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.
|
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 AMA,
ickson Architects
John R. Erickson, AIA
> From: Doug McLaren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:08:14 -0600
> To: John Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Soaring List
> Subject: Re: [RCSE] Signal strength switch?
>
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 11:
>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 fie
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 add
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 a
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 assuming
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
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
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=47&PART=95&SECTION=210&YEAR=2000&TYPE=TEXT
or http://tinyurl.com/42ksy
Mike
--
Simon Van
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 f
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=47&PART=95&SECTION=210&YEAR=2000&TYPE=TEXT
or http://tinyurl.com/42ksy
Mike
--
Winch Solenoid Safety Buzzer - http://www.vvsss.co
...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 bigger p
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 signa
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
I believe the original proposal was to normally transmit at 1/2 or 3/4
power, and then have the switch activate full power. I think it's a
pretty good idea. We could be saving a lot of battery by transmitting
less power when we're close, especially handy for things like park
flyers where you'
>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 fl
ohn Erickson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Soaring List"
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.
B
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 l
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 m
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 fi
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.
Ed,
The latest AMA magazine has an informative article on BPL.
Jon
- Original Message -
From: "Ed Jett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Soaring List"
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: [RCSE] Signal strength switch?
> I don't think this
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"
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: [RCSE] Signal strength switch?
>
expert on radio transmission or reception.
EJ
- Original Message -
From: "Bill Swingle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "John Erickson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Soaring List"
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: [RCSE] Signal strength swi
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 crea
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
transmi
27 matches
Mail list logo
