Originally Posted by TTRotary

Thanks for both responses Jim. I'm going to allow myself a little "woohoo!" on that date.

Given this expander and RF unit, are you still contemplating that integrated 9-channel with telem or is that over with now.

Out fo curiousity - why are the antennae longer for these than the nanos. I suspect this is a simple question with a complex answer...

Actually, its a simple answer. The Nano itself is a tuned antenna assembly. The circuit board, coils, PCB traces, and wires all form a dipole antenna. This is a single antenna. This is why you can't change the end of the Nano having the antenna wires. That whole portion is the magic of why the Nano works so well. The DivBee modules use two traditional antennas. These are separate antennas.

I do not know if the 9 channel receiver will be produced. The Expander boards have telemetry too.

Originally Posted by JimDrew

Yes. I will be bringing them to Toledo.

sweet! ...things are speeding right along in the new world order

Originally Posted by JimDrew

Yes. I will be bringing them to Toledo.

Great! ...bring/a/bunch

Originally Posted by JimDrew

I do not know if the 9 channel receiver will be produced. The Expander boards have telemetry too.

Thanks for the explanation Jim. For those of us not going to Toledo, when can we hope to see these available on the website?

I've walked off hundreds of paces in a range test with Nano's... looking forward to seeing the range test with a new DivBee rx

Originally Posted by TTRotary

Thanks for the explanation Jim. For those of us not going to Toledo, when can we hope to see these available on the website?

Before Toledo. I am suppose to have the boards in mid-March.

Yeah, the range of the Nano is pretty impressive for such a tiny little thing. The DivBee has better range, and you can really see it when spinning the aircraft around because you don't get much, if any, of a difference in range at different orientations. Also, removing the transmitter antenna really shows how much more sensitive the DivBee based setup is... and it is a test you can do without having to walk hundreds of feet!

Originally Posted by JimDrew

Yeah, the range of the Nano is pretty impressive for such a tiny little thing. The DivBee has better range, and you can really see it when spinning the aircraft around because you don't get much, if any, of a difference in range at different orientations. Also, removing the transmitter antenna really shows how much more sensitive the DivBee based setup is... and it is a test you can do without having to walk hundreds of feet!

seeing as how I have managed to get away with flying a Nano without the Tx antenna, divBee would now make it completely optional equipment

LOL! Well, I don't think that tip is going to make the manual though!

Does this mean that you could go back to the stubby antenna on the back of the transmitter like the first XPS transmitter?

We had to switch from the stubby antenna to the longer antenna because we had problems convincing people that a 1" antenna would work. Of course, this was 6 years ago when everyone was still on 72MHz. People still seem to be freaked out by short antennas.

Jim, would there be any intrest in fiber-optic servo output such as this one? http://forgues-research.com/id1.html

I think the fiber optic concept is a waste in our models. Unless you are flying on 72MHz still, there is no need for this. Any frequency operating above 300MHz is completely immune to interface from ignition systems and other items that can generate EMI/RFI (like a metal clevis on a metal linkage). It is still possible to get interference in the servo itself, but the receiver's PWM output to the servo won't change.

Is it possible for interferance in the servo to travel back to the Rx? I don't know about thses things, is why I am asking

Originally Posted by j_whitney

Is it possible for interferance in the servo to travel back to the Rx? I don't know about thses things, is why I am asking

What ????