Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum

Fri Dec 27 20:53:01 CST 2013

All,

I didn't see the presentation, but I'm somewhat confused by the semantics.
"In this discussion, "SS" I thought might be Spread Spectrum, but it seems
to be used for Frequency Hopping -  Maybe I'm missing something.
I assume we are talking digital communication?  If so, a preamble containing
the sync information, next frequency, etc. is typically used.  To initially
start the communications, a known FH algorithm or a pre-defined set of
frequencies is used.  Only when the correct sync is detected, it starts the
FH sequence.  
Are we discussing an FM or a SSB/AM mode?
Sorry if I'm way behind in the discussion. 

Jim, KR9U  

-----Original Message-----
From: tacos-bounces+jbwolf=comcast.net at amrad.org
[mailto:tacos-bounces+jbwolf=comcast.net at amrad.org] On Behalf Of Frank Eliot
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2013 8:26 PM
To: John Donaldson
Cc: tacos at amrad.org
Subject: Re: Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum

John -
	This is an interesting history, but it addresses a different problem
from what Andre was proposing. The torpedo application was interested in
making it difficult for the enemy to jam or spoof the control signals. It
sounds like the torpedo would sync up with the transmitter before launch
using a rate offset until sync was achieved. If that was to be the case,
then finding a clear channel was not an issue. The question I was addressing
was how to sync the receiver to the received SS signal in the real ham world
with crowded band conditions.

On Dec 27, 2013, at 7:41 49PM, John Donaldson <johnab8yz at verizon.net> wrote:

> Frank,
>    SS technology goes back to WWII. A famous Actress came up with SS 
> as a way to control torpedoes and keep the enemy from jamming the RF 
> control signals. Synchronization was done with coded paper tape loop. 
> the torp would listen at the freq dictated by the tape and wait for 
> the transmitter to catch up and then both would then start cycling 
> thru the paper tape loop. The Navy did not use the system because they 
> were not convinced that this Actress could be that smart and was 
> trying to fool the Navy. Turns out she also held a Engineering Degree, 
> so knew what she was talking about. LOL
> 
> John Donaldson
> AB8YZ
> 
> On 12/26/2013 7:30 PM, Frank Eliot wrote:
>> 	Earlier this month, Andre Kesteloot gave an interesting talk on
frequency hopping, and demonstrated a transmitter driver he had designed.
One aspect of the talk really interested me. I had often wondered how
commercial SS systems attained their initial synchronization. I had assumed
that there must be some characteristic that enabled them to sync up quickly
either periodically or on each transmission. I couldn't figure out what it
was, but just assumed it must be easy. In the meeting discussion, it was
brought out that there is no magic, and that they do it simply by doing some
parallel processing that is probably not practical for hams. Much of the
evening's discussion centered on how hams could sync a frequency hopping
system. For discussion in what follows, assume, as Andre did, 127 points per
cycle from a shift register, known frequency channelization, and a one
second cycle.
>> 	Andre's proposal for synchronization was to start off a transmission

>> with the required NB FCC station ID on say, frequency one, with the 
>> timing reference being a transmitted pulse or mike button release. 
>> Then the QSO could continue in SS mode. This would be cool, and a 
>> great generator of bragging rights, but it seems to me that it 
>> wouldn't be very useful in the wild. The reason is simply that, if we 
>> are confident that frequency channel one, or any other for that 
>> matter, is clear of QRM so that we can be heard sending this initial 
>> timing signal, then we might as well simply sit on that NB channel 
>> and not bother with frequency hopping. Frequency hopping yields no 
>> processing gain in the absence of QRM. Its sole advantage, I believe, 
>> is in the case where some of the frequency channels are blocked by 
>> QRM. In that case, if you are transmitting information that is still 
>> usable if brief snippets of the received time series are blanked out, 
>> then frequency hopping will yield a succe
> ssful QS
> O,
>>   whereas if you had unfortunately chosen one of those blocked channels
for your communication, you would be out of luck, and never get started.
>> 	It seems to me that the best, and maybe cheapest, way to establish
sync while taking advantage of the SS processing gain, would be for the
receiving station to temporarily offset his shift register clock a little
from its one-second cycle, and then either listen for the transmitted
sub-audible tone, as Andre suggested, or simply watch the received S-meter
that had a longish time constant. When the receiver clock walks into sync,
the tone will be detected, or the S-meter should jump up to indicate sync.
>> 	I have thought a lot about a related synchronization problem in
connection with my work on coherent detection. This goes in a different
direction than frequency hopping. Its goal is to achieve significant S/N
processing gain on an open channel by pushing to very narrow band
transmission. Coherent detection requires that the carrier phase as received
be known at the receiving site. I had to figure out a way to do that
cheaply, but be able to establish that synchronization under the same very
weak signal conditions that I wanted to communicate with after sync was
achieved. I proposed such a method at the AMRAD meeting a few months ago.
>> 	In summary, I think that whenever a transmission format is proposed
that attempts to overcome a limitation such as QRM, QRN, etc., then a
necessary requirement when suggesting it for ham use is that if the protocol
must employ an initialization procedure before communication starts, then
the only fair way to advertise the protocol is to define the robustness of a
"system" that employs both a synchronization step and a communication step
as that of the poorer performer of the two. If the setup protocol requires a
big signal or choice of a clear channel in a crowded band, it seems like the
wrong way to go for hams.
>> 
>> 73, Frank
>> W3WAG
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tacos mailing list
>> Tacos at amrad.org
>> https://amrad.org/mailman/listinfo/tacos
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tacos mailing list
> Tacos at amrad.org
> https://amrad.org/mailman/listinfo/tacos

_______________________________________________
Tacos mailing list
Tacos at amrad.org
https://amrad.org/mailman/listinfo/tacos