How does signal strength relate to bandwidth?












6












$begingroup$


Let's say I have a 25 W transmitter. First I transmit some SSB signal with 2500 Hz bandwidth (no audio compressor is used, etc...). Then I transmit a BPSK31 signal with at most 100 Hz bandwidth using the same power.



Is it accurate to say that BPSK31 signal is at least 2500/100 = 25 times stronger, e.g. it will be received as if an SSB signal was transmitted using 625 W? Or, in other words, if someone somewhere receives my SSB signal with some level, he or she will receive a BPSK31 signal transmitted using 1 W with the same level?



If this is false, what is the actual relation between the signal strength and its bandwidth, if there is any?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    6












    $begingroup$


    Let's say I have a 25 W transmitter. First I transmit some SSB signal with 2500 Hz bandwidth (no audio compressor is used, etc...). Then I transmit a BPSK31 signal with at most 100 Hz bandwidth using the same power.



    Is it accurate to say that BPSK31 signal is at least 2500/100 = 25 times stronger, e.g. it will be received as if an SSB signal was transmitted using 625 W? Or, in other words, if someone somewhere receives my SSB signal with some level, he or she will receive a BPSK31 signal transmitted using 1 W with the same level?



    If this is false, what is the actual relation between the signal strength and its bandwidth, if there is any?










    share|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      6












      6








      6





      $begingroup$


      Let's say I have a 25 W transmitter. First I transmit some SSB signal with 2500 Hz bandwidth (no audio compressor is used, etc...). Then I transmit a BPSK31 signal with at most 100 Hz bandwidth using the same power.



      Is it accurate to say that BPSK31 signal is at least 2500/100 = 25 times stronger, e.g. it will be received as if an SSB signal was transmitted using 625 W? Or, in other words, if someone somewhere receives my SSB signal with some level, he or she will receive a BPSK31 signal transmitted using 1 W with the same level?



      If this is false, what is the actual relation between the signal strength and its bandwidth, if there is any?










      share|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      Let's say I have a 25 W transmitter. First I transmit some SSB signal with 2500 Hz bandwidth (no audio compressor is used, etc...). Then I transmit a BPSK31 signal with at most 100 Hz bandwidth using the same power.



      Is it accurate to say that BPSK31 signal is at least 2500/100 = 25 times stronger, e.g. it will be received as if an SSB signal was transmitted using 625 W? Or, in other words, if someone somewhere receives my SSB signal with some level, he or she will receive a BPSK31 signal transmitted using 1 W with the same level?



      If this is false, what is the actual relation between the signal strength and its bandwidth, if there is any?







      digital-modes ssb theory bandwidth psk31






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 10 hours ago









      Kevin Reid AG6YO

      16.2k33070




      16.2k33070










      asked 11 hours ago









      Aleksander Alekseev - R2AUKAleksander Alekseev - R2AUK

      5748




      5748






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          11












          $begingroup$

          It depends on what you mean by "stronger".



          Ignoring actual limitations of your hardware and just considering the theory of communications, if you have 25 W of transmit power, then you can spread that over as much bandwidth as you want, and you're always transmitting 25 W of power.



          The quantity which is 25 times higher in the 100 Hz case than the 2500 Hz case is called power spectral density (PSD), which we can get by dividing the power by the bandwidth and measure in watts per hertz. In your two cases you're transmitting 0.25 W/Hz and 0.01 W/Hz; that's how they are different.



          The place that PSD starts being interesting to calculate with is when you want to consider noise — by which I mean here “all RF that is not your transmitter”. We can roughly approximate noise as having a constant PSD (this is true when it is primarily wideband natural or manmade noise as opposed to strong transmissions specifically on the same or a nearby frequency). From this we can conclude that if your receiver's filter is wider, it receives proportionally more noise power along with the desired transmission — making the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) worse.



          This is why — to compare two modes that are alike in that they are both decoded by ear — CW can get through where SSB cannot, because the signal-to-noise ratio is much higher in the narrow bandwidth of CW. (It also helps that the ear has to distinguish only the beginning and end of the tone rather than phonemes; in digital terminology, there are fewer symbols the receiver must discriminate between. Of course, that means that information is being transmitted at a slower rate.)





          However, you should not conclude that using the same power in less bandwidth always improves SNR after demodulation. For example, spread-spectrum transmissions use a very wide bandwidth without correspondingly worse performance. To see why this can be true, consider a simple frequency-hopping spread spectrum system: the receiver and the transmitter agree on a sequence of frequencies to rapidly jump between in sync with each other. Therefore, at any moment the receiver only uses the signal in that narrow bandwidth, with correspondingly low noise, even though overall the system occupies a wide bandwidth. This effect is called process gain.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            The improvement of SNR from spread-spectrum is called "process gain".
            $endgroup$
            – Phil Frost - W8II
            2 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @PhilFrost-W8II Thanks, added.
            $endgroup$
            – Kevin Reid AG6YO
            1 hour ago



















          1












          $begingroup$

          If by "strength" you mean "subjective volume as determined by a human operator", then reducing the bandwidth of the transmission while keeping the transmitter power constant does indeed produce a "stronger" signal.



          This is because noise is typically assumed to have a constant power spectral density over some range of frequencies of interest. Meaning, every hertz of bandwidth has some amount of power in it. Double the bandwidth, and the noise power is doubled. However the signal has the same power regardless of bandwidth. Thus, narrowing the bandwidth reduces the noise power, and increases the signal to noise ratio.



          We could write this mathematically as:



          $$ text{subjective strength} approx {S over N_0 B} $$



          where:





          • $S$ is the received signal power in watts


          • $N_0$ is the noise spectral power density in watts per hertz


          • $B$ is the channel bandwidth in hertz


          If the transmitter power is fixed, and we can't increase the received power by upgrading the antennas, reducing the transmission distance, etc., and the noise power is fixed by the conditions at the time, then the only thing we can really change is $B$ by choosing to transmit a wider or narrower modulation. We can then adjust the receiver filter bandwidth to remove noise outside the bandwidth also occupied by the signal, or even if we don't adjust the receiver filter the human auditory system is pretty good at doing this kind of filtering without any additional help.



          But if your definition of a "strong signal" is "could theoretically send more information per unit time", a narrow modulation is actually worse. You need the Shannon-Hartley theorem:



          $$ text{channel capacity in bits/sec} = B log_2left( 1 + {S over N_0 B} right) $$



          The Shannon-Hartley theorem provides an upper theoretical limit on the rate at which information can be communicated in an additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) channel. Actual communication may occur at below this rate of course, but not above.



          As an example, say the signal power ($S$) is 1 (the particular unit doesn't matter, as long as we use the same one for noise) and the noise density ($N_0$) is 0.000004. This gives a SNR of:



          $$ {1 over 0.000004 cdot 2500} = 100 = 10:mathrm{dB} $$



          This is a reasonable SNR for an intelligible SSB contact. The theoretical maximum channel capacity is:



          $$ 2500 log_2left( 1 + {1 over 0.000004 cdot 2500} right) = 16646:text{bits/sec} $$



          It's a bit odd to think of spoken words in terms of bits per second, yet within information theory this is a valid thing to do. We could just as easily consider this example as any digital modulation that occupies 2500 Hz.



          Now reducing the bandwidth to 100 Hz yields a channel capacity of:



          $$ 100 log_2left( 1 + {1 over 0.000004 cdot 100} right) = 1129:text{bits/sec} $$



          This is actually an order of magnitude decrease in channel capacity. So in this sense, a narrower bandwidth is actually weaker! Although the narrower channel may be easier to hear, its theoretical capacity to communicate information is less.



          How can this be? Say the modulation is something really simple, like the transmitter is either on for 1 seconds transmitting a steady carrier, or it's off. The receiver has to decide for each 1 second interval if the transmitter is on or off. This can occupy a very small bandwidth, 0.5 Hz at a minimum. And let's further assume the transmitter power is high enough that the chance of an error is negligible.



          In this 0.5 Hz, one bit is communicated per second.



          Now say we have four receivers each tuned to a slightly different frequency, and in each interval, the transmitter will transmit on one of the 4 frequencies.




          • If the first receiver detects the tone, we say this means 00.

          • If the second receiver detects the tone, this means 01.

          • The third receiver, 10, and...

          • the fourth receiver, 11.


          Adding more receivers doesn't make any one of them less reliable, so simply increasing the channel bandwidth also increases the channel capacity.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("schematics", function () {
            StackExchange.schematics.init();
            });
            }, "cicuitlab");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "520"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fham.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f12960%2fhow-does-signal-strength-relate-to-bandwidth%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            11












            $begingroup$

            It depends on what you mean by "stronger".



            Ignoring actual limitations of your hardware and just considering the theory of communications, if you have 25 W of transmit power, then you can spread that over as much bandwidth as you want, and you're always transmitting 25 W of power.



            The quantity which is 25 times higher in the 100 Hz case than the 2500 Hz case is called power spectral density (PSD), which we can get by dividing the power by the bandwidth and measure in watts per hertz. In your two cases you're transmitting 0.25 W/Hz and 0.01 W/Hz; that's how they are different.



            The place that PSD starts being interesting to calculate with is when you want to consider noise — by which I mean here “all RF that is not your transmitter”. We can roughly approximate noise as having a constant PSD (this is true when it is primarily wideband natural or manmade noise as opposed to strong transmissions specifically on the same or a nearby frequency). From this we can conclude that if your receiver's filter is wider, it receives proportionally more noise power along with the desired transmission — making the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) worse.



            This is why — to compare two modes that are alike in that they are both decoded by ear — CW can get through where SSB cannot, because the signal-to-noise ratio is much higher in the narrow bandwidth of CW. (It also helps that the ear has to distinguish only the beginning and end of the tone rather than phonemes; in digital terminology, there are fewer symbols the receiver must discriminate between. Of course, that means that information is being transmitted at a slower rate.)





            However, you should not conclude that using the same power in less bandwidth always improves SNR after demodulation. For example, spread-spectrum transmissions use a very wide bandwidth without correspondingly worse performance. To see why this can be true, consider a simple frequency-hopping spread spectrum system: the receiver and the transmitter agree on a sequence of frequencies to rapidly jump between in sync with each other. Therefore, at any moment the receiver only uses the signal in that narrow bandwidth, with correspondingly low noise, even though overall the system occupies a wide bandwidth. This effect is called process gain.






            share|improve this answer











            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              The improvement of SNR from spread-spectrum is called "process gain".
              $endgroup$
              – Phil Frost - W8II
              2 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              @PhilFrost-W8II Thanks, added.
              $endgroup$
              – Kevin Reid AG6YO
              1 hour ago
















            11












            $begingroup$

            It depends on what you mean by "stronger".



            Ignoring actual limitations of your hardware and just considering the theory of communications, if you have 25 W of transmit power, then you can spread that over as much bandwidth as you want, and you're always transmitting 25 W of power.



            The quantity which is 25 times higher in the 100 Hz case than the 2500 Hz case is called power spectral density (PSD), which we can get by dividing the power by the bandwidth and measure in watts per hertz. In your two cases you're transmitting 0.25 W/Hz and 0.01 W/Hz; that's how they are different.



            The place that PSD starts being interesting to calculate with is when you want to consider noise — by which I mean here “all RF that is not your transmitter”. We can roughly approximate noise as having a constant PSD (this is true when it is primarily wideband natural or manmade noise as opposed to strong transmissions specifically on the same or a nearby frequency). From this we can conclude that if your receiver's filter is wider, it receives proportionally more noise power along with the desired transmission — making the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) worse.



            This is why — to compare two modes that are alike in that they are both decoded by ear — CW can get through where SSB cannot, because the signal-to-noise ratio is much higher in the narrow bandwidth of CW. (It also helps that the ear has to distinguish only the beginning and end of the tone rather than phonemes; in digital terminology, there are fewer symbols the receiver must discriminate between. Of course, that means that information is being transmitted at a slower rate.)





            However, you should not conclude that using the same power in less bandwidth always improves SNR after demodulation. For example, spread-spectrum transmissions use a very wide bandwidth without correspondingly worse performance. To see why this can be true, consider a simple frequency-hopping spread spectrum system: the receiver and the transmitter agree on a sequence of frequencies to rapidly jump between in sync with each other. Therefore, at any moment the receiver only uses the signal in that narrow bandwidth, with correspondingly low noise, even though overall the system occupies a wide bandwidth. This effect is called process gain.






            share|improve this answer











            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              The improvement of SNR from spread-spectrum is called "process gain".
              $endgroup$
              – Phil Frost - W8II
              2 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              @PhilFrost-W8II Thanks, added.
              $endgroup$
              – Kevin Reid AG6YO
              1 hour ago














            11












            11








            11





            $begingroup$

            It depends on what you mean by "stronger".



            Ignoring actual limitations of your hardware and just considering the theory of communications, if you have 25 W of transmit power, then you can spread that over as much bandwidth as you want, and you're always transmitting 25 W of power.



            The quantity which is 25 times higher in the 100 Hz case than the 2500 Hz case is called power spectral density (PSD), which we can get by dividing the power by the bandwidth and measure in watts per hertz. In your two cases you're transmitting 0.25 W/Hz and 0.01 W/Hz; that's how they are different.



            The place that PSD starts being interesting to calculate with is when you want to consider noise — by which I mean here “all RF that is not your transmitter”. We can roughly approximate noise as having a constant PSD (this is true when it is primarily wideband natural or manmade noise as opposed to strong transmissions specifically on the same or a nearby frequency). From this we can conclude that if your receiver's filter is wider, it receives proportionally more noise power along with the desired transmission — making the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) worse.



            This is why — to compare two modes that are alike in that they are both decoded by ear — CW can get through where SSB cannot, because the signal-to-noise ratio is much higher in the narrow bandwidth of CW. (It also helps that the ear has to distinguish only the beginning and end of the tone rather than phonemes; in digital terminology, there are fewer symbols the receiver must discriminate between. Of course, that means that information is being transmitted at a slower rate.)





            However, you should not conclude that using the same power in less bandwidth always improves SNR after demodulation. For example, spread-spectrum transmissions use a very wide bandwidth without correspondingly worse performance. To see why this can be true, consider a simple frequency-hopping spread spectrum system: the receiver and the transmitter agree on a sequence of frequencies to rapidly jump between in sync with each other. Therefore, at any moment the receiver only uses the signal in that narrow bandwidth, with correspondingly low noise, even though overall the system occupies a wide bandwidth. This effect is called process gain.






            share|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            It depends on what you mean by "stronger".



            Ignoring actual limitations of your hardware and just considering the theory of communications, if you have 25 W of transmit power, then you can spread that over as much bandwidth as you want, and you're always transmitting 25 W of power.



            The quantity which is 25 times higher in the 100 Hz case than the 2500 Hz case is called power spectral density (PSD), which we can get by dividing the power by the bandwidth and measure in watts per hertz. In your two cases you're transmitting 0.25 W/Hz and 0.01 W/Hz; that's how they are different.



            The place that PSD starts being interesting to calculate with is when you want to consider noise — by which I mean here “all RF that is not your transmitter”. We can roughly approximate noise as having a constant PSD (this is true when it is primarily wideband natural or manmade noise as opposed to strong transmissions specifically on the same or a nearby frequency). From this we can conclude that if your receiver's filter is wider, it receives proportionally more noise power along with the desired transmission — making the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) worse.



            This is why — to compare two modes that are alike in that they are both decoded by ear — CW can get through where SSB cannot, because the signal-to-noise ratio is much higher in the narrow bandwidth of CW. (It also helps that the ear has to distinguish only the beginning and end of the tone rather than phonemes; in digital terminology, there are fewer symbols the receiver must discriminate between. Of course, that means that information is being transmitted at a slower rate.)





            However, you should not conclude that using the same power in less bandwidth always improves SNR after demodulation. For example, spread-spectrum transmissions use a very wide bandwidth without correspondingly worse performance. To see why this can be true, consider a simple frequency-hopping spread spectrum system: the receiver and the transmitter agree on a sequence of frequencies to rapidly jump between in sync with each other. Therefore, at any moment the receiver only uses the signal in that narrow bandwidth, with correspondingly low noise, even though overall the system occupies a wide bandwidth. This effect is called process gain.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 1 hour ago

























            answered 10 hours ago









            Kevin Reid AG6YOKevin Reid AG6YO

            16.2k33070




            16.2k33070












            • $begingroup$
              The improvement of SNR from spread-spectrum is called "process gain".
              $endgroup$
              – Phil Frost - W8II
              2 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              @PhilFrost-W8II Thanks, added.
              $endgroup$
              – Kevin Reid AG6YO
              1 hour ago


















            • $begingroup$
              The improvement of SNR from spread-spectrum is called "process gain".
              $endgroup$
              – Phil Frost - W8II
              2 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              @PhilFrost-W8II Thanks, added.
              $endgroup$
              – Kevin Reid AG6YO
              1 hour ago
















            $begingroup$
            The improvement of SNR from spread-spectrum is called "process gain".
            $endgroup$
            – Phil Frost - W8II
            2 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            The improvement of SNR from spread-spectrum is called "process gain".
            $endgroup$
            – Phil Frost - W8II
            2 hours ago












            $begingroup$
            @PhilFrost-W8II Thanks, added.
            $endgroup$
            – Kevin Reid AG6YO
            1 hour ago




            $begingroup$
            @PhilFrost-W8II Thanks, added.
            $endgroup$
            – Kevin Reid AG6YO
            1 hour ago











            1












            $begingroup$

            If by "strength" you mean "subjective volume as determined by a human operator", then reducing the bandwidth of the transmission while keeping the transmitter power constant does indeed produce a "stronger" signal.



            This is because noise is typically assumed to have a constant power spectral density over some range of frequencies of interest. Meaning, every hertz of bandwidth has some amount of power in it. Double the bandwidth, and the noise power is doubled. However the signal has the same power regardless of bandwidth. Thus, narrowing the bandwidth reduces the noise power, and increases the signal to noise ratio.



            We could write this mathematically as:



            $$ text{subjective strength} approx {S over N_0 B} $$



            where:





            • $S$ is the received signal power in watts


            • $N_0$ is the noise spectral power density in watts per hertz


            • $B$ is the channel bandwidth in hertz


            If the transmitter power is fixed, and we can't increase the received power by upgrading the antennas, reducing the transmission distance, etc., and the noise power is fixed by the conditions at the time, then the only thing we can really change is $B$ by choosing to transmit a wider or narrower modulation. We can then adjust the receiver filter bandwidth to remove noise outside the bandwidth also occupied by the signal, or even if we don't adjust the receiver filter the human auditory system is pretty good at doing this kind of filtering without any additional help.



            But if your definition of a "strong signal" is "could theoretically send more information per unit time", a narrow modulation is actually worse. You need the Shannon-Hartley theorem:



            $$ text{channel capacity in bits/sec} = B log_2left( 1 + {S over N_0 B} right) $$



            The Shannon-Hartley theorem provides an upper theoretical limit on the rate at which information can be communicated in an additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) channel. Actual communication may occur at below this rate of course, but not above.



            As an example, say the signal power ($S$) is 1 (the particular unit doesn't matter, as long as we use the same one for noise) and the noise density ($N_0$) is 0.000004. This gives a SNR of:



            $$ {1 over 0.000004 cdot 2500} = 100 = 10:mathrm{dB} $$



            This is a reasonable SNR for an intelligible SSB contact. The theoretical maximum channel capacity is:



            $$ 2500 log_2left( 1 + {1 over 0.000004 cdot 2500} right) = 16646:text{bits/sec} $$



            It's a bit odd to think of spoken words in terms of bits per second, yet within information theory this is a valid thing to do. We could just as easily consider this example as any digital modulation that occupies 2500 Hz.



            Now reducing the bandwidth to 100 Hz yields a channel capacity of:



            $$ 100 log_2left( 1 + {1 over 0.000004 cdot 100} right) = 1129:text{bits/sec} $$



            This is actually an order of magnitude decrease in channel capacity. So in this sense, a narrower bandwidth is actually weaker! Although the narrower channel may be easier to hear, its theoretical capacity to communicate information is less.



            How can this be? Say the modulation is something really simple, like the transmitter is either on for 1 seconds transmitting a steady carrier, or it's off. The receiver has to decide for each 1 second interval if the transmitter is on or off. This can occupy a very small bandwidth, 0.5 Hz at a minimum. And let's further assume the transmitter power is high enough that the chance of an error is negligible.



            In this 0.5 Hz, one bit is communicated per second.



            Now say we have four receivers each tuned to a slightly different frequency, and in each interval, the transmitter will transmit on one of the 4 frequencies.




            • If the first receiver detects the tone, we say this means 00.

            • If the second receiver detects the tone, this means 01.

            • The third receiver, 10, and...

            • the fourth receiver, 11.


            Adding more receivers doesn't make any one of them less reliable, so simply increasing the channel bandwidth also increases the channel capacity.






            share|improve this answer











            $endgroup$


















              1












              $begingroup$

              If by "strength" you mean "subjective volume as determined by a human operator", then reducing the bandwidth of the transmission while keeping the transmitter power constant does indeed produce a "stronger" signal.



              This is because noise is typically assumed to have a constant power spectral density over some range of frequencies of interest. Meaning, every hertz of bandwidth has some amount of power in it. Double the bandwidth, and the noise power is doubled. However the signal has the same power regardless of bandwidth. Thus, narrowing the bandwidth reduces the noise power, and increases the signal to noise ratio.



              We could write this mathematically as:



              $$ text{subjective strength} approx {S over N_0 B} $$



              where:





              • $S$ is the received signal power in watts


              • $N_0$ is the noise spectral power density in watts per hertz


              • $B$ is the channel bandwidth in hertz


              If the transmitter power is fixed, and we can't increase the received power by upgrading the antennas, reducing the transmission distance, etc., and the noise power is fixed by the conditions at the time, then the only thing we can really change is $B$ by choosing to transmit a wider or narrower modulation. We can then adjust the receiver filter bandwidth to remove noise outside the bandwidth also occupied by the signal, or even if we don't adjust the receiver filter the human auditory system is pretty good at doing this kind of filtering without any additional help.



              But if your definition of a "strong signal" is "could theoretically send more information per unit time", a narrow modulation is actually worse. You need the Shannon-Hartley theorem:



              $$ text{channel capacity in bits/sec} = B log_2left( 1 + {S over N_0 B} right) $$



              The Shannon-Hartley theorem provides an upper theoretical limit on the rate at which information can be communicated in an additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) channel. Actual communication may occur at below this rate of course, but not above.



              As an example, say the signal power ($S$) is 1 (the particular unit doesn't matter, as long as we use the same one for noise) and the noise density ($N_0$) is 0.000004. This gives a SNR of:



              $$ {1 over 0.000004 cdot 2500} = 100 = 10:mathrm{dB} $$



              This is a reasonable SNR for an intelligible SSB contact. The theoretical maximum channel capacity is:



              $$ 2500 log_2left( 1 + {1 over 0.000004 cdot 2500} right) = 16646:text{bits/sec} $$



              It's a bit odd to think of spoken words in terms of bits per second, yet within information theory this is a valid thing to do. We could just as easily consider this example as any digital modulation that occupies 2500 Hz.



              Now reducing the bandwidth to 100 Hz yields a channel capacity of:



              $$ 100 log_2left( 1 + {1 over 0.000004 cdot 100} right) = 1129:text{bits/sec} $$



              This is actually an order of magnitude decrease in channel capacity. So in this sense, a narrower bandwidth is actually weaker! Although the narrower channel may be easier to hear, its theoretical capacity to communicate information is less.



              How can this be? Say the modulation is something really simple, like the transmitter is either on for 1 seconds transmitting a steady carrier, or it's off. The receiver has to decide for each 1 second interval if the transmitter is on or off. This can occupy a very small bandwidth, 0.5 Hz at a minimum. And let's further assume the transmitter power is high enough that the chance of an error is negligible.



              In this 0.5 Hz, one bit is communicated per second.



              Now say we have four receivers each tuned to a slightly different frequency, and in each interval, the transmitter will transmit on one of the 4 frequencies.




              • If the first receiver detects the tone, we say this means 00.

              • If the second receiver detects the tone, this means 01.

              • The third receiver, 10, and...

              • the fourth receiver, 11.


              Adding more receivers doesn't make any one of them less reliable, so simply increasing the channel bandwidth also increases the channel capacity.






              share|improve this answer











              $endgroup$
















                1












                1








                1





                $begingroup$

                If by "strength" you mean "subjective volume as determined by a human operator", then reducing the bandwidth of the transmission while keeping the transmitter power constant does indeed produce a "stronger" signal.



                This is because noise is typically assumed to have a constant power spectral density over some range of frequencies of interest. Meaning, every hertz of bandwidth has some amount of power in it. Double the bandwidth, and the noise power is doubled. However the signal has the same power regardless of bandwidth. Thus, narrowing the bandwidth reduces the noise power, and increases the signal to noise ratio.



                We could write this mathematically as:



                $$ text{subjective strength} approx {S over N_0 B} $$



                where:





                • $S$ is the received signal power in watts


                • $N_0$ is the noise spectral power density in watts per hertz


                • $B$ is the channel bandwidth in hertz


                If the transmitter power is fixed, and we can't increase the received power by upgrading the antennas, reducing the transmission distance, etc., and the noise power is fixed by the conditions at the time, then the only thing we can really change is $B$ by choosing to transmit a wider or narrower modulation. We can then adjust the receiver filter bandwidth to remove noise outside the bandwidth also occupied by the signal, or even if we don't adjust the receiver filter the human auditory system is pretty good at doing this kind of filtering without any additional help.



                But if your definition of a "strong signal" is "could theoretically send more information per unit time", a narrow modulation is actually worse. You need the Shannon-Hartley theorem:



                $$ text{channel capacity in bits/sec} = B log_2left( 1 + {S over N_0 B} right) $$



                The Shannon-Hartley theorem provides an upper theoretical limit on the rate at which information can be communicated in an additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) channel. Actual communication may occur at below this rate of course, but not above.



                As an example, say the signal power ($S$) is 1 (the particular unit doesn't matter, as long as we use the same one for noise) and the noise density ($N_0$) is 0.000004. This gives a SNR of:



                $$ {1 over 0.000004 cdot 2500} = 100 = 10:mathrm{dB} $$



                This is a reasonable SNR for an intelligible SSB contact. The theoretical maximum channel capacity is:



                $$ 2500 log_2left( 1 + {1 over 0.000004 cdot 2500} right) = 16646:text{bits/sec} $$



                It's a bit odd to think of spoken words in terms of bits per second, yet within information theory this is a valid thing to do. We could just as easily consider this example as any digital modulation that occupies 2500 Hz.



                Now reducing the bandwidth to 100 Hz yields a channel capacity of:



                $$ 100 log_2left( 1 + {1 over 0.000004 cdot 100} right) = 1129:text{bits/sec} $$



                This is actually an order of magnitude decrease in channel capacity. So in this sense, a narrower bandwidth is actually weaker! Although the narrower channel may be easier to hear, its theoretical capacity to communicate information is less.



                How can this be? Say the modulation is something really simple, like the transmitter is either on for 1 seconds transmitting a steady carrier, or it's off. The receiver has to decide for each 1 second interval if the transmitter is on or off. This can occupy a very small bandwidth, 0.5 Hz at a minimum. And let's further assume the transmitter power is high enough that the chance of an error is negligible.



                In this 0.5 Hz, one bit is communicated per second.



                Now say we have four receivers each tuned to a slightly different frequency, and in each interval, the transmitter will transmit on one of the 4 frequencies.




                • If the first receiver detects the tone, we say this means 00.

                • If the second receiver detects the tone, this means 01.

                • The third receiver, 10, and...

                • the fourth receiver, 11.


                Adding more receivers doesn't make any one of them less reliable, so simply increasing the channel bandwidth also increases the channel capacity.






                share|improve this answer











                $endgroup$



                If by "strength" you mean "subjective volume as determined by a human operator", then reducing the bandwidth of the transmission while keeping the transmitter power constant does indeed produce a "stronger" signal.



                This is because noise is typically assumed to have a constant power spectral density over some range of frequencies of interest. Meaning, every hertz of bandwidth has some amount of power in it. Double the bandwidth, and the noise power is doubled. However the signal has the same power regardless of bandwidth. Thus, narrowing the bandwidth reduces the noise power, and increases the signal to noise ratio.



                We could write this mathematically as:



                $$ text{subjective strength} approx {S over N_0 B} $$



                where:





                • $S$ is the received signal power in watts


                • $N_0$ is the noise spectral power density in watts per hertz


                • $B$ is the channel bandwidth in hertz


                If the transmitter power is fixed, and we can't increase the received power by upgrading the antennas, reducing the transmission distance, etc., and the noise power is fixed by the conditions at the time, then the only thing we can really change is $B$ by choosing to transmit a wider or narrower modulation. We can then adjust the receiver filter bandwidth to remove noise outside the bandwidth also occupied by the signal, or even if we don't adjust the receiver filter the human auditory system is pretty good at doing this kind of filtering without any additional help.



                But if your definition of a "strong signal" is "could theoretically send more information per unit time", a narrow modulation is actually worse. You need the Shannon-Hartley theorem:



                $$ text{channel capacity in bits/sec} = B log_2left( 1 + {S over N_0 B} right) $$



                The Shannon-Hartley theorem provides an upper theoretical limit on the rate at which information can be communicated in an additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) channel. Actual communication may occur at below this rate of course, but not above.



                As an example, say the signal power ($S$) is 1 (the particular unit doesn't matter, as long as we use the same one for noise) and the noise density ($N_0$) is 0.000004. This gives a SNR of:



                $$ {1 over 0.000004 cdot 2500} = 100 = 10:mathrm{dB} $$



                This is a reasonable SNR for an intelligible SSB contact. The theoretical maximum channel capacity is:



                $$ 2500 log_2left( 1 + {1 over 0.000004 cdot 2500} right) = 16646:text{bits/sec} $$



                It's a bit odd to think of spoken words in terms of bits per second, yet within information theory this is a valid thing to do. We could just as easily consider this example as any digital modulation that occupies 2500 Hz.



                Now reducing the bandwidth to 100 Hz yields a channel capacity of:



                $$ 100 log_2left( 1 + {1 over 0.000004 cdot 100} right) = 1129:text{bits/sec} $$



                This is actually an order of magnitude decrease in channel capacity. So in this sense, a narrower bandwidth is actually weaker! Although the narrower channel may be easier to hear, its theoretical capacity to communicate information is less.



                How can this be? Say the modulation is something really simple, like the transmitter is either on for 1 seconds transmitting a steady carrier, or it's off. The receiver has to decide for each 1 second interval if the transmitter is on or off. This can occupy a very small bandwidth, 0.5 Hz at a minimum. And let's further assume the transmitter power is high enough that the chance of an error is negligible.



                In this 0.5 Hz, one bit is communicated per second.



                Now say we have four receivers each tuned to a slightly different frequency, and in each interval, the transmitter will transmit on one of the 4 frequencies.




                • If the first receiver detects the tone, we say this means 00.

                • If the second receiver detects the tone, this means 01.

                • The third receiver, 10, and...

                • the fourth receiver, 11.


                Adding more receivers doesn't make any one of them less reliable, so simply increasing the channel bandwidth also increases the channel capacity.







                share|improve this answer














                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited 2 hours ago

























                answered 2 hours ago









                Phil Frost - W8IIPhil Frost - W8II

                28.5k147117




                28.5k147117






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Amateur Radio Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fham.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f12960%2fhow-does-signal-strength-relate-to-bandwidth%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    "Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'ON'. (on update cascade, on delete cascade,)

                    Alcedinidae

                    Origin of the phrase “under your belt”?