SMALL - espritmodel.com SMALL - Telemetry SMALL - Radio
Reply
Thread Tools
This thread is privately moderated by IBCrazy, who may elect to delete unwanted replies.
Old Dec 29, 2012, 01:23 AM
The way of being is doing.
IMEIV's Avatar
Italia, Emilia Romagna, Ravenna
Joined Apr 2009
434 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by williamjames View Post
IMEIV - Good timing... I just logged on to share my results right now too I'll tell you how my test went and then I have some questions for you regarding MuMetal.

My test: I basically powered up all of my components, video, OSD, VRx, Plane Rx, Futaba Tx, etc. With everything powered up, I was sitting (first beside and then in between) my VTx and VRx - Both times I got the same results which was very good picture quality with no video disturbance. I throttled up my motor with everything on and still no disturbance. Then, I noticed that as soon as I tilted the Dragonlink Tx antenna my way, the quality became not so good. When I touched the DL antenna to the goggles, the picture quality was most poor at this stage of the test. As I pointed the antenna away from my goggles, the picture quality again gradually improved.

Now- about your test: You mentioned MuMetal and covering your goggles with a special type of tape. Can you please attach a link to the tape you are referring to? As well, I would love to see pictures of your finished product so when you're done, can you please attach some picture?

Thanks in advance!
Hi,
yes we have got the same situation. Keep me informed on the progress you'll make.

I bought MuMetal in your country and here you can find a link http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ultraperm-80...item25654e9aa2
IMEIV is offline Find More Posts by IMEIV
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Dec 29, 2012, 11:03 PM
froots loops
saskya's Avatar
Canada, QC, Montreal
Joined Apr 2012
839 Posts
This question puzzle me
What Dl video for a gopro hero 3
Very long range fpv will be the best
a ready kit with osd gps
trouble free if possible and easy to use?
I made research and this is what I find out so far
http://hobbywireless.com/index.php?m...roducts_id=457
saskya is offline Find More Posts by saskya
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2012, 08:36 AM
Ground successfully attacked!
GroundAttack's Avatar
Spain, AL, Lucainena de las Torres
Joined Sep 2011
39 Posts
Patch on a long Pole?

Can I put my 5.8 patch antenna on a long pole and extend the coax to my receiver?
If so, what would the maximum distance be?
Thanks
Martin
GroundAttack is offline Find More Posts by GroundAttack
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2012, 09:48 AM
Registered FPVer :)
markus123456's Avatar
Switzerland, LU, Buchrain
Joined Aug 2006
2,854 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by GroundAttack View Post
Can I put my 5.8 patch antenna on a long pole and extend the coax to my receiver?
If so, what would the maximum distance be?
Thanks
Martin
No, put the rx out to that pole, then extend the low frequency cables (AV, power gnd).

Basically using a patch - and I assume it's a linear polarized one - is not the optimal solution on 5.8Ghz. Way too many reflections. Use an SPW antenna on the ground and a cloverleaf on the plane. This will result in bigger range than what's flyable with the patch. If you want more range, use a circular polarized directional antenna on the ground but based on your questions, I'm almost 100% certain that a pair of CL and SPW will give you enough fun for the upcoming year.

HTH

Markus
markus123456 is offline Find More Posts by markus123456
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2012, 09:49 AM
Wallop!
Martin7182's Avatar
Bussum, Netherlands
Joined Oct 2009
805 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by GroundAttack View Post
Can I put my 5.8 patch antenna on a long pole and extend the coax to my receiver?
If so, what would the maximum distance be?
Thanks
Martin
Or course you can, but it is not recommended. There's no maximum distance, just account for x dB loss per coax length. See for example this calculator:

http://www.timesmicrowave.com/cgi-bin/calculate.pl

Don't know if it's accurate but you get the idea. E.g. 9 feet of the popular RG-316 at 5.8Ghz has 6dB loss. Hence you'll throw away 75% of your incoming rf-signal, so in this example you'll half your flying range. There's no simple yes/no answer, you must decide whether this is acceptable.

Martin
Martin7182 is offline Find More Posts by Martin7182
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2012, 12:11 PM
Ground successfully attacked!
GroundAttack's Avatar
Spain, AL, Lucainena de las Torres
Joined Sep 2011
39 Posts
Thanks!

I guess I will put the antenna and vrx on top of the pole and extend the video out cables...
GroundAttack is offline Find More Posts by GroundAttack
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2012, 12:31 PM
Ground successfully attacked!
GroundAttack's Avatar
Spain, AL, Lucainena de las Torres
Joined Sep 2011
39 Posts
rhcp

So I would be better off with these than the patch antenna?
GroundAttack is offline Find More Posts by GroundAttack
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2012, 12:37 PM
Gig 'Em!
TexasAggie's Avatar
United States, TX, College Station
Joined Nov 2010
655 Posts
Don't buy those antennas. They are counterfeits of the real ones you can get from http://videoaerialsystems.com/ or http://readymaderc.com. Get the authentic ones and you won't be disappointed.
TexasAggie is offline Find More Posts by TexasAggie
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2012, 12:52 PM
My plane is 5ft BGL!
LowlyElevated's Avatar
United States, FL, DeLand
Joined Sep 2012
1,260 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasAggie View Post
Don't buy those antennas. They are counterfeits of the real ones you can get from http://videoaerialsystems.com/ or http://readymaderc.com. Get the authentic ones and you won't be disappointed.
Those are still better than Rubber Ducky anntennas. I know a guy who uses these with good results. The are immerscion/fatshark,which is a good brand, even if they are counterfit.

However, I wold recomend buying from one of the two recomwndwd above since those anntennas are made by the original designer of the cloverleaf/spw anttennas and are not knockoffs/coppies.

http://www.readymaderc.com/store/ind...roducts_id=550 is a really good set
LowlyElevated is offline Find More Posts by LowlyElevated
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2012, 12:59 PM
Gig 'Em!
TexasAggie's Avatar
United States, TX, College Station
Joined Nov 2010
655 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waffleman View Post
Those are still better than Rubber Ducky anntennas. I know a guy who uses these with good results.
You can't possibly make such a sweeping implication with a single data point.
TexasAggie is offline Find More Posts by TexasAggie
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2012, 01:07 PM
My plane is 5ft BGL!
LowlyElevated's Avatar
United States, FL, DeLand
Joined Sep 2012
1,260 Posts
I am not saying that those are better that a RMRC or videoaerialsystems set.
However, basesd on what I have seen, these CP immersions perform better than LP rubber duckies, most noticably on the 5.8 band.

I thought that it was common knowledge in the FPV community that CP is almost always better than linear on 5.8. Better range and without multipathing.
Show me evidence otherwise and then I will beleive you.
LowlyElevated is offline Find More Posts by LowlyElevated
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2012, 01:09 PM
Ground successfully attacked!
GroundAttack's Avatar
Spain, AL, Lucainena de las Torres
Joined Sep 2011
39 Posts
RCGroups is great!

Thanks for the information and the pointers to the genuine products. They are not prohibitively more expensive than the HK ones.
GroundAttack is offline Find More Posts by GroundAttack
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2012, 02:37 PM
Gig 'Em!
TexasAggie's Avatar
United States, TX, College Station
Joined Nov 2010
655 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waffleman View Post
I am not saying that those are better that a RMRC or videoaerialsystems set.
However, basesd on what I have seen, these CP immersions perform better than LP rubber duckies, most noticably on the 5.8 band.

I thought that it was common knowledge in the FPV community that CP is almost always better than linear on 5.8. Better range and without multipathing.
Show me evidence otherwise and then I will beleive you.
The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.
TexasAggie is offline Find More Posts by TexasAggie
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2012, 02:48 PM
Gig 'Em!
TexasAggie's Avatar
United States, TX, College Station
Joined Nov 2010
655 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by GroundAttack View Post
Thanks for the information and the pointers to the genuine products. They are not prohibitively more expensive than the HK ones.
That, and you're supporting the people who actually did the hard work to develop the antennas, namely Alex Greve (IBCrazy).
TexasAggie is offline Find More Posts by TexasAggie
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2012, 03:50 PM
My plane is 5ft BGL!
LowlyElevated's Avatar
United States, FL, DeLand
Joined Sep 2012
1,260 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasAggie View Post
The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.
But you are making a claim that a rubber ducky is better than an immersion CP set???
I do agree that RMRC anntennas are better, but these anntennas are not useless. I am not saying I like them, or would recomend them, but that these are better that the rubber duckies in the 5.8g band.

I am done on this. I am not going to sit here and argue over which anntenna is better.
LowlyElevated is offline Find More Posts by LowlyElevated
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion How to calculate flight time - guide ikorman Multirotor Talk 11 Dec 30, 2011 08:22 PM
Discussion How many FPV pilots in the world? rbmaze FPV Talk 10 Aug 03, 2011 07:16 AM
Poll Would you be interested in buying Ready to Fly FPV airplanes from a new FPV store? FPVNOW FPV Aircraft 36 Oct 06, 2010 09:56 PM
Discussion Can this cam be used for FPV ? SpookiePower FPV Talk 8 Sep 12, 2010 08:12 AM
Cool How cool would this be for FPV Kai_Shiden FPV Talk 2 May 11, 2009 08:41 PM