Document text
UNCLASSIFIED
AD NUMBER
ADB010373
LIMITATION CHANGES
TO:
Approved for public release; distribution is
unlimited.
FROM:
Distribution authorized to U.S. Gov't, agencies
only; Test and Evaluation; 29 MAR 1976. Other
requests shall be referred to Pacific Missile
Test Center, ATTN: Code 4250, Point Mugu, CA
93042.
AUTHORITY
PMTC ltr dtd 10 Apr 1986
THIS PAGE IS UNCLASSIFIED
I
I
TELEMETRY SYSTEM PARAMETERS
AND BIT ERROR PERFORMANCE
OF NRZ AND DM PCM/FM
(AIRTASK A5355352 054D 5W47410030,
Work Unit A5352 10000002)
By
D. A. KING
Instrumentation Development Division
29 March 1976
DISTRIBUTION LIMITED TO U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ONLY;
TEST AND EVALUATION INFORMATION; 29 MARCH 1976. OTHER
REQUESTS FOR THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE REFERRED TO THE
COMMANDER (CODE 4250), PACIFIC MISSILE TEST CENTER,
POINT MUGU. CALIFORNIA 93042.
PACIFIC MISSILE TEST CENTER
Point Mugu, California
■'•■■" — ■ uj|-- • f '..•. ' ■:-: ”•• ■ ‘ J.'f**!*?
mmmmmmmmmmms.
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
COMMANDER
PACIFIC MISSILE LEST CENTER
POINT MUGU. CALIFORNIA 93042
IN REPLY REFER TO
4250/me
Ser 700')
29 March 1976
From: Commander, Pacific Missile Test Center
To: Distribution List
Subj. PMTC Technical Publication TP-76-6 “Telemetry System Parameters and Bit Error Performance
of NRZ and DM PCM/FM" by D. A. King, did 29 March 1976; supplement to
/
I , The following should be added to page 3: bit synchronizer A was the EMR 720 and bit synchro-
nizer B was the Monitor 335.
2. This information was not included in the text of the report to avoid the possibility of construing
f the results as a comparison of the two bit synchronizers.
’ ,/-< v / "'J' ‘ /
I ' _ y/' -
W. J. KIRKPATRICK
By direction
U
\
Cl
%
’'n, rtf6
Itfurwniy n
... - >», ■>/ v*1,, W- ^ f
UNCLASSIFIED
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION of THIS page r»Fhen Data Entered)
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
READ INSTRUCTIONS
BEFORE COMPLETING FORM
H Report number
TP-76-6
TITLE (and Subliti*)
REPOHya PERIOD COVERED
TELEMETRY jySTEM PARAMETERS AND^IT ERROR/
PERFORMANCE OF NR? AND DM PCM/fM - ^ /
6 PERFORMING ORG, REPORT NUMBER
17. author^;
I • CONTRACT DR GRANT NUMBERf s)
^f))PMrC-TP-7L-i 1
19 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION n4
Pacific Missila Test Center
Point Mugu, California 93042
“ROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASK
AREA A WORK UNITwUMBERS ; ,
AIRTASK, A5356352/054)b/
5W4^pU0p30, Work Unit
A5352 10000002
FlT CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME ANOAOORE55
Naval Air Systems Command
Washington, DC 20361
29 Mar Mi 76
U MONITORING AGENCY NAME A ADORESSfi/ different from Controlling Office) I IS SECURITY CLASS, (of thie report)
UNCLASSIFIED
'/2JS2P-
1S« OECL ASSI FlC ATION/ OOWNGRAOING
SCHEOULE
16- ^eTDiBn^iijtfyFMrh: ^ 1 ■ "
Distribution limited to US. Government agencies only; tast and evaluation information; 29 March
1976. Other requests for this document must be refarred to tha Commandar (Code 42501, Pacific
Missile Tast Center, Point Mugu, California 93042.
I 17. OIST RIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered In Block 20, if different from Report)
0QA535- Vg/z
19 KEY WOROS (Continue on reveree eide if necessary and identify by bfoch number)
Non-raturn-to-zero RF bandwidth
Delay modulation (Miller code)
PCM/FM optimization
Bit error probability
^^STRlkCT (Continue on revaree eide ff n«c«»e*fy and Identify by bfock number)
«Vhe work reported herein involved the axperimantal determination of optimum telematry
systam paramaters for tha transmission of NRZ and DM PCM/FM. The objactiva was to compara
the efficiency of the two PCM formats and to evaluate rules of thumb for detarmining systam
paramaters. A PCM/FM telematry system was simulated and optimum raceivar IF bandwidth, RF
transmitter deviation, and pramodulation filter bandwidth for the transmission of NRZ and DM
wera determined so that NRZ and DM performance could be comparad on an equivalent basis. ' —
(Continued)
00 ,^nR“s 1473 EOITION OF 1 NOV 6S IS OBSOLETE
UNCLASSIFIED
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Omlm Entered)
UNCLASSIFIED
SECUWTV CLASSIFICATION OF THIS P«OEflWi«n P«U Bnlmil)
20. ABSTRACT (Concluded)
RZ and DM rules of thumb were examined to determine the system performance loss due to non-
optimum operation.
The experiment verified other reported conclusions that show NRZ to be 3 dB better than DM
for equicalent bit rates under their respective optimum conditions. Thus DM is not recommended
for epplications of maximum data transfer in e bandtimited RF system where noisy signals may be
received. -Use of rules of thumb in setting system parameters will generally result in less than 3 dB
degradetiylin BEP as long as the rules fell within certain bounds about optimum:
1. The receiver IF bandwidth should be at least twice the optimum (fR for NRZ, 2fR for DM)
for data-recording purposes. The equivalent bandwidth of the prerecording and post-recording
IF combinetion should be close to f_ but less than 2fR for NRZ and close to 2fR but less
than 4fB for DM. B
2. The peak-to-peek RF transmitter deviation should lie between 0.6fR and 03fR for NRZ end
between 1 2fR and 1 BfR for DM .
3. The premodulation filter bandwidth should fall between 0.5f_ end 1 ,0fR for both NRZ end
DM.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author wishes to thank F. R. Hartzler and E. L. Law for their assistance throughout this
project
1
CONTENTS
Page
ABBREVIATIONS v
SUMMARY 1
INTRODUCTION 3
TEST EQUIPMENT 3
TEST METHODS AND RESULTS 4
RF Transmitter Deviation 4
IF Bandwidth 9
Premodulation Filter Bandwidth 11
RF Bandwidth 14
NRZ AND DM 20
SUMMARY OF RESULTS 20
REFERENCES 25
TABLES
1 . Equipment List 4
2. NRZ Optimum Deviations for Various IF Filter Bandwidths 9
FIGURES
1 . System Block Diagram 4
2. BEP Variations With RF Deviation for NRZ PCM/FM 6
3. BEP Variations With RF Deviation for DM PCM/FM 7
4. NRZ RF Signal Spectra 8
5. DM RF Signal Spectra 10
6. NRZ Bit Error Sensitivity to IF Filter Bandwidth 12
7. DM Bit Error Sensitivity to IF Filter Bandwidth 13
8. NRZ BEP Variations With Premodulation Filter Bandwidth 15
9. DM BEP Variations With Premodulation Filter Bandwidth 16
10. NRZ BEP Sensitivity to RF Deviation and Premodulation Filter Bandwidth 17
1 1 . DM BEP Sensitivity to RF Deviation and Premodulation Filter Bandwidth 18
12. Bit Rates Containable in 1 MHz and 3 MHz RF Channel Bandwidths by Band
Limiting With a Premodulation Filter 19
13. PCM Signaling Formats 21
14. NRZ PCM Video Spectra of a Pseudo-Random Pattern 22
15. DM PCM Video Spectra of a Pseudo-Random Pattern 23
16. Comparison of Optimum NRZ and DM PCM/FM Bit Error Probabilities 24
m
PRECEDING PAGE BLANK. NOT FILMED
-‘t-MfiTM 4' / ' • **" '
ABBREVIATIONS
Automatic gain control
Bit error probability
Bandwidth
Decibels
Decibels with reference to 1 milliwatt
Delay modulation (or Miller code)
Bit rate
Frequency modulation
Filter/sample bit detector
Frequency shift keying
Gigahertz
Integrate and dump bit detector
Intermediate frequency
Inter-Range Instrumentation Group
Kilobits per second
Kilohertz
Megabits per second
Megahertz
Non-return-to-zero
Pulse code modulation
Peak-to-peak
Radio frequency
Signal-to-noise ratio
FRSCCDIN3 PAG* BLANK.NOT FILMED
PACIFIC MISSILE TEST CENTER TP-76-6
Point Mugu, California 29 March 1976
TELEMETRY*$YSTEM PARAMETERS AND BIT ERROR
PERFORMANCE OF NRZ AND DM PCM/FM
(AIRTASK A5365352 0540 5W47410030,
Work Unit A535210000002)
By
D. A. KING
SUMMARY
The work reported herein involved the experimental determination of optimum telemetry system
parameters for the transmission of NRZ and DM PCM/FM. The objective was to compare the efficiency
of the two PCM formats and to evaluate rules of thumb for determining system parameters. A PCM/FM
telemetry system was simulated and optimum receiver IF bandwidth, RF transmitter deviation, and pre-
modulation filter bandwidth for the transmission of NRZ and DM were determined so that NRZ and DM
performance could be compared on an equivalent basis. NRZ and DM rules of thumb were examined to
determine the system performance loss due to non -optimum operation.
The experiment verified other reported conclusions that show NRZ to be 3 dB better than DM for
equivalent bit rates under their respective optimum conditions. Thus DM is not recommended for ap-
plications of maximum data transfer in a bandlimited RF system where noisy signals may be received.
The experimental optimum values of RF transmitter deviation, IF filter bandwidth, and premodu-
lation filter bandwidth were found to be:
P-P RF Transmitter Deviation
IF Filter Bandwidth
Premodulation Filter
Bandwidth
NRZ
F/S I/D
0BfB 0SfB
lX)fB U)fB
0.5fBtolX)fB 05fBtolj0fB
DM
F/S I/D
lj6f- l-8f„
0ifBtolj0fB 0.5 f„ to 1.0fB
Use of rules of thumb in setting system parameters will generally result in less than 3 dB degradation in
BEP as long as the rules fall within certain bounds about optimum:
1 . The receiver IF bandwidth should be at least twice the optimum for data-recording purposes. The
equivalent bandwidth of the prerecording and post -recording IF combination should be close to fR
but less than 2fB for NRZ and close to 2fB but less than 4fB for DM.
2. The peak-to-peak RF transmitter deviation should lie between 0.6fB and 0.9fB for NRZ and be-
tween 1.2fg and lBfR for DM.
3. The premodulation filter bandwidth should fall between 0.5ffi and 1 jOfB for both NRZ and DM.
(U) Publication UNCLASSIFIED.
Distribution iimitsd to U.S. Government agencies only;
tost end evaluation information; 29 March 1976. Other
requests for this document must be referred to tha
Commander (Code 4280), Pacific MtasRe Test Center,
Point Mugu, California 93042.
1
INTRODUCTION
An experiment was conducted on a simulated RF telemetry link to compare the bit error perform-
ance characteristics of two PCM formats, delay modulation (DM or Miller code) and non-return-to-zero
(NRZ). A valid comparison required that the telemetry system be operated in an optimum manner such
that bit errors for both PCM signals were minimized for equivalent data transfer. Consequently, this
report is also concerned with establishing optimum values for NRZ and DM system parameters. There
were four parameters under control in the simulated telemetry link with which to minimize the bit
errors: the PCM format, the premodulat'on filter bandwidth, the RF transmitter deviation, and the re-
ceiver IF bandwidth. All other system parameters were held constant during the experiment.
The criterion for optimality was that combination of parameter values for each of the two codes
which minimized their bit error probability (BEP). However, optimum parameter values for minimizing
BEP may not be optimum from the viewpoint of RF bandwidth considerations. To remain within an RF
channel assignment, the trading of more bit errors for a narrower RF signal bandwidth may be necessary.
This tradeoff can be accomplished by decreasing the RF transmitter deviation and premodulation filter
bandwidth from their optimum values. Both RF bandwidth and minimization of BEP were considered
in this experiment. The work was performed under AIKTASK A5T55352 0J4D 5W4l4l00Jl>, Missilt
Flight Evaluation Systems, work unit AS 3 52 10000002, to provide analytical support to the Telemetry
Group of the Range Commanders Council.
TEST EQUIPMENT
The simulated telemetry system and associated test equipment are shown in figure 1 . The equip-
ment Is listed in table i
The EMR 721 test set served as both a bit error rate detector and an NRZ and DM signal generator
with variable bit rate. The NRZ and DM signals were pseudo-random sequences of 2,047 bits. The pre-
modulation filter was a four-pole, linear phase filter with adjustable bandwidth. RF transmitter devia-
tion and RF attenuation were adjustable on the FM signal generator which was operated at a carrier
frequency of approximately 1.48 GHz. The receiver IF bandwidth was selectable from the following
fixed units: 100 kHz, 200 kHz, 500 kHz, 750 kHz, and 1 .0 MHz. The receiver’s video filter was by-
passed and the video signal applied directly to one of two bit synchronizers. Bit synchronizer A con-
tained buth a U.75fB Mirtehed HH<-f/s<n,iple tit detector and tn irtfcgtaw and dump dclaclix Bil
synchronizer B contained only an integrate and dump detector. The selected bit synchronizer returned
the recovered NRZ and DM bit streams to the EMR 721 for error detection. RF bandwidth was mon-
itored on a spectrum analyzer.
hbcedihj pahe blamunot tombd
HP 8555A
SPECTRUM
ANALYZER
HP 3205A
FM SIGNAL
GENERATOR
RF SIGNAL
VIDEO
SIGNAL
SA 410
RECEIVER
BIT SYNCHRO-
NIZER B
INTEGRATE
AND DUMP
FILTERED
PCM
SEQUENCE
ROCKLAND MODEL 400
4-POLE. LINEAR
PHASE FILTER
EMR 721 TELEMETRY
. BIT ERROR RATE
DETECTOR
— 1 — 1 1
BIT SYNCHRO- j
BOONTON
42BD POWER U-U-
NIZER A |
METER 1
1
FILTER/SAMPLE 1
1
|
L.
J
RECOVERED PCM SEQUENCE
Figure 1. System Block Diagram.
Tibia 1. Equipment Lilt
Bit error rete detector, EMR 721
Bit synchronizers A end B, two st»te-of-the-ert bit synchronizers
Premoduletion filter, Rockland model 1200
FM signal generator, HP 3205A
Receiver, Scientific-Atlente series 410 WA
Oscilloscope, Tektronix type 564
Spectrum Anelyzer, HP 8555A
Microwett meter, Boonton Electronics 42 BD
TEST METHODS AND RESULTS
The system parameters for NRZ and DM were first optimized for minimum BEP and then RF
bandwidth considerations were examined. The initial parameter values were set according to the follow-
ing commonly used rules of thumb :
P-P RF Transmitter Deviation 0.7fB 1.2f0
Premodulation Filter Bandwidth 0.6ffl 0.6ffi
Receiver IF Bandwidth f0 2.0ffl
where ffi is the bit rate.
RF Transmitter Deviation
The optimum RF transmitter deviations for NRZ and DM were found by fixing the attenuation of
the RF signal such that the BEP was approximately 10"4. The deviation and BEP were recorded as the
deviation was incrementally varied at the transmitter so tha) BEP variations were adequately defined. In-
creasing the RF attenuation in 2 dB steps and repeating the deviation and BEP measurements resulted in
a family of curves from which the optimum deviation could be determined. Figure 2 for NRZ and fig-
ure 3 for DM show the BEP variations with RF transmitter deviation for fB equal to a 500 kb/s rate.
This data shows that the optimum deviations are ±200 kHz at the 500 kb/s rate for NRZ and ±400 kHz
for DM. NRZ bit rates of 200 kb/s and 750 kb/s were also investigated and their optimum deviations
were found to be ±80 kHz and ±300 kHz, respectively. DM bit rates of 100 kb/s and 375 kb/s were
investigated and their optimum deviations wtte also found to be ±b0 kHv anJ 1 10U k Hi rtai^rtrvely
In general, the data indicate that the optimum peak-to-peak RF transmitter deviations are 0.8fB for
NRZ and 1 .6f„ for DM with the other parameters at their initial values.
A research of available literature on optimum deviation for NRZ PCM/FM shows a variation rang-
ing from 0.7f to 0.9f_. Kotel’nikov (reference 1) and Smith (reference 2) derive the optimum devi-
ation to be 0.^1 5fB for FSK. Experimentally, Aeronutronic (reference 3) found the optimum devia-
tion to be 0.75fB as did a study by Electro -Mechanical Research (EMR) (reference 4). At the other end
of the range, Shaft (reference 5) calculated 0.796fB and experimentally found 0.84fB as the optimum
values.
Perhaps one of the more likely reasons for the variation in optimum deviation is the method of
bit detection. In this experiment a 0.75fB matched filter/sample detector in bit synchronizer A resulted
in optimum deviations of 0.8fB for NRZ and 1 jWb for DM. An integrate and dump detector <squwe
PCM matched filter) also in bit synchronizer A was tested for NRZ and gave 0.9fB as optimum. Bit
synchronizer B with a square PCM matched filter detector was also tested. Bit synchronizer B resulted
in an optimum deviation of 0.9fB for NRZ and 1 JBfB for DM. Aeronutronic’s optimum of 0.75fB
(NRZ) was with an integrating detector. They also used a sampling detector that resulted in an optimum
of 0.9f (NRZ). Kotel’nikov and Smith’s optimum was derived for coherently detected FSK, whereas
Shaft’s optimum was determined using discriminator detection. The reason for the variation of optimum
deviation with bit ikttelot *n tml iHwsti|ptedr but, as shown in figures 2 and 3 and discussed later, the
degradation in BEP due to a non-optimum deviation setting is not severe if maintained near optimum.
It was found that the optimum deviation is independent of the premodulation filter bandwidth but
dependent upon IF bandwidth and IF signal-to-notee ratio (SNR). From figures 2 and 3 tt appein that
the optimum deviation increases roughly 10 percent at low IF SNR due to AGC action and/or changing
IF fitter characteristics (not rtecWtw exhibit this phenomena) However, tMi charge causes a rela-
tively insignificant increase in BEP and can probably be ignored.
The dependence of optimum deviation on IF bandwidth can be related to the RF signal and noise
power spectrums. Figure 4(a) shows the RF signal spectrum with optimum RF deviation for a 500 kHz
IF filter bandwidth (fH = 500 kb/s). The IF bandwidth was doubled, and the optimum deviation was
found no longer to be 0.8fB but increased to 1.09fB as shown in figure 4(c). Doubling the IF band-
width doubled the noise power to the demodulator (assuming white noise), but as shown in a 1 MHz
bandwidth of figure 4(a), the signal power contributed by the introduction of the second sidebands into
the IF passband did not double the total signal power to the demodulator. Therefore, as a result of de-
creased IF SNR, the BEP increased. However, the doubled IF bandwidth then allowed the deviation to
be increased up to 1.09f„ without BEP degradation due to intermodulation distortion (filter phase non-
linearities) and forced FM thresholding (signal amplitude limiting by IF filter skirts). Increasing the
deviation improves the receiver’s video SNR and decreases the BEP. It does not increase the IF SNR.
In fact, due to constant transmitter power, the spreading of the RF spectrum by increasing the deviation
wM limy" the IF SNR by removing signal power from the passband. This power loss is not as significant
as the improved video SNR, so consequently the net result is to lower the BEP as the deviation is in-
creased to 1.09fB. Beyond 1 ,09fB, the BEP begins to increase again due to intermodulation distortion,
signal power loss, and forced FM thresholding.
BIT SYNCHRONIZER A, F/S
500 kb/s NRZ
500 kHz PREMODULATION FILTER
200 kHz/DI VISION
0.8 fg PEAK-TO-PEAK DEVIATION
BIT SYNCHRONIZER A, F/S
500 kb/s NRZ
500 kHz PREMODULATION FILTER
200 kHz/DI VISION
0.53 fg PEAK-TO-PEAK DEVIATION
Figure 4. NRZ RF Signal Spectra.
iMHMlH ,
BIT SYNCHRONIZER A, F/S
500 kb/s NRZ
500 kHz PREMODULATION FILTER
200 kHz/DIVISION
1.09 fD PEAK-TOPEAK DEVIATION
Figure 4. ( Concluded /.
Obviously, if the IF bandwidth is halved from the 500 kHz of figure 4(a), the BEP will increase
because of IF filter phase nonlinearities and forced FM thresholding. Reducing the deviation to remove
these effects will lower the BEP. The experimental NRZ data in table 2 shows the optimum deviation
for various IF bandwidths. All that remains in order to specify the optimum deviation is to determine
the optimum IF bandwidth.
Table 2. NRZ Optimum Deviations for Various IF Filter Bandwidths
IF Bandwidth
In the experiments conducted by Aeronutronics (reference 3) and EMR (reference 4), the optimum
receiver bandwidth for NRZ was investigated and found to be equal to the bit rate, fg. An unpublished
report on DM by Dr. W. R. Hedeman of Aerospace Corporation indicates an optimum bandwidth of 2fg
Their experiments were not repeated for this report.
A verification of these optimum bandwidths was conducted by visually examining the RF spec-
trums of NRZ and DM at various RF deviations and with the premodulation filter bandwidth equal to
the bit rate. The RF signal spectra of figures 4 and 5 were taken with fg equal to 500 kb/s. Figures
4(a) and 5(a) show RF signal spectra with optimum deviations for the optimum RF bandwidths reported
above. The spectra are roughly flat and constant over a bandwidth equal to the bit rate and signal
power drops abruptly outside this bandwidth. The 3-dB points of the optimum filter are thus located at
Bit Rate
(kb/s)
IF Filter Bandwidth
(kHz)
Peak-to-Peak
Deviation Ratio
Bit Synchronizer
100
100
0.77
A (F/SI
100
200
033
A (F/SI
100
300
1.38
A (F/S)
100
500
3.37
A (F/SI
750
500
0.75
B (l/DI
750
750
050
B (I/D)
750
1,000
1.09
B (1/DI
BIT SYNCHRONIZER A. F/S
500 kb/s DM
500 kHz PREMODULATION FILTER
200 kHz/DIVISION
1.6 f„ PEAK-TO-PEAK DEVIATION
BIT SYNCHRONIZER A, F/S
500 kb/s DM
500 kHz PREMODULATION FILTER
500 kHz/DIVISION
1.04 fg PEAK-TO-PEAK DEVIATION
Figure 5. DM RF Signal Spectra
BIT SYNCHRONIZER A, F/S
500 kb/s DM
500 kHz PREMODULATION FILTER
500 kHz/DIVISION
2.17 f„ PEAK-TO-PEAK DEVIATION
D
Figure 5. (Concluded!.
a bandwidth equal to the bit rate for NRZ and twice the bit rate for DM; in this case, 500 kHz about
center frequency for NRZ and 1 ,000 kHz about center frequency for DM. Both bandwidths encompass
the first sidebands of the spectra where most of the signal power is concentrated. Larger bandwidths
may allow more noise power than signal power into the IF passband and narrower bandwidths may un-
necessarily restrict the signal causing intermodulation distortion and forced FM thresholding. Optimizing
the RF deviation for a non-optimum IF bandwidth results in RF spectra such as those in figures 4(b)
and 5(b) (narrow .’r IF filter than optimum) and 4(c) and 5(c) (wider IF filter than optimum). These
spectra are not as optimally distributed in the IF passband as in figures 4(a) and 5(a) and result in a
higher BEP.
To illustrate the differences in BEP between optimum and non-optimum IF bandwidths and devi-
ations, BEP variations with RF power were recorded and plotted in figures 6 and 7 for NRZ at 750 kb/s
and for DM at 375 kb/s. BEP measurements were made using a 500 kHz, 750 kHz, and 1 .0 MHz IF
bandwidths with the RF deviation at optimum for 750 kHz and also with the RF deviation optimized
for the nonoptimum IFs. The results show severe BEP degradation for the narrower-thanoptimum 500
kHz IF filter and an approximate 0.5 dB degradation for the wider-thanoptimum 1.0 MHz filter for
both NRZ and DM. Slight improvements in BEP were made by optimizing the RF deviation for the
nonoptimum IF filters, but the minimum BEP was still produced with the 750 kHz IF filter at a de-
viation of 0.9fg (bit synchronizer B, I/D).
For data recording, the receiver IF bandwidth should be at least 2fg for NRZ and 4fg for DM to
ensure no loss of signal because of IF clipping by signal drift. In such cases, the optimum RF deviation
is set according to the total effective bandwidth of prerecording and post-recording IF’s. Optimally, this
effective bandwidth is set as close as possible to fg for NRZ and 2fg for DM.
Premodulation Filter Bandwidth
After setting the RF transmitter deviation and receiver IF bandwidth to the previously determined
optimum values, the premodulation filter bandwidth was adjusted for minimum BEP. As expected, the
optimum bandwidth was infinite for both NRZ and DM since signal energy per bit increases with
L
»"* ',*•* -w-ar* < *•.- #“—•*• «*■ WIWI
rnmmum m
-■'•'■fcMgaafet.i: 'ti.
w*
'kl'Afy *
bandwidth. However, the primary purpose of a premodulation filter is to limit RF spectral occupancy
by attenuating the tails of the RF signal spectrum. Therefore a tradeoff of BEP for RF bandwidth is
necessary. Figures 8 and 9 show the variation in BEP with premodulation filter bandwidth for ffi at
500 kb/s. Both figures suggest that the premodulation filter bandwidth should be set between 0.5ffi end
are due to
1.0fn
.g. The relatively small losses in BEP for premodulation bandwidths as narrow as O.5f0
the band limiting of the IF filter. Since the sidebands of the RF signal spectrum are generally rejected
by the IF filter, the premodulation filter should have little effect on BEP as long as its bandwidth is
greater than 0.5fg and the IF filter bandwidth is at optimum. Bandwidths less than 0.5fg will cause a
loss of signal power in the baseband that begins to severely degrade the BEP. A wider bandwidth than
1 ,0f„ will result in a relatively insignificant decrease in BEP because of the optimum IF filter’s band
limiting but will increase the RF bandwidth.
Figures 10 and 11 illustrate the difference in BEP between a premodulation filter set at O.Sfg and
1.0fg for fg equal to 500 kb/s and with optimum IF bandwidths and RF deviations. The BEP varia
tions with RF power were determined by incrementally varying the FM signal generator’s attenuator and
recording the attenuation and the BEP. RF power was calibrated to the attenuator by measuring high
RF power levels at the receiver input with an RF power meter. There was a 0.4 to 0.6 dB improvement
in BEP for NRZ using a 500 kHz premodulat’on filter over a 250 kHz premodulation filter and a 0.4 dB
improvement for DM. At the non-optimum deviations in figures 10 and 11, the improvement was 1 dB
for both NRZ and DM.
RF Bandwidth
IRIG document 106-73, Telemetry Standards, lists three RF channel bandwidths in the L- and S-
band frequency ranges; they are 1 .0 MHz, 3.0 MHz, and 10.0 MHz in width. These channel bandwidths
are equivalent, as defined by IRIG, to RF signal bandwidths of 1.2 MHz, 3.2 MHz, and 10.2 MHz, re-
spectively, where the signal is 60 dB down from the unmodulated carrier at the band edge. At each of
several bit rates (with pseudo-random data), the premodulation filter was varied and the RF transmitter
deviation held fixed at optimum to find the maximum allowable premodulation filter bandwidth that
would still restrict the RF signal bandwidth to within one of the IRIG channels. Figure 12 defines
approximate maximum premodulation filter bandwidths for various NRZ and DM bit rates such that the
RF spectra remain within a 1.0 MHz or 30 MHz channel. Bandwidth limitations on the premodulation
filter and the modulation section of the RF signal generator did not permit 10.0 MHz channel measure-
ments. The RF signal spectrum width will vary with the NRZ or DM formatting and shift with trans-
mitter drift; thus the premodulation filter was always set such that the RF signal was down 60 dB at the
band edges of the IRIG channels. This left 100 kHz of bandwidth on either side of the signal spectrum
to allow for spectrum variations and drift.
The lower diagonal line in figure 1 2 represents the lower limit on premodulation filter bandwidth
as defined by Q.5fg. Thus the approximate highest bit rate in which the RF spectrum will remain in a
1.0 MHz channel is roughly 350 kb/s for pseudo-random NRZ and 220 kb/s for pseudo-random DM.
For a 3.0 MHz channel, the highest bit rates are approximately 1 .0 Mb/s for NRZ and 720 kb/s for DM.
Higher and lower bit rates may be possible depending on the data sequence. For lower bit rates than
these maximums, it is recommended that the premodulation filter be set as wide as possible, up to
1.0ffl, without the RF signal spectrum exceeding an IRIG channel. While larger premodulation band-
widths are possible, they do not give a significant decrease in BEP for the increase in RF bandwidth. As
an example, consider a 500 kb/" NRZ signal, figure 12 indicates that the premodulation filter can be set
from 250 kHz to 850 kHz and still remain in the 3 MHz channel. Figure 10 shows a 0.4 to 0.6 dB
improvement in BEP with a 500 kHz filter over a 250 kHz filter but no improvement over the 500 kHz
filter with a 869 kHz filter.
If for a particular bit rate the RF spectrum is marginally within its RF channel and the premod-
ttlalkji! fitter ii at 0 5frt llterr ft h puutblv to deCtcaW thr PF bandwidth by <kftci»ir.g the RF (t.wii-
mitter deviation. By using figures 2 and 3, limits can be set on a permissible range of RF transmitter
14
rJ- —
' ' >>$
A
BIT SYNCHRONIZER A, F/S
500 kb/» NRZ PSEUDO-RANDOM SEQUENCE
500 kHz IF FILTER BANDWIDTH
PEAK TOREAK DEVIATION
PR EMODU LAT ION FILTER
PEAK TOREAK DEVIATION
ANO 1.74 fq PREMODULATION FILTER
PEAK TOREAK DEVIATION
PREMOOULATION FILTER
NOTE; CURVES INDICATED BY CIRCLES ANO
SQUARES EACH REPRESENT DATA UNDER
TWO SETS OF CONDITIONS SHOWN ABOVE.
*0.6 l0 PEAK-TOREAK DEVIATION
0.6 f0 PREMODULATION FILTER
RF POWER (dBm)
Figure 10. NRZ BEP Sensitivity to RF Deviation and Premodulation Filter Bandwidth.
deviation; the proposed limits are 0.6fB to 0.9ffi for NRZ and 1.2ffi to 1.8ffi for DM. Within these
limits, the BEP has been slightly degr^d from that at the upper limit for a small decrease in RF band-
width. Exceeding the upper limit inr iCases not only the BEP but the RF bandwidth too, whereas drop-
ping below the lower deviation limit begins to significantly increase the BEP for any further bandwidth
savingt For the deviation ranyei p#opoi*d above, an RF bamKHtMl savings J lUO to 2UU kHz tor NRZ
and 200 to 400 kHz for DM can be realized if required.
Figures 10 and 11 show the tradeoff in BEP that results when decreasing the RF transmitter
deviation to save RF bandwidth. With the premodulation filter at 0.5fp, there was a 1 .0 to 1.2 dB
improvement in NRZ BEP when using the optimum deviation of 0.8fB compared to using the lower
deviation limit of 0.6fB and a 0.4 to 0.6 dB improvement with the premodulation filter at 1.0f With
the premodulation filter set at 0.5L, there was a 0.6 to 0.8 dB improvement in DM BEP using the
optimum deviuk*) <J 1 6I"B h-stradof the lower deviation limit of ! ,2ffi and a 0.2 dB improvement
with the premodulation filter at 1 0f„ .
NRZ AND DM
A description of the two PCM formats is given in figure 13 (see reference 6). Because of mid-bit
transitions, DM is at twice the clock rate of NRZ. The optimum system parameters reflect this differ-
ence in KF JcvkUkn' and IF tn.m!wklth which for DM are twice those of NRZ;i.e.,
F/S
I/D
F/S
I/D
P-P RF Transmitter Deviation
0.8ffi
0.9fB
1.6fB
1.8fB
IF Filter Bandwidth (or equiv-
alent pre- and post -recording
IF BW)
iofB
1.0fB
2.0fB
2.0fB
Premodulation Filter
Bandwidth
0.5 fB to 1.0fB
0.5fB to 1.0fB
0.5fB to 1 .0fB
0.5 fB to 1.0fB
Figures 14 and 15 compare the video spectra of two PCM formats, and figure 16 compares the BEPs of
500 kb/s NRZ and DM under their optimum conditions. Figure 16 shows that the BEP for NRZ is
approximately 3 dB better than for DM. This result agrees with those results reached by Dr. W. R.
Hedeman of Aerospace Corporation in an unpublished report and by Dr. W. C. Lindsey of Southern
California University in reference 6. Both reports conclude that, for a selected BEP, a given telemetry
link can wppocfttfcta the hil me when NR? n umJ » cn.'panx! to the use of DM This is expert
mentally verified by figures 6 and 7 where NRZ is twice the DM bit rate.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Optimum conditions for transmission of PCM/FM in general depend on the PCM code, the bit rate,
the RF channel bandwidth, and system equipment. Optimum conditions are those system parameter
values that minimize the BEP, subject to RF bandwidth requirements and system tolerances (i.e., trans-
mitter and receiver drift). It was found that the optimum IF filter bandwidth is equal to the bit rate
fct NRZ md iwtee tire bM sate fbr DM. Huswh, Wider "ither than laboratory conditions, a ■wijer=tiian-
optimum IF bandwidth may be necessary because of the standard fixed IF filter sizes or because of
transmitter and receiver drift. In fact, it is recommended that for tape-recording purposes, the receiver
IF tindwid!1’ be set whhrf then Jptfcifthn to avoid IF dipping Dorn signal drift and that a narrower
filter bandwidth be used for data playback.
! 1 i 0 ! 1
i i i
i i
i i
i i
1 I ° I ° I ° I 1 ! 1 ! ° • 1 •
iii i
i i I I1
III I .
I I I I,
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I NRZ-LEV EL {OR NRZ CHANGE).
'ONE'' IS REPRESENTED BY ONE LEVEL.
"ZERO" IS REPRESENTED BY THE OTHER
! LEVEL.
I I’
I I
I I
1 i'
I h
i r
I I1
i i
I I
NRZ-MARK (DIFFERENTIAL ENCODING)
"ONE" IS REPRESENTED BY A CHANGE
IN LEVEL.
"ZERO" IS REPRESENTED BY NO CHANGE
IN LEVEL.
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
ifhniliTuuhji
i iii i i(
i iii ii
njinnjuirLr
uuinrLruuLfi
NRZ -SPACE (DIFFERENTIAL ENCODING)
"ONE" IS REPRESENTED BY NO CHANGE
IN LEVEL.
"ZERO" IS REPRESENTED BY A CHANGE
IN LEVEL.
"ONE” IS REPRESENTED BY A HALF-BIT
WIC - PULSE.
"ZEh " IS REPRESENTED BY NO PULSE
CONDITION.
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
till
I I I I
I I I I
i i i i i i r
I I I I I I I
I I i i i i i
i i i i i i i
i i i i i i i
i I I 1 I I l
BI-PHASE-LEVEL (SPLIT PHASE OR
MANCHESTER CODE).
"ONE" IS REPRESENTED BY A HALF-BIT
WIDE PULSE OF ONE POLARITY.
"ZERO” IS REPRESENTED BY A HALF-BIT
WIDE PULSE OF THE OPPOSITE POLARITY
BI-PHASE MARK.
A TRANSITION OCCURS AT THE BEGINNING
OF EVERY BIT PERIOD.
"ONE" IS REPRESENTED BY A SECOND
TRANSITION ONE-HALF BIT PERIOD LATER.
"ZERO" IS REPRESENTED BY NO SECOND
TRANSITION.
uiruumruui
i i
i !
i i
i i
BI-PHASE SPACE.
A TRANSITION OCCURS AT THE BEGINNING
OF EVERY BIT PERIOD.
"ONE" IS REPRESENTED BY NO SECOND
TRANSITION.
"ZERO" IS REPRESENTED BY A SECOND
TRANSITION ONE-HALF BIT PERIOD LATER
DELAY MODULATION (MILLER CODE).
"ONE" IS REPRESENTED BY A SIGNAL TRAN-
SITION AT THE MIDPOINTOF THE BIT PERIOD.
"ZERO" IS REPRESENTED BY NO TRANSITION
UNLESS IT IS FOLLOWED BY ANOTHER ZERO.
IN THE LATTER INSTANCE, A TRANSITION IS
PLACED AT THE END OF THE BIT PERIOD OF
THE FIRST ZERO.
Figure 13. PCM Signaling Formats.
->•' '***» *»*“'**<»
500 kb/s NRZ
500 kHz PREMODULATION FILTER
200 kHz/DIVISION
500 kb/s NRZ
250 kHz PREMODULATION FILTER
200 kHz/DIVISION
Figure 14. NRZ PCM Video Spectra of a Pseudo-Random < it tern.
500 kb/s DM
500 kHz PREMODULATION FILTER
200 kHz/DI VISION
500 kb/s DM
250 kHz PREMODULATION FILTER
200 kHz/DI VISION
Figure 15. DM PCM Video Spectra of a Pseudo-Random Pattern.
BIT SYNCHRONIZER A, F/S
BIT RATE = 500 kb/«
IF FILTER - 500 kHz FOR NRZ; 1 MHz FOR DM
I DM «1.2fB PEAK TO-PEAK DEVIATION
I 0.5 fB PREMODULATION FILTER
- DM 41.6 f8 PEAK TO-PEAK DEVIATION
0.5 fB PREMODULATION FILTER
,0-5 NRZ 40.6 fB PEAK TO-PEAK DEVIATION
- 0.5 fB PREMODULATION FILTER
I NRZ iOB fB PEAK-TO-PEAK DEVIATION
0.5 fB PREMODULATION FILTER
-9B -97 -96 -95 -94 -93 -92 -9
RF POWER (dBm)
Figure 16. Comparison of Optimum A IRZ and DM PCM/FM Bit Error Probabilities.
:?$>••••**<*•■
The optimum deviation is that deviation which minimizes the BEP within RF channel constraints.
The optimum peak-to-peak RF deviation was found to depend upon IF filter bandwidth and bit detec-
tion equipment. Theoretical and experimental data (see references 1 through 5) indicate that the op-
timum deviation ranges from 0.7fB to 0.9fB for NRZ with an optimum IF filter bandwidth and may be
higher for a wider-than-optimum IF filter.
The optimum premodulation filter bandwidth is a value which minimizes the BEP and keeps the
RF spectral occupancy within requirements. Results show bandwidths less than 0.5fB begin to severely
raw the BEP and that bandwidth* 6r<-aiet than 1 .0ffi offer very little gam in terms ot btP. Because the
premodulation filter’s primary purpose is to bandlimit the RF signal spectrum, it should be associated
with RF channel bandwidths as well as the bit rate.
Obviously, optimum conditions for data transmission can take on a wide range of values. Rather
than attempting to achieve maximum performance from a system by determining optimum conditions
for every requirement, rules of thumb for setting system parameters car be established for all systems
in noncritical applications with only a moderate loss (~2 dB) in BEP. That is, many telemetry system
applications must tolerate non-optimum operation to some degree. For these applications, rules of
thumb may be used to facilitate the determination of system parameters. Such rules were given earlier
in this report under Test Methods and Results. In general, the parameter values given by various rules
of thumb should fall within the following ranges:
1 . The receiver IF bandwidth should be at least twice the optimum for data-recording purposes. The
equivalent bandwidth of the prerecording and f ost-recordii* IF combination ih.uL' be ck« lu f
but less than 2ffl for NRZ and close to 2ffi but less than 4ffl for DM. B
2. The peak-to-peak RF transmitter deviation should lie between 0.6f„ and 0.9fo for NRZ and be-
tween 1 ,2fB and 1 ,8fB for DM. B
3. The premodulation filter bandwidth should fall between 0.5fB and 1.0fB for both NRZ and DM.
This investigation verifies the conclusions of Dr. Lindsey (reference 6) and Dr. Hedeman that for
equivalent bit rates under their optimum transmission conditions NRZ is 3 dB better than DM; for
equivalent BEP, the bit rate of NRZ is approximately twice that of DM. Thus DM is not recommended
for applications of maximum data transfer over a bandbrntii-J FT tyueiu wbeie tioity signals may be
received
REFERENCES
1. Kotel’nikov, V. A. “The Theory of Optimum Noise Immunity.” McGraw-Hill, N Y , '960
2. Smith, E. F. “Attainable Error Probabilities in Demodulation of Random Binary PCM/FM Wave-
forms; IRE Transactions on Space Electronics and Telemetry. Vol. SET-8 (Dec 1962) pp. 290-7.
3. ‘Telemetry System Study” Final Report, Aeronutronic Publication U-743 (Dec 1959); U.S. Army
Signal Research and Development Laboratories Contract No. DA-36-039 (SC-73182) Proj. No.
3 "1 6-00-300 •
4. Electro-Mechanical Research Inc. “Experimental Determination of Signal-to-Noise Relationships
in PCM FM and PCM PM Transmission,” by L. R. Brown. NASA Contract NAS 5-505, 20 Oct 61.
5. Shaft, P. D. “Error Rate of PCM-FM Using Discriminator Detection,” IEEE Transactions on Space
Electronics and Telemetry: Vol. SET-9 Dec 1963. pp. 131-7.
6. Naval Missile Center. Bit Synchronization System Performance Characterization, Modeling, and
Tradeoff Study, by W. C. Lindsey. Point Mugu, California. 4 Sef 1973 (Technical Publication
TP-73-iS) UNCLASSIFIED.
25
INITIAL DISTRIBUTION
EXTERNAL
Copies
Commander
Naval Air Systems Command
Headquarters
Washington, DC 20361
Attn: AIR-954
AIR-6502
2
1
Defense Documentation Center
Cameron Station
Alexandria, VA 22314
Attn: TIOG
Commander
Naval Sea Systems Command
Headquarters
Washington, DC 20362
Attn: SEA- 653
SEA- 6 54 3
1
1
Commanding Officer
U.S. Naval Station
Atlantic Fleet Weapons Range
Box 545
FPO New York 09551
Attn: H. T. Herring
Commanding Officer
Naval Avionics Facility
21st and Arlington Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46218
Attn: Code 906
Code 814 J. Brining
Code 814 K. Burgess
Off icer-in-Charge
Fleet Analysis Center
Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach
Corona, CA 91720
Attn: Code 851 1
Code 8513 1
Code 8522 1
Commanding Officer
Naval Ship Weapons Systems
Engineering Station
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
Attn: Code 4920 (C.B. Tendick) 1
EXTERNAL
Copies
Commander
Naval Weapons Center
China Lake, CA 93555
Attn: Code 373 1
Code 374 1
Code 533 1
Code 3742 (R.E. Rockwell)l
Code 451 (K.D. Cox) 1
Commander
Naval Air Test Center
Telemetry Data Center TDS/TSD
Patuxent River, MD 20670
Attn: H.O. Norfolk, Jr. 4
Commander
U.S. Naval Ordnance Missile
Test Facility
White Sands Missile Range,
NM 88002
Attn: Code 503 (W.W. Bohn)
DDR&E AD(TR)
The Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301
Attn: J. A. Webster
Director of Navy Ranges
and Targets
Point Mugu, CA 93042
Attn: AIR-630
AIR-6302
AIR-6302D
1
1
1
Commanding Officer
Yuma Proving Ground
Yuma, AZ 85364
Attn: STEYP-MDP
(H. S. McElfresh)
\
Commanding Officer
Ballistic Missile Defense
Systems Command
PO Box 1500
Huntsville, AL 35807
Attn: BMDSC-RD (G.E. Wooden) 1
BMDSC-ROO (D.E. Parker) 1
27
\
\
G
JPRSCEDIN3 PAGE BLANK- NOT FILMED
■■ i i 1- JL
,4-W 'll Til -IqbiiJ
external
Copies EXTERNAL
PICATINNY
Bldg 63, SMUPA-RX
Dover, NJ 07801
Attn: Telemetry Division, TSD
(J. C. Greenfield) 1
Commanding Officer
U.S. Army Missile Command
Redstone Arsenal, AL 35809
Attn: AMSMI-RTA, Bldg. 7855
(R. D. Bibb) ^
Commanding Officer
U.S. Army Electronic
Proving Ground
Fort Huachuca, AZ 85613
Attn: STEEP-MT-I (W.T. Lyon) 1
commanding General
Department of the Army
White Sands Missile Ranee
NM 88002 ’
Attn: STEWS-ID-IT
(B. Chin) x
(J. D. Cates) i
STEWS-ID-S
(B. E. Norman) 1
(E. Bejarno) 2
ADTC
Eglin AFB , FL 32542
Attn: ADTC - TSGGS
(E. J. Poschell) 1
ADTC - TSGPG
(B. L. Culberson) 1
Vitro Services
(R. L. Manley) 2
AFSWC
Holloman AFB, NM 88330
Attn: 6585 TG/TKIA
(J. A. Haden) 2
AFSWC
Kirtland AFB, NM 87115
Attn: AFSWC - TED
(CAPT R. j. Skelton) 1
4900 TG/FTEI
(J • C. Scott) 2
AFCRL - LCS
L. G. Hanscom Field
Bedford, MA 01730
Attn: C. H. Reynolds ]
SAMTEC
Vandenberg AFB, CA 93437
Attn: SAMTEC - ENIT
(D. K. Manoa) 2
SAMTEC - R00E
(K. 0. Schoeck) 2
AFETR
Patrick AFB, FL 32925
Attn: AFETR - ENIL (F. Mann) l
AFFTC
Edwards AFB, CA 93523
Attn: AFFTC - DOESD (J. Ramos) 1
Sandia Laboratories
Kirtland AFB East
Albuquerque, NM 87115
Attn: Division 1251
(R. S. Reynolds) 2
Division 9486, Box 5800
(P. L. Walter) 2
Division 9421, Box 5800
(H. 0. Jeske) 2
AFSCF
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Attn: Det 1, AFSCF - D0ZR
(G. V. Kreider) 2
AFSCF
Aerospace Corporation
P.0. Box 92957
Los Angeles, CA 90009
Attn: C. Nakamura
Bldg. 115/1341 2
National Bureau of Standards
Electronic Division
Bldg. 225, Room A109
Gaithersburg, MD 20760
Attn: GSA-FSS
(J. J. Fiori) 2
"V - »•
28
wmm*
S!3r51!!2-3in!S
pppws*
EXTERNAL
Copies
National Bureau of Standards
Washington, DC 20234
Attn: Div. 425.03
(P. S. Lederer)
Aerospace Corporation
Suite 4040
955 L'Enfant Plaza S.W.
Washington, DC 20024
Attn: Dr. W. R. Hedeman
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, MD 20771
Attn: Code 730.4
(W. B. Poland, Jr.)
Code 734
(R. M. Muller)
(C. Trevathan)
1
1
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
1520 H Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20546
Attn: Code MF
(W. E. Miller, Jr.)
Marshall Space Flight Center
Huntsville, AL 35812
Attn: Code S&E-ASTR-I
(W. Threlkeld)
Boeing Company, ASG, The
Systems Instrumentation and
Telemetry
Seattle, WA 98]«|4
Attn: Org. 2-5180
MH 8H-07
(V. A. Jennings)
Data Control Systems, Inc.
Commerce Drive
Danbury, CT 06810
Attn: M. Pizzuti
D. A. Zeller
1
1
Data Control Systems, Inc.
East Liberty Street
Danbury , CT 06810
Attn: T. Castellano
EXTERNAL
Copies
EMR Telemetry
P.0. Box 3041
Sarasota, FL 33578
Attn: S. Bass
G. Tremain
1
1
Federal Electric Corporation
Vandenberg AFB, CA 93437
Attn: R. Streich
Grumman Aerospace Corporation
Instrumentation PLT 6
Calverton, NY 11933
Attn: R. S. McElhiney 1
E. Char land 1
Harris Electronic Systems Div.
P.0. Box 37
Melbourne, FL 32935
Attn: C. Curry
IED
7440 Ronson Road
San Diego, CA 92111
Attn: C. Brewster
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
4800 Oak Grove Drive (156-142)
Pasadena, CA 91103
Attn: R. Piereson
Martin-Marietta Corporation
P.0. Box 179
Denver , CO 80201
Attn: MS 8200
(C. M. Kortman)
(S. Hurst)
McDonne ll-Douglas Astronautics
5301 Bolsa Avenue
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Attn: A3-833-BBS0
(D. R. Andelin)
A3-250-AG30
(R. M. Frahm)
Microcom
1115 Mearns Road
Warminster, PA 18974
Attn: C. Rosen
T. Grady
29
IL III IJJIJI JIM
f -^T ®
EXTERNAL
Copies
Monitor Systems
401 Commerce Drive
Fort Washington, PA
Attn: D. Mahoney
19034
Sandia Corporation
Box 5800
Albuquerque, NM 87115
Attn: Division 9421
(C. S. Johnson)
Teledyne Telemetry Company
1901 South Bundy Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Attn: H. F. Pruss
University of Michigan
Computer, Information and
Control Engineering
East Engineering, 1520
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Attn: L. L. Rauch, PhD
University of Southern
California
Olin Hall, University Park
Los Angeles, CA 90007
Attn: Dr. W. C. Lindsey
Mr. E. J. Baghdady
21 Overlook Drive
Weston, MA 02193
Mr. L. W. Gardenhire
906 Whitmire Drive
Melbourne, FL 32935
Mr. E. H. Straehley
Consulting Services
1631 Platevna Road
Santa Barbara, CA 93103
EXTERNAL
Copies
30
; ; • :■ "X )/f i
'ti*
mm
INTERNAL
Copies INTERNAL
Technical Director
Code 0002
W. L. Miller
Project Management Group
Code 0100
LT COL C. L. Phillips
Code 0150
M. H. Cain
1
1
Systems Evaluation Directorate
Codo 1001
CAPT D. D. Buck
Code 1002
R. S. Nelson
Weapons Systems Test
Department
Code 1142
C. N. Gorevin
RF Weapons Systems Division
Code 1262
D. H. Barthuli
Weapons Evaluation Department
Code 1300
Dr. M. A. Garcia
Fleet Weapons Engineering
Directorate
Code 2001
CAPT D. DeWitt
Range Directorate
Code 3001
CAPT G. M. Dempsey
Capabilitities Development
Department
Code 3100
W. C. Christensen
Code 3101
J. A. Means
1
1
Development Management
Division
Code 3120
H. J. Crawford
Copies
Measurement Systems
Development Division
Code 3140
T. R. Carr
Code 3142
R. W. Lytle
C. G. Ashley
J. Anderson
Code 3143
M. A. Bondelid
Code 3145
Z. H. Blankers
Control Systems Development
Division
Code 3150
J. R. Scott
Code 3151
A. H. Weishaar
J. L. Weblemoe
Code 3153
D. E. Ogden
Code 3154
P. M. Newton
C. E. Ohlen
System Development Support
Division
Code 3160
E. F. Mutz
Code 3161
R. L. Nifong
Code 3163
F. L. Allard
Data Collection Division
Code 3410
R. P. Carpenter
Code 3411
R. J. Roanhaus
R. H. Wymore
J. T. Dickman
W. T. Norton
Code 3412
F. D. Leiblein
Data Control Division
Code 3440
W. F. Tolman
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
%
31
"" 'iwwpw^-
INTERNAL
Copies
Engineering Applications
Directorate
Code 4001
N. F. Rohn
Code 4002
LCDR R. P. Evans
Equipment Support Division
Code 4131-1
R. W. Kenny
Technical Publications
Division
Code 4250-1
M. F. Hayes
Code 4251
D. S. Walker
Code 4253-3
Technical Reports Library
Instrumentation Department
Code 4300
V, E. Orris
Instrumentation Development
Division
Code 4320
K. L. Berns
Code 4321
F. R. Hartzler
D. R. Hust
D. H. Rilling
M. V. Wechsler
Code 4322
E. R. Hill
D. R. Knight
D. A. King
D. L. Laubacher
Code 4323
E. L. Law
B. E. Bishop
E. T. Kimball
C. M. Kaloi
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
50
1
1
1
INTERNAL
Copies
Instrumentation Engineering
Division
Code 4330
R. P. Tegt 1
Code 4331
M. A. Beckman 1
T. P. Waddell 1
Instrumentation Support
Division
Code 4340
J. D. Martin
Code 4341
E. R. Sandy
G. J. Harbold
N. R. Dragoo
D. J. DeJong
1
1
1
1
Office of Patent Counsel
Code PC
Dr. J. M. St. Amand
32
****3?0W| |W*%'
piil','
THIS REPORT HAS SEEN DELIMITED
AND CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
UNDER DOD DIRECTIVE 5200.20 AND
NO RESTRICTIONS ARE IMPOSED UPON
ITS USE AND DISCLOSURE.
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A
APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE j
DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED.