I am assuming that when the plane is out of range the battery switch opens
and the plane nose dives.
Haven't opened the box yet but that is my intention to have the controls
work
Best regards
Art
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:
Does any body see any negatives about this aproach which will always
be done under zero wind conditions?

How can you know the exact distance the receiver is from
the transmitter? 73, Cecil

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:10:18 GMT, "
wrote:

I have looked upward more than 20 times to watch a buzz bomb (V1) go
overhead with its characteristic brirp-brurp
tone on the assumption that when it ran out of gas it would start its
erratic journey to ground.

Nope, they were range set against a count down counter that was driven
by a patent log mechanism (boats use this everyday as a taffrail log
or a screw log).

If Churchill had council to
your knoweledge as to how theyREALLY were controlled I suspect I would have
hit the deck more than once.
Proves that ignorance is really bliss.

Perhaps so. Too bad Churchill didn't subscribe to the History
Channel. ;-)

With respect to model airoplanes the controls are limited in power as I
understand it and the range consequently is
somewhat less tha 200 metres. Since all my antennas are worthless acoording
to comment here tests can be undertaken
on my own property.
Art

You would also need some precision receivers for even those worthless
antennas. For 10M operating out to 200M, only 20 wavelengths, that is
hardly any signal strength change to speak of and to make the plane
dive at some pre-determined signal level is going to take quite a
sophisticated measurement. Keep in mind that neighboring interstate
CB traffic is going to mix in and muddy up the response (your airplane
may follow the next Coke truck to Chicago).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Well if I have to use suffisticated methods that you describe then this idea
is also worthless as it would not receive your stamp of approval. I'll give
the plane to my grandson so that it will not go to waste.
Consider post closed
Art
"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:10:18 GMT, "
wrote:

I have looked upward more than 20 times to watch a buzz bomb (V1) go
overhead with its characteristic brirp-brurp
tone on the assumption that when it ran out of gas it would start its
erratic journey to ground.

Nope, they were range set against a count down counter that was driven
by a patent log mechanism (boats use this everyday as a taffrail log
or a screw log).

If Churchill had council to
your knoweledge as to how theyREALLY were controlled I suspect I would
have
hit the deck more than once.
Proves that ignorance is really bliss.

Perhaps so. Too bad Churchill didn't subscribe to the History
Channel. ;-)

With respect to model airoplanes the controls are limited in power as I
understand it and the range consequently is
somewhat less tha 200 metres. Since all my antennas are worthless
acoording
to comment here tests can be undertaken
on my own property.
Art

You would also need some precision receivers for even those worthless
antennas. For 10M operating out to 200M, only 20 wavelengths, that is
hardly any signal strength change to speak of and to make the plane
dive at some pre-determined signal level is going to take quite a
sophisticated measurement. Keep in mind that neighboring interstate
CB traffic is going to mix in and muddy up the response (your airplane
may follow the next Coke truck to Chicago).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Yes, one station emitted dots while another station transmitted dashes, when
receipt of the two signal joined to produce a mono tone the plane was at
the predetermined point where it would drop its 'messages' on civilians
below" The use of phosper gretly helped following waves even tho fires were
outed they then reignighted when the material dried. We only had tar paper
windows to ensure that guiding lights were not provided as a help.
ArtDave VanHorn" wrote in message
...

If you're trying to trip something at a specific point, you might try
using
a different WWII technique, scaled up. They did bomb releases by flying
till they crossed a radio beam.
You could use a microwave (10-24 GHz) source as your beam transmitter.

Later systems used two beams, and more sophisticated means.

Measuring absolute signal strength, at any real distance, is going to have
such huge variability as to make it useless.

If an anteena has a specific range dominated by its power input and a
distance thru air would not a ntenna with more gain allow it to0 travel a
longer distance until the plane
came to a distance to allow a relay to drop out.
I was looking for a meaningfull indication of gain that would not be
assaulted gurus negatives with respect to isentropic gain and disbelief of
calculations made.
What better way for the man in the street to understand antenna gain rather
than messing with dbi, dbd e.t.c., which an amateur uses to fulfill his need
for conflict?
Art

"Art Unwin KB9MZ" wrote in message
m...
Invariably when antenna gain is mentioned
questions arise as to gain measurement and accuracy there of.
I do a lot of antenna experiments and declarations of gain never get
any where.
Ihave now purchased a 27 Mhz electric model airoplane and am now in
the process of making a new design antenna and I intend to measure an
antennas
relative gain my comparing the distance travelled by the model by
usind a standard whip antenna and then by using newly designed
antenna.
I visualise keeping a record of distance travelled of my various
experiment antennas.
Does any body see any negatives about this aproach which will always
be done under zero wind conditions? I am looking for a real world
guide to gain to escape from the gain arguments of today.
Thanks in advance
Art


Art

If I'd be allowed to change my mind after I got more thought/information
on this project, I really like the idea. It will be somewhat of an
instrument complex project ?wont it?.
A GPS could record alot of data if the plan includes things like that.
I would have thought that small variations in distance to the aircraft
wouldnt be excessively critical. But, it would be important to keep
records of the angle to the aircraft from the antenna.
I see Excel and some clocks somewhere in there.

This sure would be a fun project. If you do get it working, I'd go to
where you are just to see it in action.

Jerry

If an anteena has a specific range dominated by its power input and a
distance thru air would not a ntenna with more gain allow it to0 travel a
longer distance until the plane came to a distance to allow a relay to drop out.

If you were able to place both the transmitter, and the plane in free
space, and there weren't other signal sources in the area, this
approach might work out.

In practice, though, I think you're going to find multipath and
reflections to be a real problem. Irregularities in the ground, the
presence of buildings and trees, etc. are going to generate enough
reflections to cause some serious, and unpredictable changes in the
signal strength as seen by the receiver in the plane.

De-sensing of the receiver by transmitters on nearby frequencies,
noise pickup, directional variations in the plane receiver's antenna,
etc. are also going to be problems. I think you'll need a fairly
narrow-band receiver, with a well-controlled and fixed gain and a wide
dynamic range, and some form of averaging circuitry to get you past
the multipath / picket-fence problems.

I'm sure that something like this _can_ be done, and can probably be
done well enough to result in meaningful measurements. To do so, I
think you're going to have to invest a good deal of time, energy,
thought, and perhaps money in the design. A poorly-designed approach
would introduce so many sources of possible error that any results you
got from it would not be particularly meaningful or significant.

I was looking for a meaningfull indication of gain that would not be
assaulted gurus negatives with respect to isentropic gain and disbelief of
calculations made.

I'd suggest studying how this sort of measurement is performed in a
professional context - e.g. on antenna ranges located out in the
country well away from strong RF sources, and in shielded RF-anechoic
chambers (for near-field measurements and for higher frequency
measurements, where the chamber is a reasonable number of wavelengths
across).

What better way for the man in the street to understand antenna gain rather
than messing with dbi, dbd e.t.c., which an amateur uses to fulfill his need
for conflict?

Please don't confuse "conflict" with "criticism". The former is
unnecessary (although unfortunately it's rather common). The latter
is utterly necessary in any form of scientific endeavor!

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

How about if you get a field strength meter and walk away from the reference
antenna (like a vertical 1/4-wave) until you get a mid-range reading. - then
do the same with the tested antenna.
compare the distances - and note that signal strength is inversly related to
the square of the distance.
If the distance for the same reading is double for the beam - that means it
has 4 times the effective power in that direction.
then convert to db-gain



"Art Unwin KB9MZ" wrote in message
m...
Invariably when antenna gain is mentioned
questions arise as to gain measurement and accuracy there of.
I do a lot of antenna experiments and declarations of gain never get
any where.
Ihave now purchased a 27 Mhz electric model airoplane and am now in
the process of making a new design antenna and I intend to measure an
antennas
relative gain my comparing the distance travelled by the model by
usind a standard whip antenna and then by using newly designed
antenna.
I visualise keeping a record of distance travelled of my various
experiment antennas.
Does any body see any negatives about this aproach which will always
be done under zero wind conditions? I am looking for a real world
guide to gain to escape from the gain arguments of today.
Thanks in advance
Art


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 7/29/2004

Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:
Does any body see any negatives about this aproach which will always
be done under zero wind conditions?

How do you know the exact distance the receiver is from the
transmitter?



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Steve Nosko" wrote in message
...

" wrote in
message
news:YROSc.248059$IQ4.10508@attbi_s02...
I am assuming that when the plane is out of range the battery switch
opens
and the plane nose dives.
Haven't opened the box yet but that is my intention to have the controls
work
Best regards
Art

YIKES! You haven't flown one yet??

Flying AND doing some kind of signal measurement??? Your idea of a
time-travel transponder is a good one. Me thinkth that you will be
spending
a long time learning to fly and building all the other equipment before
you
get to do any measurements

I don't know what you have, but the regular (the 'good' stuff) R/C
equipment
has a range exceeding one mile or 1.6 Km. This is much farther than you
will be able to see it.

Bought it on EBAY fgor $25 shipping included Now
camera type transmission to receiver is about 200 feet max so I do not
expect to be anywhere in the range that you state. Equipment built ready to
go. Keep it in your mind that the engines are driven by batterries and is
not the expensive motor type. Big difference.
Art

There are add-on accessories which will cause
something to happen when the transmitter disappears, but without one of
these, they can simply continue flying until the motor runs out. it may
or
may not turn or descend until then depending upon what the controls were
doing just before the signal died.

In the US, 27 MHz is a hazardous frequency to be on...don't know about
elsewhere. Good units are in the 75 MHz range.

Then you have to fly in the far-field, right?

...good luck.

I think I'd find a pilot (my son) and fly around with a receiver...
--
73, Steve N, K,9;d, c. i My email has no u's.

Jerry, in the Midwest we have a lot of flat lands with corn and soya beens
so it is very easy to find a place to test after the harvest. Watched
somebody operate one of these and I wopuld expect that you would take an
average of say 5 flights each before the battery die.
One may see reflections off of a corn cob that has not been gleaned. 27 Mhz
was not my frequency of choice but this was available. Planes are two engine
type and are controlled by turning the motors on or off for turns.....
no flap movements....very simple I would think that doing a distance
comparison is more believable when seen than any manufacturers specs and
would give me sufficient
guidance when an improvement occurs. I certainly think it would add
crededance when observed at a club meeting
even tho gurus with a little bit of knoweledge will require more
sophisticated equipment. If I was comparing one
manufacturer to another with respect to
R/C controlled equipment it sure would satisfy me as seeing is believing .
When I asked for comment I had already put in place all the good things
and it was my expectations that the group would focus on the negatives
which is how it came out with a balancing list of negatives to compare
Appreciate the comments
Art
"Jerry Martes" wrote in message
...

"Art Unwin KB9MZ" wrote in message
m...
Invariably when antenna gain is mentioned
questions arise as to gain measurement and accuracy there of.
I do a lot of antenna experiments and declarations of gain never get
any where.
Ihave now purchased a 27 Mhz electric model airoplane and am now in
the process of making a new design antenna and I intend to measure an
antennas
relative gain my comparing the distance travelled by the model by
usind a standard whip antenna and then by using newly designed
antenna.
I visualise keeping a record of distance travelled of my various
experiment antennas.
Does any body see any negatives about this aproach which will always
be done under zero wind conditions? I am looking for a real world
guide to gain to escape from the gain arguments of today.
Thanks in advance
Art


Art

If I'd be allowed to change my mind after I got more thought/information
on this project, I really like the idea. It will be somewhat of an
instrument complex project ?wont it?.
A GPS could record alot of data if the plan includes things like that.
I would have thought that small variations in distance to the aircraft
wouldnt be excessively critical. But, it would be important to keep
records of the angle to the aircraft from the antenna.
I see Excel and some clocks somewhere in there.

This sure would be a fun project. If you do get it working, I'd go to
where you are just to see it in action.

Jerry