RE: what 2.4 article
 

You just don't operate at the same range with cars or boats, so the problems do not surface.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

Airplanes operate as much as over 30 time the distance of 100 yards.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

Gotta love the irony and lack of self-awareness.:eek:

RE: what 2.4 article
 

9,000 feet? That is impressive by any standard.

The farthest I have ever been with an RC plane was a 3.8 meter glider with a GPS logger in it. I reached a distance of 3,100 feet laterally and 2,800 feet vertically. That is a line of sight (slant) range of 4,177 feet. I was losing sight of it for half of every turn in the thermal I was in. I would need a telescope to see a plane 9,000 feet away from me!!

RE: what 2.4 article
 

I worked for AT&T for 4 years. At the time I worked at the office we were getting sued because we had the saying that we had the least dropped calls. (That was about the time we bought out Cingular and just before we had the monopoly over the first I-phone) Yes the 2.4 is used by wireless- cordless phones wireless headsets and BlueTooth. Another reason why the 2.4 will be replaced is because the AMA is worried that the FCC will crack down on the hobby using the 2.4 besides the other issues pertaining to radio failures.

So yes, I know Cell, TDMA, G 1-5.

Verizon was about to hire me but I refused to pay union dues, and was refused hire. When I worked for AT&T belonging to the union wasn't required. (Off Subject)

The reason is what I was told is the phone companies owns the rites of the 2.4 band and when they start to complain it could be a major issue with the AMA and the FCC. Don't know how true it is, but it does makes sense because the phone companies were the first to use the 2.4GHz.

Now I really know why clubs are posting new signs stating to turn off all wireless phones! The water is becoming a little less murky now.


Pete

RE: what 2.4 article
 

Typo, should have been 20 times. However, I believe that 9000 feet is possible with a good transmitter and sensitive reciever.

I am serious about the primary and seconary user. I have heard this or seen it before and may need to refresh my memory of just what that is and how it works. It may have to do with the commericial use I discussed.</p>

RE: what 2.4 article
 

Agreed. There was a video up a few weeks back of a guy in Australia testing 2.4 across the span of a bay (unobstructed line of sight). The transmitter was at one point and the heli at the other point. They were 1.7 miles apart, low over water and only a few feet off the deck. Pretty much a worse case scenario. Rock solid performance. You could not see the guy with the TX, only barely make out where he was supposed to be!!


Refresh away, but I quoted the exact FCC Rule and it is crystal clear. We are not, and never have been, primary users of our slice of the 72MHz spectrum.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

I was not aware of the AMA having any real control over what frequencies are used for hobby RC. So are you saying that the AMA is somehow responsible for deciding what frequencies (band spectrum) we use?




Our stuff is in the ISM 2.4GHz band. Is that where cell phones operate? I thought they were on the GSM 850 and GSM 1900 bands?

RE: what 2.4 article
 

No you did not quote the part of the FCC explaining primary and secondary, that is prossibly in the definitions section. I presently do not have time to search for that.

The AMA fought to get those 72 Mhz frequencies. Nobody but the FCC controls them. The FCC allowed them to run the gold sticker program to get people moved into the frequencies. So they have some clout, but not control.

I don't think the article said you could not have great range over water. It was that the range would be reduced or non existant, especially over water, in areaswhere there is large interference from other users, both RC and non RC.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

Blue tooth, WIFI, and other devices use 2.4. 

RE: what 2.4 article
 

Hope this helps.......

47CFR95.207 (d) Your R/C station must stop trans- mitting if it interferes with: (1) Authorized radio operations in the 72–76 MHz band; or (2) Television reception on TV Chan- nels 4 or 5. (g) Stations in the 72–76 MHz range are subject to the condition that inteference will not be caused to the remote control of industrial equipment operating on the same or adjacent fre- quencies or to the reception of tele- vision transmissions on Channels 4 and 5. These frequencies are not afforded any protection from interference due to the operation of fixed and mobile stations in other services assigned to the same or adjacent frequencies.

There are Primary (licensed) users of 72mhz which are usually industrial remote control cranes or railroad crossing gates. We are Secondary (unlicensed) users of 72mhz and by regulation have to accept any interference from Primary users without interfering in any way with them.

Brad

RE: what 2.4 article
 

Then I pretty much give up. Your refusal or inability to accept or understand the Rule as written is not make anything i have written wrong.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

Yes, I know. But the point I was responding to was speaking specifically about cell phones. Those are NOT on the 2.4 band.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

Finally, you are beginning to make sense. :eek:

RE: what 2.4 article
 

I don't get why are people making such a big deal out of this? 2.4 works so does 72 so just pick what you are comfortable with, why the need to prove one system is "better" than another. Since the "better" is different in each case.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

my dad is bigger and stronger than your dad...<wipes nose.="" from="" snot=""></wipes>


2.4 has more than sufficient range to allow safe operation of a radio control aircraft. People fly UAVS with the stuff and they fly well beyond 3000m (yes thats 9000ft)

2.4 is not used by cell phones, its used by Wifi, bluetooth and other peripherals.

the band our new rc equipment operates on is not the issue, its the implementation of the hardware. All computers have "moments" and our Tx are not immune. There in lies the rub. The 2.4 band is merely a wavelength of light, how TF can it be faulty??! This arguement is stupid.

"i used to work for XYZ blah blah blah"
I used to work for a military contractor and designed devices that required remote activation from a long way away. Hey we used the 2.4 band and many other bands and guess what?! They all frigging worked. The only time it stopped working is when either the hardware or software "had a moment".

FFS get over yourselves.

"Brand X and Y and Z and A and B also ahd issues this year..."

Heck how moronic is that arguement. Anyone can have an issue any time. What was the root causesof those "incidents?" Don't know huh?
More people have issues they can't explain and suddenly its the wavelienght of light thats at fault. Well lads unless the sun sent out more neutrino's 8min ago I can't see that only 2.4 is going to be affected.

Hardware/software, hardware/software.



PS not direct at you Ken

RE: what 2.4 article
 

You started it ;&lt;)

RE: what 2.4 article
 

As was implied in a recent Big Bang Theory most real engineers do not have doctorates - those are for people who can't design but want to teach ;&lt;)
And the "widespread use" only shows that people can be persuaded to do almost anything not that something is good. (I thought about straying off into our current political situation but then I decided it was off topic.)

Thanks,
An engineer with a Masters and part of a second

RE: what 2.4 article
 

That reminds me, I need to continue the payback to Sheldon over his "Geology is not a real science" remark.

BS/MS - Geology/Geochemistry

It felt like science to me!! [&:]

RE: what 2.4 article
 

I was amazed at the ability of 2.4 when I heard about that mass fly event with like 80 ? electric t-28s up together. The video was amazing.

There are no guarantees in this sport, whatever the future brings I hope it is safer/better without displacing ANY systems we have now.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

I really don't understand what the "problem" with 72 MHz is.  Use PCM with fail-safe and get a switchable frequency module so you don't have to wait for a pin.  The only reason I see to go to 2.4GHz is that so many cheap models are available.

Actually, so many of you have gone to 2.4GHz that I am just fine on channel 47.

Thanks,
Bob Burrill

RE: what 2.4 article
 

The other advantages of 2.4 in my view are:

Smaller more vibration resistant receivers
Far less prone to conventional RF interference (metal to metal, ignition, etc.)
ZERO chance of being shot down (it has happened to me twice - on 50MHz ham band BOTH times)

RE: what 2.4 article
 

I have heard that before, but I do not think that is entirely correct. Can you point to the regulation that explains this? The quote from the RC section does not say the same thing you are saying. That is that we may not complain or have the industrial user correct the tuning of his transmitter.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

The regulation says we must stop transmission, it did not say we must accept it and do nothing. You maintain thatit says wecannot do anything about the interference from the commercial tranmissions. The regulation did not say that.

I know that the FCC will not require a broacast station to shut down for this, not sure about remote cranes, I would think they may have to follow the same rule depending on which band they are on. But to say that we cannot do anything about a broadcast station bleeding into our channels is wrong. I know that they havemade them retune their transmitters to stop interference before. Sorry if I make you angry not to take your word for this.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

The AMA won't be able to make them get off of 2.4 anyway unless they ban it at competitions. The article is proposing additional frequencies. I really don't see why we should be upset with yet another option.