View Poll Results: A poll
Voters: 32. You may not vote on this poll
dual receiver redundancy
10-23-2006, 07:50 AM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (7)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Glen Robertson, ON, CANADA
Posts: 3,453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dual receiver redundancy
I should have made this a poll question so here we go again
The question is do you want an inexpensive dual receiver full redundant system .
or NO you don't want
or not really
Roger
The question is do you want an inexpensive dual receiver full redundant system .
or NO you don't want
or not really
Roger
10-23-2006, 06:21 PM
#3
Senior Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (7)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Glen Robertson, ON, CANADA
Posts: 3,453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: dual receiver redundancy
ORIGINAL: causeitflies-RCU
What does "not really" mean? No?
What does "not really" mean? No?
some people simply don't care.
roger
10-23-2006, 11:52 PM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Lompoc ,
CA
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: dual receiver redundancy
what do you concider inexpensive. I'd call a hundred buck for something like that inexpensive also from the sound of other threads we'll be forced into 2.4Ghz spread spectrum within a couple years. Are you planning for this?
10-24-2006, 07:52 AM
#5
Senior Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (7)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Glen Robertson, ON, CANADA
Posts: 3,453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: dual receiver redundancy
ORIGINAL: redfox435cat
what do you concider inexpensive. I'd call a hundred buck for something like that inexpensive also from the sound of other threads we'll be forced into 2.4Ghz spread spectrum within a couple years. Are you planning for this?
what do you concider inexpensive. I'd call a hundred buck for something like that inexpensive also from the sound of other threads we'll be forced into 2.4Ghz spread spectrum within a couple years. Are you planning for this?
Inexpensive would be about $60.00 to $80.00 for 8 channel set up.
As for 2.4Ghz, it has no bearing in this type of setup, as we are talking the output of the receivers and not the input.
Don't be too optomistic with the 2.4, and I'll leave it at that as this is for another discussioin.
Roger
10-24-2006, 04:14 PM
#7
Senior Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (7)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Glen Robertson, ON, CANADA
Posts: 3,453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: dual receiver redundancy
ORIGINAL: GJr.
I would like to see it handle 10 - 14 channel systems tthat are available now.
I would like to see it handle 10 - 14 channel systems tthat are available now.
Roger
10-25-2006, 12:51 AM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Lompoc ,
CA
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: dual receiver redundancy
As for 2.4Ghz, it has no bearing in this type of setup, as we are talking the output of the receivers and not the input.
then I'm completely baffeled at what this devise is? The point of failure 90% of the time is signal lose and interference due to failure of the radio link, cracked crystal, failed ceramic cap in the filter circuit , metal parts rubbing and glitching the input signal and the like, what's the point of a back up of the output only? I would be interest in something this though! This simple sounds like another version of an optical isolator that been out for years, very handy devises and a necessity in larger models
then I'm completely baffeled at what this devise is? The point of failure 90% of the time is signal lose and interference due to failure of the radio link, cracked crystal, failed ceramic cap in the filter circuit , metal parts rubbing and glitching the input signal and the like, what's the point of a back up of the output only? I would be interest in something this though! This simple sounds like another version of an optical isolator that been out for years, very handy devises and a necessity in larger models
10-25-2006, 08:14 AM
#9
Senior Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (7)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Glen Robertson, ON, CANADA
Posts: 3,453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: dual receiver redundancy
ORIGINAL: redfox435cat
As for 2.4Ghz, it has no bearing in this type of setup, as we are talking the output of the receivers and not the input.
then I'm completely baffeled at what this devise is? The point of failure 90% of the time is signal lose and interference due to failure of the radio link, cracked crystal, failed ceramic cap in the filter circuit , metal parts rubbing and glitching the input signal and the like, what's the point of a back up of the output only? I would be interest in something this though! This simple sounds like another version of an optical isolator that been out for years, very handy devises and a necessity in larger models
As for 2.4Ghz, it has no bearing in this type of setup, as we are talking the output of the receivers and not the input.
then I'm completely baffeled at what this devise is? The point of failure 90% of the time is signal lose and interference due to failure of the radio link, cracked crystal, failed ceramic cap in the filter circuit , metal parts rubbing and glitching the input signal and the like, what's the point of a back up of the output only? I would be interest in something this though! This simple sounds like another version of an optical isolator that been out for years, very handy devises and a necessity in larger models
This device, has nothing to do with the failure of radio link but only on the inside of the airplane just like any other devices.
The opto isolator is built in but is not what controls the receivers. The micro controler is what does the job.
Roger
