Re: [RCSE] dual conversion

2005-02-24 Thread Bill Conkling
I don't agree that Single Conversion recievers have limited range. Now, there are a group of recievers that have been designed for light weight and small size that do exhibit short range, but they have been designed for small, park flyers and indoor apl;;ications where long range is not an issue,

Re: [RCSE] dual conversion

2005-02-22 Thread Martin Usher
In short a "Dual Conversion" receiver will be more selective -- reject unwanted signals -- than a "Single Conversion" reciever. A more selective receiver could be made more sensitive. The result would certainly cost more to make (at least in the old days -- nowdays high performance ICs are so c

Re: [RCSE] dual conversion

2005-02-22 Thread Paul Breed
Be VERY careful with abbreviations... We have Single conversion We have Dual conversion and there is also a receiver topology called direct conversion. The Radio guys use DC as an abbreviation for direct conversion. As far as I know there are no direct conversion RC receivers, as it takes a signif

Re: [RCSE] dual conversion

2005-02-22 Thread Doug McLaren
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 02:51:06PM -0700, Daniel Moss wrote: | Can anyone tell me what is meant when a receiver is "Dual Conversion"(DC)? | And are all receives either DC or something else, say Single Conversion? | Thanx No, there's single conversion. And triple conversion as well, though it's n

Re: [RCSE] Dual Conversion

2003-07-01 Thread Andrew E. Mileski
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 typic

Re: [RCSE] Dual Conversion

2003-07-01 Thread Steve Witt
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. Thu

Re: [RCSE] Dual Conversion

2003-07-01 Thread Robert Ussery
- 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 > bu

Re: [RCSE] Dual Conversion

2003-07-01 Thread Bill Swingle
>>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

RE: [RCSE] Dual Conversion

2003-07-01 Thread Sheldon - YNT uDesign
'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