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,
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
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
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
'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
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
- 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
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
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
9 matches
Mail list logo
