Power FLARM power

[Andy[_1_]]

Can anyone comment of why Power FLARM transmit power appears to be
much less than the transmit power allowed by FCC for this class of
FHSS device? (ref test report on file with FCC)

Is this a limitation of the RF module that was selected? Was it to
increase battery life? Was it expected that adequate range would be
achieved with a very low power level?

Does the brick have the same transmit power as the portable?

Andy

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Jun 5, 1:24*pm, Andy > wrote:
> Can anyone comment of why Power FLARM transmit power appears to be
> much less than the transmit power allowed by FCC for this class of
> FHSS device? (ref test report on file with FCC)
>
> Is this a limitation of the RF module that was selected? *Was it to
> increase battery life? *Was it expected that adequate range would be
> achieved with a very low power level?
>
> Does the brick have the same transmit power as the portable?
>
> Andy

Link, please?

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jun 5, 10:59*am, Evan Ludeman > wrote:
> Link, please?

The direct link to the doc doesn't seem to work but you can find it by
going here:

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm

Searching for grantee code ZKU

selecting DETAIL, then Test report.

Test data are included in appendix B


Andy

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Jun 5, 4:02*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Jun 5, 10:59*am, Evan Ludeman > wrote:
>
> > Link, please?
>
> The direct link to the doc doesn't seem to work but you can find it by
> going here:
>
> https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm
>
> Searching for grantee code ZKU
>
> selecting DETAIL, then Test report.
>
> Test data are included in appendix B
>
> Andy

This would explain a lot of the issues with PowerFlarm.

[RAS56]

Did I read that correctly?

Frequency Hopping Devices with 50 or more channels are allowed a 1watt output, devices with 49 or less are allowed a .25 watt output?

And Powerflarm's output during the certification was:

At 902.2 MHz- .010 watt

At 915 MHz- .006 watt

At 927.8 MHz- .003 watt

Does seem well under the max allowed, but I guess what matters is it good enough?

Interesting, thanks for the link to the data.

[RAS56]

On Wednesday, June 6, 2012 6:56:32 AM UTC+9, RAS56 wrote:
> Did I read that correctly?
>
> Frequency Hopping Devices with 50 or more channels are allowed a 1watt output, devices with 49 or less are allowed a .25 watt output?
>
> And Powerflarm's output during the certification was:
>
> At 902.2 MHz- .010 watt
>
> At 915 MHz- .006 watt
>
> At 927.8 MHz- .003 watt
>
> Does seem well under the max allowed, but I guess what matters is it good enough?
>
> Interesting, thanks for the link to the data.

Forgot to add...PF has 65 channels, according to the test report.

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Jun 5, 1:24*pm, Andy > wrote:
> Can anyone comment of why Power FLARM transmit power appears to be
> much less than the transmit power allowed by FCC for this class of
> FHSS device? (ref test report on file with FCC)
>
> Is this a limitation of the RF module that was selected? *Was it to
> increase battery life? *Was it expected that adequate range would be
> achieved with a very low power level?
>
> Does the brick have the same transmit power as the portable?
>
> Andy

I see what you mean.... 10mW could not possibly have been the intended
result.

Experience at 15s showed many targets out to 6 nm in all directions
except my 6:00, where range was 1.5 - 2 nm. The range problem noted
previously appears to have been solved.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Dave[_26_]]

On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 3:11:14 PM UTC-6, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Jun 5, 4:02*pm, Andy > wrote:
> > On Jun 5, 10:59*am, Evan Ludeman > wrote:
> >
> > > Link, please?
> >
> > The direct link to the doc doesn't seem to work but you can find it by
> > going here:
> >
> > https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm
> >
> > Searching for grantee code ZKU
> >
> > selecting DETAIL, then Test report.
> >
> > Test data are included in appendix B
> >
> > Andy
>
> This would explain a lot of the issues with PowerFlarm.

Why? This is the same transmit power used by classic euro FLARMs. More than enough for advertised range.

-Dave

-Dave

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jun 5, 3:37*pm, Dave > wrote:
>
> > This would explain a lot of the issues with PowerFlarm.
>
> Why? This is the same transmit power used by classic euro FLARMs. More than enough for advertised range.
>
> -Dave


Maybe you should take a look at this link to see what it was we
thought we were buying!

http://www.gliderpilot.org/FLARM-Comparisons

Note the following - "More powerful radio transmitter as needed for
USA operation"

and "Radio transmitter is not powerful enough for proper operation in
parts of the USA"

and also the comparison of "Double range dual antenna" with "Standard
range"

Also included in the text (What does it do) "The operating range is
very dependent upon the antenna installation in the aircraft. The
range of 'Classic' FLARM is about 2 km, but up to 5 km may be achieved
in individual cases. PowerFLARM will have twice the range. "



Andy

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Jun 5, 6:11*pm, Evan Ludeman > wrote:
> On Jun 5, 1:24*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
> > Can anyone comment of why Power FLARM transmit power appears to be
> > much less than the transmit power allowed by FCC for this class of
> > FHSS device? (ref test report on file with FCC)
>
> > Is this a limitation of the RF module that was selected? *Was it to
> > increase battery life? *Was it expected that adequate range would be
> > achieved with a very low power level?
>
> > Does the brick have the same transmit power as the portable?
>
> > Andy
>
> I see what you mean.... 10mW could not possibly have been the intended
> result.
>
> Experience at 15s showed many targets out to 6 nm in all directions
> except my 6:00, where range was 1.5 - 2 nm. The range problem noted
> previously appears to have been solved.
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8

Reading other info at that site indicates that 10mW was the design
power output. Hmmmm.

-T8