[SPAM] Re: JR 10SX

Tue Mar 22 10:07:42 AKST 2005

Bill:
That's true, we basically are stuck with accepting interference from outside 
sources.

BTW, you should see the field that Joe L. flies at - you stand with a VOR 
NAVAID 150 feet behind your back.  No problems so far, I've flown there 
twice now.  Granted, it's around 40 mHz off, but it sure is nearby 
physically.

Ed

>From: Bill Glaze <billglaze at triad.rr.com>
>Reply-To: discussion at nsrca.org
>To: discussion at nsrca.org
>Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: JR 10SX
>Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:27:04 -0500
>
>Ed:
>Do you not think that we will always be subject to interference as long as 
>we are "secondary" users?  Admittedly, more could be done. As an aside: I 
>fly frequently at a field that has a huge (2000 ft. tall) antenna directly 
>behind us.  It is no more than 300 yds. away at the flyers 6 o'clock 
>position.  Yet, even though pattern flyers won't come and fly there, 
>(probably because of the frightening specter of that powerful antenna) 
>folks fly there literally every day of the year with no interference.  I'm 
>one of the frequent flyers.  Unfortunately, it seems that most of the 
>pattern folks have just enough information to be dangerous when they shun 
>this field..  BTW: a check for interference shows that there is less 
>interference literally in the shadow of this antenna, than there is at 
>another local  field, yet the other field, which shows a higher level of 
>"hash" is quite popular.  Ignorance is bliss.
>
>Bill Glaze
>
>Ed Alt wrote:
>
>>John:
>>I think that they used to call that Kraft with the syntesised RF module 
>>"dial-a-crash".  Actually, the technology for synthesising 50 channels is 
>>no big deal, PLL circuits have been used to do this for decades.  Back in 
>>the early 80's I did my senior year electronics project by taking an Ace 
>>Silver 7 receiver, disabled the local oscillator and injected the output 
>>of a PLL local oscillator of my own.  It was just a bench prototype for a 
>>grade, clunky to look at and with 7 seg LED readouts to display the 
>>channel it was on, but it worked.  I got alot of curious looks from the 
>>class when I hauled in a Kraft single stick, a Heathkit GD-19 and a Futaba 
>>FG series radio on different channels to demonstrate that it worked to the 
>>Prof.  Nowadays, this stuff can done in software with DSP technology.  I 
>>can see the wheels turning in your head already!  :)
>>  Spread Spectrum would be one way to go, or maybe something using WiMax 
>>technology, whenever that shakes out.  Eric is right, our technology for 
>>the RF link is totally archaic.  Nice that we have good, reliable "narrow 
>>band" stuff now, but it could be much better.
>>  Ed
>>   ----- Original Message -----
>>
>>     From: John Pavlick <mailto:jpavlick at idseng.com>
>>     To: discussion at nsrca.org <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org>
>>     Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 1:10 AM
>>     Subject: RE: JR 10SX
>>
>>     Yeah, I agree with Eric. As far as I'm concerned, the new Futaba
>>     radio (14MZ) is really nice looking, and of course I wouldn't mind
>>     having one BUT since I don't fly the really big stuff where 14
>>     channels is a big help (multiple servos on each control surface),
>>     it wouldn't be much of an improvement over my 9ZAP. It seems like
>>     the RF section is always an after-thought. I remember when all the
>>     "new" frequencies were being discussed (pre 1991 times). One of
>>     the ideas behind getting all the new frequencies was to reduce the
>>     chance of someone being on your frequency. I always thought a
>>     better approach would have been to make everything with
>>     synthesized RF decks. Since the plan we adopted ended up making a
>>     lot of otherwise good equipment obsolete anyway, I don't see what
>>     the problem would have been. We wouldn't need as many channels
>>     that way either (more room for other stuff). If you can select
>>     your frequency, rather than just increase the odds of not being on
>>     someone else's frequency, then the real problem is solved. I seem
>>     to recall that Kraft had synthesized RF and "narrow band" FM
>>     equipment before anyone else. Almost every major radio
>>     manufacturer has some type of synthesized RF deck today.
>>      If you add the synthesized RF deck to a digital encoding "code
>>     hopping" transmitter and receiver you have a good solution to our
>>     newest problem. As long as the receiver isn't swamped by a very
>>     high output transmitter, this is safer than what we have now. A
>>     code hopping system uses a digital encoding scheme in addition to
>>     the base frequency. The "digital key" changes when the system
>>     powers up. You don't even know it's happening. Even if someone is
>>     transmitting on the same frequency, if the "keys" don't match the
>>     receiver won't respond. That's over simplifying a bit but that's
>>     the basic idea. There's more to the link than just the RF
>>     frequency, which as we all know is not always exclusive. Clothes
>>     pins with channel numbers are not exactly a foolproof method of
>>     securing your frequency. This kind of stuff is in $40.00 cordless
>>     phones and garage door openers - remember the old garage door
>>     openers that used to open for "no reason"? How do you think they
>>     fixed that? Why can't this technology be used in a $2000.00 radio?
>>     If we keep building bigger and bigger airplanes and controlling
>>     them with what is basically outdated technology, it's only a
>>     matter of time...
>>
>>     John Pavlick
>>     http://www.idseng.com <http://www.idseng.com/>
>>
>>
>>           -----Original Message-----
>>     From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
>>     [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Grow Pattern
>>     Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 11:48 PM
>>     To: discussion at nsrca.org
>>     Subject: Re: JR 10SX
>>
>>         Bill, the update to the 10SX (actually a 10SXII) was the
>>         digital trim 10X.                  Is the 10X what you meant to 
>>say?
>>                  In general terms I don't intend to buy another radio, of 
>>any
>>         brand, until they fix the weakness of our RF link to the
>>         plane. We can all still be radio-shot-down far too easily.
>>                  Regards,
>>
>>         Eric.
>>
>>             ----- Original Message -----
>>             From: William C. Harden <mailto:flyinbill1 at bellsouth.net>
>>             To: discussion at nsrca.org <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org>
>>             Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 9:42 PM
>>             Subject: JR 10SX
>>
>>             Now that JR has come to market with their new 9303 radio,
>>             does JR intend to update their 10SX radio?  If so, when
>>             will the new radio be available???  Just curious.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>             Bill
>>

=================================================
To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.