IMD and Splatter

 

https://www.robkalmeijer.nl/techniek/electronica/radiotechniek/hambladen/hr/1988/10/page71/index.html

I think the point I was trying to make about the influence of signal strength is here:  

Referring to fig. 1C, note the high level of rf at the 3rd order level - typically 36-dB down. Consequently, there will be rf energy outside the normal 23 kHz passband that will be only 36-dB below the carrier peaks, or about one four-thousandth of the peak power. Not bad if the station is only 25-30 dB out of the noise, but very objectionable if it's 40-60 dB out of the noise.

I think it is supposed to read "2-3 kHz passband" vice "23kHz passband."

I guess the point is that QRP levels of operation can hide a host of ills.   IMD ills.  This makes me wonder about the cleanliness of my own signals.   I will have to do some more careful measurements. 

Charlie Brown LIKES Static (with ITU paper on radio noise)

Because when he connects the antenna, it lets him know if he has enough amplification to hear the band noise.  He realizes that his radio receiver is not an I-phone, and that "static" is a feature, not a bug. FB Charlie Brown! 

Mike WN2A points to a 2022 ITU report on radio noise.  This report provides a LOT of information on noise (give it a few minutes to download!) and goes a long way toward explaining the usefulness of noise.

Here is the introduction. 

The ITU Radiocommunication Assembly, considering a) that radio noise sets a limit to the performance of radio systems; b) that the effective antenna noise figure, or antenna noise temperature, together with the amplitude probability distribution of the received noise envelope, are suitable parameters (almost always necessary, but sometimes not sufficient) for use in system performance analysis and design; c) that knowledge of radio emission from natural sources is required in: – evaluation of the effects of the atmosphere on radiowaves; – allocation of frequencies to remote sensing of the Earth’s environment; d) that radio noise from man-made sources is significant in setting the limit for some radio applications; e) methods for measurements of radio noise are given in Recommendation ITU-R SM.1753; f) methods for indoor noise environment measurements are given in Recommendation ITU-R SM.2093, recommends that the following information on the background levels of external radio noise should be used where appropriate in radio system design and analysis: 

https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/p/R-REC-P.372-16-202208-I!!PDF-E.pdf

Phase Noise and the Radio Amateur

A weak signal disappears in the phase noise of the stronger signal.

The March 1988 QST provides a relatively clear explanation of what phase noise really is:

https://www.robkalmeijer.nl/techniek/electronica/radiotechniek/hambladen/qst/1988/03/page14/index.html

Highlights: 

Phase noise is an undesired variation in the phase of the signal. In this case, an oscilloscope shows that the time between zero crossings of the signal varies over time when compared to the zero crossings of an ideal sine wave. An exaggerated example of phase noise is shown above.

Phase noise on an oscillator signal has exactly the same effect as frequency modulating the oscillator with noise.

Whenever a carrier is passed through a mixer, the phase noise of the oscillator driving that mixer is added to the carrier.

Phase noise on a transmitted signal causes effects identical to phase noise generated in a receiver.

Any signal that reaches a mixer in the receiver is modulated by the phase noise in the local oscillator driving that mixer. As such, the signal appears to have at least as much phase noise as the local oscillator. Thus, sufficiently strong signals off the receiving frequency can degrade receiver sensitivity by raising the noise floor at the receiving frequency. Receiver dynamic range is reduced as the noise floor rises.

With a frequency-shift-keyed or- a phase-shift-keyed signal, the close-in phase noise limits the maximum bit error rate that the system can achieve. Both of these effects can be quantified once the communications system is defined. With an SSB voice signal, the effects are much harder to predict, but excessive phase noise does degrade SSB signal intelligibility to some extent.

--------------------------------

Receiver guru Rob Sherwood provides some very useful historical background on his web site:

http://www.sherweng.com/documents/TermsExplainedSherwoodTableofReceiverPerformance-RevF.pdf

Phase Noise: Old radios (Collins, Drake, Hammarlund, National) used a VFO or PTO and crystal oscillators to tune the bands. Any noise in the local oscillator (LO) chain was minimal. When synthesized radios came along in the 70s, the LO had noise on it. It is caused by phase jitter in the circuit, and puts significant noise sidebands on the LO. This can mix with a strong signal outside the passband of the radio and put noise on top of the weak signal you are trying to copy. This is a significant problem in some cases: You have a neighboring ham close by, during Field Day when there are multiple transmitters at the same site, and certainly in a multi-multi contest station. You would like the number to be better that 130 dBc / Hz at 10 kHz. A non-synthesized radio, such as a Drake or Collins, has so little local oscillator noise the measurements were made closer-in between 2 and 5 kHz.   

-------------------------------------

Experimental Methods in RF Design (EMRFD) has this to say about phase noise:

"The local oscillator is a critical part of any communications system. Modern transceiver performance is often compromised by LO systems that suffer from excess phase noise, effectively limiting the receiver dynamic range. While quiet oscillators, those with low phase noise, can be built using traditional methods, these circuits often lack the thermal stability of a synthesizer.... Frequency synthesis is not, however, the answer to all the LO problems presented to the experimenter.  Some PLL synthesizers are burdened by excessive phase noise. Those using DDS, while quieter, emit spurious outputs, often in profusion.  Both use an excess of digital circuitry that can often corrupt a receiver environment."  page 4.1

   

"At first glance, phase noise sounds like an esoteric detail that probably has little impact on practical communications.  This is generally true." page 4.12 

--------------------------------------

Hans Summers G0UPL analyzed and measured the phase noise of the Si5351a chip: 

http://qrp-labs.com/qcxp/phasenoise.html

------------------------------------

DC4KU appears to be using the crystal filter method used by Hans: 

https://dc4ku.darc.de/Transmitter-Sideband-Noise_DC4KU.pdf

------------------------------------

Martien PA3AKE has done a lot of great work on this topic.  See: 

https://martein.home.xs4all.nl/pa3ake/hmode/dds_pmnoise_intro.html

-----------------------------------

Dean KK4DAS commented on the phase noise video of the IMSAI guy: 

Watching the video I was reminded of Segal's law roughly paraphrased as follows.:

A man with one spectrum analyzer knows his phase noise. A man with two is unsure.

Going Down the Phase Noise Rabbit Hole with the IMSAI Guy (VIDEO) -- Is there a better way?

Chimera:  2.

a thing that is hoped or wished for but in fact is illusory or impossible to achieve.

(from the Oxford English Language Dictionary). 

Phase Noise.  We know what it is, but how do you measure it?  Pete N6QW and I went through this back when people were casting phase noise aspersions at (Pete's!) beloved Si5351.   More recently phase noise hate  has been focused on (my?) beloved Franklin oscillator.  When I asked a very technically proficient and guy at the VWS club if he could measure phase noise, I was surprised when he honestly said that he could not. 

And now we have the IMSAI guy saying, essentially, the same thing.  Wow, if the VWS guy and the IMSAI guy -- with all the spectrum analyzers at their disposal -- have trouble measuring phase noise, what hope do we ordinary hams have?  I mean, at best most of us have just an oscilloscope, a NanoVNA,  and a TinySA.  

Look, I know that phase noise is real and in certain circumstances, it is important.   But sometimes I suspect that its measurement is also a bit of a technical chimera:  If,  for whatever reason,  there is a circuit that you don't like, you can claim that the phase noise of that circuit is bad.  Or horrible. I think we see this sometimes with the Franklin oscillator.  Very few hams will be able to measure it and dispute the assertion that the phase noise is bad.    

For a perhaps painful walk down SoldeSmoke's "Phase Noise Memory Lane"  go here: 

https://soldersmoke.blogspot.com/search?q=Phase+Noise

Thanks to the IMSAI guy for a great video.   But let me ask:   Is there a better, simpler way to measure phase noise?  One that will avoid chimerical results and that could be used by hams with sort of standard ('scope, sig gen, NanoVNA, TinySA) test gear?