[Premium-Rx] Modern stuff vs. vintage WJ

[Brooke Clarke]

Hi Jeff:

I used an HP 8566B to build an automated test system for mixers. It's a fantastic boat anchor.
http://prc68.com/I/RASS_PP.html#Spur

At an HP open house in Curertino they had what may have been an 8566 running an internal IBasic program so it was 
displaying a waterfall as a stand alone instrument.  They had it setup for the ham radio 2 meter band and you could 
easily see simplex operation or repeater operation.  Something I'd like to do with the HP 4395A.

Some thoughts on Probability of Intercept.
http://www.prc68.com/I/PI.shtml

-- 
Have Fun,

Brooke Clarke
http://www.PRC68.com
http://www.end2partygovernment.com/2012Issues.html

-------- Original Message --------
> Hi Brooke!
>
> As a matter of fact.........Thats why the 8560X series of HP spec ans have a 21.4 MHz final IF mixed down from 
> 321.4MHz: They were responding to gov't requests to provide that output so that the mountains of existing 
> demod/analysis gear could be used with the spec ans as tunable MW front ends. Pricey way of doing things, nice to have 
> deep pockets.____________
> There is an ad in the JED from SRL for a receiver system, from the mid '80's, showing *14*HP 8566A's in a three bay 
> rack system, with a pile of other "stuff", including WJ demod boxes, at a time when an 8566A was $65K. 900K in "front 
> ends, but very good probability-of-intercept, and, of course, nice '488 control._______________
> Tempest had very specific standards in certain critical response areas such as filters, pulse recovery times, etc. 
> Much of the work is similar to EMI, but not the same.____________
> Some of the Tempest work was snooping against uncooperative targets, so distance, antennas, pre-amps etc were 
> required. Was not all "done in a lab". I have witnessed these tests from the inside of a innocuous looking big white 
> panel truck, Joes Landscaping or somesuch on the side. Sides of the box were fiberglass, antennas inside the box 
> looking out. Park along the road by a contractor and see what leaks out of the "secure" installation.______________
>
> I am only saying I have a special place in my heart for the WJ stuff. It was the Cadillac of surveillance gear *in its 
> day*.  As with all things, something else comes along....
> ______________I do not collect the mini-nano-pico cepter stuff. My love is in the knobs/dials/ switch era of the black 
> paneled spook gear._____________
>
> I know if I had to do a job for a serious customer now where the max in performance was needed and I had the bucks, I 
> would use a different tech base these days._____________
>
> Then there is the non-Tempest signals intercept work where multilayered modulation needed very flexible equipment, but 
> small quantities of it, so no HP or Tek project manager was interested in building something they would only ever sell 
> 100 pieces of.  Companies like WJ & ACL thrived on that business model. Specials were their specialty!____________
> Like I say, fun stuff, but if serious, use an modern RTSA with all the bells and whistles.________ Tek has some nice 
> ones!_____________ I replied to the group as I thought there was some general interest stuff here!----------
>
> Regards, Jeff----------------------
>
> In a message dated 5/31/2018 7:32:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, brooke at pacific.net writes:
>
> Hi Jeff:
>
> I think the Tempest receivers are trying to find RF signals signals as either conducted or radiated from equipment under
> test.  In Tempest testing you're not trying to demodulate the signals, although that's part of an attack using Tempest
> methods.  The HP 4395 and 70,000 series spectrum analyzers are orders of magnitude better at this than the CEI
> receivers.  For me getting a 70,000 system or another DSP based spectrum analyzer system working would be much more
> interesting.  The 4395 has no provision for an external demodulator, but the HP 70,000 system has plenty of options in
> that area.
> http://www.prc68.com/I/4395A.shtml#SA
> http://www.prc68.com/I/HP71100C.html
>
> There are VXI spectrum analyzers that are the basis of some very sophisticated systems.
>
> -- 
> Have Fun,
>
> Brooke Clarke
> http://www.PRC68.com
> http://www.end2partygovernment.com/2012Issues.html
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> > Hi: I have a bunch of CEI Tempest receivers that I combined into a rack, BUT . . . they are pretty much deaf 
> compared to more modern equipment.  Because of kTBR noise the ultimate sensitivity depends on how narrow the real 
> bandwidth of the receiver is, so something like the HP 4395A in Spectrum analyzer mode with a true RBW of 1 Hz  .......
> >
> >
> > _________To answer this: N=kTB depends not only on bandwidth (which traditionally is driven by modulation or data 
> rate) but T which is T-system which is the noise figure (and some other factors) of the system. A spectrum analyzer is 
> a great tool, but in the past was a poor receiver up to 1 Ghz or so, due to lack of preselection below 1 Ghz (which, 
> in a dense signal envirorment would lead to a lot of spurious responses due to intermod) and the usually quite high 
> noise figure (20 dB).__________
> >
> > The old CEI receivers had noise figure well under 10 dB, more like 3-5, so they were quite sensitive. Very nice 
> multistage preselection. Only the WJ 9080 was not preselected AFAIK.  Perhaps yours have tired front ends?____________
> >
> > No question a modern FFT based analyzer can see very small amounts of energy in a 1 Hz bandwidth. But how much 
> better is it in a 20 KHz bin size? ___________
> >
> > YMMV_Jeff__________
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > Premium-Rx mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/premium-rx
> > Help Page: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> > Post: mailto:Premium-Rx at mailman.qth.net <mailto:Premium-Rx at mailman.qth.net?>
> > Help Contact eMail: radio at 8zo.com <mailto:radio at 8zo.com>
> > Home Page: http://www.premium-rx.org/
> >
> >
>