Redundant Receiver Requirements
06-17-2003, 01:01 AM
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Evanston,
IL,
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Redundant Receiver Requirements
I understand how the redundant receiver setup is generally done (splitting control surfaces).
I am looking into designing a "box" for dual receiver setups for complete redundancy that will do a couple things:
1) decide if a receiver has failed and to "disconnect it" from the circuit.
2) attempt to reduce interference effects based on using information from both receivers.
It would be nice to be able to have full control in the event of a receiver failure from various reasons, crystal failure, battery (I know there are other ways to prevent this), but also maintain the benefits of the dual receiver system, ie less loading.
If at all possible, and without starting an argument on what is good or bad about dual receiver setups (it has been discussed at length), what would you as a pilot like to see in a totally redundant receiver system?
Thanks!
Jon
I am looking into designing a "box" for dual receiver setups for complete redundancy that will do a couple things:
1) decide if a receiver has failed and to "disconnect it" from the circuit.
2) attempt to reduce interference effects based on using information from both receivers.
It would be nice to be able to have full control in the event of a receiver failure from various reasons, crystal failure, battery (I know there are other ways to prevent this), but also maintain the benefits of the dual receiver system, ie less loading.
If at all possible, and without starting an argument on what is good or bad about dual receiver setups (it has been discussed at length), what would you as a pilot like to see in a totally redundant receiver system?
Thanks!
Jon
06-17-2003, 03:42 AM
#2
My Feedback: (11)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,902
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Redundant Receiver Requirements
Exactly that. Total redundancy. If receiver one fails due to power outage, crystal falls out, it fails and starts spewing interference or failsafe signals, the other good receiver will take over and allow complete control of the airplane by the pilot.
If it can't handle the following by giving the pilot more than half the airplane, then its pretty much about what we have with dual receivers and a power jumper between then.
1. Power outage on one receiver
2. One receiver receives interference while the other doesn't
3. One receiver goes into failsafe, while the other doesn't
4. A failure of widget itself should not become a single point of failure and cause a total loss of control.
Something along those lines would definitely get my attention!
If it can't handle the following by giving the pilot more than half the airplane, then its pretty much about what we have with dual receivers and a power jumper between then.
1. Power outage on one receiver
2. One receiver receives interference while the other doesn't
3. One receiver goes into failsafe, while the other doesn't
4. A failure of widget itself should not become a single point of failure and cause a total loss of control.
Something along those lines would definitely get my attention!
06-17-2003, 03:50 AM
#4
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Evanston,
IL,
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Redundant Receiver Requirements
Mr Faust,
I am glad you replied, most of my inspiration for this project comes from the battle on the last post regarding this subject, hence my words "without starting an argument on what is good or bad about dual receiver setups (it has been discussed at length)".
Sorry, not next week . . . still tossing around ideas. Hardest part is figuring out which signal is "right" in case of a discrepancy.
Jon
I am glad you replied, most of my inspiration for this project comes from the battle on the last post regarding this subject, hence my words "without starting an argument on what is good or bad about dual receiver setups (it has been discussed at length)".
Sorry, not next week . . . still tossing around ideas. Hardest part is figuring out which signal is "right" in case of a discrepancy.
Jon
