What would be the results if you wrapped copper wire antenna around the base
of the boom and ran it out a bit. Would it by like base loading? Would it
prevent signal blocking by the boom? Is a slightly wrapped antenna (couple
turns down the boom length) better than a straight taped one.
I tried inside the boom, in a tube and just taping the antenna to the boom.
Got about 130 ft (Stylus with no antenna) before the picolario stopped
announcing on all occasions. I have a couple picolarios and this one never
said "attention", so it' probably an older one. Will try another one to
test Skip's method.
I will also try a "sticky antenna" from RC Direct and see what it does.
Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: [RCSE] Molded Supra Antenna Placement - bottom placement
I updated George's pulse emmission detecotr (PED) design as one of my final
projects years ago. For me these devices are critical to setting up a new
aircraft. They are especially useful where CF is employed, gas engines,
etc.
Although diagnostic by nature, in aircraft where I have them employed full
time, they have prevented serious failures by just observing the recorded
results after every landing.
The Picalario idea is a good one; essentially the same thing. Most folks
are
just plain not aware how many times the RF link has failed on any given
flight
until they actaully witness it for themselves. Non-believers become
believers
in very short order. You can not see EMI/RFI, until it gets past the point
of
being serious in nature...
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In a message dated 2/16/2006 11:49:14 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I tried the thick walled plastic tube along the tailboom - works
but only what I consider to be very marginal range (approx 120 feet).
DARN! I was hoping Hartmut/Dave/Simon were on to something, but I guess
we're still groping around.
The next time you do a range test, plug up your Picalario - that nice
itty-bitty lady in there will likely start saying "ATTENTION!" before you
start
seeing the controls twitch (particularly if you set the sensitivity up)
so
you
won't have to walk so far/strain your eyes/get muddy. Then, (for those
antenna configurations in which you have the MOST confidence, PLEASE!)
fly
the
airplane and keep track of of the number of "ATTENTION!"s (glitch/pulse
omission
reports) vs flight time for comparison. That might take a
pencil/notepad/assistant (or other talent, writing with your toes comes
to
mind), since AFAIK
the Pic doesn't keep that data in memory (HELP Hartmut!). There are
other
such (older & new) sensors out there that do (I've got one I bought from
Mark
Schwing (EMS) someplace, and RC guru George Steiner had DIY articles on
such
in
RCM). If enough folks do this and (carefully!) report the results, we
might start to get a stochastic (yeh, eye are an injenyr two!) insight
into
the
practical effects of carbon structure vs antenna performance, since the
application of more elegant em theory is (as yet, apparently)
inconclusive.
Maybe
Gordy could do something REALLY useful by compiling the data. Might be
more
helpful than the "I wrapped my antenna around a pair of needle-nose
pliers
and never had a problem" approach. Good Lift!
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe"
and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note
that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format
with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and
AOL are generally NOT in text format
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and
"unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe
messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email
such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
