Replies

  • Wilhelm Matilainen October 6, 2015 at 2:13pm

    http://www.howtogeek.com/114037/researchers-prove-tin-foil-hats-boo...

    Check out that first :)

    • Pavel > Wilhelm Matilainen October 6, 2015 at 2:50pm

      :D :D :D one needs to be careful... :D Thanks for providing such important information. :)

  • MR60
    Hugues October 5, 2015 at 10:50am

    using aluminium material to try to block EMI from a component is not the best : aluminium is very reflective and absorbs very little the EMI : the EMI will bounce all over against the Al and will find a way out.

    Better material that absorbs better is copper of tinned copper, or iron even.

    This is why you'll sometimes find electronics equipment incased in a plastic shell that has been sprayed with Cu (copper paint), like for example the Runcam.

    I would not do this really anyway as the best "shield" is simply to space your components by a few centimeters apart. The EMI impact diminishes as a square function of the distance.

    • Pavel > Hugues October 5, 2015 at 10:53am

      Yes, RunCam authors did copper paint of the case. But it simply does not work as they expected. The measured noise is nearly the same level of Mobius. Only wrapping it to aluminum foil helped. Now zero UHF noise measured. That it is why aluminum foil is more or less enough. Also you can cover it multiple times to make sure no noise gets out.

  • Pedals2Paddles October 5, 2015 at 10:26am

    Short version of the above really long rambling post.

    1. Video has nothing to do with the APM (for the third time in 24hrs).

    2. After 4 pages of rambling and name calling, he finally admits that he's done no testing for, and has no examples or experience indicating the APM emits RFI that effects the RC receiver in any way.

    Case closed. Next.

    • Pedals2Paddles > Pedals2Paddles October 5, 2015 at 10:59am

      Interesting. All I've done is ask you to show there is a problem since you claimed there is a problem. You haven't yet. And from page one of this thread, your response to this was to call me a "crazy idiot".  But sure. Ok.

    • Pavel > Pedals2Paddles October 5, 2015 at 10:33am

      First close your nasty rambling mouth. Second the measurements are important which were done. Comparison of graphs of components were done. Based on this, suspicion of the possible behavior can be expected. The practical effect of noise generated can be proved with test described multiple times, but with your attitude there is no willingness to do it. 

    • Admin
      Thomas J Coyle III > Pavel October 5, 2015 at 10:52am

      Gentlemen,

      Let's keep this discussion a friendly discourse on the merits of the original proposition in this discussion thread or I will be forced to close it out.

      Regards,

      TCIII Admin

    • Pavel > Thomas J Coyle III October 5, 2015 at 11:07am

      Thanks, will do. And trying to do it originally. I rather prefer constructive answers, questions and comments rather than something what dishonest somebody. This was answer to that not kind style of comment as it is used to get from that user (which tries to hunt people over internet to make himself happy, I do not understand such behavior) instead of to be friendly and open and to provide constructive comments, questions and suggestions or to be simply quiet if not new words to say, lets make others opinions to be commented about this subject and or to give space to make some practical tests. I think it is not worth to repeat. Every other user comments normally. I did not meet such not friendly behavior yet.

    • Ben Norris > Pavel October 7, 2015 at 5:19am

      I think it needs to be highlighted that this isn't just a squabble, pavel is talking complete nonsense and shouldn't be taken as something people need to do.

      It is particularly unhelpful, for those who don't have the electronics skills to see it is uneccesary, to be given this bad advice.

This reply was deleted.