A.N. Konev1, L.S. Telyukov2, N.A. Vorobyov3, P.V. Luferchik4

1–4 JSC «SPE «Radiosvyaz» (Krasnoyarsk, Russia)

1 konev_an@krtz.su, 2 telyukov_ls@krtz.su, 3 vorobev_na@krtz.su, 4 lpv@krtz.su

The use of a near-field magnetic induction (NFMI) system enables communication in environments where traditional electromagnetic (EM) radio communication is ineffective. This system enables signal transmission in highly absorbing media such as water, soil, and earth, due to the fact that the magnetic permeability of most materials is almost equal to the magnetic permeability of a vacuum. When designing a NFMI, it is important to consider that the signal energy in this type of communication decreases as a sixth power with distance, unlike traditional EM radio communication. Consequently, the challenge of maximizing transmitter efficiency is particularly acute in this type of communication. To address this challenge, it is necessary, among other things, to employ an energy-efficient signal structure with a minimal PAPR. Objective – to compare the efficiency of phase shift keying (BPSK), QPSK and OQPSK using the signal crest factor estimator.

The results of a comparative evaluation of the PAPR characteristics of BPSK, QPSK, and OQPSK in a BPSK system with a nonlinear power amplifier are presented. This comparison allows us to evaluate the effectiveness of using BPSK, QPSK, and OQPSK phase-shift keying in systems with nonlinear power amplifiers, particularly in a BPSK system.

Konev A.N., Telyukov L.S., Vorobyov N.A., Luferchik P.V. Comparison of the efficiency of BPSK, QPSK and OQPSK signals in near-field magnetic induction communication system. Achievements of modern radioelectronics. 2026. V. 80. № 2. P. 128–132. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.18127/j20700784-202602-14 [in Russian]

1. Telford W., Geldart L., Sheriff R. Applied Geophysics, Cambridge University Press. 1990. URL: https://books.google.co.in/books?id= Q8ogAwAAQBAJ.
2. Hott M., Hoeher P.A. Underwater Communication Employing High-Sensitive Magnetic Field Detectors. IEEE Access. V. 8.
   P. 177385–177394. September 2020. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3026623.
3. Zeng K.E.A. Secure and robust near-field magnetic induction communication for under-ground and underwater applications. IEEE 2021. V. 9. P. 43277–43291. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3065832.
4. Boris A.B., Alexander N.B., Nikita M.B. et all. Compact Non-Linear Power Amplifier for Wideband Underwater and Underground Near-Field Magnetic Communication Systems // 2019 International Siberian Conference on Control and Communications (SIBCON). Tomsk. 2019. P. 1–5. Doi: 10.1109/SIBCON.2019.8729580.
5. Sklyar B. Tsifrovaya svyaz′. Teoreticheskiye osnovy i prakticheskoye primeneniye. Izd. 2-e, ispr. Per. s angl. M.: Izdat. dom «Vil′yams». 2003. [in Russian]
6. Sun Z., Akyildiz I.F. Magnetic induction communication for wireless nanosensor networks. IEEE Transaction on Antennas. 2010. V. 58 (7). P. 2426–2435.
7. Electromagn Experimental Results of Magnetic Communication Using the Giant Magnetoimpedance Receiver in Underwater Environments. Eng. Sci. 2023; 23(6): 533–535. Published online November 30, 2023 DOI: https://doi.org/10.26866/jees.2023.6.l.20.