RCU Forums

RCU Forums (https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/)
-   AMA Discussions (https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-discussions-74/)
-   -   what 2.4 article (https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-discussions-74/10685695-what-2-4-article.html)

rgburrill 10-26-2011 05:39 AM

RE: what 2.4 article
 


ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot


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 72MH spectrum.


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.
From Part 95.207d:
(d) Your R/C station must stop transmitting if it interferes with:
(1) Authorized radio operations in the 72–76 MHz band; or
(2) Television reception on TV Channels 4 or 5.

Our RC equipment takes second place to not only authorized (i.e. licensed) commercial remote control equipment like cranes but also TV channels 4 and 5. I used to fly at a site that we thought was in the sticks but had a few farm houses nearby. They actually complained to the channel 4 station about interference.

Oberst 10-26-2011 05:51 AM

RE: what 2.4 article
 


ORIGINAL: TimBle



ORIGINAL: warbird72

You guy's ever come across a Futaba 2.4 that unbinds it's self ? I have had this happen once with the new system.. But that was the one I sent back to tower.I bought anothr tx for a back up. Then tower sent me a new system.. Im just having no luck at all with anything l8tley. And not being allowed to fly because of comp sucks bad.. By the time I do get a chance to fly all of my warrinties will be out of date lol..

Yes this has happened to me once. I bound a Rx to the Tx using a battery that had no capacity remaining i.e. it was too low on voltage.
The Rx unbound. I repeated the exercise with a fresh battery and it bound nd has remained that way ever since.

Warbird, I have had experience of surgical implants affecting radio transmission.
One incident was in a EMI testing facility when a colleague walked in while the facility operators was calibrating the EMI chamber.Everything went haywire.
the other was at a flying field when a woman with large implants stood beside her husband in front of a mate of mine while he was flying his plane. His plane started glitching but recovered after a few seconds.

Standing joke : Planes a glitching, b*lls are itching...

That's true, a friend of mine had a pacemaker and he had to get out of the hobby because it was effecting him. He died a few years ago right after he attended the club picnic that night. His wife came to the field the next Sunday to tell us he had the greatest time watching us fly at the picnic. RIP Earl.

Pete

Dave 10-26-2011 05:51 AM

RE: what 2.4 article
 

The 2.4GHz radiation behavesMORE like visible light, so we have to think of reflections and shadows.
Flying a 2.4GHz radio control model over a reflective surface like water, snow, ice or wet terrain
negatively affects the radio link. OCCASIONALLYa 3D aerobatic model plunges into water while hovering.
When the rudder is near the water surface, the prop wash creates a chaotic wave pattern which generates
a myriad of false-signals.

The reason why microwave oven operates on 2.4GHz is that this frequency excite the water molecules best.
Since the human body contain plenty of water, it is possible that the person between the pilot and the model
may cause interference as SPORT PILOT described.


Sport_Pilot 10-26-2011 05:54 AM

RE: what 2.4 article
 


ORIGINAL: warbird72

I do have mussle spassans tingeling in my arms.. I can't sleep at night either.. As far as the check out on the radio.. I checked it right out of here.. I then bought the first 7c 2.4. I bought it new from tower then had to send it back due to a bubble in the lcd.. But I do have 4 other 72 mhz systems all Futaba. ch 48 and 55. It's crazy I set up the plane on the 72 band walk around and glitch glitch bind. It acts as there is someone else on the same channel as me.. But I do have a scanner and on any given day no one else is on. Heck no one is on where I live.. But when the plane does this I hand the tx over to my girl and she can walk out of sight with no trouble at all. Then she will walk back I walk in between her and the plane full down and or full left or right aileron. I mean a full lock. It has striped gears because of this.. I take you have heard of this ??

I have had wrench's, cell phones, and other metal objects larger than your inserts near my transmitter. I suspect it is out of tune just enough that the induction from your insert puts it off frequency. I would send it to Radio South or the manufacture service center for a check up and tuning.

BalsaBrkr 10-26-2011 05:56 AM

RE: what 2.4 article
 


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.
Is your thesis that 2.4 will be cleared for cell phones? Does this include cleared of wifi? If so, I can't imagine how it could possible be true. On the other hand, if the FCC has a desire to slow the propagation of devices by more narrowly defining use in this currently non-licensed spectrum that could be plausible. I can't for a moment imagine how existing devices would be precluded from operating given the sheer quantity (of baby monitors etc). Regardless, wouldn't there be a publication of proposed rule making and request for comment?


The 2.4GHz radio's that we use in this hobby will be a thing in the past soon enough I was told.
There is also unlicensed space at 5ghz, is that what you are talking about? Are you suggesting a prohibition of 2.4 for RC (and if so way in the future or soon)?


Oberst 10-26-2011 06:00 AM

RE: what 2.4 article
 


ORIGINAL: Dave


The 2.4GHz radiation behaves MORE like visible light, so we have to think of reflections and shadows. Flying a 2.4GHz radio control model over a reflective surface like water, snow, ice or wet terrain negatively affects the radio link. OCCASIONALLY a 3D aerobatic model plunges into water while hovering. When the rudder is near the water surface, the prop wash creates a chaotic wave pattern which generates a myriad of false-signals.

The reason why microwave oven operates on 2.4GHz is that this frequency excite the water molecules best. Since the human body contain plenty of water, it is possible that the person between the pilot and the model may cause interference as SPORT PILOT described.



Like this?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Pr2uum_fWE[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xff4E7Ozfp0&feature=related[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ec-hGD_UqA[/youtube]

:D


Pete

Sport_Pilot 10-26-2011 06:02 AM

RE: what 2.4 article
 

What people call Cell Phones are really wireless phones. Cell Phones are satellite connected and they are bulky.

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.

Sport_Pilot 10-26-2011 06:08 AM

RE: what 2.4 article
 


ORIGINAL: BalsaBrkr



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.
Is your thesis that 2.4 will be cleared for cell phones? Does this include cleared of wifi? If so, I can't imagine how it could possible be true. On the other hand, if the FCC has a desire to slow the propagation of devices by more narrowly defining use in this currently non-licensed spectrum that could be plausible. I can't for a moment imagine how existing devices would be precluded from operating given the sheer quantity (of baby monitors etc). Regardless, wouldn't there be a publication of proposed rule making and request for comment?


The 2.4GHz radio's that we use in this hobby will be a thing in the past soon enough I was told.
There is also unlicensed space at 5ghz, is that what you are talking about? Are you suggesting a prohibition of 2.4 for RC (and if so way in the future or soon)?


2.4 is ISM which stands for Industrial, scientific, and medical. So I suppose they could be cracking down on RC use as well as many other uses of 2.4 Mhz.

BalsaBrkr 10-26-2011 06:13 AM

RE: what 2.4 article
 



2.4 is ISM which stands for Industrial, scientific, and medical. So I suppose they could be cracking down on RC use as well as many other uses of 2.4 Mhz.
Some history I found

http://transition.fcc.gov/sptf/files...inalReport.pdf

Silent-AV8R 10-26-2011 06:18 AM

RE: what 2.4 article
 
Makes you wonder how this works:


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMQLncjgouM&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

BalsaBrkr 10-26-2011 06:21 AM

RE: what 2.4 article
 


ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

Makes you wonder how this works:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMQLn...layer_embedded

Sure, the range is fairly short, but LOTS of water, ripples, waves, spray, and right on the surface to boot. Very typical of a race and 2.4 has proven to be very robust in these situations.
The youtube videos look like plain ol' crashes to my eyes - one lesson appears to be "keep your rudder dry"...

warbird72 10-26-2011 06:43 AM

RE: what 2.4 article
 
Wow No doubt!! I'm glad I'm not the only one.. Ritht on Now I know I'm not losing my mind.. Thanks for that info..:D

warbird72 10-26-2011 06:44 AM

RE: what 2.4 article
 
Sorry wrong place and topic.

warbird72 10-26-2011 07:20 AM

RE: what 2.4 article
 
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..

Oberst 10-26-2011 08:41 AM

RE: what 2.4 article
 


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

TimBle 10-26-2011 08:43 AM

RE: what 2.4 article
 
Oh no, prepare for the Hitec sales pitch <slaps forehead>

Oberst 10-26-2011 08:51 AM

RE: what 2.4 article
 

ORIGINAL: TimBle

Oh no, prepare for the Hitec sales pitch <slaps forehead>

Exactly. +1 for TimBle!


Pete

TimBle 10-26-2011 08:55 AM

RE: what 2.4 article
 


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&amp;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&amp;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.

TimBle 10-26-2011 08:58 AM

RE: what 2.4 article
 
.

Sport_Pilot 10-26-2011 09:13 AM

RE: what 2.4 article
 
IMO if it gets us more frequency options I am all for it.  I know 2.4 is good, but if these other systems are switching to it in the near future, then we won't have anything but the old FM channels.  If it takes a little fear mongering, then I am all for it.

TimBle 10-26-2011 09:18 AM

RE: what 2.4 article
 
the beauty of progress is that it takes care of itself. No fear mongering necessary

Sport_Pilot 10-26-2011 09:19 AM

RE: what 2.4 article
 

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.
You are thinking way too technical. Those recieving stations and their range are cells. Cell phones talk to the cell recieving stations. The stations use many methods to talk to each other and other systems to get the information where it needs to be, various frequencies, land lines,satilite'setc,Varies from company to company, place to place.Satilite phonestalk directly to asatilite. Also I think you may betalking about the directional microwave 2.4 Ghz and that has been around a long time.

Sport_Pilot 10-26-2011 09:21 AM

RE: what 2.4 article
 


ORIGINAL: TimBle

the beauty of progress is that it takes care of itself. No fear mongering necessary

Sorry this is about politics. You don't get a frequency allocation by siting on your ass and hoping for progress. There is a lot of competition for radio frequencies.

BalsaBrkr 10-26-2011 09:25 AM

RE: what 2.4 article
 


ORIGINAL: Oberst
Aka light travels faster than radio waves.
Let's have a race


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.

Indeed, the insane amount of money sloshing around in this hobby is incredible corrupting [&:]


Same thing played out in control line when Big Money got everyone to switch from natural to synthetic line

TimBle 10-26-2011 09:49 AM

RE: what 2.4 article
 


ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot



ORIGINAL: TimBle

the beauty of progress is that it takes care of itself. No fear mongering necessary

Sorry this is about politics. You don't get a frequency allocation by siting on your ass and hoping for progress. There is a lot of competition for radio frequencies.
Rc getting its own frequency allocation? Highly doubt it. Simply not a user group large enough or important enough from a security, economic or social point of view. Thats reality,


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:32 AM.


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.