ORIGINAL: Oberst
ORIGINAL: warbird72
Hey guy's I just called Hitec.. I talked to Tony.. I hope Mike gets on here and clears this up. He is a good guy and very heplful.. Hope this eases some minds..
Why, only for him to be dishonest? He's only going to do what ever he can to protect the business. I doubt that he's studied electronic physics like some people I know. Heck, I doubt he even studied electronic physics 101.
Me I studied all about the 2.4GHz and different Mhz systems when I worked for AT&T. I had to attend classes in order to sell phone and landline systems and I had to a get 90% ot better to qualify in my field.
What Dave Horvath and I have written was based on knowledge, more so from Mr. Horvath. I didn't study electronic physics, but I do use common sense and good judgement from what was taught to me when I was at AT&T.
Why the RC boats work with the 2.4GHz is because the operation distance isn't like how we operate our planes. The spectum antenna is above water and isn't submerged. The hull of these boats are made of a different material and antenna is perfectly sealed.
Again it's like comparing apples to oranges.
Sport_Pilot
Not a telecommunications expert, but I thought that cell phones were called that because the tramsmitting, recieving stations worked a small areas called cells, as you move about the services are transfered from station to station. Satelite phones do not use these cells.
No, the wireless phone system connects to a tower, then sent to the recieving stations tower using the 2.4GHz on the G system. The Cell phone and old pagers works under the MHz band to a towered recieving station then up to the satellite. Think of it as a triangle network. Usually they operate on MHz clusters to either Cell Sector A or B at the recieving station inorder to connect with the satellite. We stopped using Cell technology in the 1980's then went to TDMA devices at around 800MHz.
At the same time we went to TDMA the local towers then started to brodcast the MHz signals to the recieving stations tower and no longer connected to a satellite for communications speeding up the connection. When we went to CDMA, the radio signal was intensified as a result speeding up the radio waves. TDMA was even faster but had a tendancy for interference.
When the phone companies switched to a G network, G= Ghz, we no longer used the MHz for signal and went to the 2.4GHz. With the 2.4Ghz signal speed was inhanced and other applications like Wifi, text messaging and data plans could be operated at a faster transmit speed. Aka light travels faster than radio waves.
I think I can speak for Dave Horvath when I say we only are warning people so people don't crash their planes because of a faulty RC system. If we didn't care about our fellow modelers we wouldn't be waisting our time. For me and Mr. Horvath it wouldn't be right not to warn people of what we know. We are not getting paid by anyone so we are not tarnished by any corporate influances. We do it because we know it's the right thing to do. Why? Because we care. That's why you are getting faced with the truth. Anyone from Hitec, Futaba, Airtronics and JR will not tell you the truth. Why? Because they have a lot at stake financially including the AMA.
Follow the money people and use your common sense and put 2 and 2 together. Please! We are supposed to look out for one another in this hobby and not listen to those who makes a living off this hobby. They are there to sell and make money including moderators at RCU, without marketing and promotion RCU would be in trouble financially.
Pete
Once again you appeal to people to listen but fail to produce factual proof of what you say. Instead its a "please believe me, I'm an expert" but you fail to address the issues with 2.4GHz at any level.
The AMAis a non profit organisation as far I am aware so what is their vested interest in 2.4? None, its just a band used to transmit commands between a pilot and his toy UAV. Within that band manufacturers use Spread SPectrum and Frequency Hopping to mathematically reduce the time and bandwidth conflict that would lead to a failure.
You make no mention of of other causal effects in crashes and provide no statistics to the contribution of these causals to the total. Without that data its sounds like a few people are either:
1)fear mongering while developing a different system in the backgroun. Nothing like fear mongering to create doubt and give yourself a market entry edge
2) Stuck in the past and want the old systems back
3) Don;t have a friggin clue what they're talking about.
This is starting to sound like
1)Man didn't land on the moon
2)the Loch Ness monster
3) UFO's
4) Whol killed JFK..
5)<insert here="" story="" up="" cover="" favourite="" your=""></insert>
sorry dude, I can't see your story as credible. You're an educated guy so you can do better than this.
You simply cannot say that a governing body is in cohots with RC manufacturers to cover up technical flaws in RC equipment using the 2.4GHz band. One company had clear issues and eventually moved away from their strategy.
If you have proof of what you are saying then post it.