Breaking News
Comments
Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
<<   <   Page 2 / 3   >   >>
arclight_arclight
User Rank
Author
Re: Frequency of operation
arclight_arclight   7/30/2014 1:16:37 PM
NO RATINGS
I checked 47 CFR 2.106 (the FCC Table of Allocations), and found the following note:

NG56 In the bands 72–73 and 75.4–76 MHz, the use of mobile radio remote control of models is on a secondary basis to all other fixed and mobile operations. Such operations are subject to the condition that interference will not be caused to common carrier domestic public stations, to remote control of industrial equipment operating in the band 72–76 MHz, or to the reception of television signals on channels 4 (66–72 MHz) or 5 (76–82 MHz). Television interference shall be considered to occur whenever reception of regularly used television signals is impaired or destroyed, regardless of the strength of the television signal or the distance to the television station.

Sooo...you can certainly operate an R/C transmitter in 75.4-76.0 MHz.  Not sure about type approval or any of the other legal angles associated with rolling your own, though.

Kevin Neilson
User Rank
Author
FFT
Kevin Neilson   7/30/2014 12:56:30 PM
NO RATINGS
I don't think you need to do an FFT.  There are a couple of much simpler ways to do things.  You can do an arctan (or approximation) of the IF or baseband to find phase and then take the derivative of that (i.e., the difference between the last two samples) to get the frequency.  Another, possibly easier, method is to center two bandpass (or a highpass/lowpass) FIRs around the two FSK frequencies and then measure the ratio of the average power output of each (finding the power would require a squarer or square approximation and another lowpass to average).

There are a lot of other problems to deal with, though, if you need to do an AGC loop, carrier recovery, etc.  I'm not sure how much your chip is already doing for you.  This might be a huge task.

Edit:  I just looked up the datasheet of that part.  It's pretty nice, and no, it looks like you don't have to worry about AGC or carrier recovery.  The output is not quadrature, so forget what I said about finding the arctan (which only works for complex signals).  You'll just have two audio tones to discriminate, so I'd just use the two FIR filters.  It's audio so the processing requirements are really low.  I see now you already suggested the FIR filters (actually, for audio, IIR would be fine) but worried about the latency.  I don't think you need to worry about that.  We are talking about steering a boat, where 100ms of latency is probably nothing, and the IIR latency would be more like a couple of ms at the most.

Aeroengineer
User Rank
Author
Re: Frequency of operation
Aeroengineer   7/30/2014 12:51:00 PM
NO RATINGS
There is a 75MHz band that the FCC has designated for RC surface use.  72MHz is designated for air use.  In that 75MHz band, they have also authorized other communication items (I think that it is pagers if I remember correctly).

Aeroengineer
User Rank
Author
Re: Attenuation
Aeroengineer   7/30/2014 12:49:19 PM
NO RATINGS
75MHz actually does pretty well as long as it is not in brackish water.  This project is not so much to do something completely new, just to provide a new supply of 75MHz receivers because the current supply is dwindling.  I have a paper that I am trying to find for another individual.  Once I find it, I will see if I can post a link to it.  It gives the attenuation factors over a range of frequencies.

arclight_arclight
User Rank
Author
Frequency of operation
arclight_arclight   7/30/2014 12:48:40 PM
NO RATINGS
I hope you don't honestly intend to operate on 75 MHz exactly.  That's the same frequency the air transport industry uses for marker beacons, and having both the FAA and FCC to answer to doesn't seem like a very good idea.

Are you perhaps proposing to operate in the 72 MHz R/C band? 

Kevin Neilson
User Rank
Author
Attenuation
Kevin Neilson   7/30/2014 12:46:17 PM
NO RATINGS
What's the attenuation of the 75MHz signal in water?  I would think the signal would fall off really quickly, even for such a relatively low frequency.  Is there a long antenna that stays near the surface?  I guess an easy experiment would be to put an FM radio in a ziploc bag and dive to the bottom of a pool and see if you can still hear the radio station.

TonyTib
User Rank
Author
Re: Sure, you can use WiFi to control your submarine!
TonyTib   7/30/2014 11:58:02 AM
NO RATINGS
No, build a huge antenna in your back yard and use ELF like boomers!

Aeroengineer
User Rank
Author
Re: Instead of Fourier...
Aeroengineer   7/30/2014 10:50:25 AM
NO RATINGS
I will have to take a look at it.  I appreciate you bringing this method up.  I wonder what the computational expense is compared to a typical FFT.  I may have also found another solution, but I need to check into it more.

pelleplutt
User Rank
Author
Instead of Fourier...
pelleplutt   7/30/2014 10:47:20 AM
NO RATINGS
.. you might get away with Görtzel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goertzel_algorithm

Aeroengineer
User Rank
Author
Re: Sure, you can use WiFi to control your submarine!
Aeroengineer   7/29/2014 10:20:51 PM
NO RATINGS
You know, that would make it easy if it sprung a leak!  All you would need to do is chase the line.

 

Actually there have been a few people that have done that, and it does work, though is rather tedious.  It gets even much worse when you are operating with 20 other boats in the pool.

<<   <   Page 2 / 3   >   >>


Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Radio
NEXT UPCOMING BROADCAST

What are the engineering and design challenges in creating successful IoT devices? These devices are usually small, resource-constrained electronics designed to sense, collect, send, and/or interpret data. Some of the devices need to be smart enough to act upon data in real time, 24/7. Are the design challenges the same as with embedded systems, but with a little developer- and IT-skills added in? What do engineers need to know? Rick Merritt talks with two experts about the tools and best options for designing IoT devices in 2016. Specifically the guests will discuss sensors, security, and lessons from IoT deployments.
Like Us on Facebook
Special Video Section
Linear Technology’s LT8330 and LT8331, two Low Quiescent ...
The quality and reliability of Mill-Max's two-piece ...
01:34
The quality and reliability of Mill-Max's two-piece ...
LED lighting is an important feature in today’s and future ...
05:27
The LT8602 has two high voltage buck regulators with an ...
05:18
Silego Technology’s highly versatile Mixed-signal GreenPAK ...
The quality and reliability of Mill-Max's two-piece ...
01:34
Why the multicopter? It has every thing in it. 58 of ...
Security is important in all parts of the IoT chain, ...
Infineon explains their philosophy and why the multicopter ...
The LTC4282 Hot SwapTM controller allows a board to be ...
This video highlights the Zynq® UltraScale+™ MPSoC, and sho...
Homeowners may soon be able to store the energy generated ...
The LTC®6363 is a low power, low noise, fully differential ...
See the Virtex® UltraScale+™ FPGA with 32.75G backplane ...
Vincent Ching, applications engineer at Avago Technologies, ...
The LT®6375 is a unity-gain difference amplifier which ...
The LTC®4015 is a complete synchronous buck controller/ ...
10:35
The LTC®2983 measures a wide variety of temperature sensors ...
The LTC®3886 is a dual PolyPhase DC/DC synchronous ...