Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    Larry
    Guest
    Radium <[email protected]> wrote in news:1180056431.463704.325710
    @q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com:

    >> > Why do analog cell phones use FM? Why not AM?

    >
    >> Do you even know if they do?

    >
    > Yes. I read about it.


    Noise. Electrical impulse noise, such as spark plug noise and computer
    radiation and leaky insulators from overhead powerlines is amplitude
    modulated. Being AM, this noise is detected by the AM detector in your
    AM radio. It has nothing to do with frequency or range. Airplanes from
    108 to 138 Mhz in the VHF band, is one of the oldest users of VHF. All
    airplane radios in this VHF band are AM, not FM. It's just that way
    because it, at one time, would have cost aviation too much to convert to
    the newfangled FM system Mr Armstrong invented. It's still AM. It's
    also line-of-sight, because it's on VHF which isn't reflected by the
    ionosphere like frequencies below 30 Mhz are. This phenomenon has
    nothing to do with how it's modulated.

    Analog cellphones, like the IMTS and MTS "Carphones" before them, use FM
    because FM is more immune to AM noise. Certain FM detectors, by their
    very nature, cancel out all the AM noise fed to them by the receiver IF
    strip. Since WW2, mobile radios always used FM for this reason. Using
    it on Carphones was simply good sense. It still is. Your CDMA, TDMA,
    PCS or whatever cellphone you carry is STILL an FM radio, at heart, but
    this FM radio is now modulated with modem tones, similar to what you hear
    if you pick up a landline telephone when a dialup modem is using its
    line...except your phone shares the system and channel with many other
    users so its transmitter is only on in tiny pulses of data. Data, 1s and
    0s, is a DC pulse and cannot be transmitted over the air, directly, so it
    is converted by a "modem" to a wide band of tones that modulate an FM
    transmitter...for the same reason AMPS used FM....noise immunity on weak
    signals.


    >
    >> > Microwave-frequencies can be done in AM just as well
    >> > as FM? Why not use AM?

    >
    >> Why not use FM?


    See above....It's all about noise immunity.

    >
    > FM is limited to line of sight. AM provides the ability to converse
    > over significantly longer distances than FM.


    Simply not true. If FM is used at 10 Mhz, it propagates just as far as
    AM...but without the noise. But, alas, FM has another
    problem...bandwidth.

    If you modulate an AM transmitter with a single tone, 3 signals come out
    of it. The carrier frequency the transmitter is tuned to is always
    transmitted, continuously. The tone mixes, in a non-linear RF stage. RF
    mixing always produces two "products"...the sum of the carrier + the
    frequency of the modulated tone...and the difference of the carrier - the
    modulated tone. If we are transmitting on 1.000 Mhz, with a 1000 Hz
    audio tone modulating the transmitter, you get a Lower Sideband of
    ..999Mhz, 1.000Mhz and 1.001 Mhz. The bandwidth occupied is only 2 Khz of
    the RF spectrum. The bandwidth of an AM transmitter is twice the
    frequency of the highest modulating tone. AM radio broadcasting LIMITS
    the audio frequencies fed to the transmitters to 5 Khz. AM broadcast's
    bandwidth (and channel spacing in the USA) is 10 Khz... 800 Khz, 810
    Khz, 820 Khz etc. Europe and Asia use 9 Khz channel spacing to get more
    channels. The audio bandwidth is limited to around 4.5 Khz, lower
    fidelity, to accomplish this without undue interference. AM transmitters
    used only for voice transmissions usually have an audio bandwidth from
    300 to 3000 Hz, making their bandwidth only 6 Khz. CB radio is a good
    example. Due to how cheap CB is manufactured, their transmitter's
    carrier frequency isn't very accurate. When detected, this results in a
    beat note you can hear, that howling when hundreds of skip CB station are
    all received at once, rendering it pretty useless. At night, when the
    atmosphere reflects the AM broadcast band, AM stations also have a beat
    note you can "hear". They're accurate to +/- 20 Hz, but are much more
    accurate than that to reduce channel interference. You hear a very low
    warbling like a Leslie speaker on a Hammond Organ makes as the signals
    aid then cancel each other due to this difference note.

    The sunspot cycle is at a very low point, right now, so Ham Radio in the
    HF band is pretty poor. But, when the 10 meter band is open (28-29.7
    Mhz) you can hear very long range FM stations near the upper end of the
    band. Hams have "repeater" stations on just a few "channels", by
    gentlemen's agreement, between 29.5 and 29.7 Mhz output (They listen 100
    Khz below their output where we talk to them.) I've use 10 Meter FM
    repeaters in Europe, Africa, Japan and Australia on the other side of the
    planet from South Carolina, my home, since around 1970. Great fun HF FM.

    How far a signal can be heard is very dependent on the frequency of the
    signal and time-of-day because of the layers of supercharged ions in the
    ionosphere over your heads, right now. That's what makes the signals
    reflect off these very high layers at the lower end of the RF
    spectrum....as the Earth turns under these variable layers that depend
    solely on the ions streaming off the sun for their existence. Many more
    layers trail the Earth in the shadow the Earth creates to the solar wind,
    than on the sunny side. These layers do not rotate with the planet. We
    turn under them. Generally speaking, in the day, frequencies that
    reflect off the sun-side layers are from about 7 Mhz to about 25 to 40
    Mhz, depending on how thick the layers are and the solar activity, which
    varies nearly like a sine wave in 11 year sunspot cycles. At night,
    different layers AT DIFFERENT ALTITUDES create different reflectors, many
    of them, that reflect different frequency bands. Your AM broadcast radio
    has no reflectors in the daytime when you only hear local stations. At
    night, special stations on "clear channels", reserved for them alone to
    provide long range AM radio to the countryside, pumping 50,000 watts into
    massive antenna arrays, some with 3 to 16 towers, can be heard a thousand
    miles away. Good examples are WSM, 650 Khz, in Nashville, WLW, 700 Khz
    in Ohio, WWL, 870 in New Orleans. If they were on FM, you'd hear them
    just fine, but we'd only have a few stations...why?

    FM's spectrum is much more complex and WIDER than AM's. Notice on your
    FM radio the stations are a whopping 200 Khz apart! There are two
    reasons for this, one economic and one fidelity. FM broadcasting has an
    audio bandwidth of 50 to 15000 Hz. It is transmitted in a very wideband
    way with the carrier swinging very far from its resting frequency so you
    can go buy a really cheap FM radio, with really cheap electronics in it,
    and listen to the constant blather of commercials that broadcasting in
    America has become. Two things effect the spectrum bandwidth of
    FM....The highest audio frequency, 15Khz, and how hard you drive the
    transmitter away from its carrier frequency (or change its phase, which
    looks just like FM, too.) 15 Khz is the audio freq allowed on FM
    broadcasting. 75 Khz is its "deviation". This produces a huge load of
    detectable sidebands by even the cheapest detectors for high fidelity
    sound, as wide as human ears can hear actually, no matter what the stereo
    industry advertises...(c; Can you hear your picture tube analog TV
    screaming? It's screaming all the time its running at 15,575 Hz and you
    don't even hear it. So, why buy a stereo that can reproduce 25,000 Hz?
    It's crazy!...(c; 15 Khz audio at 75 Khz deviation needs around 200 Khz
    of bandwidth, a crazy amount. If we used that on the old AM band, we'd
    get 1650-550 khz = 1100 Khz for the whole band...divided by 200 = only 5
    channels! As much as Clear Channel Communications would love to own all
    5, FCC has other ideas...(c; That's why FM isn't on the lower
    frequencies...bandwidth.

    >
    >> > At the receiving end, the carrier signal should be
    >> > amplified prior to demodulation.

    >
    > The purpose of this is to "DX". This allows communications over even
    > longer distances than without the DX.
    >
    > For best results, longwave frequencies [around 150 KHz] should be used
    > along with DX.
    >
    >


    The signal received by any "radio" receiver is miniscule and too small to
    power germanium diode or tube diode "detectors". That's the only reason
    radios have amplifiers, to make the lowest signals big enough to drive
    detector diodes. It's that simple. Hazeltine Research Corp, NYC, solved
    another problem related to how wide a bandwidth a cheap receiver listened
    to, to stop the radios from listening to 5 stations at once, after quite
    a few stations got on the air in the 1920's/30's. It was called the
    "superheterodyne" to impress the stupid public fascinated with Flash
    Gordon....on the radio, of course! If we "convert" the high frequency
    signal from the station to a lower frequency signal the industry, at
    first, decided would be 260 Khz, but was later changed to today's 455 Khz
    "IF Frequency", you could narrow the bandwidth of the signal to just ONE
    station at a time, fed to the detector diodes. Because FM is a wider
    bandwidth service, 10.7 Mhz is the IF frequency of your FM radio, netting
    us an easy-to-achieve 200 Khz receiver bandwidth. (FM mobile radios,
    including cellphones use two conversions....10.7 then 455 Khz to get
    narrow band FM channels...one at a time. These fixed frequency
    amplifiers can be made VERY high gain because you don't have to tune them
    to any other frequency...so these "Superheterodyne" receivers are very
    sensitive...way down into the natural noise level. That hasn't changed
    since the 1930's when they were produced. Your cellphone's IF amp has a
    special type of ceramic filters which is very cheap to produce in the
    Chinese slave factories.

    FM is all about the NOISE.....or rather, the lack of it.

    Larry
    --
    Grade School Physics Factoid:
    A building cannot freefall into its own footprint without
    skilled demolition.



    See More: Analog Cell Phones: Why AM is better than FM




  2. #2
    Karl Uppiano
    Guest

    Re: Analog Cell Phones: Why AM is better than FM

    Nice writeup, but I do have to take exception to one thing:

    AM broadcast audio bandwidth is *not* limited to 5 KHz. It is limited to 10
    KHz by the NRSC AM Bandwidth and pre-emphasis standard. Prior to NRSC, it
    used to be unlimited, with a *minimum* audio bandwidth of 5 KHz. Some
    stations are voluntarily reducing their bandwidth to 6 - 8 KHz in an attempt
    to reduce interference in congested markets.

    AM channels are separated by 10 KHz, but the FCC tries to allocate AM
    broadcast stations locally on alternate or second alternate channels to
    avoid interference. The interference is more noticeable at night, when local
    signals skip long distances. Then, you hear the 10 KHz whistle due to
    carriers 10 KHz up or down the dial, as well as "monkey chatter" due to the
    inverted sidebands of adjacent stations.





  3. #3
    Mij Adyaw
    Guest

    Re: Analog Cell Phones: Why AM is better than FM

    Analog Cell phones are no good except in emergencies. Any 12 year old geek
    child with a police scanner can listen to your analog conversation.

    "Radium" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On May 24, 4:55 pm, [email protected] wrote in
    > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...b6bd964?hl=en&
    > :
    >
    >> On May 24, 7:28 pm, Radium <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >> > Hi:

    >
    >> > Why do analog cell phones use FM? Why not AM?

    >
    >> Do you even know if they do?

    >
    > Yes. I read about it.
    >
    >> > Microwave-frequencies can be done in AM just as well
    >> > as FM? Why not use AM?

    >
    >> Why not use FM?

    >
    > FM is limited to line of sight. AM provides the ability to converse
    > over significantly longer distances than FM.
    >
    >> > At the receiving end, the carrier signal should be
    >> > amplified prior to demodulation.

    >
    > The purpose of this is to "DX". This allows communications over even
    > longer distances than without the DX.
    >
    > For best results, longwave frequencies [around 150 KHz] should be used
    > along with DX.
    >







  4. #4
    Richard Crowley
    Guest

    Re: Analog Cell Phones: Why AM is better than FM

    "Larry" wrote ...
    [long and excelent treatise on FM vs. AM and other topics]

    Larry, you've been trolled by "Radium".
    Many of us have dramatically increased the SNR of these
    newsgroups by simply plonking him/her/it.



  5. #5
    Randy Yates
    Guest

    Re: Analog Cell Phones: Why AM is better than FM

    Larry,

    I agree with your general point that FM doesn't propagate any
    differently than AM and that the key difference is noise immunity.

    However, I think:

    > Your CDMA, TDMA, PCS or whatever cellphone you carry is STILL an FM
    > radio, at heart,


    is inaccurate.

    I wouldn't consider the underlying modulation type of CDMA FM.
    CDMA2000 uses QPSK as its modulation. That's not FM.

    However, I would agree that the old US TDMA standard (IS-54/IS-136),
    which uses pi/4 DQPSK is a type of FM.

    Standard GSM uses GMSK (Gaussian Minimum Shift Keying), which is also
    a type of "digital" FM, but the new high-speed GSM channels, the
    so-called EDGE signals, are 3pi/8-shifted 8PSK and thus again are not
    really FM.

    The exceptions I've noted are phase-modulated signals, and since phase
    and frequency modulation share the constant modulus property, they
    both have noise immunity against impulsive, AM noise. So the idea that
    they all resist noise is correct, but calling them FM is not accurate,
    in my opinion.

    I'm coming from [rappaport] and [proakiscomm].

    --Randy

    @book{rappaport,
    title = "Wireless Communications: Principles and Practice",
    author = "Theodore S. Rappaport",
    publisher = "Prentice Hall",
    edition = "second",
    year = "2002"}

    @BOOK{proakiscomm,
    title = "{Digital Communications}",
    author = "John~G.~Proakis",
    publisher = "McGraw-Hill",
    edition = "fourth",
    year = "2001"}

    --
    % Randy Yates % "Bird, on the wing,
    %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % goes floating by
    %%% 919-577-9882 % but there's a teardrop in his eye..."
    %%%% <[email protected]> % 'One Summer Dream', *Face The Music*, ELO
    http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr



  6. #6
    Larry
    Guest

    Re: Analog Cell Phones: Why AM is better than FM

    "Richard Crowley" <[email protected]> wrote in news:135dsro7vv2bvb5
    @corp.supernews.com:

    > Larry, you've been trolled by "Radium".
    > Many of us have dramatically increased the SNR of these
    > newsgroups by simply plonking him/her/it.
    >
    >


    Done...(c;

    I've been attacked by better...

    Larry
    --
    Grade School Physics Factoid:
    A building cannot freefall into its own footprint without
    skilled demolition.



  7. #7
    Larry
    Guest

    Re: Analog Cell Phones: Why AM is better than FM

    "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > Analog Cell phones are no good except in emergencies. Any 12 year old
    > geek child with a police scanner can listen to your analog
    > conversation.
    >


    Do the kids matter with the NSA's massive mainframe listening to your every
    word?...(c;

    There is no privacy, any more.

    Larry
    --
    Grade School Physics Factoid:
    A building cannot freefall into its own footprint without
    skilled demolition.



  8. #8
    Randy Yates
    Guest

    Re: Analog Cell Phones: Why AM is better than FM

    Larry <[email protected]> writes:

    > "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote in
    > news:[email protected]:
    >
    >> Analog Cell phones are no good except in emergencies. Any 12 year old
    >> geek child with a police scanner can listen to your analog
    >> conversation.
    >>

    >
    > Do the kids matter with the NSA's massive mainframe listening to your every
    > word?...(c;


    No NSA or mainframe required - the feds have direct access to any cell
    conversation they want. It's built into the cell infrastructure by the
    carriers. That is, if you're in the U.S.
    --
    % Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul
    %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % 'cause no one knows which side
    %%% 919-577-9882 % the coin will fall."
    %%%% <[email protected]> % 'Big Wheels', *Out of the Blue*, ELO
    http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr



  9. #9
    Karl Uppiano
    Guest

    Re: Analog Cell Phones: Why AM is better than FM

    > Just out of personal preference, I'd much rather have more
    > interference than less bandwidth.


    Similarly, out of personal preference, I'd much rather have more cats than
    less toothpaste.





  10. #10
    Mr.T
    Guest

    Re: Analog Cell Phones: Why AM is better than FM


    "Radium" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Just out of personal preference, I'd much rather have more
    > interference than less bandwidth.


    Bandwidth being more important for mobile phone conversations than lower
    noise/interference in your opinion?
    :-)

    MrT.





  11. #11
    Radium
    Guest

    Re: Analog Cell Phones: Why AM is better than FM

    On May 27, 10:03 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

    > Bandwidth being more important for mobile phone conversations than lower
    > noise/interference in your opinion?


    Bandwidth is more important for any/everything than lower noise/
    interference in my opinion.

    I like listening to long distance magnetic disruptions originating
    from the objects in outer space significantly further than our solar
    system.

    Which brings up another question.

    Let's say I am in a space station which has a supercooled 150 KHz DX
    analog receiver that receives the magnetic fields [while ignoring the
    electric fields] of extremely weak 150 KHz AM analog carrier signals.
    In addition, this receiver is so sensitive and powerful that it can
    clearly pick up AM carrier waves as weak as 10^-10,000 watt [i.e. 10-
    to-the-power-NEGATIVE-10,000 watt]. Also, this receiver has an
    astronomically-powerful amplifier which amplifies the extremely-soft
    carrier waves until the resulting modulation signals will be just loud
    enough for the human ear to detect. Following this amplification, the
    carrier waves are demodulation to modulation waves - the stuff we
    "hear" - and then sent to loudspeaker so those onboard can hear those
    sounds. In addition, the audio devices filter out modulation signals
    that are below 20 Hz or above 20 KHz, as the human ear only responds
    to 20-20,000 Hz.

    If I am on this spaceship, what will I hear on the radio? My guess is
    that I would hear long-distance magnetic disruptions.




  12. #12
    Radium
    Guest

    Re: Analog Cell Phones: Why AM is better than FM

    On May 27, 10:03 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

    > Bandwidth being more important for mobile phone conversations than lower
    > noise/interference in your opinion?


    Bandwidth is more important for any/everything than lower noise/
    interference in my opinion.

    I like listening to long distance magnetic disruptions originating
    from the objects in outer space significantly further than our solar
    system.

    Which brings up another question.

    Let's say I am in a space station which has a supercooled 150 KHz DX
    analog receiver that receives the magnetic fields [while ignoring the
    electric fields] of extremely weak 150 KHz AM analog carrier signals.
    In addition, this receiver is so sensitive and powerful that it can
    clearly pick up AM carrier waves as weak as 10^-10,000 watt [i.e. 10-
    to-the-power-NEGATIVE-10,000 watt]. Also, this receiver has an
    astronomically-powerful amplifier which amplifies the extremely-soft
    carrier waves until the resulting modulation signals will be just loud
    enough for the human ear to detect. Following this amplification, the
    carrier waves are demodulation to modulation waves - the stuff we
    "hear" - and then sent to loudspeaker so those onboard can hear those
    sounds. In addition, the audio devices filter out modulation signals
    that are below 20 Hz or above 20 KHz, as the human ear only responds
    to 20-20,000 Hz.

    If I am on this spaceship, what will I hear on the radio? My guess is
    that I would hear long-distance magnetic disruptions.




  13. #13
    Chuck Forsberg
    Guest

    Re: Analog Cell Phones: Why AM is better than FM

    On Mon, 28 May 2007 09:21:37 -0700, Radium wrote:

    > On May 27, 10:03 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
    >
    >> Bandwidth being more important for mobile phone conversations than
    >> lower noise/interference in your opinion?

    >
    > Bandwidth is more important for any/everything than lower noise/
    > interference in my opinion.
    >
    > I like listening to long distance magnetic disruptions originating from
    > the objects in outer space significantly further than our solar system.
    >
    > Which brings up another question.
    >
    > Let's say I am in a space station which has a supercooled 150 KHz DX
    > analog receiver that receives the magnetic fields [while ignoring the
    > electric fields] of extremely weak 150 KHz AM analog carrier signals. In
    > addition, this receiver is so sensitive and powerful that it can clearly
    > pick up AM carrier waves as weak as 10^-10,000 watt [i.e. 10-
    > to-the-power-NEGATIVE-10,000 watt]. Also, this receiver has an
    > astronomically-powerful amplifier which amplifies the extremely-soft
    > carrier waves until the resulting modulation signals will be just loud
    > enough for the human ear to detect. Following this amplification, the
    > carrier waves are demodulation to modulation waves - the stuff we "hear"
    > - and then sent to loudspeaker so those onboard can hear those sounds.
    > In addition, the audio devices filter out modulation signals that are
    > below 20 Hz or above 20 KHz, as the human ear only responds to 20-20,000
    > Hz.
    >
    > If I am on this spaceship, what will I hear on the radio? My guess is
    > that I would hear long-distance magnetic disruptions.


    Most likely you would hear interference from nearby (in cosmic terms)
    powerline systems. This noise will be attenuated by the
    ionosphere but some will get through, and there's plenty of it
    where it came from.

    As to tropospheric bending ("skip"), this is a function of the weather
    and frequency but not modulation. I received FM and TV stations
    800+ miles away one summer morning in the 60s, and this is nowhere
    near a record.

    Not counting exotic modes, the most efficient voice modulation
    is suppressed carrier single sideband, a form of AM.

    --
    /u/caf/signature.txt



  • Similar Threads