Output power wifi - measurement

[Magic]

Hi guys .
At once I ask to excuse for correctness of language - I translate through Google

I thought about measuring the signal strength of the camera's transmitter. I downloaded a couple of app on the tablet for a less truthful result ..
The result of the measurements was not very encouraging.
On the charts and data, there are several types of signal:
A. WI-FI_MAG - the signal from the router Rostelecom (on the other screen - the network without a name is empty)

B. DIRECT - transmitter signal ST-16

C. CGO3P_xxxxx - the signal of the transmitter of the Typhoon camera

D. Rostelecom_WiFi-xx ... and other lines - signals from third-party routers in the district.

1. photo from the screen of the tablet - in 0.5 m from the transmitters Typhoon (ST16 &CGO3) -

2. Photos in another room (5 meters), next to the router Rostelecom

3. Photos of another room through a couple of brick walls from Typhoon (meters 7 in a straight line) and through the wall from Router Rostelecom at 4 meters

I'd like to compare the data with Mavik and Phantom 4 .. Something tells me that the transmitter power of the Typhoon camera is about 50mW (almost the same power with the home router), which is very small, but Mavik and Phantom seem to have exactly those allowed 200mW .

If there is anyone who can conduct a similar check in a pair-three - Typhoon \ Mavik / Phantom 4 and put a photo.!?

I feel that you need to ask more closely - you need to increase the transmitter's power of the camera to 200 mW - then at least 3-4 km of the range will be provided. The main thing is a stable confident video link within 1-2 km in the city.

Who and what thinks on this issue?

 

[Murray Martz]

Hi guys .
At once I ask to excuse for correctness of language - I translate through Google

I thought about measuring the signal strength of the camera's transmitter. I downloaded a couple of app on the tablet for a less truthful result ..
The result of the measurements was not very encouraging.
On the charts and data, there are several types of signal:
A. WI-FI_MAG - the signal from the router Rostelecom (on the other screen - the network without a name is empty)

B. DIRECT - transmitter signal ST-16

C. CGO3P_xxxxx - the signal of the transmitter of the Typhoon camera

D. Rostelecom_WiFi-xx ... and other lines - signals from third-party routers in the district.

1. photo from the screen of the tablet - in 0.5 m from the transmitters Typhoon (ST16 &CGO3) -

2. Photos in another room (5 meters), next to the router Rostelecom

3. Photos of another room through a couple of brick walls from Typhoon (meters 7 in a straight line) and through the wall from Router Rostelecom at 4 meters

I'd like to compare the data with Mavik and Phantom 4 .. Something tells me that the transmitter power of the Typhoon camera is about 50mW (almost the same power with the home router), which is very small, but Mavik and Phantom seem to have exactly those allowed 200mW .

If there is anyone who can conduct a similar check in a pair-three - Typhoon \ Mavik / Phantom 4 and put a photo.!?

I feel that you need to ask more closely - you need to increase the transmitter's power of the camera to 200 mW - then at least 3-4 km of the range will be provided. The main thing is a stable confident video link within 1-2 km in the city.

Who and what thinks on this issue?

The reason you will not get a signal to get a 3 to 4 km range is one of many. One is due to restrictions at the factory. In the US I believe it is shipped to comply with the FAA. In Canada, we can extend that range with different antennae as they can in the US also, but in Canada it is not legal to fly that far. So you will need to add an extra antennae to get it to the point of where you want it. I like to call it " the point of just being silly and causing more issues for the ones that are trying to get an industry that has credibility ".

 

[PatR]

I don't see the signal strength as being a problem, but functioning as it is supposed to, limiting the useful range of the aircraft to line of sight distances. You cannot see one at 3 or 4 clicks.

 

[Magic]

The reason you will not get a signal to get a 3 to 4 km range is one of many. One is due to restrictions at the factory. In the US I believe it is shipped to comply with the FAA. In Canada, we can extend that range with different antennae as they can in the US also, but in Canada it is not legal to fly that far. So you will need to add an extra antennae to get it to the point of where you want it. I like to call it " the point of just being silly and causing more issues for the ones that are trying to get an industry that has credibility ".

I don't see the signal strength as being a problem, but functioning as it is supposed to, limiting the useful range of the aircraft to line of sight distances. You cannot see one at 3 or 4 clicks.

Good answers!
Still what are the assumptions on the questions - why Mavik and Fantom 4Pro can fly 5- 7 km in Canada and the US, and Typhoon is forbidden by the FAA?

And yet, can anyone, except words, be able to measure the relative strength of the WiFi signal on three different copters - Typhoon H | Mavic | Phantom 4 ?

 

[Magic]

Using antennas, I increased the range of the video link from 600 meters to 1300 meters. To get the best result, you need to know the signal strength (the transmitter's power of the camera). From the experience of 200 mW the power is sufficient for a range of 3-4 km or more in the open area with standard antennas.
If the signal of the video link of the Typhoon camera disappears by 600 meters, this can mean only one thing - the transmitter's power of the camera is very weak - maybe 50 mW. For this, I ask you to make comparative measurements.
I do not have pilots with DJI copters near me.

 

[Tuna]

It's an interesting test. We know that the Typhoon changes the signal strength depending on which firmware you are using. America and Europe have different limits on radio broadcast strength, with American firmware having a more powerful signal.

However, we don't know how close the Typhoon gets to that legal limit. Nor do we know if DJI get close - though in some circumstances they seem to get significantly further distances, which makes me wonder what they are doing differently to Yuneec.

Personally I've never had signal strength be a problem. If you're flying within visible line of sight you'll have a good signal. From a confidence point of view you'd like it to be as strong as possible so you don't get drop-outs, but practically it's never been an issue with my machine.

The one interesting test was flying five Yuneec machines (4 Typhoons and one H920+) at the same time. We all had fine control, but video lag was very noticeable indeed.

 

[Magic]

Thank you,

I use the firmware version A and upgrade antennas to st-16 - range increased to 1300 .. me a little))

 

[PatR]

It would seem you are assuming the components used in DJI and Yuneec products are the same when they most certainly are not. There is no legal difference in the U.S. between Yuneec and DJI products, or any other sUAS design, for how far they are allowed to fly The law is the same for both makers, they all must be flown within line of sight.

DJI simply chooses to sell products that can and do easily exceed line of sight range. It has been one of their design/sales features for years. Instead of helping to keep users stay within the law they ignore such safety concerns in favor of making more sales by advertising long range operation, which encourages people to use those products in a manner that routinely violates federal law. They follow that up with what I consider a hypocritical action by employing an airspace flight restriction system that is extremely cumbersome for users to effectively make use of, and requires constant updating if users want to continue using their aircraft in the manner they functioned when they bought them.

So yes, the DJI stuff will effectively fly further than Yuneec stuff and that longer range is achieved though intent and design. DJI does not seem to care how far away people fly, they only seem to care in what areas they are flown. They put distance violations on the back of the users but limit company liability from airspace violations.

 

[Steve Carr]

It's a good sales tool. The farther out you fly, the more likely it wont' come back. Makes for repeat sales more likely as a result.

 

[PatR]

That was pretty well proven with some Wookong units, the the P1 and 2, s800, and Inspire initial releases, and continued with early A2 units. I haven't bothered to keep up much with the line since then, having discarding the brand in favor of more reliable equipment and better customer support.

 

[Typhoon Charlie]

Pull the antenna out of the camera and let it hang down. Huge difference. I know it's to make it look pretty but that antenna stuck inside the camera is the worst design. I get almost no drop outs behind structure and trees with the antenna outside and the ST 16 antennas upgraded. I don't normally fly BVLOS but I do fly in the trees and behind structure so I need a reliable video link.

 

[PatR]

Know whatcha mean. I do similar.

 

[Tuna]

It would seem you are assuming the components used in DJI and Yuneec products are the same when they most certainly are not. There is no legal difference in the U.S. between Yuneec and DJI products, or any other sUAS design, for how far they are allowed to fly The law is the same for both makers, they all must be flown within line of sight. .

For sure, and I agree with your criticism of DJI here. However, they do, by law, have to stick to the same signal strength limits.There is a direct relationship between signal strength and bandwidth, so if you want live video over a certain distance, you need a certain signal strength.You can boost that with directional and high gain antennas but it's a physical limit. An extreme example is the Voyager probe - it transmits on 2.3GHz, not far from the Typhoon frequency, but manages just 20 bytes a second data rate because of the extreme distance (hence weaker signal). At that rate it would take about three days to transmit a single still from the Typhoon!

 

[Magic]

At the Russian forum there was discussion
Yuneec Typhoon H - гекса! - Страница 32 - Разные коптеры
of the position of the antenna and its direction. In the general discussion, I agree that finding the antenna in the camera body is not an obstacle to the passage of the signal, since the main position of the camera in the case of photo video shooting is 45-50 degrees and the radiation direction rose is correct.
Plastic enclosure can not be an obstacle to video link-to-signal from the transmitter. Also there were given the facts of the transmitter investigation - the output power is indicated by 1 watt. .. iIt's a lot ! With this power, the video link should work up to 10 km of range.

I have doubts about the reliability of the output signal power data!
Either there is a non-consistency of the antenna and the output loop of the transmitter unit.
Is it possible?
Does anyone have any information on the measurement of power? Is it possible to check the matching of the output path of the transmitter and the antenna outside the specialized workshop?
I continue this research, because I'm not happy when the video link disappears in the flat field at a distance of 450-650 meters. Only by changing the antenna to ST-16 I was able to reach the video line in an even field at 1300 m.
This distance is enough for me, but there is no confidence in the reliability of the video link.

 

[Tuna]

I think that the transmitter may be able to transmit up to 1 watt, but the software limits the power depending on your region. In Europe, the software limits transmission to 125mW I believe.

 

[Mrdronenut]

DJI uses a system called "LIGHT-BRIDGE" where the compress the signal into a high speed beam,using a system that,when it encounters interference,changes the channel on the rx-rx to match to avoid said interference.
This is how it was described to me.
Another way of looking at it is its the difference between an old pushbutton home phone to a smartphone.
Not saying analog to digital,but the advanced system to the old,WiFi standard system.
Next!!!! Lol

 

[Dr Delta]

DJI uses a system called "LIGHT-BRIDGE" where the compress the signal into a high speed beam,using a system that,when it encounters interference,changes the channel on the rx-rx to match to avoid said interference.
This is how it was described to me.
Another way of looking at it is its the difference between an old pushbutton home phone to a smartphone.
Not saying analog to digital,but the advanced system to the old,WiFi standard system.
Next!!!! Lol

Sounds like the 'channel hopping' the EU H does at the 5g signal.

 

[byhead]

Pull the antenna out of the camera and let it hang down. Huge difference. I know it's to make it look pretty but that antenna stuck inside the camera is the worst design. I get almost no drop outs behind structure and trees with the antenna outside and the ST 16 antennas upgraded. I don't normally fly BVLOS but I do fly in the trees and behind structure so I need a reliable video link.

Hey TC how does one do the antenna OUT TRICK?