Replies

  • Pedals2Paddles October 5, 2015 at 4:28am

    What increase in range??? He hasn't reported any difference in range as it relates to APM RFI emmissions. Only camera and video system RFI emissions.  All he's done is talk about cameras and video system RFI.  These are components that are widely known to produce broad spectrum RFI, sometimes a lot of it.

    But none of that has anything whatsoever to do with the APM.  All he's doing here is basically saying "My cameras makes lots of RFI, so the APM does too. I should wrap it in aluminum foil."  That is not how it works.  Nothing he's posted has anything at all to do with harmful RFI from the APM.  This is literally all conjecture, and he gets mad when simple questions are asked. It's not like I'm asking unreasonable questions here.  He said something is happening. I asked him to show us. He showed something else unrelated and got mad.

    What's next? A picture of the HAARP array as evidence of the APM creating RFI?

    • Pedals2Paddles > Pedals2Paddles October 5, 2015 at 5:39am

      Speaking of tin foil. lol. Perhaps a hat is in order?

      I totally believe he saw an improvement after shielding the camera.  Those things vomit massive broad spectrum RFI.  I've personally witnessed my mobius screwing up the GPS mounted almost a foot away.


      The effect of RFI increases and decreases is roughly exponential as opposed to linear. His alleged APM RF emissions being 50% less than the camera's emissions yields and exponentially lower real world effect on what's around it. So his assumption that the APM must therefore have 50% as much effect on the receiver as a Mobius is incorrect. It's dramatically less than that.  This is supported by the fact that not a single person has ever reported any such detrimental RFI from the APM on any band.  Hence why his entire point is completely unsubstantiated conjecture.

      And I completely agree... All the other things emitting RF across the UHF band, whether intentional or consequential, vastly exceed anything coming from the APM. It's completely moot.

    • Pavel > Pedals2Paddles October 5, 2015 at 10:21am

      If your Mobius srews your GPS, wrap it to aluminum foil as you can see in video. It will solve it. Then wear your hat proudly to celebrate that... LOL ;)

    • Simon Howroyd > Pedals2Paddles October 5, 2015 at 5:15am

      Lol don't give him ideas about HAARP, oh God!

      He said that he had issues flying at 1km without shielding, added the shields and flew fine.  I am somewhat assuming here that the shielding was the only varying factor between flights.  If that is the case then it has clearly made a difference, so well done.

      I agree nothing here seems to have anything to do with APM until he mentioned that his measurements show APM has a noise equivalent to 50% of the Mobius.  This is low but not ignorable if true.

  • Pavel October 5, 2015 at 4:13am

    Simon, Thanks.

    But I am afraid if the noise floor levels of Mini APM 2.7.2 and Mobius HD and RunCam HD are on similar level we can not expect much different behavior than with this mini cameras. Yes, Mini APM has lower noise floor, but not so much significantly, maybe at maximum 50% less, but same level or more as not shielded Boscam 2.4GHz 500mW video transmitter! Power lines does not have an effect if the onboard noise is significantly reduced. That it is way try to reduce it with aluminum foil farther. Just to be on safe side, to have comfortable flight around in nice distance without any interference. Because I used to fly that way without autopilot after tuned it.

    "Simon Howroyd:

    In  which case congratulations on increasing your range.

    I think you should have asked your original question a bit differently, however, as shielding APM wont really achieve any of what you are talking about.

    Power lines and the mobius are significantly larger noise sources than APM so IMO I would focus on getting these right rather than risking a short circuit on your flight controller."

    • Simon Howroyd > Pavel October 5, 2015 at 4:26am

      50%! Wow, this is significant if true. Keep us informed of the results.

    • Pavel > Simon Howroyd October 5, 2015 at 10:15am

      I will keep you informed.

  • Pedals2Paddles October 5, 2015 at 2:12am

    Oh, did I mention his posts on FB were long and rambling too?  All I did was ask if had inflight evidence that it's causing detrimental interference. He has no evidence of it, and as you can see, he just lobs rambling insults when asked.

    • Pavel > Pedals2Paddles October 5, 2015 at 2:33am

      Pedals2Paddles, I showed an example comparison with other component interference if the noise floor is in similar level. The showed example of problematic component was Mobius HD camera, I showed graph of noise floor and showed graph of measured noise floor of Mini APM 2.7.2 and gave it to you honestly for comparison. Everybody knows of what huge UHF noise floor of Mobius HD can cause to UHF control, you can find it on internet. I gave you this to think about it honestly. But you simply ignore this and other facts mentioned and simply saying "no evidence". I also showed noise floor of 2.4 GHz 500mW transmitter for comparison. Only crash with your copter and or airplane would tell you that in that case, but luckily with APM we have autopilot which handles situation for us. But that does not mean we should ignore options for possible improvements, but rather think about possible improvements.

    • Pedals2Paddles > Pavel October 5, 2015 at 2:41am
      The mobius and other video components are not the APM. Citing other devices and ignoring the question doesn't change anything. Everyone knows those things emit RFI. You still have Zero evidence of in flight harmful interference coming from the APM itself.
This reply was deleted.