Figure 1: Close-in responses of various filter combinations Yellow:  Duplexer-only Magenta:  Bandpass-only Cyan:  Duplexer + Bandpass Click on the image for a larger version.

There is a follow-up article to this one - "A simple VHF notch cavity from scraps of (large) heliax" - link.

The case for bandpass filtering

If you operate a repeater - or even a simplex radio such as a Packet node - that is located at a "busy" radio site, you'll no doubt be aware of the need for cavity-based filtering.

In the case of a repeater, the need is obvious:  Filtering must be sufficiently "strong" to keep the transmit signal out of the receiver, and also to remove any low-level noise produced by the transmitter that might land on the receive frequency.

In the case of a packet or simplex node of some sort, a simple "pass" cavity is often required at a busy site to not only prevent its receiver from being overloaded by off-frequency signals, but also be a "good neighbor" and prevent low-level signals from your transmitter from getting into other users' receivers - not to mention the preventing of those "other" signal from getting back into your transmitter to generate spurious signals in its own right.

Comments:

• In this discussion, a "band pass" filter refers to the passing of ONLY a narrow range of frequency near those of interest and at odd multiples of the lowest resonant frequency - but nothing else.

• It is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED that anyone attempting to construct this type of filter get and learn to use a NanoVNA:  Even the cheapest units (approximately $50US) - when properly set up - will be capable of the sorts of measurements depicted in this article.

A Band-Pass/Band-Reject (BpBr) duplexer may not be what you think!

A common misconception is that a typical repeater duplexer - even though it may have the words "band pass" written on its label or in its specifications - has a true "band pass" response.

Figure 1 shows a typical example of this fallacy.  The yellow trace shows the response of a typical 2 meter duplexer where we can see a peak in response at the "pass" frequency and a rather deep notch at the frequency that we wish to reject.

The problem becomes more apparent when we look over a broader frequency range.  Figure 2 shows the same hardware, but over a span of about 30 MHz to 1 GHz.

Figure 2: The same as in Figure 1 except over a wider frequency range showing the lack of off- frequency rejection of a "BpBr" duplexer (Yellow) that is significantly mitigated by the addition of a band-pass filter (Cyan) Click on the image for a larger version.

Keeping an eye on the yellow trace, you'll note that over most of the frequency range there is very little attenuation.  What this means is that the "BpBr" filter doesn't exhibit a true pass response once you get more than a few MHz away from the design frequency.

I've actually had arguments with long-time repeater owners that disagreed with this assertion, but hadn't actually "swept" a duplexer over a wide frequency range:  These days, with the availability of inexpensive test equipment like the NanoVNA, there's no good excuse for not determining this for yourself!

For more about this, see the related article linked here.

Why is this a problem?

In the "old days" radios that you would use at a repeater site were typically cast-off mobile radios - and even if you had a repeater, it was typically based on a mobile design.  These older radios - often from the 80s or earlier - typically used a bank of narrowband  (often Helical) filter elements, each tuned to the frequency of interest:  If several frequencies were used, the system planners often placed then near each other so that they could be covered by the receivers' narrow filters without undue attenuation and because of this, one could "get away with" a duplexer with filtering that didn't offer a "true" pass-band response.

Most modern radios used in amateur repeaters are "broadband" in nature meaning that they often have rather wide receiver front-end filters:  It is not practical to have electronically-tuned filters that are anywhere near as narrow as the Helical filters of the past which means that they simply lack the filtering to reject strong, off-frequency signals.

The poor filtering of some "new" radios:

When a modern radio is dropped in place of an old radio at a "busy" site with lots of other transmitters, disappointment is sometimes the result:  The "new" radio may seem less sensitive than the old one - or it might seem that sensitivity varies over time.  In reality, the "new" radio may well be being overloaded by the off-frequency signals that the old radio's resonator-based front-end easily filtered.  What's worse is that the precise nature of this overload condition may be masked by the use of subaudible tones or digital tone squelch - and if this is a digital radio system like D-Star, Fusion or DMR, there may be no obvious clues at all as to the problem at hand unless one has the ability to measure and monitor the analog "baseband" from the receiver itself.

To be sure, if the receiver in question can operate in carrier-squelch analog mode, the usual techniques to determine overload (Iso-Tee measurements, injection of a weak carrier and observing SNR, etc.) may be employed to determine if there is an issue - but this, too, may be misleading as problems may be intermittent, showing up only when a combination of transmitters key up.

A simple pass cavity:

While not a panacea, the use of a simple pass-only cavity can go a long way to diagnose - even solve - some chronic overload issues - particularly if these have arisen when old gear was replaced.  Suitable pass cavities are readily available for purchase new from a number of suppliers and used from auction sites - they are also pretty easy to make from copper and aluminum tubing - if you have the tools.  Because of the rather broad nature of a typical pass cavity, temperature stability is usually not much of an issue in that its peak could drift hundreds of kHz and only affect the desired signal by a fraction of a dB.

Another material that could be used to make reasonable-performance pass cavities is larger-diameter hardline or "Heliax" ^(tm).  Ideally, something on the order of 1-5/8" or larger would be used owing to its relative stiffness and unloaded "Q" and either air or foam dielectric cable may be used, the main difference being that the "Q" of the foam cable will be slightly lower and the cavity itself will be somewhat shorter.

Figure 3: Cutting the (air core) cable to length Click on the image for a larger version.

The "Heliax bandpass cavity" described here can be built with simple hand tools, and it uses a NanoVNA for tuning and final adjustment.   While its performance will not be as good as a larger cavity, it will - in many cases - be enough to attenuate strong, out-of-band signals that can degrade receiver performance.

Using 1-5/8" "Heliax":

The "cavity" described uses 1-5/8" air-core "Heliax" - and it is necessary for the inner conductor to be hollow to accommodate the coupling capacitors.  Most - but not all - cable of this size and larger has a hollow center conductor.  Cables larger diameter than 1-5/8" should work fine - and are preferred - but smaller than this may not be practical - both for reasons of unloaded "Q" and also if the center conductor is solid or if its inside diameter cannot accommodate the coupling capacitors described later on.

Note:  The KF6YB article linked below contains some length calculators for coaxial cable.

Preparing the "shorted" end:

For 2 meters, a piece of cable 18" long was cut.  For the air dielectric, it's recommended that one cuts it gently with a hand saw rather than a power tool as the latter can "snag" and damage the center conductor.

Figure 4: The "shorted" end of the stub with the slits bent to the middle and soldered to the center conductor. Click on the image for a larger version.

For the "cold" (e.g. shorted) end, carefully (using leather gloves) remove about 3/4" (19mm) of the outer jacket and then clean the exposed copper shield with a wire brush, abrasive pad and/or sand paper.  With this done, use a pair of tin snips cut slots about 1/2" (12mm) deep and 1/4" (6mm) wide around the perimeter.  Once this is done, use a pair of needle nose pliers and remove every other tab, resulting is a "castellated" series of slots.  At this point, using a pair of diagonal pliers or a knife, cut away some of the inner plastic dielectric so that it is about 1/2" (12mm) away from the end of the center conductor.

Now, clean the center conductor so that it is nice and shiny and then bend the tabs that were cut inwards so that they touch the center conductor.  Using a powerful soldering iron (I used a 150 watter) or soldering gun - and, perhaps a bit of flux - solder the shield tabs to the center conductor all of the way around.  It's best to do this with the section of coax laying on its side so that hot solder/metal pieces do not end up inside the coax - particularly if air-core cable is used.  If you used acid-core flux, carefully remove it before proceeding.

With one end of the cable shorted you can trim back any protruding center conductor and file any sharp edges - again taking care to avoid getting bits of metal inside the cable or embedded in the foam.  At some point, you should cover the shorted end with RTV (silicone) and/or good-quality electrical tape to prevent contamination by dust or insects.

Preparing the "business" end:

Figure 5: The "coupling tubes" soldered in place which receive the wires for coupling in/out. Click on the image for a larger version.

At this point, the chunk of coax should be trimmed again, measuring from the point where the center conductor is soldered to the shield:  For air-core trim it to 17" (432mm) exactly and for foam core, trim it to 16-1/8" (410mm).  Again, using a sharp knife and gloves, remove about 3/4" (19mm) of the outer jacket and, again, clean the outer conductor so that it is bright and shiny.

Making coupling capacitors:

We now need to make two capacitors to couple the energy from the "in" and "out" connectors to the center resonator and for this, I cut two 3" (75mm) long pieces of RG-6 foam TV coaxial cable and from each of these pieces, I removed and kept the center conductor and dielectric - removing any foil shield and then stripping about 1/2" (12mm) of foam from one end of each piece.

At this point, you'll need some small copper tubing:  I used some 1/4" O.D. soft-drawn "refrigerator" tubing, cutting two 2" (50mm) lengths and carefully straightening them out.  To cut this, I used a rotary pipe cutting tool which slightly swedged the ends - but this worked to advantage:  As necessary, I opened up the end cut with the deburring blade of the rotary cutting tool just enough that it allowed the inner dielectric of the RG-6 to slide in and out with a bit of friction to hold it in place..

Comment:

The use of 1/4" (6mm) O.D. copper pipe and RG-6 center conductor/dielectric isn't terribly critical:  A different-sized copper or brass pipe could be used as long as two parallel pieces will fit inside the center conductor of the Heliax - and that the chosen center conductor and dielectric of the coax you use to make the capacitor will fit somewhat snugly inside it.

The reason for the two copper tubes is to prevent the two capacitors made from the center of the RG-6 from coupling directly to each other as all energy must first resonate the center conductor.  Using these tubes - soldered to the center conductor/resonator - prevents such direct coupling, and it offers good mechanical stability.

Figure 6: The PC Board plate soldered to the end of the coax. Click on the image for a larger version.

Using a hot soldering iron or gun, solder the two straightened pieces of tubing together, in parallel, making sure that the ends of the tubing that you adjust to snugly fit the outside diameter of the piece of RG-6 are at the same end.  Once this is done, insert the two parallel pieces of tubing inside the Heliax's center conductor and solder them, the ends flush with the end of the center conductor, taking care not to heat them enough that they unsolder from each other:  A pair of sharp needle-nose pliers to hold them in place is helpful in this task.

Making a box:

On the "business" (non-shorted) end of the piece of cable we need to make a simple box with a solid electrical connection to the outer shield to which we can mount the RF connectors with good mechanical stability.  For the 1-5/8" cable, I cut a piece of 0.062" (1.58mm) thick double sided glass-epoxy circuit board material into a square that was 3" (75mm) square and using a ruler, drew lines on it from the opposite corners to form an "X" to find the center.

Using a drill press, I used a 1-3/4" (45mm) hole saw to cut a hole in the middle of this piece of circuit board material, using a sharp utility knife to de-burr the edges and to enlarge it slightly so that it would snugly fit over the outside of the cable shield:  You will want to carefully pick the size of hole saw to fit the cable that you use - and it's best that it be slightly undersized and enlarged with a blade or file than oversized and loose.

Figure 7: Bottom side of the solder plate showing the connection to the coax. Click on the image for a larger version.

After cleaning the outside of the coaxial cable and both sides of the circuit board material, solder it to the (non-shorted) end on both sides of the board, almost flush with just enough of the shield protruding through the top to solder it.  For this, a bit of flux is recommended, using a high-power soldering iron or gun - and it's suggested that it first be "tacked" into place with small solder joints to make sure that it is positioned properly.

When positioning the box, rotate it such that the two "capacitor tubes" that were soldered into the center conductor are parallel with one of the sides of the square - this to allow symmetry to the connectors:  This is depicted in Figure 8 where the left-hand and right-hand tubes (more or less) line up with their respective coaxial connectors.

Adding sides and connectors:

With the base of the box in place, cut four sides, each being 1-3/8" (40mm) wide and two of them being 3" (75mm) long and the other two being 2-1/2" (64mm) long.  First, solder the two long pieces to the top, using the shorter pieces inside to space and center them - and then solder the shorter pieces, forming a five-sided (base plus four sides) box atop the piece of cable. As seen in the photo, the "short" sides are parallel to the two tubes in the center conductor.

As can be seen in Figure 8, there is a piece of PC board material about 1/4-3/8" (6-10mm) wide that goes between the two walls with the BNC connectors.  This piece provides a bit of stiffening, minimizing flexure of the two walls with the connectors when cables are connected which could change the orientation of the two "RG-6 capacitors" - and it provides a small degree of shielding between the input and output wires that form these capacitors.

Figure 8: Inside the box with coupling/tuning stubs and lines and stiffening bar installed.  Note the orientation of the tubes. Click on the image for a larger version.

As can be seen in the picture, BNC connectors were used as they were convenient, but "N" type, SMA or even UHF connectors could be used - but the use of BNC connectors will be described.

The BNC connectors were mounted on opposite sides of the box, approximately 3/8" to the left of the center line and 3/4" from the bottom.  As can be seen in the photo, the connectors were mounted in the "short" wall of the box such that our "RG-6" capacitors more or less line up with the capacitor tubes.

Now, insert the ends of the RG-6 center conductor into the "capacitor tubes" and, bending the top in an "L" shape, solder the end with the exposed center conductor to the coaxial connectors. 

Also visible in Figure 8 - just to the right of the center conductor - are two pieces of copper strip, each about 3/4" (20mm) wide - one is soldered to the center conductor and the other to the ground inside the box.  These two tabs form a very simple capacitor which may be used to "fine tune" the center frequency of the pass response by bending them nearer/closer to each other.  While most of the adjustment of the center tuning will occur as one slides the two capacitors (made from RG-6) in and out, this method may also be used to provide a bit of additional tuning range.

Preliminary adjustment:

It is best to first set the RG-6 capacitors to obtain the desired pass response, taking into account the desired band-pass frequency, but once one has done this - and if the pass frequency is too high - one would then add the "copper tab" capacitors - perhaps more than one set.  If the frequency is too low, see if you can obtain a suitable passband width (and acceptable insertion loss) by pulling these coupling capacitors out to raise the frequency:  For most applications, an insertion loss of even 1 dB will not appreciably reduce receiver performance - particularly if the local noise at the site is rather high from other users and especially if the use of a band-pass filter like this is intended to minimize desense, anyway.

It is best to make them from metal (copper, brass) that is thick enough to not be springy on their own:  Saving a piece and flattening the copper material from the shield of the 1-5/8" coax as you prepare it for use is suggested.

At this point we are ready to do some preliminary tuning - and this will require a NanoVNA or similar:  It is presumed that the builder will have familiarity with the NanoVNA to make S11 VSWR and S12 insertion loss measurements on an instrument that has been properly calibrated at the frequency range in question.

Setting the NanoVNA to measure both VSWR and through-loss over a span of 130-160 MHz, connect it to the cable and you should see a pass response somewhere in the frequency range and if all goes well, the peak in the pass response will be somewhere in the 130-140 MHz range.

Adjusting the center frequency and passband response is an iterative process as reducing the coupling by pulling out the capacitors (the RG-6 center conductor) will also increase the frequency.  Practically speaking, only about 3/8"-1/2" (9-12mm) of center conductor is needed at most to attain optimal coupling so don't be afraid to pull out more and more of the capacitors.

A bit of experimentation is suggested here to get the "feel" of the adjustment - and here are a few pointers:

• Figure 9: The band-pass filter sitting against a Sinclair Q2220E 2-meter Duplexer - a good combination for receiver protection at a busy repeater site! Click on the image for a larger version.

  Lowest SWR is obtained with the coupling capacitors are identically adjusted.  If the SWR isn't below 1.5:1, try pulling out or pushing in one of the capacitors slightly to determine the effect - but move it only about 1/16" in each iteration.  Generally speaking, pulling one out slightly is the same as pushing the other in slightly in terms of reducing VSWR.
• The passband response will be narrower the less of the RG-6 center conductor is in the capacitor tubes - but the insertion loss will also go up.
  
• The frequency will go up the more the passband response is narrowed by reducing the coupling capacitors.
• With the lengths given (e.g. 17" for air-core 16-1/8" for foam core) the passband will be within the 2 meter band with the amount of coupling that will yield about 0.5-0.6 dB insertion loss.  To a degree, you can "tune" the center frequency of the cavity by adjusting the coupling.  It is recommended that you first tune for the bandpass response - and then tune it to frequency: See below for additional comments.
  
• It is recommended that you use a little coupling as needed to obtain the desired response.  For example, if the cavity is "over coupled", the insertion loss will be about 0.5dB, but this will go up only very slightly as the coupling is reduced and the response is narrowed.  At some point the insertion loss will start to go up as the passband is further-narrowed.
• As the coupling capacitor is pushed in, the resonant frequency will go down.  If, even with the "tuning capacitor" (the copper strips) are minimized in coupling,  the frequency is too low, try pulling the RG-6 capacitors out slightly to move it up in frequency:  It's easy to accidentally "over couple" the cavity by pushing them in too far and causing it to tune low.   It's likely that you can pull more of the RG-6 capacitors out and reducing coupling than you might first think and still have acceptably-low insertion loss - and doing so will narrow the passband response and improve ultimate off-frequency attenuation.
  

As mentioned above, it's recommended that the approximate passband width be set with the capacitors and if all goes well, the pass frequency can be adjusted with just the adjustment to the coupling with only a slight change in overall bandwidth.  If, however, the desired "narrowness" results in a pass frequency above that which is desired, a simple "tab" capacitor can be constructed as shown in the photo.

Figure 10: The "close-in" response of the band-pass cavity. With the current settings providing a bit less than 0.5dB of attenuation at the center, it's rejection at the edges of the U.S. 2 meter band (144-148 MHz) is a bit over 8 dB. Click on the image for a larger version.

This capacitor consists of two parts:  A 3/8" (10mm) wide, 3/4" (20mm) long piece of copper or brass sheet is soldered to the center conductor.  The addition of this piece, alone, may lower the center frequency and bending this tab up and down can provide a degree of fine-tuning.  If the center frequency is still too high, another 3/8" wide, 3/4" long piece can be soldered to the shield of the coax next to it and be bent such that it and the first piece form two plates of a simple capacitor, allowing even greater reducing in resonant frequency of the cavity.

With the preliminary tuning done, a bit of reinforcement of the box is suggested:  A strip of copper circuit board material 3/8"-1/2" (9-12nn) wide is soldered between the inside walls of the box with the RF connectors.  This strip minimizes the flexing of the walls with the RF connectors due to stresses on the connected cables which can change the orientation of the coupling capacitors and cause slight detuning.

With this reinforcement in place, do a final tweaking of the bandpass filter's tuning.

Final assembly:

As noted earlier, it's strongly suggested that the shorted end of the cavity be covered to prevent debris and insects from entering either the center conductor or, especially, the space between the shield and center conductor.  This may be done using electrical tape or RTV (Silicone) adhesive.

Figure 11: A wider sweep showing the rejection at and below the FM broadcast band and up through 225 MHz.  This filter, by itself, provides over 40 dB rejection at 108 MHz Click on the image for a larger version.

Similar protection should be done to the top of the box:  A piece of brass or copper sheet - or a piece of PC board material could be tack-soldered into place - or even some aluminum foil tape could be used:  The tuning should be barely affected - if at all - by the addition of this cover, but it is worth verifying this with a simple test-fit of the cover.

Additional comments:

While the performance will vary depending on the coupling and tuning, the prototype, tuned for a pass response at 146.0 MHz, performed as follows:

• Insertion loss at resonance:  <0.5dB
• -3dB points:  -88 kHz and +92 kHz
  
• -10dB points:  -2.5 MHz and +2.75 MHz
• -20dB points:  -7.6 MHz and +11 MHz
• 2:1 VSWR bandwidth:  600 kHz
• Loss <=108 MHz:  40dB or greater

More detail about the response of this cavity filter may be seen in figures 10 and 11.  In the upper-left corner of each figure may be found the measured loss and VSWR at each of the on-screen markers.

If a higher insertion loss can be tolerated, the measured bandwidths will be narrower.  Depending on the situation, an extra dB or two of path loss may be a reasonable trade-off for improved off-frequency rejection - particularly on a noisy site where the extra loss won't result in a degradation of system sensitivity due to the elevated noise floor and the improved selectivity reduces off-frequency signals even more.

As with any cavity-type filter, there is a bit of fragility in terms of frequency stability with handling.  If, after it is tuned this - or any cavity filter - is dropped or jarred strongly, the tuning should be re-checked and adjusted as necessary.

There's no reason why this cavity couldn't be used for transmitting, although using the materials described (e.g. the center conductors of RG-6) I would limit the power to 10-15 watts without additional testing.

As it is, this band-pass filter - in conjunction with a conventional 2-meter duplexer - can provide a significant reduction in off-frequency energy that could degrade receiver performance.  As can be seen in Figure 2, the pass cavity may still pass energy from odd-order (3rd, 5th) harmonics that may fall within commercial/70cm and TV broadcast frequencies - but the addition of a VHF low-pass filter - perhaps even the VHF side of a VHF/UHF mobile diplexer - would eliminate these responses.

To be a good neighbor on a busy site it's strongly recommended that a pass cavity also be installed on the transmit side, along with a ferrite isolator (e.g. circulator with dummy load) to deal with signals that may enter into the transmitter's output stage and mix, causing intermodulation distortion and interference - both to your own receiver and those of others. 

* * * * * * 

Specific use cases:

Reduction of ingress from FM broadcast transmitters:

The most obvious use case would be the filtering of co-located FM broadcast transmitters.  Despite being about 50 MHz off-frequency, a nearby FM transmitter - which often runs hundreds if not thousands of watts - can couple into a 2 meter antenna with sufficient energy to overload a receiver, causing the appearance of distorted audio from the wideband FM modulation of the broadcast transmitter to appear on the receiver.  I have been on sites where the measured power at the receiver terminals, after passing through the 2 meter duplexer, have been on the order of 10 to 20 dBm (10-100 milliwatts) and actually registered as reflected power on an SWR bridge.

As can be seen from the above graphs and measurement, the filter described is capable of reducing this signal by at least 40 dB - likely enough to prevent gross overload of the receiver in question.

Reduction of commercial high-band VHF signals:

While less common these days, there are still systems like community repeaters operating above the 2 meter band in the 150-170 MHz range.  These, too, can cause receiver degradation and the fact that these signals may be intermittent (e.g. a repeater that isn't used too often) can often frustrate the analysis of intermittent "desense" issues.  Even this humble cavity is capable of reducing such a signal by about 20 dB at and above 155 MHz - more, if one were to reduce the coupling (and response bandwidth) of the cavity:  In severe cases, the slightly higher insertion loss of the filter (say, 1.5 dB instead of less than 0.5 dB) may well be worth the trade-off in off-frequency rejection.

* * * * * *

"I have 'xxx' type of cable - will it work?"

The dimensions given in this article are approximate, but should be "close-ish" for most types of air and foam dielectric cable.  While I have not constructed a band-pass filter with much smaller cable like 1/2" or 3/4", it should work - but one should expect somewhat lower performance (e.g. not-as-narrow band-pass with higher losses) - but it may still be useful.

Because of the wide availability of tools like the NanoVNA, constructing this sort of device is made much easier and allows one to characterize both its insertion loss and response as well as experimentally determining what is required to use whatever large-ish coaxial cable that you might have on-hand.

"Will this work on (some other band)?"

Yes, it should:  Notch-only filters of this type were constructed for a 6 meter repeater - and depending on your motivation, one could also build such things for 10 meters or even the HF bands!

It is likely that, with due care, that one could use these same techniques on the 222 MHz and 70cm bands provided that one keeps in mind their practical limitations.

* * * * * *

Related articles:

• There is a follow-up article to this one - "A simple VHF notch cavity from scraps of (large) heliax" - link.
  

• Second Generation Six-Meter Heliax Duplexer by KF6YB - link  - This article describes a notch type duplexer rather than pass cavities, but the concerns and construction techniques are similar.
  

• When Band-Pass/Band-Reject (Bp/Br) Duplexers really aren't bandpass - link - This is a longer, more in-depth discussion about the issues with such devices and why pass cavities should be important components in any repeater system.

 

This article was stolen from ka7oei.blogspot.com

[END]

From the late 1950s until about 2012 there was a (mostly) annual event held in southeastern Utah that was unique to the local geography:  The Friendship Cruise.

The origins are approximately thus:  In the late 1950s, an airboat owner - probably from the town of Green River, Utah - decided to go down the Green River, through the confluence of the Green and Colorado rivers, and back up to the town of Moab.  Somehow, that ballooned into a flotilla in later years - with as many as 700 boats - in the 60s and 70s.  By the mid 90s, interest in this unique event seemed to have waned and by about 2012, it finally petered out.

Communications is important:

Figure 1: A high-Q 80 meter magnetic loop on one of the rescue boats Click on the image for a larger version

From the beginning it was realized that there was a need for the boats and support crews to be able to communicate with each other - but the initial attempts using CB and/or public safety VHF radios were unsuccessful, reaching only a few miles up and down the river - not too surprising considering that most of the course runs through winding, deep (1200 foot deep, 365 meter) gorges.  In later years, cell phones - and even satellite phones - were tried, but due to the remoteness and narrowness of the gorges (and limited view of the sky) they were of extremely limited use.

At some point, probably in the mid 1960s, amateur radio operators got involved, successfully closing the communications link using the 80 meter amateur band.  This tactic worked owing to the nature of 80 meters:  During the daytime, coverage is via skywave over a radius of about 200 miles (300km) and this high angle of radiation allowed coverage into and out of the deep canyons.  Furthermore, the same antennas that were small enough to be usable on boats, vehicles and temporary stations on this band were well-suited for radiation of RF energy at these steep angles.

For (literally!) decades, this system worked well, providing coverage not only anywhere on the river, but also to the nearby population centers (e.g. Salt Lake City) where other amateur radio operators could monitor and relay traffic as necessary and summon assistance via land line (telephone) if needed.  Because the boats were typically on the river only during the day, this seemed to be a good fit for the extant propagation.

While it worked well, it was subject to the vagaries of solar activity:  An unfortunately-timed solar flare would wipe out communications for hours at a time, and powering and installing a 100 watt class HF transceiver and antenna was rather awkward.  Occasionally, there was need to communicate after dark, and this was made difficult by the fact that 80 meters will go "long" after sunset - often requiring stations much farther away (e.g. in California or Nebraska) to relay to stations just a few 10s of miles away on the river!  Finally, it was a bit fatiguing to the radio and boat operators to have to listen to HF static all day long!

Enter VHF communications:

Figure 2: General coverage map of the course showing coverage of various sites. Click on the image for a larger version

While VHF communications had been tried early on - and had been available in the intervening years - the biggest problem was that these signals could not make their way along the river for more than a few miles between twists and bends in the deep river gorges.  While useful for short-range communications, it simply wasn't suitable for direct boat-to-boat communications along the vast majority of the river's course.

By the time that the 1990s had come along, there was renewed interest in seeing if we could make use of VHF, on the boats, on the river.  The twist was that instead of direct communications between boats, we would try to relay signals from far above, on the plateaus farther away, and a few experiments were tried.  It 1996, I was on a boat on the river and took notes on what sites covered and where, trying nearby mountaintop repeaters and temporary stations set up at places near-ish the river courses themselves - the resulting map being presented in Figure 2.

Using the color-coded legend across the top and the markings on the map itself, one can see what sites covered where.  Included in this was the coverage from the 147.14 repeater near-ish Green River, Utah, the 146.76 repeater near Moab, and several other temporary sites atop the plateaus surrounding the river.  As can be seen, coverage was spotty and inconsistent over much of the route - with the exception of a site referred to as "Canyonlands Overlook" (abbreviated "Cyn Ovlk") which commanded a good view of the Colorado River side of the river course.  Clearly missing was reasonable coverage in the depths of the gorges along the lower parts of the Green River side - which started, more or less, where the coverage of the "Spring Canyon" (abbreviated "Spring Cyn") stopped.

Figure 3: The two TacTecs used for 2 meter reception, the voting controller (blue box) and the FT-470 used as the UHF link radio. Click on the image for a larger version.

As it happened, there were amateur radio operators camping at a site called Panorama Point when I was on the lower Green River and because we were using the Utah ARES simplex frequency, they just happened to hear the simplex activity on the river.  At that moment, I happened to be in areas that were not well-covered by any of the other sites and while their signals weren't extremely strong, it made me wonder what could be accomplished should I wield both gain antennas on the receiver and high power and gain antennas on the transmitter of a 2 meter repeater.

The birth of a repeater:

During the next year I put together a system that I'd hoped would make the most of the situation.  Because of the remoteness of the site, accessible via a high-clearance Jeep road - and that we had to bring everything to live for a few days, it had to be relatively lightweight and compact - and I also wanted to avoid the use of any duplexers (large cavity filters) that would add bulk and - more importantly - losses to the system.  Taking advantage of a weekend to visit Panorama Point the next spring we determined that we could split the transmit and receive portions by about 0.56 miles (0.9km) apart, placing the receive antennas behind some local geographical features and using local topography to improve isolation.  The back-of-the-envelope calculations indicated that this amount of separation - and the rejection off the backs and sides of the beam antennas - would likely be sufficient to keep the receiver out of the transmitter.  The receive site - surrounded by three sides by vertical cliffs - also provided a commanding view of the terrain as can be seen in Figure 5, below.

Figure 4: GaAsFET preamplifier mounted right at the receive antenna to minimize losses. Click on the image for a larger version.

In addition to site separation and gain antennas, I decided to go overboard, adding mast-mounted GaAsFET preamplifiers, right at each antenna (Figure 4) and implementing a voting receiver scheme - something made much easier with the acquisition of two, identical RCA TacTec "high band" VHF transceivers.  These receivers were modified - clipping the power lead to the transmitter and adding a 3.5mm stereo plug to each radio to bring out both discriminator audio and the detector voltage from the squelch circuit.

A relatively simple PIC-based repeater controller was constructed, using a simple comparator to determine which receiver had the "best" signal, based on the detector voltage from the squelch circuit, and also using another set of comparators and onboard potentiometers to set the COS (squelch) setting for the receivers.  As it turned out, the front-panel squelch control adjusted the gain in front of the squelch detectors in the radios themselves, allowing each receiver to be "calibrated" from that control, allowing easy fine-tuning in the field.

To link the receiver site to the transmitter site, a single UHF channel was used and I modified my old Yaesu FT-470 handie-talkie to this task.  The mysterious rubber plug on the side of this radio was replaced with a 3.5mm jack, providing a direct connection to the modulation line of the UHF VCO while using the top panel 2.5mm external microphone jack for transmitter keying.  As it turns out, not only did this transmitter provide linking to the nearby transmitter site, but its UHF beam was pointed across the way, to another 2 meter repeater at Canyonland's Overlook that provided coverage on the Colorado River - providing what amounted to a linked repeater system.  A later addition was a CdS photocell on a grommet and a piece of "Velcro" strap allowed the detection receiver activity by "looking" at the front-panel LED to prevent the link transmitter from "doubling" (transmitting at the same time) and clobbering an ongoing transmission from the other repeater site.

Figure 5: The remote RX site, surrounded on 3 sides by sheer cliffs.  The mast has two 2 meter and one UHF link beam antenna.  The solar panels are just visible along the far right edge. Click on the image for a larger version.

One of my goals was to minimally process the audio, causing as little "coloration" as possible to maintain quality, and to this end I took the receivers' discriminator audio from the voter and put it directly into the modulator of the UHF link radio, completely avoiding the need for de-emphasis and pre-emphasis.  This worked pretty well - but I noticed during the first year that it was used that when weak signals were present on the input, the noise and hiss from weak signals would sometimes cause "squelch clamping" on the receivers being used by us and others owing to the fact that such noise was being passed along the link without alteration:  For the next year I added a 3.5 kHz low-pass filter in the transmit audio line to remedy this.

The receive site itself was solar-powered, using lead-acid batteries to provide the energy when insufficient sun was available (e.g. heavy clouds, night).  In later years, the PIC controller was modified to not only read the battery voltage, but to regulate the solar panels' charging of the battery bank using a "bang-bang" type charger ^{(See note 1)} but also to report the battery voltage when it did its legal identification.  In this way, we could keep an "eye" on things without having to walk out to the receive site.

The two 2 meter and the 70cm link antennas were mounted on a single mast, the VHF antennas pointed in different directions to take advantage of the slight difference in physical location and in the hopes of providing diversity for  the weak signals from the depth of the canyons - which were all reflections and refractions.  As it turns out, despite the close proximity of the antennas, this worked quite well:  At the site, one could monitor the speakers on the receivers and watch the voting controller's LED and see and hear that this simple, compact arrangement was, in fact, very effective in reducing the number of weak-signal drop-outs caused by the myriad multipath.

In testing on the work bench, the measured 12dB SINAD sensitivity of each of the receivers (plus GaAsFET preamps) was on the order of 0.9 microvolts - far and away better than a typical receiver.  Later, I did the math (and wrote about it - see the link at the bottom of this article) and determined that it was likely that the absolute sensitivity of this receiver was limited by the thermal noise of the Earth itself and that it could not, in fact, be made any more sensitive.  This notion would appear to be borne out by a careful listening to the repeater in the presence of weak signals:  Very weak signals - near the receive system's noise floor - sounded quite different than what one might hear on a typical FM receive system near it's noise floor.  Instead of a "popcorn" type noise, signals seemed to gradually disappear into an aural cloud of steam.

The transmitter site:

Figure 6: The transmit site.  The tall (30 foot) mast and 2 meter transmit antenna is visible in the background with the UHF link antenna and the VHF "backup" TX antenna in the foreground. Click on the image for a larger version.

With so much effort having gone into maximizing receiver performance I decided to do the same on the transmit site in the years that this system was used.  For the first year, the transmitter was modest:  A Kenwood TM-733, on low power, driving a 50 watt RF amplifier into a vertical on a short mast.

The next year I decided to erect a taller mast and place atop it a 5 element beam, pointed in the general direction of "up river".  To boost my RF output power, I scavenged a pair of 110 watt RF amplifiers from some ancient Motorola Mocom 70 mobile radios (with some DC fans for cooling) and used two Wilkinson Power divider - one to split the input power and another to combine the outputs of the amplifier, yielding a bit over 200 watts of RF and about 1500 watts of ERP (Effective Radiated Power) - all without causing any measurable desensitization of the receiver system.  After a few days, one of these amplifiers failed, but the remaining 110 watt amplifier, now operating without the output combiner, happily chugged along.

The next year I acquired a 300 watt Vocomm amplifier and was able to use it for the remainder of the times that the Friendship Cruise was held.  Requiring 50 watts of drive, I still had to use the 50 watt amplifier, driven by 5 watts from the TM-733 to attain the full RF output.  When keyed down, the entire transmitter system drew about 60 amps at 12 volts from the battery bank, requiring frequent topping-off by a generator and DC power supply that were brought along. ^{(See note 2)}

With that much transmit power, the antenna was held aloft by a 30 foot (9 meter) mast to keep it away from people - and to help clear the local terrain and its effects.  As can be seen in Figure 6, there was a second mast with the UHF link antenna and a "back-up" 2 meter antenna.  When we arrived at the site, the first order of business was usually to set up the receive site, but once back at camp, we used a radio in cross-band mode and the two antennas on this short mast to get it on the air, providing "reasonable" transmit coverage.  Because of the effort required to set up the tall mast, battery bank and power amplifier, we often waited until the next morning to complete the setup, bringing our radiated transmit power up to its full glory!

"Listening" on the link frequency, this transmitter not only relayed my own, nearby receive site, but also the "other" repeater at Canyonland's Overlook. 

How well did it work?

The Panorama Point repeater itself worked better than we could have hoped:  It was "reachable" nearly everywhere on either the Green or Colorado River - although some sections of the upper Green and Colorado had somewhat weaker signals, requiring a good antenna and 50 watt radio - comparable to a typical car mobile installation - for reliable coverage.  Unexpectedly, it also provided coverage into the town of Moab, as far north as Price, Utah and even down near Hite, Utah - both well outside its expected coverage range and well outside the expected pattern of the beam antennas.

I'm confident that if I'd simply plopped down a "store bought" repeater with a single antenna and cavities, its performance - particularly on receive - would have been very much inferior as the signals from the depths of the gorges on the upper Green River were very weak and "multipathy". ^{(See note 3)}

With about 2.5kW of ERP one would expect that this repeater would have been an "alligator" (all mouth, no ears) but this was not the case:  When users were operating from the more extreme fringe areas - as in a deep river gorge, using a 50 watt mobile radio - the transmitter and receiver seemed to be more or less evenly matched, and despite running this much power, we did not experience any detectable "desense" where the strong transmit signal would overload the receiver.  At least part of this was attributed to the receivers themselves:  The RCA TacTec receivers used only modest amounts of RF gain in their front ends and a passive diode-ring mixer.  I have little doubt that if we had used more "modern" receivers we would have experienced overloading and would have had to place notch cavities, tuned for the transmit frequency, between the GaAsFET preamps and the receivers.

As a system, the Panorama Point and Canyonlands Overlook repeaters completely replaced the need for HF gear on the boats in the last decade or so that the Friendship Cruise was held, providing nearly seamless coverage from start to finish.

 * * *

Note 1:   A "bang-bang" solar regulator simply connects the solar panels directly to the battery when the voltage is too low - say, 13.2 volts - and disconnects them again when it rises above about 13.7 volts.  The PIC software implemented a timer so that after a disconnect from the panel when the voltage was high, it would not reconnect for at least 30 seconds, preventing rapid cycling.  With an open-circuit voltage of around 15 volts for the panels used, this was a simple, safe and reasonably efficient approach that could simply not cause radio-frequency interference in the way many modern "MPPT" solar chargers (with their PWM switching) might.

Note 2:  In the later years, a pair of 40 amp switching power supplies were used at the transmitter site to charge the battery as quickly as possible.  Not unexpectedly, we could load the generator to only about 60% of its rated output, owing to the terrible power factor of these supplies caused by their simple capacitor inputs:  Power-factor corrected supplies were not cheap and readily available at that time.  Also in later years, a very low power (1 milliwatt) 2 meter transmitter was constructed, connected to the battery bank, that telemetered the battery voltage using MCW (Morse Code).  If the battery voltage got too low, this transmitter would activate a subaudible tone and a receiver that had been parked on this frequency, configured to detect that tone, would remain silent unless/until the voltage dropped below the threshold, alerting us to the need to start the generator.

Note 3:  "Multipath" is when a signal - likely due to obstructions - finds more than one way to the other end of the communications path via reflection and refraction - a condition that is the rule rather than the exception when trying to get signals in/out of the deep gorges along these rivers.  While these multiple signals can reinforce each other, they are equally likely to cancel each other out.  By having multiple receivers and antennas - even two antennas very close to each other - the probability is significantly higher that at least one of the receiver/antenna combinations will be able to hear such a signal.  Because of the nature of FM signals, one can generally infer its quality by analyzing the amount of noise on it:  By comparing the amount of noise on the same signal, from two different receiver/antenna combinations - and always selected the "better" signal - the probability is increased that the received transmission will suffer less degradation.

* * *

Additional (related) articles:

• "The Most Sensitive Repeater On Earth?" (link)  - An article with more technical details about the link margins associated with the receive system.
• "Clint's Friendship Cruise Page" (link) - Pages describing the system, a bit of history about the Friendship Cruise, and other details.

This page stolen from ka7oei.blogspot.com

[End]