Jump to content


Photo

Spektrum DX7 2.4 and wireless camera 2.4 500 mW?


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#21 Elena P.

Elena P.

    RC-Cam Visitor

  • Members+
  • Pip
  • 12 posts
  • Location:Toronto, Canada

Posted 31 January 2007 - 07:23 PM

As soon as I put the plane 5-10 meters away, I was getting horizontal lines on the screen.

I recall someone else that mentioned that. But they said if the Spektrum TX was moved further away from the wireless video Rx, it went away. Do you see any improvement as the two are separated by a good distance?

I tried 2-3 meters - as far as I could having my glasses on me, and anthenna on the ground - no luck. Futher away does not make a lot of sence for me as I will need longer cables - for nothing. Range test gave me about the same result as with my old 72mhz eclipse.
So I'll wait until spektrum become 5 ghz :)

#22 Terry

Terry

    RC-Cam Mentor

  • Trusted Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,086 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bridgwater,UK
  • Interests:Aerial Photography

Posted 01 February 2007 - 12:15 AM

So I'll wait until spektrum become 5 ghz :)

either that or use another band for your video.

Terry

#23 Mr.RC-Cam

Mr.RC-Cam

    RC-Cam Mentor

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,683 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:R/C video and photography.

Posted 01 February 2007 - 09:06 AM

I bench tested a 2.4Ghz 500mW Airwave video Tx with the DX6. The video artifacts went away if the Airwave Rx was at least five feet from the Spektrum Tx. I noticed a reduction in the R/C ground test range when Airwave's Ch-3 freq setting was used. The results are a mess if the Video Tx is not turned on before the Spektrum Tx. BTW, I had the Video Tx about eighteen inches from the DX6 Rx during the tests. I did not try them closer since it did not seem like a good thing to do.

At this point I'm not prepared to fly a video model with the DX6 (it's just for my casual park flying). But these results did seem to jive with the other random reports (both good and bad). No doubt such results will vary with each installation and the risk seems high that there will be problems if bad Karma exists. There are some folks that have achieved success, so keep that in mind.

As I come across other Spektrum/Video discussions I will post the links. It would be nice if others did that too. Here is one I saw today where the fellow ended up using 900Mhz video to overcome the 2.4Ghz R/C compatibility issue:
http://www.rcunivers..._5304529/tm.htm

Edited by Mr.RC-Cam, 01 February 2007 - 09:39 AM.

- Thomas

#24 Terry

Terry

    RC-Cam Mentor

  • Trusted Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,086 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bridgwater,UK
  • Interests:Aerial Photography

Posted 01 February 2007 - 12:39 PM

Good link !
I'm waiting to hear of anyone that can reach 1 mile with a 2.4ghz video TX and 2.4Ghz R/C. Who will make it work ???

Terry

Edited by Terry, 01 February 2007 - 12:40 PM.


#25 JetPilot

JetPilot

    RC-Cam Regular

  • Trusted Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 112 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Miami, Florida
  • Interests:Long Range FPV

Posted 21 February 2007 - 06:53 PM

Good link !
I'm waiting to hear of anyone that can reach 1 mile with a 2.4ghz video TX and 2.4Ghz R/C. Who will make it work ???

Terry

Its not going to work. The 2.4 GHZ video transmitter will overload the spectrum receiver on the airplane, resulting in a no range at all or very short RC link range... If you are lucky, the spectrum RC receiver will lose the signal before leave the ground, but there is a good chance you will have just enough range to get off the runway and then crash.

Its a bad idea. If you want to run a 2.4 GHZ video link, you are much better off running standard 72 MHZ rc gear.

JetPilot
Long Range FPV

#26 jfassino

jfassino

    RC-Cam Visitor

  • Members+
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Location:Peoria, Il

Posted 23 February 2007 - 05:59 PM

JetPilot,

Is your comment from experience?

Jim

#27 ThomasScherrer

ThomasScherrer

    RC-Cam Mentor

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 492 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denmark
  • Interests:Electronics-Radioamateur-Modelplanes-Video-Homebrew electronic projects.

Posted 24 February 2007 - 08:15 AM

I work prof with radio gear for Tetra and GSM bands.
I can say it is a BAD idea to have both a TX and RX in the same frequency band on the SAME plane ! for example: Video downlink and RC controlling.
it is doomed to failure ! parform bad or even crash.
Why:
it is impossible to filter powerfull tx away from the rx,
with small and light filters, in the same band.
there must be many many MHz distange from TX to RX before filters can be made to perform good and still be light enought to be on RC planes.
if no filters are used, blocking will happen the RX will start to mix all sorts of unwanted signals into the rx.

The mounting distance possible in RC planes are often limited,
on normal planes its possible to have 10-20 inch distange from TX to RX
this is always a good idea, to keep as much distance as possible,
between TX and RX stuff, nomatter what kind of bands they use.

Today I have made a telemetri system for a friend in my club,
it opperates on 435MHz using licence band, so we can transmit as much as we like legally, but the GPS module opperating at 1.57GHz was blocked allreade at 100mW 20cm distance. we needed much more power, and still good margin.
solution, added 5 pol low pass in the tx signal and added 5 pol hi pass filter on the GPS.. now it works..
such a 5 pol filter made with coils and capacitors for the GPS weight 2 gr !
attenuation at 1.57Ghz 0.3dB !! (yes I am proud of that)
attenuation at 435MHz 60dB !!
the TX filter also has 60db attenuation for 1.57GHz for spurious killing.
Thomas Scherrer OZ2CPU www.webx.dk

#28 JetPilot

JetPilot

    RC-Cam Regular

  • Trusted Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 112 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Miami, Florida
  • Interests:Long Range FPV

Posted 24 February 2007 - 11:14 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

....................That is exactly what I was going to say :D .............................

Edited by JetPilot, 24 February 2007 - 11:15 AM.

Long Range FPV

#29 twinturbostang

twinturbostang

    RC-Cam Mentor

  • Trusted Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 24 February 2007 - 12:00 PM

Only way it would work is to use digital encoding. Such that each component has a "signature" and knows which signals to "listen to".

I think it could be done anyway. I'm no EE, so I don't know how to go about doing it. But it seems possible.

#30 Kilrah

Kilrah

    RC-Cam Mentor

  • Trusted Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,079 posts
  • Location:Switzerland
  • Interests:Modelling, electronics, computers

Posted 24 February 2007 - 12:07 PM

Even then you'd have problems. You have an unwanted signal that is thousands of times stronger than the one you want, that forces the input stage of the RX to attenuate the incoming signal a lot not to saturate... which makes you attenuate the useful signal at the same time, when what you'd want is actually amplify it...

Edited by Kilrah, 24 February 2007 - 12:08 PM.


#31 twinturbostang

twinturbostang

    RC-Cam Mentor

  • Trusted Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 24 February 2007 - 01:56 PM

What if you were to put everything on the same frequency. Then use the encoding process. Something that tells the receivers if it is a signal it wants to listen to, or one it wants to ignore.

Think of a local computer network. All computers are connected to the same switch/hub. Yet they are all able to decipher what data goes where. Sorry, I really don't know how one would go about doing it. But from a conceptual point of view, it seems possible. This would probably require completely different receivers though, so I don't know if it's something that one of us could do. Maybe a job more for Lawmate, Futaba, Hitec, etc.

#32 JetPilot

JetPilot

    RC-Cam Regular

  • Trusted Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 112 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Miami, Florida
  • Interests:Long Range FPV

Posted 24 February 2007 - 02:10 PM

What if you were to put everything on the same frequency. Then use the encoding process. Something that tells the receivers if it is a signal it wants to listen to, or one it wants to ignore.

If you put everything on the same radio and have it working as a two way communications system, that is something very different than using the Speckturm system we are talking about here... That is called a RADIO MODEM system, then you have data going both ways, and it is computerized, and all done with the same radio. This is not practical for 99.99% of us to do. Maybe one day someone will sell a ready made plug and play system like that, but not now.


Back to the Specktrum system with a 2.4 GHZ transmitter also on board, it does not matter if the receiver tries to ignore the video or not, it is so overpowered by the Video TX on the same plane that it cannot see anything else.

Picture me putting a small LED display directly into the sun, and then telling you to ignore the sun and to read me the numbers on the LED. You would not be able to, the sun would be so overpowering that you would never even see the LED. Same thing with the Specktrum, the 2.4 GHZ video TX is signal is so strong, that its like looking into the sun, it will never be albe see anything else even if it is smart enough to ignore the Video Signal.

JettPilot
Long Range FPV

#33 Terry

Terry

    RC-Cam Mentor

  • Trusted Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,086 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bridgwater,UK
  • Interests:Aerial Photography

Posted 02 June 2007 - 07:33 AM

OK, it's not good to mix 2.4Ghz video with 2.4Ghz R/C BUT is it possable to make it work ?

I would like to use 2.4Ghz R/C on a large gas heli due to the big safty advantages but also need a video down link. Ultamate range is not needed as it will be flown vis at less than 500ft.

The only band I can use for the video link is 2.4Ghz !

Now I know that 10mW video power will be ok for this range.

If I mount the video TX under the heli with the camera and use an inverted ground plane aerial or patch pointed down I think there will be no interference to the R/C link at the range I need.

If I mount my video RX patch so that my R/C TX is behind it I think there should be little interference to my video picture.

OK...who thinks it's worth a try ???

Terry

Edited by Terry, 02 June 2007 - 07:34 AM.


#34 Arthur P.

Arthur P.

    RC-Cam'er

  • Members+
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts

Posted 02 June 2007 - 11:59 PM

Just posted this in another thread as well, but I think for those outside the US there is a real problem in availability of systems. Our airwaves are so saturated that for RC aerial photography, which means flying in congested area with higher risk of RF interference, the 2.4GHz RC control systems are a must and the 900MHz band is a GSM band, so that we have a problem with AV downlinks. And it is critically imporan re finding a solution.

I-ve just been trying to figure out what frequencies are legal in Europe. On the site of our national Telecom Agency I-ve found the National Frequency Register (http://www.agentscha.../nfr/index.html) and in there the following which seem to be "license free" frequencies which I guess would be the frequencies we're limited to for our purposes and dependent upon available systems.

National Frequency Register, version 13-03-2007
Lower frequency Upper frequency Application License-
regime Power Channel-
space Duty-
cycle Occupation
6.765 MHz 6.795 MHz Non specific SRD No 42 dBA/m at 10m All kHz 100%
13.553 MHz 13.567 MHz Non specific SRD No 42 dBA/m at 10m All kHz 100%
26.957 MHz 27.283 MHz Non specific SRD No 42 dBA/m at 10m All kHz 100%
26.957 MHz 27.283 MHz Non specific SRD No 10 mW e.r.p. All kHz 100%
40.66 MHz 40.7 MHz Non specific SRD No 10 mW e.r.p. All kHz
433.05 MHz 434.79 MHz Non specific SRD No 1 mW e.r.p. Power density limited to -13 dBm/10 kHz for wideband channels. All kHz 100%
433.05 MHz 434.79 MHz Non specific SRD No 10 mW e.r.p. All kHz <10%
434.04 MHz 434.79 MHz Non specific SRD No 10 mW e.r.p. 25 kHz 100%
868 MHz 868.6 MHz Non specific SRD No 25 mW e.r.p. All kHz <1,0%
868.7 MHz 869.2 MHz Non specific SRD No 25 mW e.r.p. All kHz <0,1%
869.3 MHz 869.4 MHz Non specific SRD No 10 mW e.r.p. 25 kHz 100%
869.4 MHz 869.65 MHz Non specific SRD No 500 mW e.r.p. 25 kHz The whole frequency band may also be used as 1 channel for high speed data transmission. <10%
869.7 MHz 870 MHz Non specific SRD No 5 mW e.r.p. All kHz 100%
2400 MHz 2483.5 MHz Non specific SRD No 10 mW e.i.r.p. All kHz 100%
5.725 GHz 5.875 GHz Non specific SRD No 25 mW e.i.r.p. All MHz 100%
24 GHz 24.25 GHz Non specific SRD No 100 mW e.i.r.p. All MHz 100%
61 GHz 61.5 GHz Non specific SRD No 100 mW e.i.r.p. All kHz 100%
122 GHz 123 GHz Non specific SRD No 100 mW e.i.r.p. All kHz 100%
244 GHz 246 GHz Non specific SRD No 100 mW e.i.r.p. All kHz 100%


I believe 433 and 868 are used for some telemetry. Not sure whether there are any good usable AV links over those and how much risk an AV link on those bands would introduce or run for interference with other systems on those bands.

Edited by Arthur P., 03 June 2007 - 12:00 AM.


#35 Terry

Terry

    RC-Cam Mentor

  • Trusted Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,086 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bridgwater,UK
  • Interests:Aerial Photography

Posted 03 June 2007 - 05:12 AM

The problem for me here in the UK is not finding a frequency but finding one that is affordable.

I have been using 459Mhz for my R/C link but it's expensive to do and the new 2.4Ghz systems are as good if not better at a fraction of the price.

For video we can use 1384Mhz at 500mW but the cost is very high and the TX is big.

Terry

Edited by Terry, 03 June 2007 - 05:15 AM.


#36 Arthur P.

Arthur P.

    RC-Cam'er

  • Members+
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts

Posted 03 June 2007 - 09:35 AM

There is a small 5.8GHz transmitter with good range on or coming to market, but currently it is still a bit expensive at more than 1295 dollars without camera but with a receiver:

http://www.microteke...nilink58mod.htm
http://www.microteke...ation_sheet.pdf
http://www.videotran...10&series_ID=65

#37 Terry

Terry

    RC-Cam Mentor

  • Trusted Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,086 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bridgwater,UK
  • Interests:Aerial Photography

Posted 03 June 2007 - 10:38 AM

Hmmm, the more I think about it the more I think I will stick to 459Mhz for the R/C link. The price is high but will still be far less than investing in 5.8Ghz video and far less risky.

Terry

#38 Andre

Andre

    RC-Cam Visitor

  • Members+
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 08 April 2008 - 04:10 AM

now let me answer the original question:

-This is not based on assumptions, guessing, or other B.S. this is my experience, how I've been flying:

Spektrum DX7 + AR7000 (2.4Ghz)
Video link , 500 and 200mW , 2.4Ghz - 8channel.

1.- video channel selection does not matter. - I use ch 8 on 500mW, 4 on 200mW
2.- video TX antenna have to be placed well away from AR7000 - I use 60 cm cable before the "antenna" (made of the end of the cable)
4.- Spektrum DX7 will cause noise in the recieved video, to avoid this: I use a tripod with video receiver 6m cable, then my video-googles. I am 5-6 meters away from video receiver's antenna.
5.- turn on the model first, (with AR7000, it's no reason to turn on TX first) - video transmitter must be active first.
6.- switch on DX7 - while being close (>1m) to the video transmitter's antenna. - now DX7 finds some optimal channels.

this is how I fly.

#39 geeni

geeni

    RC-Cam Visitor

  • Members+
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 11 April 2008 - 05:23 AM

What about Futaba 2.4GHz for R/C control? I know that Spektrum uses 2 fixed channels, but Futaba changes the frequency all the time.

"The frequency of Futaba 2.4GHz FASST shifts hundreds of times per second..."

I guess that is even worse for the quality of the video link?

#40 Terry

Terry

    RC-Cam Mentor

  • Trusted Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,086 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bridgwater,UK
  • Interests:Aerial Photography

Posted 11 April 2008 - 01:04 PM

It's nice to hear you can use 2.4Ghz for both R/C and video but reports of total success are few and far between. The separation you need between TX's and RX's both in the air and on the ground show the system is running very close to failure. In this hobby we have enough problems with interference as it is without making it even harder.

Bottom line for anyone thinking of going this route is think hard before you try it.

Terry