[RCSE] 215mph DS video
Here's the video from Saturday at Vincent. It first shows Doug Reels 212mph record breaking run, followed by Kyle Paulson's 215mph run. It's 12mb. RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.
Re: [RCSE] A 'Gas' Gauge... uncovered :-)
>>I keep saying this and somehow cannot get my point across, battery >>voltage alone is absolutely meaningless Bill is absolutely right. PLUS, don't forget voltage depression which can make it even less useful. Bill Swingle Janesville, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.
[RCSE] Jon Stone solves the NiMh concern.
OK, within the limits of the curves that Jon provided, I'm convinced. The NiMh discharge curve is very close to that of a Nicad. It looks to me that the LED gauges ought to work fine. Thanks Jon. Next issue. Bill Swingle Janesville, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.
[RCSE] IHLGF pics
I finally uploaded a bunch of pics from IHLGF onto my web-page. No descriptions yet, you will have to go by the file names. I may also publish all reports that were posted on RCSE and SALgroup to have a collection of all reports about IHLGF later. Check it out http://olgol.com/IHLGF2003/ and tell me if there are any bad links. Regards, Oleg. RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.
Re: [RCSE] Dual Conversion
Steve Witt wrote: You are right. AM is much more easily interfered with due to noise because the amplitude of the desired signal and the noise signal are effectively added together in the front end of the receiver. FWIW, commercial FM is transmitted using circular polarization. The antenna is typically two elements in a cross driven out of phase. This has the advantage of getting the signal through if one of the components (either the horizontal or vertical) is blocked. FM receivers also exhibit frequency lock. Once tuned, they will reject signals that are significantly stronger than the tuned signal. -- Andrew E. Mileski Ottawa, Canada http://isoar.ca/ RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.
Re: [RCSE] AIRTRONICS ROCKS!
Title: Re: [RCSE] AIRTRONICS ROCKS! AIRTRONICS ROCKS! I won a new complete RD8000 radio at F3J in the Rockies, and Skip won a new Stylus! This is the second time this year that Airtronics has donated radios to our contests; and I know 3 guys personally who have won Stylus's this year. THANKS AIRTRONICS! You guys are doing great things for the soaring community. Mark Anyone can give away free stuff, but the way Airtronics treats competitors, customers, and dealers is exemplary. Dieter Mahlein http://shredair.com
Re: [RCSE] Dual Conversion
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Robert Ussery wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Bill Swingle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >>So, if I get the gist of this right, why don't we all use AM instead? > > That is a good question. The simple answer is that FM sounds "better" to > > the average pilot. Thus the market spoke its preference. Manufacturers > > build accordingly and there aren't many Tx's on AM. Certainly not the > > models that we're interested in purchasing. > > Mightn't it also have to do with the fact that FM might (I don't have any > experience to verify this, just theory :O) ) have slightly better range > under noisy conditions? > My reasoning goes like this... > With AM, the pulses are a series of ONs and OFFs. Thus, with the very low > level signals present at near maximum range, it becomes very hard to > distinguish a true ON from spurious background noise, and a true OFF may be > hidden by background noise. > With FM, on the other hand, the pulses are sent by sending an ON on one > frequency and an OFF on another. Thus, even with the very low signal levels > at near maximum range, as long as the ON frequency can be distinguished from > the background noise, its level doesn't matter. Ditto for the OFF frequency. > Faulty logic, or semi-valid reason? > You are right. AM is much more easily interfered with due to noise because the amplitude of the desired signal and the noise signal are effectively added together in the front end of the receiver. It is this combined amplitude envelope that is demodulated by the receiver and that represents the information in the radio signal. FM, on the other hand, is normally a constant amplitude signal with a varying frequency (or phase), which contains the information in the signal. Noise changes the frequency (or phase) of a radio signal much less than it does its amplitude. RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.
Re: [RCSE] Dual Conversion
- Original Message - From: "Bill Swingle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>So, if I get the gist of this right, why don't we all use AM instead? > That is a good question. The simple answer is that FM sounds "better" to > the average pilot. Thus the market spoke its preference. Manufacturers > build accordingly and there aren't many Tx's on AM. Certainly not the > models that we're interested in purchasing. Mightn't it also have to do with the fact that FM might (I don't have any experience to verify this, just theory :O) ) have slightly better range under noisy conditions? My reasoning goes like this... With AM, the pulses are a series of ONs and OFFs. Thus, with the very low level signals present at near maximum range, it becomes very hard to distinguish a true ON from spurious background noise, and a true OFF may be hidden by background noise. With FM, on the other hand, the pulses are sent by sending an ON on one frequency and an OFF on another. Thus, even with the very low signal levels at near maximum range, as long as the ON frequency can be distinguished from the background noise, its level doesn't matter. Ditto for the OFF frequency. Faulty logic, or semi-valid reason? - Robert RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.
[RCSE] AIRTRONICS ROCKS!
Guys --- I gotta post this before I go out of town (again). AIRTRONICS ROCKS! I won a new complete RD8000 radio at F3J in the Rockies, and Skip won a new Stylus! This is the second time this year that Airtronics has donated radios to our contests; and I know 3 guys personally who have won Stylus’s this year. THANKS AIRTRONICS! You guys are doing great things for the soaring community. Mark This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies of the message and its attachments and notify Space Imaging immediately.
Re: [RCSE] Receiver selectivity
I see...so either JR and Berg are el cheapos, or my rotten experiences with their single-conversion RXs (and others here with the same results) which were ALL rectified with nothing more than switching to dual-conversion RXs...that was all collective hallucination? VERY interesting conclusion. Urban myth or not, I'll not use a single-conversion RX in anything but park foam ever again. Tom --- "R. Tyson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 28, 2003 at 07:14:41PM +, R. Tyson > wrote: > A double conversion receiver will work with the > aerial within a carbon > or carbon/kevlar (or whatever) fuselage, whereas a > single conversion > receiver doesn't. > > ... is another urban MYTH !!! > > > Bottom line is if a double conversion receiver > works when put into > a carbon fuse then a single conversion receiver will > work just the same, > unless... the single conversion receiver is an > el-cheapo and of poor > quality. > > I use Futaba, GWS and homemade kit receivers from > Micron Radio Control. > I can discern no noticeable difference in any of the > receivers. they > all perform exactly the same. They are all > singleconversion and I never > experience any problems with any of them. RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.
Re: [RCSE] Dual Conversion
>>So, if I get the gist of this right, why don't we all use AM instead? That is a good question. The simple answer is that FM sounds "better" to the average pilot. Thus the market spoke its preference. Manufacturers build accordingly and there aren't many Tx's on AM. Certainly not the models that we're interested in purchasing. Bill Swingle Janesville, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.
RE: [RCSE] Dual Conversion
'Cause everybody knows the best tunes are broadcast on the FM band??? Just pondering... -Sheldon- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 1:50 PM To: Bill Swingle; RCSE Subject: Re: [RCSE] Dual Conversion So, if I get the gist of this right, why don't we all use AM instead? Rense Lange RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.
[RCSE] RE: More good stuff about A Nihm 'Gas' Monitor
Them's words of wisdom! There is no substitute for knowing your equipment and what you can expect from it. -Sheldon- -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 2:16 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: More good stuff about A Nihm 'Gas' Monitor I've seen the BatMon before and it's a good design, based on the Dallaschip. It's only "potential drawback" is that it states a numeric level vsactually telling you how much time you have left. Great point Sheldon,I was waiting for someone to bring that number thing up. However like Nicads maybe we would learn to recognize what we had left in the tank when it said a particular number.Part of the problem is that Nihms DO last so long. We don't get near empty often enough to get to 'know' them.Maybe a sight gauge on the side of the pack :-)The real answer and simplest is to make sure the cells are charged completely before heading out. And use your field charger to peak up during the day.Gordy
Re: [RCSE] A 'Gas' Gauge... uncovered :-)
On 7/1/03 13:22, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Notice that it took 60 minutes to drop from 10.9 to 9.9 (0.0017 volt/min) > 120 minutes from 9.9 to 9.8 (0.0008 volt/min) > 100 minutes from 9.8 to 9.7 (0.001 volt/min) > 42 minutes from 9.7 to 9.5 (0.005 volt/min) > 38 minutes from 9.5 to 9.0 (0.013 volt/min) > 20 minutes from 9.0 to 8.5 (0.025 volt/min) > > SO now we take a BC6 see what color corresponds to the voltages shown above > and we have an idea of where to worry about finding the gas station. I think you missed the point. The various on board devices are ONLY useful at the end of the curve. You might determine that the last green light (in my curve) corresponded to 9.8 volts. But since it sits at 9.8 volts for 100 minutes it tells you nothing about how long you can fly, unless you catch it at the instant that it came on. A lot will depend on what voltage the first yellow comes on at. But even then, you could take off with a green and go yellow at the instant you released for the launch. I keep saying this and somehow cannot get my point across, battery voltage alone is absolutely meaningless when it comes to determining remaining flight time unless you are already at a critical voltage (1.1 or 1.0 volts per cell). The only reliable way I know of is to determine your average consumption and then TIME your flight. Battery voltage checking then only becomes a means of making sure that the battery is still working. Not as sexy as a nifty thingy in your plane with lights and such, but it works without question. They are useful in telling you that you are dead, but useless at telling how far you have to go if you are not yet fully dead (battery wise that is). Even knowing the transient low voltage recorded during a flight is not really all that useful. Kind of interesting, but not very important. Now if you can develop a curve like the one I posted for my TX battery you can then start to use voltage, but you still need the time element since without it you cannot place yourself on the curve. A device that would allow you to load the curve data into it and then keep track of time for you would start to get us to where we want to be. But I still find it far easier to cycle my battery, determine the average consumption and then simply time it from there. Way too easy and it is specific to my battery in that plane under my usual flight conditions. ~~~ Bill Malvey RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.
[RCSE] A 'Gas' Gauge... uncovered :-)
Notice that it took 60 minutes to drop from 10.9 to 9.9 (0.0017 volt/min) 120 minutes from 9.9 to 9.8 (0.0008 volt/min) 100 minutes from 9.8 to 9.7 (0.001 volt/min) 42 minutes from 9.7 to 9.5 (0.005 volt/min) 38 minutes from 9.5 to 9.0 (0.013 volt/min) 20 minutes from 9.0 to 8.5 (0.025 volt/min) SO now we take a BC6 see what color corresponds to the voltages shown above and we have an idea of where to worry about finding the gas station. Thanks for the info, it wasn't as interesting as protecting Sheldon from all that meaness but it is about the topic I posted! By the way all you guys... I posted about NiHMs, those are the last bites of a Twizzler Licorice (which I am presently enjoying), versus NiMhs Nickel Metal Hydride :-) Gordy
