of the ferries had been approaching the path, I had planned to shut down until it had passed as it would have been hard to convince authorities that the light really was not a laser, before they carted me away!

After waiting for the usual winter B.C. rain to subside, we finally had a promising evening shaping up, although somewhat cold. Markus, accompanied by Jim, VE7BKX, loaded his vehicle and headed for the mountains. With neither of us having 2m portable radios, we somewhat guiltily reverted to cellphones to announce setting-up status.

VE7CA/7

Shortly before dark, I aligned my light boxes to point at what I was pretty sure was Markus's location and turned on my FSK beacon.... the bearing was taken from Google Maps and alignment aided by my I-Pad's Commander Compass Lite app. The plan was for Markus to sweep until he (hopefully) heard me and then turn on his beacon so that we could then both tweak our final alignments.

Almost immediately I heard his beacon signal although there was no visible sign of his light.

Before final alignment I made a quick recording of his signal.

Neither if us had any real idea of what type of signal strength to expect and we were both very surprised to hear how strong the signals were. Once we had both aligned and our lights were now visible, we switched to CW mode and proceeded to work each other in typical QSO mode.

Hear is a recording of Markus sending my RST report.

Signal reports as well as grid squares were exchanged just to make everything 'official'. We then settled into a nice twenty-minute ragchew until the cold winter air took its toll on our fingers forcing us both to close down and pack up for the night.

Markus grabbed a short cellphone video from his end which shows the still fairly bright twilight skies and the LED signal source:


Earlier, John (VE7BDQ) had made the decision to not build a transmitter as he preferred not to go portable. Both of us were interested in pursuing a possible non-line-of-sight (NLOS) path by using either 'cloudbounce' or 'clear-air scattering' which would allow John to set up in his backyard. The path between us is much shorter than the VE7CA/7 path as can be seen in the map below:

Courtesy: https://maps.google.ca/

To date we have made one test at this mode, trying various takeoff angles at my end, but cloud conditions were not optimal, and as yet, I am not totally certain of what type and height of cloud would be best. Perhaps we should be looking for the typical very light fog that often forms over Georgia Strait for enhanced water molecule scattering? As well, I think our best chances for success would be the slow speed QRSS mode, possibly QRSS3 or QRSS10 which could offer as much as 20db signal gain over normal speed CW.

For one-way beaconing, I plan to add a more accurate crystal-controlled tone module so that my CW signal's frequency is precisely known and can be watched for in the very narrow bandwidth window of Argo or Spectran over a given period of time. Even at these slower speeds, QSOs exchanging the minimum required information can still be made relatively quickly. Hopefully any reception at all of my signal at John's location will excite him into building a transmitter as well. Completing a two-way contact using the NLOS mode would be a very interesting challenge.

In the meantime, Markus and I have been seeking out possible new locations for his remote work, using "HeyWhat'sThat Path Profiler" web site. This site quickly indicates the distance and headings between any two points and draws a geographic contour of the path showing any obstructions.


Courtesy: http://www.heywhatsthat.com/profiler.html

Markus hopes to get out to one such favourable location in the Fraser Valley mountains, before the weather turns nasty once again.

If there is anyone in the Vancouver lower mainland region that might be interested in building a lightwave station to join us in the fun, please do not hesitate to make contact with any of us...we would love to hear from you!

If you are a member of the Radio Amateur's of Canada (RAC) and receive their 'TCA' journal, please watch for our upcoming article in September's issue..."A West Coast Lightwave Project".