Re: [RCSE] Mobile phones interference?

[Simon Van Leeuwen]

I can provide any type of RF laboratory test equipment, an anechoic test
chamber, and a couple of different cell phones. In either test, a
controlled enviroment is mandatory.
But in order to do either proposed test properly, we need different
types of cell phones as they have different power O/P's, very different
form-factors resulting in different radiation patterns, etc. This alone
sorta precludes setting up formal testing parameters that have any
merit. If we can't do it correctly, it loses credibility. 
  

YK Chan wrote:
> 
> We need to get going, Simon. Rc Tx as a victim to Cell Tx is more of a
> claim than a statistical fact. Looking ahead, the next reasonable
> concern is RC RX as a victim to same. That can be ruled out by a test
> I specified in my last post. Let's test proof our Rx now.
> YK Chan
> Seattle.
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: Simon Van Leeuwen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: YK Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: RCSE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 11:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [RCSE] Mobile phones interference?
> 
> > Hang on...the only time I believe that a cell-phone "may" have the
> > opportunity to do harm, is when it is a position to affect (or is
> that
> > effect) your TX's stored parameters. Proximity is important. On your
> > person, next to your TX.
> > Testing...hmmm...tough scenario...
> >
> > YK Chan wrote:
> > >
> > > Same may be true to cell phone's audio-logic circuits to its own
> > > antenna radiation. The opportunity nearly matching one another
> between
> > > cell against RC.
> > >
> > > What we want to focus here is to test proof our RX on plane immune
> to
> > > cell phones. Well, if you know what (YK) ground range test is, try
> it
> > > out in front of a engauged cell phone and find out the truth.
> (note:
> > > four cell phone system/modes exists in N-America)
> > >
> > > YK Chan
> > > Seattle.
> > >
> > *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> >Simon Van Leeuwen, Calgary, Alberta
> >  RADIUS SYSTEMS
> > Cogito-Ergo-Zoom
> >   IAC25233*MAAC12835*IMAC1756*LSF5953*IMAA20209
> > *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> 
> RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send "subscribe" and 
>"unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
   Simon Van Leeuwen, Calgary, Alberta
 RADIUS SYSTEMS
Cogito-Ergo-Zoom
  IAC25233*MAAC12835*IMAC1756*LSF5953*IMAA20209
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send "subscribe" and 
"unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [RCSE] Mobile phones interference?

[Simon Van Leeuwen]

Hi YK,
I think you would agree, stranger things have happened within the realms
of RF. Given the o/p of both systems (cell higher wattage), and the poor
shielding within TX's, especially the digital programming section, I
would not rule out the potential to change some 1's and 0's. The term
"never", or "100% of the time", as it relates to RF is a misnomer. 

YK Chan wrote:
> 
> Claudio,
> Why would you doubt that? The RF signal that the associated TX
> radiation is the dominant interference comparing to other Radio
> equipment. In other words, if it survived it own Tx it should be
> strong enough to immune to a Cell phone radiation through the air.
> YK Chan
> Seattle
> 
> RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send "subscribe" and 
>"unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
   Simon Van Leeuwen, Calgary, Alberta
 RADIUS SYSTEMS
Cogito-Ergo-Zoom
  IAC25233*MAAC12835*IMAC1756*LSF5953*IMAA20209
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send "subscribe" and 
"unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]