Jason,
In my other mail, I have mentioned that the "Karlton Morning Range
Test" did not necessary reflect RF link integrity due to absence of
2nd and/or third Tx as the interferer(s). I take it as a
sensitivity/range comparison more than a IPD vs Convension comparison.
In addition, most range test I had was more than 50 feet to the
convension Rx.
-YK
----- Original Message -----
From: Jason Werner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: YK Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: [RCSE] PCM is Superior
> YK,
> IPD cannot improve the integrity of the actual RF link. That
link is
> the link between the rf module in the tx and the decoder in the rx.
The TX
> side is basiclly a normal PPM modulation. That is transferred to a
standard
> FM rf signal (same as PPM and PCM!). The only difference is the
ability to
> decode that signal on the other end (the Rx side). IPD shares the
same
> fault tolerance and bad data rejection that PCM does while adding
the
> variable frame tolerance and shorter data word (faster update rate).
> The biggest advantage IPD has over PCM on the RF world is the
ability to
> vary it's tolerances to allow more data to get through while still
> maintaining the servo limits. So when a slightly garbled piece of
data gets
> through (say channel 1-4 is fine but 5-8 is toast) then it will
still
> process some data (channels 1-4 in this example). PCm will reject
the
> entire string.
> PCM is not dead. IPD is simply different. :)
>
> Jason
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "YK Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 2:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [RCSE] PCM is Superior
>
>
> > It is less likely that IPD can improve RF link integrity, if I
> > understand Jason's definition correctly. I define integrity as the
> > link between the stick and the flight. Not just RF, interference,
IPD,
> > servo or mechanical. That means an effective IPD should meet
Jason's
> > requirement to some extend.
> >
> > YK Chan
> > Seattle
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2000 6:18 AM
> > Subject: Re: [RCSE] PCM is Superior
> >
> >
> > > In a message dated 7/17/00 10:22:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > >
> > > << I learned more from Jason Werner's post regarding IPD than I
have
> > seen
> > > or read elsewhere. As previously stated, if IPD increases the
> > integrity
> > > of the RF link between the TX and RX over what is currently
> > available,
> > > I'll use it.
> > > See Ya, >>
> > > I agree Simon, Jason's post explained it very well for me also.
> > Bill
> > > Grenoble
> > > RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send
> > "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> >
> > RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send
"subscribe"
> and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and
"unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
