In a message dated 2/23/2006 8:13:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But it is clear that we need more power/range than what current
802.11x can offer. Hence we will need to use another band and since we
are peripheral RF users, being assigned more bandwidth or a new
Doug McLaren wrote:
(I'm pretty sure that Futaba already
sells industrial R/C equipment that uses spread spectrum, but I don't
know the specifics.)
Indeed they do:
http://www.futaba.com/products/irc/introduction/index.asp
There is no magic to this stuff and it is certainly not like the
In a message dated 2/24/2006 8:24:46 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Another
little factoid about SS is that if you ever go out of range, your link is
toast. Once it is broken your TX and RX cannot reacquire
it.
Not so! DX6 users have confirmed re-acquisition
Then I was given bad information which I repeated without confirming. My
Bad.
Bill
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 2/24/2006 8:24:46 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Another little factoid about SS is that if you ever go out of range,
your link is
In a message dated 02/23/2006 11:28:34 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now that governments have discovered
that there's a cash cow to be milked auctioning off the spectrum -- one
of the reasons for the move to digital TV is to free up half the old UHF
TV band and the VHF
Since this thread has drifted into the future of RC RF, how about
this scenario.
Eventually all the car guys will graduate to using 2.4G SS, (if not
force them), thus allowing 75Mhz to be utilized for RC spread
spectrum. Then allow the exclusive use to aircraft. If some old non
compliant
Interesting idea Steve. I think I like it. However, SS may require more
bandwidth than is available on 70ish MHz. Don't know... (hey Simon?)
Besides that it would be a radical change and difficult to force down their
throats. ;-)
Bill Swingle
Janesville, CA
RCSE-List facilities provided by
Maybe John would care to give us an overview of what to expect from JR
reegarding this very interesting prospect? Or maybe some snippets? :^)
Bill Swingle wrote:
Interesting idea Steve. I think I like it. However, SS may require more
bandwidth than is available on 70ish MHz. Don't know... (hey
At 09:33 AM 2/23/2006, Bill Swingle wrote:
Interesting idea Steve. I think I like it. However, SS may require
more bandwidth than is available on 70ish MHz. Don't know... (hey Simon?)
Besides that it would be a radical change and difficult to force
down their throats. ;-)
Narrow band was
But it is clear that we need more power/range than what current
802.11x can offer.
Apart from range (limited) the real killer with something like 802.11 is
latency. You probably won't notice it with just one or two people flying
but if you had a contest with a couple of dozen then the
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 08:42:32PM -0800, Martin Usher wrote:
| But it is clear that we need more power/range than what current
| 802.11x can offer.
For the record, 802.11x is just one (or a few, to be more accurate)
implementations of spread spectrum. There are many others.
The Spektrum
11 matches
Mail list logo
