On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 11:53:28PM -0600, Doug McLaren wrote:
| | I wasn't at the field during the latest episode, but I was there
| | when the first plane went in. We have an ICOM IC-R2 hand held
| | scanner. The transmitter was shut off but there was still a strong
| | signal on channel 16.
|
-Original Message-
From: Fred A. Sheplavy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 6:04 PM
To: John Erickson
Subject: RE: [RCSE] Signal strength switch?
My first transmitter was a Kraft single channel tube type. You would fly
with the two 67.5 volt B+ batteries
How would the offending TX a mile away have more signal strength at
altitude, and the one at the local field not demonstrate the same
phenomena? (Simon Van Leeuwen)
-- You're circling in a thermal, having gone downwind with it. There are
some short trees and a powerline at the end of the field
PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:08:14 -0600
To: John Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Soaring List Soaring@airage.com
Subject: Re: [RCSE] Signal strength switch?
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 11:29:07AM -0800, John Erickson wrote:
| We've has a couple of club members lose planes recently from
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 09:09:27AM -0800, John Erickson wrote:
| I want to thank everyone for their help and advice with our situation.
| Doug, we are in California to answer your question.
It wasn't really a serious question -- but people tend to get annoyed
when you mention the FCC and the
We've has a couple of club members lose planes recently from interference.
We have a scanner on the field. It shows a channel is on (sporadically)
although all our pins/radios are accounted for. We suspect another flyer
about a mile away but we've yet to find him. There are both houses and an
This is an idea I've had myself. A push button Signal Boost function. I like
it. But no, I've not heard of it ever being mentioned.
Besides it'd be illegal so no licensed tech could do it without risking his
license.
And I don't know how difficult it'd be to do without risking frying your
Fact: It is very unlikely anyone flying a mile away is adversely affecting
anyone at your field, irregardless of the frequency. Remember...the receiver
would need to see on-frequency RF that is equal or greater from the offending
transmitter to gain control.
There are many things that can
on radio transmission or reception.
EJ
- Original Message -
From: Bill Swingle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: John Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Soaring List
Soaring@airage.com
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: [RCSE] Signal strength switch?
Maybe if we turned it
into a life
I want a Spinal Tap transmitter, with a knob that goes up to ELEVEN!
Tom H. Nagel
Columbus, OH
- Original Message -
From: Ed Jett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Soaring List Soaring@airage.com
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: [RCSE] Signal strength switch?
I don't think
Ed,
The latest AMA magazine has an informative article on BPL.
Jon
- Original Message -
From: Ed Jett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Soaring List Soaring@airage.com
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: [RCSE] Signal strength switch?
I don't think this is what we want to do
At 02:30 PM 3/31/2005, you wrote:
I don't think this is what we want to do. It brings the wrong kind of
image to others. Red flags may start flying instead of our planes.
Lets go to spread spectrum technology. I believe that would get us away
from the broadband over power line issue as well.
We really need a better mechanism than 60 something shared frequencies. We
need our own digital signatures, something like our own private channel.
At 01:29 PM 3/31/2005, John Erickson wrote:
We've has a couple of club members lose planes recently from interference.
We have a scanner on the
John Erickson wrote:
Would it be possible to start your flight with reduced range (3/4 signal
strength) and then flip to full strength in an emergency?
If you're using a standard telescoping transmitter antenna, it will radiate
the most energy from the side. The way to increase signal to your
John,
This isn't really an answer to your question but there is a great article in
this months AMA Magazine about radio interference you should read up on. This
might be or not your clubs problem. It has to do with the wireless internet
junction boxes(?). Which send out a relay signal of power
List
Soaring@airage.com
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: [RCSE] Signal strength switch?
This is an idea I've had myself. A push button Signal Boost function. I
like
it. But no, I've not heard of it ever being mentioned.
Besides it'd be illegal so no licensed tech could do
better yet, a way to boost signal strength? (John Erickson)
I've been toying with this concept but it does have the drawback of
being illegal. I'm also not sure the boost you could get by just
tweaking the transmitter module would be enough to get the plane into
control.
We suspect another
Sorry, my bad, I mean that the first couple hundred feet show more
signal loss than the those last several hundred. And that actully
supports my idea, not the other way around. Oops
-Charles
Charles Frey wrote:
I believe the original proposal was to normally transmit at 1/2 or 3/4
power, and
Hi Martin,
Martin Usher wrote:
our radios
have very little effective range at street level in a built-up area (but
a lot more effective range above the houses and trees, that's why
someone even a mile or more away can bring us down).
How would the offending TX a mile away have more signal
grin...there is ample effective range with the systems we have
nowmuch further thanyou can see. Most transmitters do not even
operate near the FCC 250mW limit.
I can see adding the panic button...and folks then leaving it on all the
time (if a little is good, then)...only to demand a
Simon Van Leeuwen wrote:
Most transmitters do not even operate near the FCC 250mW limit.
750 milliwatts.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=47PART=95SECTION=210YEAR=2000TYPE=TEXT
or http://tinyurl.com/42ksy
Mike
--
Winch Solenoid Safety Buzzer -
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 11:29:07AM -0800, John Erickson wrote:
| We've has a couple of club members lose planes recently from
| interference.
Personally, I've seen interference blamed for a lot of user errors
too. Not that this is the case in your situation, but ...
| We have a scanner on the
Oops, thanks Mike...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simon Van Leeuwen wrote:
Most transmitters do not even operate near the FCC 250mW limit.
750 milliwatts.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=47PART=95SECTION=210YEAR=2000TYPE=TEXT
or http://tinyurl.com/42ksy
Mike
--
Simon Van
Simon wrote:
I find it hard to imagine both system
protocols working
harmoniously as the local field.
Why would they not work in harmony on the same field? Existing radios are
on 72 Mhz. Existing SS radios use 900 Mhz and 2.4 Ghz. Are you assuming
the powers that be might grant spread
A much simpler dipole antenna (as accurate as a Yagi) can be easily
built for locating the source and strength using a dowel and some lead
fed to 50ohm COAX.
The nulls off the ends are incredibly accurate at pointing to the
anomaly. It took me ~15min and is 72, center is tuned to 72MHz +-1MHz
Hi John,
Comments inserted:
Jon Stone wrote:
Simon wrote:
I find it hard to imagine both system
protocols working
harmoniously as the local field.
Why would they not work in harmony on the same field? Existing radios are
on 72 Mhz. Existing SS radios use 900 Mhz and 2.4 Ghz. Are you
This idea of digitally encoding the signal is feasible. I work
with remote controlled industrial cranes and locamotives that
operate
on 72MHz. In one area we have 3 cranes operating on the exact same
freq with different digital addresses without any interferance.
The industial
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 07:17:51AM -, Dave H. wrote:
| This idea of digitally encoding the signal is feasible. I work with
| remote controlled industrial cranes and locamotives that operate on
| 72MHz. In one area we have 3 cranes operating on the exact same
| freq with different digital
28 matches
Mail list logo
