![]() Pegasus Technologies Menu Page | Capabilities | Staff | Experience | Business Philosophy | Jim Pearce's Resume
Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum (DSSS) This is probably the most widely recognized form of spread spectrum. The DSSS process is performed by effectively multiplying an RF carrier and a pseudo-noise (PN) digital signal. First, the PN code is modulated onto the information signal using one of several modulation techniques (e.g. BPSK, QPSK, etc ). Then, a doubly balanced mixer is used to multiply the RF carrier and PN modulated information signal. This process causes the RF signal to be replaced with a very wide bandwidth signal with the spectral equivalent of a noise signal. The demodulation process (for the BPSK case) is then simply the mixing/multiplying of the same PN modulated carrier with the incoming RF signal. The output is a signal that is a maximum when the two signals exactly equal one another or are "correlated." The correlated signal is then filtered and sent to a BPSK demodulator. The signals generated with this technique appear as noise in the frequency domain. The wide bandwidth provided by the PN code allows the signal power to drop below the noise threshold without loss of information. The spectral content of an SS signal is shown in Fig. 2. Note that this is just the spectrum of a BPSK signal with a (sin x / x)2 form.
Fig. 2 BPSK DSSS SpectrumThe bandwidth in DSSS systems is often taken as the null-to-null bandwidth of the main lobe of the power spectral density plot (indicated as 2Rc in Fig. 2). The half power bandwidth of this lobe is .88 Rc, where Rc is the chip rate. Therefore, the bandwidth of a DSSS system is a direct function of the chip rate; specifically 2Rc/RINFO. This is just an extension of the previous equation for process gain. It should be noted that the power contained in the main lobe comprises 90 percent of the total power. This allows a narrower RF bandwidth to accommodate the received signal with the effect of rounding the received pulses in the time domain. One feature of DSSS is that QPSK may be used to increase the data rate. This increase of a factor of two bits per symbol of transmitted information over BPSK causes an equivalent reduction in the available process gain. The process gain is reduced because for a given chip rate, the bandwidth (which sets the process gain) is halved due to the two-fold increase in information transfer. The result is that systems in a spectrally quiet environment benefit from the possible increase in data transfer rate. Frequency hopping relies on frequency diversity to combat interference. This is accomplished by multiple frequency, code-selected FSK. Basically, the incoming digital stream is shifted in frequency by an amount determined by a code that spreads the signal power over a wide bandwidth. In comparison to binary FSK, which has only two possible frequencies, FHSS may have 2*10^20 or more. The FHSS transmitter is a pseudo-noise PN code controlled frequency synthesizer. The instantaneous frequency output of the transmitter jumps from one value to another based on the pseudo-random input from the code generator (see Fig. 3). Varying the instantaneous frequency results in an output spectrum that is effectively spread over the range of frequencies generated.
Fig.3 FHSS SpectrumIn this system, the number of discrete frequencies determines the bandwidth of the system. Hence, the process gain is directly dependent on the number of available frequency choices for a given information rate. Another important factor in FHSS systems is the rate at which the hops occur. The minimum time required to change frequencies is dependent on the information bit rate, the amount of redundancy used, and the distance to the nearest interference source.
This article is re-printed from "Spread Spectrum Scene" magazine (paper version), Volume 3, Number 3, page 8, and was written by Randy Roberts, RF/SS Consulting (Retired)This frequently asked question is really rather hard to answer. There is no real unbiased way to compare today's crop of commercial direct sequence radios to the frequency hoppers that are available. Sure, claims and counter claims abound, but the truth is hard to find. Why? A little history helps explain what has evolved in the commercial SS world. First of all, the FCC's first Part 15 rules (published in 1989), did not require any SS radio to have processing gain - nor did these initial rules differentiate between fast and slow hopping. Thus the earliest SS radios produced, could use almost anything as long as they met the then defined Part 15 rules. Some of these early radios used post detection correlation and thus, were not "TRUE DIRECT SEQUENCE" radios, at all. Only when correlation is done before detection, can all of the anti-jam and anti-interference benefits of direct sequence be seen. Some of the early hoppers changed frequency so slowly that they transmitted tens of thousands of bits on a single frequency dwell (and made no provision for error detection - let alone correction). It's no wonder then, that some of these early radios (of either variety) were very short of the long hyped interference immunity that they were supposed to have. In fact, in Europe and the United Kingdom, Direct Sequence has gotten such a bad name from early trials with overly simple Direct Sequence radios, that frequency hoppers have almost become a standard. The FCC tried to rectify this situation in 1992, with new Part 15 technical rules that require a minimum processing gain and better definitions of hopping speed and numbers of hopping channels required. But, out of intense lobbying efforts, came "grandfather provisions" that allowed existing approved designs to be sold for 5 years beyond 1989. The most recent actions of the FCC, however, have granted "dispensations" to those "grandfathered" manufacturers who yelled the loudest. The "deal" that was struck allows slow hoppers and post detection correlation (Non-TRUE DIRECT SEQUENCE) radios to continue to be sold if they keep their power output below 100 milliwatts. So if a manufacturer cannot furnish a radio with significantly more power than 100 mW, they are probably peddling an old, inferior design - Caveat Emptor! So the answer to the which is better is still unclear -- neither is any good, if it's an old design! Fast hoppers (no more than a few bits per frequency dwell) can have almost identical performance to Direct Sequence. Real (or TRUE) DS and FH radios can each be vulnerable to certain kinds of interference. No one modulation is best against any and ail interferers! However, the best that can be done with SS is to use a hybrid, or combination of DS and FH, that adapts to channel conditions in real time. The BEST SS modulation is thus seen to be not either DS or FH -- but both, when used optimally against adverse interference, multipath and channel conditions. Click on a Title Below for a Direct Link to Purchase
Also see our "SS Library" for more recommended books on Spread Spectrum.
This site © 1995-2007 by SSS Online, Inc. All rights reserved. |