1998, abitoa STUSTE: 53-5 Je agate, Mt. Bégout Anas & G. Clea ede. dances in Imertciraes and Fish Telemer. (© 1098 Rewer Acad Palers, Printed a Belt 33 Frequency choice for radio telemetry: the HF vs, VHF conundrum Mitchell M. Sisak & James S. Lotimer Lotek Engineering Inc., Newmarket, Ontario, Canada Correspondence should be sent to Mitchell M. Sisak e-mail: mitch sisak@lotek.com) Key words: biowlemetry. radio frequency. high frequency, very high frequency Abstract ‘The choice of operating frequency has always been the subject of considerable controversy amongst researchers. Many select the radio frequency at whieh they conduct theicctadioe based solely upon the availability of equipment ‘at hand or simply on tradition, Researchers are often not fully aware of the proximal impact of frequency choice ‘on overall system performance and its ultimate impact upon the quality of the data thatthe stady generates. In an attempt to provide researchers with the tools necessary to make informed choices regarding radio telemetry system Configuration in general, and frequency choice in particular. this paper will present an overview of the 7 inctivichal “omponents of a radio telemetry system, examining the role played by each constituent in system optienization. Introduction While direct observational techniques have long been available to researchers studying the movement pat- ‘ems of terrestrial animals, the monitoring of aquatic ‘organisms has always posed a challenge to the tech- nology of the day. In the aquatic milieu. direct ob- servation was an option for only a limited number of species and environments. Statistically significant re Sults could oaly be realistically amassed through the ‘se of remote niunitoting wehniques, One of the most widely employed techniques for the remote reception ‘of data from aquatic organisms is through the detec tion of the active radiation from a transmitter whieh hnas been attached to she nimal understudy. This radi ation ean be in several forms, with radio and acoustic transmitters being amongst the most effective. Both acoustic and radio telemetry are suitable for tse in aguatic environments, but there are attendant costs and benefits associated with each. Such factors as water depth and its physico-chemical properties act jm concert to maximize the uility of one or the other ‘f these methods and this has been discussed at length jn a number of survey papers by such authors as Win- {ex (1983) and Priede (1992), For the purposes of this presentation we will limit ourselves to a discussion of radio telemetry systems, Radio telemetry For the majority of freshwater studies, radio telemetry is the method of choice. The wide range of sophisti- cated transmitting, receiving and data logging systems. available to researchers coupled with the relative ease ‘with which radio telemetry equipment can be deployed and the studies conducted, has resulted in its wide- spread use in studies throughout North America and Burope. While the suitability of radio over acoustic teleme- try in many studies is rather clear-cut. the choice of op- erating frequency has always been the subject of con iderable controversy amongst reacarchers, Through the course of dealing with researchers conducting ra- dio telemetry studies the world over, ithas come to 01 attention that many select the radio frequency at which they conduct their studies based solely upon the avail ability of equipment at hand or simply on tradi ‘They are often not fully avare ofthe proximal impact, quency choice on overall system performance and its ultimate impact upon che quality of the data tat che study generates. While this approach yields acceptable results in many cases, the far-ranging ef ‘ects on the performance ofthe entire telemetry sys posed by frequency choice deserves more careful eval-Tabke 1. Rati frequency casitestion Band Casson Frequeny Rease VLE Very Low Fegueacy 100030 Ate LE Low Frecwency 3010300 tte MF —Mediva Freqveney 30040 300K HE High Fequeney 31030 sete YER VayHigh Frequmcy 5010300 Miz UNE Uiua High Femueney 3000 300 Mi, vation if systems are to be optimized for particular studies. On another front, choice of equipment for telemetry studies iuaptesou-ttvial capil Cost a550- ciated with equipment acquisition as well as attendant training costs. The selection of telemetry frequencies results ina “locking in’ of future research to these f= ‘quencies ac equipment such as eeeivers and antennae are generally frequency specific, In an attempt to provide researchers with the tools necessary to make informed choices regarding radio telemetry system configuration in general, and fre- ‘quency choice in particular, this paper will present an overview of the 7 individual components of a radio telemesry system, examining the role played by each ‘constituent in system optimization, Bach component will be adaressed in tumn to atfora neweomers (0 radio telemetry an appreciation from a system perspective ‘This exercise will also hopefully serve as a refresher course for those of you who are experienced radio telemetry wears. Theoretical, prcticel and preliminary experimental data will be presented in a discussion whose aim will not be to recommend the optimal Trequency of operation for all aquatic telemetry re- search, but rather to provide the tools necessary for researchers to select the optimal operating frequency for their particular sandy. We will conclude with 2 real- world example, permitting system performance to be Radio frequency bands Three divisions or bands within the radio frequency potion of die elecromagnedte spectrum have heen ‘waditionally employed by fisheries researchers, these being designated as the HF. VHF and UHF bands. ‘Table 1 demonstrates the relationship between these hhands. The ehoractovisties of these frequencies, which will be examined in more detail below, make them ‘most suitable for aguatie applications. ‘The radio telemetry system In order to maximize the quality of the data co! lected in 2 radio tclemetry-based fisheries monitoring program, the principal investigator must make wise syetom choices. A vary sigaifieant variable in optimie ing system performance is the choice of propagating frequency. Unfortunately, there is no one frequency that proves optimal in all cases. AS is common in any science, an understanding of the system parameters and the trade-offs between them will ultimately lead the user to the best system for his application, ‘Seven system variables affect the choice of fre- quenoy. The system, as depicted in Table posed of the following variables: Teansminer Radiated Power (ERP) ‘The amount of radio energy that we can radiate from a transmitter is dependent upon two factors, these being: Energy Supply (battery) ~ the ammount of energy avail- able from the hattery. Regardlese of the feqnency chosen this variable will remain coastant and can therefore be ignored in any frequency comparison. Antenna Radiating Efficiency ~ the amount of radio ‘energy the transmitter's antenna will transfer £0 th water relative fo the input power. For fisheries trans mitters, we have found that an “efficient antenna’ is one in which the antenra fength is atleast 25% of the frequency's wavelength (2) as measured in free space; wavelength equals the speed of light (300000000 m. 8~4) divided by the frequency (Hertz). For example: ata frequency of 50 MHz, 300.000 000/50 000.000 =om 5 m whereas at and an efficient antenna a frequency of 150 Miz 300 000000/150 000000 ‘and an efficient antenna =0.25 + 2=0.5 m. It is important to note that antenna efficicneies in free space drop rapidly whea their length is below one ‘quarter wavelenath,Major system vrais “immer ~ fective Rahat Power (ERP) — tbe cecomagons coey (adie wives) diated from Propagation Losin aster (Lye) =the amount of ao eneray ox as ret of tein though wae. lnceriace 12s (Lay) the OB fo ene ls asa eso Lavelng hou he water ies Propagation Lost in Ar) ~the amount of aio cergy oso area of avelng hh ic Receiving Amana Cate (Cy)~Banoon of uo enrsy guna! i focusing the eecsomsgnet signal atthe receiving aceana, 6 Propagation Lassi the Cable (ly) he areas of ra eery os 6a es of evelyn he ecelver Seti — tek wtih the reer wil find aed dooce i laa. The receer Sensi can be lites y the une ae Floor ~ the lve of eo energy the samouading Propagation loss in water (Laer) Propagation loss in water for a given frequency is pre- dictable, measured in decibels per meter (4B m="), and varies with the conductivity of the water. Figure 1 shows the relationship. Standard conductivity meters ‘wresute ie eonducavicy of warer atthe frequency em- ployed by the measuring instrument (approximately 1 MHz), so the conductivity value must be corrected before use at other frequencies as discussed by Vetle erat (1979), As an example, from the graph in Figure 1, using ‘water conductivity (measured at 1 MHz) of 200 nS ccm! and a temperature of 10 °C, the propagation loss at SO MHz is approximately 3.6 4B m™! while at 150 Miz itis approximately 4.8 dBm Incerfiace loss (Lia) Radio waves transiting the water/ax ntertace exit the ‘water in a cone directly above the transmiter, the sides ‘of which form an angle of approximately 6 degrees from the vertical (Figure 2). Waves are also polarized ‘vertically a5 thoy axit the wateclai interface. Interfece loss is frequency independent and thus does not af- fect the choice of frequency, but is effect is important ‘when determining overall system performance Propagation loss in cir (Lic) Propagation loss in ar is predictable, measured in dB and while the loss is frequency dependent the differ- ‘ence is constant over lishenes telemetry ranges. For ‘example the difference in propagation loss between 130 MHz and 50 Mizz is 10 dB regardless of the propagation range. Receiving antenna gain (Gam) ‘This situation has similar considerations to the wans- sitting antenna example, Roughly speaking, an eff- cient receiving antenna in fisheries telemetry studies will form a square with each side appreimating 50% ofa wavelength. Therefore, for 50 MHz you will need a receiving antenna 3 m by 3 m verses fm by | mat 150 Mizz ‘As (0 traditionally employed antennas for manual ‘racking, the diamond (or loop) antenna popular with researchers conducting radio telemetry inthe HF band is not an ideal antenna as it represents a compromise between electrical characteristics and portability, and ‘ypically possesses 2 gain of ~6 dBd. A typlcal 4 clement Yagi antenna used in VHF band tracking has boom length of 110 cm and a sain of +7 dBd. Additionally, antenna height above the ground af- fect antoana efficiency. The lower the operatiag fre quency the higher your antenna must be to realize any height advantage. Propagation toss inthe cable (Lease) Propagation loss in the cable running from the re- ceiving antenna to the receiver is predictable and can introduce significant system losses when the cable length excoeds 50 meters. Below this length the losses fn che cable will not affect the choice of frequency in any sigoificant way. Indeed, even ina system requiring Tong cable runs to the receiver and data logger there are techniques that can be used t0 equalize and «i gate any differences inthe frequency used, such 2 the inclusion of pre-amplifiess.