critterhunter

Yep, I also feel it's better for external plane parts to break away in some fashion instead of being rock solid. It helps to release energy and absorb the crash momentum. That's why I like using an extra wing rubberband peg to hold the styraphoam in place between the battery and the PC board. An average crash won't move it, but a real hard nose hit will cause one of the peg caps to pop and release energy to the side as the body bows outward. Keep in mind to check the pegs if you crash hard as I've already lost two or three. Darn Hobbyzone is making a fortune off me just in pegs. You need to use the longer peg shaft. I was thinking of putting a zip tie straight through this hole and cutting the head off a second zip tie to secure the other end. I know that won't move but then I'd be concerned that the body would flex inward as the battery tries to push back. Any thoughts?

I had done the zip tie engine mod that everybody uses but I also took this a step further. I removed the two screws on the back of the motor and took off that flimsy little metal oblong washer looking thing that is supposed to hold the motor to the plastic at the prop. I then took a heavy guitar pick that was strong yet flexible without cracking (there are many types out there) and drilled two holes in it for the two screws. The middle shaft hole needs to be bigger than the shaft, as it's going around a raised round area where the shaft enters the motor. Put the screws back on and snugged them up. Works great and keeps the back end of the plane body straight to prevent distortions.

Looking forward to tomorrow as we are going to cook out, drink beers, watch the Browns game outside on TV, and of course fly the planes. I'll be doing some fly overs of the woods with my camera where the one guy's plane might have landed. If it's near the top of a tree we should see it's orange color stick out, but with my luck all the trees will have orange leaves as they are changing around here right now.

I've been looking at that darn audio trace connection through the goop on the TX. I need to figure out how to clean it up enough to solder the wire back in place. Even if I clear a small access point I'm worried the goop will do bad things from the soldering iron. Don't want to make things worse. Don't know if I told you but the version of the regulator I bought was the 9V you listed. After a soldered it to the wires coming from the X-Port connector I tested the output on it before wiring it to the camera to be safe. It was putting out a perfect 9.05V. I went back and re-tested the old RCA harness that I cut off the camera and TX. Still reading 9 volts at both outputs to the TX and camera so I'm positive now that there wasn't a regulator hiding in there somewhere. The RX says "9-12V" on it and I'm using a car battery for it and my tv/vcr. I figure the higher the voltage the better it's reception. The back of the TX says either 8 or 9V, so that's right in line with the regulator. The camera doesn't have any voltage markings but I expect both it and the TX have an 8 to 12v power range. As Randall said he's run the same camera/TX on straight on 9.6V (and I think higher), so 9V should be a safe bet.

From all the threads the F27 Styrker looks like a real fun plane to fly. Either I'll impulse buy it in a week or two or wait until next spring. I should wait but I'm not real careful with my money. :')

critterhunter

Forgot to ask, in the future after I'm confident with the current camera setup I might want to replace the CMOS camera with a CCD. I took a peak at the Panasonic camera on the Blackwidow site and see that it's only about as big as a quarter, so this should be a possible option unless these things are REAL heavy? Since I've already went through the trouble of buying the 9V regulator (Neward DID have the one you listed, by the way), do they offer CCD cameras in the 9V range or are most of the cheap ones 5V? Also, would this be a simple matter of wiring it up to the video/audio outputs going to the TX I have now or could there be other issues?

Oh....one quick question about lense focus. My camera has an "adjustable" focus on it in that the thing screws in and out. How should I set this sucker for best focus on far away objects...simply point it at something far away and turn it until things look best?

randall1959

My Feedback: (11)

That's the way you do it Critter. To conserve weight go with a CCD board camera and stay away from bullet cams and cams that have enclosures. They help contain damage but they also add extra weight. You might want to check out www.supercircuits.com for a camera also.

http://www.supercircuits.com/STORE/p...tem=1&mitem=21

Troglotech

I recommend the Panasonic cameras (while you can still get them), or the replacement (Videology 20K14), the best place I know in the US (and I have regularly bought cameras from them even from the UK) is Rock 2000:

http://www.rock2000.com/showproducts.php?Category=4

They do the Videology cameras. Most of these cameras expect 5V, for this you can utilise your 7805 regulator! Both the Panasonic and the Videology cameras are very small and you can buy them with all sorts of lenses, although I would recommend something like an F2.0 4mm or something close. Focusing lenses is best done with a reasonable amount of light, outside. Screw the lens IN to focus further away and OUT to focus near. With pin-hole lenses find the point when you screw the lens in where everything starts to go out of focus and then bring it back until everything is sharp again (the point of infinity focus).

I've had a look at the F27 as well, I don't think it would make a good camera plane though, with the camera on top you are going to get mostly sky, great to start with but it will get a bit boring! Sounds like a great plane to fly though from all the posts I've seen here. I hope it goes well tomorrow and look forward to seeing the results....Tim....

critterhunter

Well, once again the camera gods have prevented me from using the camera. Took it out to my buddies place to fly. I first took a test flight without the camera mounted on the plane to make sure she was flying well. Everything was fine, so time to strap on the camera. Launched the plane and all was well for about thirty yards, then suddenly the plane looses power and glids to the ground. Checked my battery in the plane and I had just put brand new batteries in the transmitter before the trip so that wasn't the problem. Launch her again and she does the same thing, loosing power and gliding in when it gets about thirty yards away. Hmmmm....maybe these "new" batteries in the transmitter are acting up. I take the camera off the plane and fly it again with no range problems. Great...., looks like the camera TX is interfering with the RX on the plane. Well, I did have the camera TX mounted on the right side of the plane, where as last week when I got it high and folded a wing (pre-voltage regulator flight) I didn't have any range problem. On that flight I had the TX on the left side of the plane. OK, I thought I'd just move the TX to the left side with some more velcro. Still had the same range problem with the plane shutting down right after launch. I have read a thread before from somebody using a Challenger in which he had the same problem and had to re-locate the TX somewhere on the plane. Looks like I'll have to try various mounting positions and on-the-ground range tests to find what I need. Any input or thoughts on this would be welcome. Just think it's funny that the plane still cut out on the left side where I didn't experience a problem last week. Maybe the cheap Rayovac batteries I bought for the plane's TX are producing a poor signal?

Troglotech

If you had no range problems before then it is possible that the DC to DC converter is either in oscillation or is producing some noise that is affecting the range.....sounds like a bit of a long shot though. My Challenger has a similar DC to DC converter, plane is Channel 6 and camera is 2.4GHz Channel 3, I don't suffer from range problems. To rule out noise issues from the converter it is worth putting the capacitor you bought previously across the X-Port (the input to the DC to DC converter), this should stop noise going back the other way (into the Challengers RX). It is certainly worth doing some range tests with different set-ups.

For instance, retract the TX aerial, set the throttle partially on and walk away from the TX (holding the plane obviously) with the camera setup as it was yesterday, find the point where reception is lost (the motor stops turning)....then remove the plug from the X-Port and see if that starts the motor going again. If this is the case (and it is quite possible that the camera will affect the range very slightly) then get power for the DC to DC converter from a 9V battery instead, this will give a clue as to if the noise from the DC to DC converter is getting back into the X-Port. With the standard setup of the video equipment plugged into the X-Port try moving the video TX around and see if you get control back in different positions.....try moving the other parts of the video setup around like the camera and the DC to DC converter. It is only through experiments like this that you will be able to find the cause of the problem....Tim.....

critterhunter

Good troubleshooting tips, Troglotech. I'll try them and see. Yes, since the flight last week had the TX on the left side of the plane with no range problems the only difference would be the voltage regulator. However, that doesn't rule out for sure that it isn't the TX for the camera. I plan to walk away with the plane until the plane shuts off, then move the TX around to see if I re-gain control. I'll have to be careful with this test as the plane controller has a safety engine shutoff, in that the motor will not spin if the controller is turned on with the throttle already opened. So, if the plane TX is being totaly blocked at one point the plane might think the controller has been shutoff, and won't work again until the throttle is reset. Maybe it works that way, maybe not. Perhaps I'll just use a rubberband to hold the joystick in a downward position, then if I see the tail flaps level out I'll know it's lost transmision. Somewhere on this website I saw reference to a Challenger user who had to mount the TX on the nose (I think) or he would get similar problems. I'm going to attempt to contact him for input. The capacitor across (before) the voltage regulator is also a good idea to try. Will report back when I have further info. Oh, so 2.4ghz is in the channel 3 frequency range? Hmmm...what channel would 1.2ghz be? My plane is either channel 2 or 3, can't remember.

pkrska

[link=http://www.octagone.com]F27 Stryker AirCam and Videos[/link]

Recommend it to anyone wanting a fun plane to fly. Oh and it hauls a camera up OK too. Although I think that too much epoxy, using heavy niMH batteries and after a lot of crashes, this plane is ready to be upgraded. I had to replace my internals to support my own 4 channel radio. Now if I can only afford those lipolys and their charger!!! Much more expensive here in Toronto, Ontario Canada!

This plane flies pretty good in the wind.

critterhunter

RE: F27. Yes, it will for sure be my next plane purchase. It will come out on the days that I want extreme speed and more stunt ability. Well, if the body is getting heavy from glue then a new body can be had for under $20. Not bad at all. I also hear total new plane electronics is only something like $26. Right in line with cheap replacement parts for other Parkzone (Hobbyzone) airplanes. I just wish I could buy a new body for the Challenger without electronics, as you are stuck purchasing it with new electronics for $45...which isn't bad at all anyway. I see the Extreme body can be bought without electronics for under $20. I don't want to make the switch to standard controllers or electronics as that requires a major investment, so I'm quite happy with the cheap non-standard stuff Hobbyzone crams into their planes. By the way, I saw a discussion thread on this webesite about the F27 where guys were wanting more flight time. The F27 comes standard with the same "pro" battery pack (8.4v 900ma) and connector that you can buy for the Challenger (The stock Challenger pack is a 7.2v 900ma). There are several aftermarket batteries from Venom and a few others that are the same size and weight as the 8.4v 900ma, yet provide an 1100ma rating. I purchased one of the Venoms and it gives a few minutes extra time at full throttle. Refer to the E Power Sources forum for comparison test times I did on these batteries.

critterhunter

Troglotech, did some tests today and the results are interesting. I'll try to keep it short and to the point...

Stuck a rubberband on the plane's controller joystick to put flaps in downward position. Plugged the camera/tx/regulator combo into the X-port. Walked about thirty yards away and lost contact with the controller (flaps returned to level position). Started moving tx and camera into various positions on the plane. No help, sometimes the engine would come on and off (even though I had it off) and the flaps would loose control off and on depending on where the TX and camera was placed. I could find no happy medium and the random engine fires really bothered me. Back to the soldering room...

Quickly hacked one of the 220uf 16v capacitors (paying attention to polarity) across the power lines between the Xport and the regulator. Went outside and tried the range test again. Same results as above. Back inside to tinker some more...

Cut off the voltage regulator and hacked on a 9V battery as the camera power source, just to see if it was the camera TX transmission that was blocking the plane RX or something other. Went outside for another range test. No loss of control of the plane even at great distance. Also tried putting the camera TX in various spots on the plane to see if I could get the interference to come back. No loss of plane control was experienced. Great...atleast the camera TX doesn't appear to be the cause. Back in the house for more...

Re-attached the X-Port plug with NO voltage regulator but this time I used the simple noise filter circuit you described prior in this thread (diode and capacitor). Went back outside and experienced NO loss of plane control. Looking better, now to test this setup for engine noise with the video. The video remains stable all the way up until about half throttle. Beyond that I get video interference (not as bad as it was without anything buffering the Xport/cam connection, but with the regulator I had no engine video interference). While still testing this quick hack job (IE: bear wires soldered together) I notice a soft small glow out of the corner of my eye. Yikes, one of the diode/capacitor tangle leads was touching the outside metal shell of the camera TX, causing a glowing short! Power it all down, re-position my wires, and then turn it back on to make sure I didn't fry something. Camera was working.

So, what I've found: Camera/TX without regulator or diode/cap. buffering Xport produces useless video with any engine use. Camera/TX with regulator only produces perfect video at all engine speeds, but plane TX gets blocked. Camera/TX with regulator and a capacitor does not fix the range problem. Camera/TX with a 9V battery causes no range problems and probably good video (didn't test it). Camera/TX with diode/capacitor appears not to have range problems but produces bad video at above half engine speed.

The next logical step in my mind would be to use the diode WITH the regulator, placed between the X-Port and the regulator on the + wire? Would this be the same rated diode used above in the noise filter circuit? Also, should the capacitor also be used before the regulator or just the diode with the regulator and no capacitor? If the diode/regulator combo works (waiting on your feedback to try it) then it would look as though the diode is preventing some kind of backflow to the X-Port that is messing up the plane's RX range? Can you explain you're best guess on whats going on?

If worse comes to worse and some combination of the above doesn't solve my two range/video quality problems then I have two options: Run the cam/tx off the diode/cap setup (no regulator) and just live with lack of video above half engine throttle. Or, I could bite the bullet and run the cam/tx off a 9V battery. This is my least favored option as a 9V adds weight. There might be one more option. I thought I read somewhere that you can use a rechargable (or is it just a non-rechargable lithium?) battery to power the camera. It was somewhere in one of these threads, relating to it providing more stable video and/or run time and/or weight. Can't remember but will look for the reference.

randall1959

My Feedback: (11)

radio shack sells a rechargable 9 volt battery that has a pretty good ma rating.....

Troglotech

Hello Critterhunter....you're not having much luck are you! There are a few possibilities to why the DC to DC converter affects the range....a) it's a radio transmitter ....b) it's turning the wires into aerials ...c) the electrical noise of the DC to DC converter is getting back into the Challengers RX.

I would start by finding out which one of these is causing the trouble. To do this I would disconnect the X-Port connection and tweak out the crimps from the Molex connector (a scalpel works well by pressing down on the tabs through the side holes of the connector). I would then repeat the range test but would run the camera system from a 9V battery instead of the X-Port. If this fails to make any difference then 'c' does not hold true. If the range increases then noise is getting back into the X-Port and you will need an HF filter of some description. If the DC to DC converter does emit RF then we can do little more than wrap the thing in foil. If the DC to DC converter itself is not radiating then it is possible that the wiring is acting as an aerial. To stop this happening a pair of capacitors will be needed, a value of 100p will be acceptable, the big electrolytics have much too high an ESR to make any difference at RF which is why you require a ceramic, low value type. I will look up a suitable one on Mouser when I get back on a PC that has those facilities.

You could try increasing the capacitance on the simple diode-capacitor circuit....it may well work at higher throttle settings.....must go...will post later.....Tim....

EDIT: I'll finish off this post tomorrow morning critterhunter when I'm back on a PC that has some sense!

Right, tomorrow is today. Mouser stock some suitable capacitors for 30 cents: 581-MD015C222K, I chose a larger value just in case the lower frequencies were affecting the RX. Stick one of these across the input of the DC to DC converter and one across the output (they are not polarised so they can go either way around). This should virtually eliminate any RF that the converter is producing. The capacitors must be mounted right on the DC to DC converter to be of any use. This will reduce any RF emmisions from the wiring (which is the most likely cause of lack of range) and should hopefully do the trick. If the DC to DC converter itself is radiating RF (which they always do to some extent but it should not be enough to affect RX range) then you will have to sheild it by wrapping it in foil.

Please let me know what you decide to do and how you get on.....Tim....

critterhunter

Troglotech, I'd be lost without your help! Here's a quick update: I put the voltage regulator back on with the diode (you specified for the noise filter prior) between the positive power line and the regulator input pin. The band on the diode should be on the regulator side, right? Anyway, no capacitor was used for this test as per the "logic" I gave in my last message. The range increased now to about 70 to 90 yards roughly, but at that point I once again get engine and flap falsing. Now, this test was done on my street with many houses and suburban objects in the way, so the range might increase in the field. Still, it worries me that I might get the plane out a few hundred yards and loose control of the plane...but at least it appears I'm/we're on to something (possible noise flowing back into the x-port).

By the way, I have a funny sidenote here: My neighbors probably think I'm crazy, walking up and down the street with a plane in my hand that has no wing on it, steering at the tail the whole time I'm walking. I'm expecting some men in white medical outfits to show up at my door. :')

Anyway, the only other problem I could come up with was that the regulator was putting out a perfect strong 9V to the camera TX...causing it to transmit in a certain specific range that was causing interference. In other words, without the regulator or by using a seperate battery the voltage supply was shifting the camera TX frequency into a frequency that wasn't causing problems. Pretty weak theory and looks not to be true as the diode seemed to help, so I'm sure the problem is more in line with one of the theories you have above. I'll try you're suggestions and get back to you.

Oh, and by the way...I noticed on this website a message from a Challenger user who created a noise circuit for his camera with no voltage regulator. He was using (I think) a 2200uf capacitor versus the 220uf you specified, a different diode part #, and wrapped his positive and negative wires (before the diode/cap) around a ferite bead of some sort. He was getting only slight noise at full throttle I think. I don't even know what a ferite (sp?) bead is (I think he also called it a toroid) or where to get one. Anyway, I'll do some more hacking and get back to you on the results.

PS- Atleast I now have a good "L" shape camera mount built from cutting and glueing a wood ruler. I mounted the camera/TX/regulator stuff onto this mount and zip tied it snug, then used velcro to mount it to the plane. Nice and neat little package for mounting on the right hand side. I took it up to the local mini mart and weighed this setup...11 ounces. OUCH, not sure but I thought I read some guys with Challengers were only in the 2 to 3 ounces range. I can probably slim it down a bit but don't expect more than a 2 to 4 ounce drop in weight. Still, I've had the plane up before with this cam without too much trouble so I guess I can live with it.

Troglotech

Well done critterhunter for persistance if nothing else! 11 Ounces though! Crikey! I'll look up a toroidal choke tommorow if you need one, these are 'common mode' wound which means it gets rid of noise that is common to both wires (and the noise IS common as the wires only connect to the video equipment). And it is worth trying a huge capacitor across the input to the equipment if just using the diode-capacitor filter....bigger the better. I still think that the DC to DC converter is probably transmitting noise and the little capacitors should make a difference. Well done for keeping at it....I'm sure you will get it going soon.....Tim....

critterhunter

First, I had the weight of my camera setup wrong...thank God. The read weight was bothering me, it just didn't seem that heavy. So, took the setup up to my friend's shop to weigh it on his jewler's scale. This time it read 52.5 grams. Multiply that by .035 ounces and you get 1.8375 ounces. Now that's more like it! From what I've read one guy flew his Challenger with a 3.05 oz setup, and the other with a 30 gram setup...so I well within weight ranges of successful setups on this plane.

On to more testing: I did some of the troubleshooting tips you gave me last night. Just to be safe, I once again tested the regulator and diode (no cap.) setup for a range test. Once again I lost control at about 70 or 80 yards. I then did the 9V battery test you gave, using it to power the diode and regulator instead of the X-Port. I experienced NO transmission problems. However, I didn't hitch it up to the X-Port connector harness (didn't want to pull those crimp pins out). Instead I hitched the 9V up right before the diode (and regulator) to feed them. While you might think this would have ruined the experiment to see if the wires (from X-Port plug to cam) were radiating RF, I think the test is still valid...As I used some wires at least as long from the 9v battery to the diode & ground right before the regulator. Point is that there should have been RF radiating from this lengthy wire tangle just the same as if I hitched the 9V to the Xport plug.

So, I would assume now that the regulator and the wiring isn't radiating RF. Which means it must be signal noise flowing from the regulator back through the X-Port and into the plane. I guess you know what my next question is going to be...What can I do to stop this interference from flowing backwards through the power lines into the plane? Like I said, I've only used the diode in combination with the regulator (no cap) in this setup. So, should I put the cap on with it to see if this helps, or do I need some other components to stop this backward flow?

Just for your info, the noise filter circuit I found (by a user named Stevennh) was using a 142001 (I think) diode, and a 2200uf electrolytic capacitor. Between these and the input power from the Xport he was using 2 Toroids (ferite beads) with (I think) 4 turns around them of the wire. It also says "N 3/8 inch diameter", whatever that means. With this setup he was still experiencing slight high frequency noise at full throttle.

Looks like we are getting close to a final solution, Troglotech. Awaiting your valued advice...

Troglotech

Hello critterhunter, it is possible that just the small capacitors will do the trick (the ones I specified last time), the electrolytics might work but they are not very good at high frequencies. As you have to order the capacitors we might as well get a pair of inductors at the same time, they are only a few cents.

These inductors should do the trick: 807-1025-08K (from Mouser), you will need two of them. As it seems to be noise getting back into the X-Port then you only need a filter on the input to the DC to DC converter.

If you want to try a 2200uF capacitor in a simple filter then Mouser do those as well: 140-LLRL16V2200

I enclose the circuit for the DC to DC converter filter.....Tim.....

critterhunter

Troglotech, I'll print out and read over (and over again) your last few messages to make sure I'm on the same page. I'm going on the bases that the regulator is producing some kind of signal noise back through the Xport and you're possible solution to this is the schematic you've just gave me (THANKS), consisting of a few caps and chokes (if I'm reading you right...don't have time at the moment to read indepth the latest posts). Right so far? Anyway, I'll probably order those tomorrow. Tonight I plan a quick test of the regulator with both the diode AND the cap (didn't have the cap on in conjunction with both the diode and the regulator). From what I gather there is only a slight chance that this will solve the problem. I'd also, just for kicks, pick up the 2200uf cap for a quick try. Updates when I have something to report. Thanks as always...

Troglotech

Yes, we are both plucking from the same tabulation! From your experiments it seems that RF noise is getting back into the X-Port and affecting range. DC to DC converters can produce an amount of noise but the simple filter as detailed on my previous post should get rid of any RF content (which should be the only frequency that affects range). Keep the filter parts as close to the DC to DC converter as possible otherwise it may radiate noise rather than conduct it. Let me know how you get on.....Tim.....

P.S.

critterhunter

Not a problem (to keep those parts very close to the regulator). Before I track down those parts I'm going to put the diode and 220uf cap on with the regulator to see if that does anything. From what I gather it probably won't help eliminate the RF backflow (?). Anyway, I'll do the rounds at Radio Shack and the local electronic supply stores to see if I can find that stuff before having to order it thru Mouser. I hate ordering (and waiting) for stuff via the mail if I can avoid it. Will report back when I have some news.

randall1959

My Feedback: (11)

If radio shack doesn't have what you need, maybe a cb or tv or radio repair shop might have it.

Troglotech

If it makes it any easier..... Inductors....anything that physically fits above 100nH and can take around 1A, Capacitors...something around 2n2, must be ceramic......

critterhunter

I was just going to ask you about those caps and the inductors. Remember, when it comes to electronics I'm a caveman rubbing two sticks together. So...in inductors I'm looking for something 100nh or larger that can take roughly an amp or higher and is small enough to work with, right? Are these inductors called something else as well, such as RF chokes, etc? I stopped at Radio Shack today and saw what I might be looking for but was confused about the language. They had RF chokes as well as ferite something or others. I'm also confused about the capacitor ratings you've listed as I know mainly uf and P ratings. Not sure what 2n2 means. They did have 2200uf capacitors up there @35 volt. The voltage rating doesn't really matter as long as it's above my max voltage input, right? And...this is dumb but have to ask. these polarized electrolytic capacitors don't have any real clear markings on them as to which is the positive and negative sides. There is a "-" with a flowing arrow symbol on the side. Confused if this means "negative is the side the arrow is pointing to" or does it mean "negative flows in this direction". I assume the end that is all metal (no plastic) should be the side ground hooks up to. And one more electronics for idiots question...the band on a diode is the end that would hook up to the camera end of a circuit, meaning you're positive battery line flows thru the diode and out the banded end towards the cam. Just want to make sure I've got this stuff right so that I'm not causing more problems. Plan to try the 2200uf cap/diode (no regulator) simple circuit tonight to see if it controls the noise. The diode you gave for the simple noise filter circuit will work with this cap won't it? Even if this works I won't be happy with it as I'd rather have the regulator keeping the supply voltage constant to avoid possible frequency shift as the battery discharges.
Sorry for all the questions.

Troglotech

NOTE: After reading this back it gets rather boring......just move on to the final section for info on your problem.....

I don't blame you in the least for being confused.....it IS very confusing. RF chokes ARE inductors, usually quite low in value, quite often no value specified. All inductors are a coil of wire wound around a soft iron core (usually) called a ferrite....so there's your third name. To increase the inductance value you have more turns of wire.....the more turns of wire you need the thinner the wire is.....the thinner the wire is the less current the inductor can handle. To get around the 'thin wire' problem you make the ferrite bigger and the wire thicker and end up with a bigger inductor!

So....if we specify three values: 1) Small enough to work with 2) More than 100nH 3) Can take 1Amp or so..... then we should be somewhere near what we are after.

Values of capacitors and inductors use the same notation but have different units...Capacitance is measured in Farads and inductance is measured in Henrys:

1 Henry = 1000mH (milli-Henry), = 1,000,000uH (micro-Henry), = 1,000,000,000nH (nano-Henry), = 1,000,000,000,000pH (pico Henry)
1 Farad = 1000mF (milli-Farad), = 1,000,000uF (micro-Farad), = 1,000,000,000nF (nano-Farad), = 1,000,000,000,000pF (pico Farad)

The modern convention for notation means that instead of saying a capacitor is 2.2nH (nano-Henry) the correct notation is 2n2. A 4.7uH (micro-Henry) inductor would be notated as 4u7 and so on. It certainly can be confusing.

Capacitors have the same trade-off of size and capacitance but instead of the Current requirement making them bigger, their voltage (working voltage) has more of an affect. Capacitors are just two layers of conducting material separated by an insulator....to increase the capacitance you just increase the area of the conductors or reduce the thickness of the insulator. Unfortunately, if you reduce the thickness of the insulator the capacitor can only work at low voltages as otherwise the insulator will break down.

Electrolytic capacitors are made by having two conductors separated by an oxide layer that was deposited by electrolytic action...i.e. they are produced by putting a current through them and the electrolytic action causes the formation of an oxide which is insulative. If you put electricity the other way around, the oxide layer almost immediately breaks down...they got hot...the electrolyte expands and the can explodes (or vents). By the way, from exhaust experiments, 22uF @ 16V capacitors make the most pleasing bang when reverse-connected!

On small-value capacitors there is no need to use electrolytics, these are just sheets of foil separated by a ceramic insulator which doesn't care what the polarity of the electricity is. For a rule of thumb, capacitors up to a value of 470n are usually non-polarised. Quite often the working value is not specified on ceramic capacitors but is usually around 63V.

ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS:

Yes, as long as the working voltage for the capacitor is above 16V then that is fine....the higher the voltage the bigger the capacitor for the same capacitance. 2200uF at 35V is getting quite large! They are physically 4 times bigger than the 16V version as the physical size squares for a double in working voltage.

The polarity marking on electolytic capacitors SHOULD be the same on all of them but a few manufacturers have their own preference but these are the usual rules:

Black band = negative
+++++ as a band = positive
-arrow-arrow- = the arrow points toward the negative conductor

Diodes are nearly always marked with a black band (or sometimes a red band) next to the Cathode. Diodes conduct electricity from the Anode to the Cathode so...yes...black band toward the camera and TX.

Yes, the diode I specified will be fine with this circuit.

The little capacitors (2n2) could be replaced by (for instance) 1nF, 10nF, 100nF, 220nF, these small capacitors usually have a working voltage of 63V and are NOT polarised (they are not electrolytics). These capacitors are quite often little square or oblong devices covered in plastic and around 2mm x 3mm x 3mm.
The inductors can be replaced with an RF choke as long as the current capability is around 1A or more.
2n2 = 2.2nF (nano-Farad).

I hope this helps......Tim....

critterhunter

Exactly the kind of in detail data I was looking for, thanks! Haven't tried the 2200uf/diode (no regulator) circuit yet. Will try to track down those regulator filter parts at the local supply store today. If I can't find what I need then I'll order it via the suppliers you've given. Nothing new to report yet so I'll cut this message short. Thanks...

critterhunter

Trog, I'm starting to wonder how anything electronic gets fixed around here as nobody stocks anything that I'm ever looking for. Anyway, I pulled the data sheets for the inductors off Mouser. Also pulled the data sheet on the 2200uf capacitor. Like to have this stuff sitting around for tracking down parts in the future, even if I don't know what most of it means. :') However, went back over the messages and you didn't give a stock # for the 2n2 ceramic cap. I did a search on Mouser for 2n2 and couldn't come up with anything. However, since you said that a 10nf ceramic cap would work as well I pulled up this part #581-5WH103MDCAA and got a "Ceramic Disc Capacitor". Can you check that part# and see if it's OK to use? Or, if you come up with something better let me know. Will order tomorrow. Maybe tonight I'll get motivated enough to try the simple cap/diode circuit to see what that does.

PS- Question For Randall: I know you said the camera TX antenna should be pointing vertical to the ground for best TX range. I'd rather mount the TX card length wise on the "L" bracket (rather than with the antenna wire coming straight out the bottom it will now be coming out the side). My point...is it OK to simply bend the antenna wire downward where it comes out of the TX card to maintain a verticle orientation, or will this lesson it's range?