Hi Rob, I too employ onboard pulse emission detectors. On every aircraft I have ever owned I observed/obaserve various counts in remote flying areas that would be considered RF-clean.
It is possible that the aircraft used as the test bed is itself generating data, which will skew the final assessment. Was this considered? Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > 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. > > > The above statement is unfortunately incorrect. I used to think the same way, > but I have had my mind changed. We (North Alabama Silent Fliers) > unfortunately lost our field due to construction recently. In an effort to > find a new field we tried to move to a nice spot that is around 2.5 miles > from an existing RC site. We borrowed a small glitch counter from the AMA > (thanks to Steve Kaluf) and went trhough the procedures outlined by AMA to > test for interference between the two sites. Testing was done with a .25 > sized trainer aircraft, flown pretty far out but not near as far out as I've > flown an unlimited glider. The "interfering" transmitter easily registered at > the airplane from the distant (prospective) field. > > sorry to burst anybody's bubble, Rob Glover > 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
