Transmitter wattage chart

[d4ddyo]

I can't for the life of me find the chart someone posted with different common transmitter actual wattage per channel. Can anyone repost?

 

[Joel_t]

This one?

 

[d4ddyo]

This one?

Thanks !

 

[d4ddyo]

Re: Transmitter wattage chart 600 mW Boscam?

What about this? Looks like a decent size and weight for a P2. and it's all 32 channels


Boscam TS832 FPV 5.8G 32CH 600mw
Power input: 7.4-16V (3S Lipo suggested)
Transmitting Power: 600mA
Antenna Gain: 2db
Working Current: 220mA at 12V
Video Format: NTSC / PAL Auto
Video Bandwidth: 8M
Audio Bandwidth : 6.5M
Weight: about 22g
Dimension: 54x 32x 10mm(excluding antenna)

 

[QYV]

wow okay, I know a little bit about a lot of things but this isn't one of them... so these transmitters actually output different power on different channels? so for example on the TS351, channel 4 is putting out almost 3 times the strength of channel 8?

I'll believe the chart but I don't really understand how or why there's such a huge variance in the numbers from channel to channel, why wouldn't it put out consistent power across different channels?

if anybody with more detailed knowledge in this area would be willing to elaborate I'd love to learn more about this. It certainly might explain why I'm getting such terrible performance from my TS351, I've only tried channels 6 7 and 8!

 

[2Balls]

I'm also curious about the wattages listed for the TS351. I have only used channel 8 with stock antennas and an RC805.
Sitting on my front porch and flying down the street (50m high) I have been able to get out to around 350m, and in open fields I have been able to fly out over 600m (75m high) with that setup.

I have 95% clear video going out with the occasional flicker of snow on the screen. If I turn around 180 to fly back, then the video quality diminishes due to the GoPro and gimbal blocking the signal.

I just received my skew planar antennas in the mail but Mother Nature decided to start raining as I got home to try and test them out! I ordered these to try and get a bit more distance and a better view when I turn around to head back.

If the rain stops I'll put on the planar antennas and post the results of the open field distances.

 

[Dalite]

The tighter the design, the more sharply it can be tuned.

The very thing that keeps the output signal relatively clean and contained in the allocated frequency range will sharply attenuate the signal outside of the allocated frequency range.

When it comes to doing the tuning with components, rather than mechanical adjustments, the final output is going to be biased toward the design frequency and falls off the further it goes from the design frequency.

Out of simplicity, in some circuits made for use across a wide audience, Channel 1 can be chosen by default with the thought tat the audience is looking for plug and play integration.

Another design approach made for a specialty audience that is more concerned over actual RF performance could be designed for the middle of the range. These companies may use some from each design.

Some of these channels are linear ( from lowest to highest) where some could be assigned as pairs (to allow full duplex design potential) and may have two "sets" of frequencies ; a high and a low. You can see this approach in the common "channels" shared between the GMRS and FRS radios used for voice in the 450 MHz band.

The thing to take away from the power charts would be that in order for the power to be the same throughout the entire band would require a broadband design, which is not as "clean" of a signal as one from a design that is sharply focused. In our application, cleaner is better. We have a number of frequencies we are juggling, and don't want to have to cope with dirty designs where one band interferes with another.

 

[d4ddyo]

The tighter the design, the more sharply it can be tuned.

The very thing that keeps the output signal relatively clean and contained in the allocated frequency range will sharply attenuate the signal outside of the allocated frequency range.

When it comes to doing the tuning with components, rather than mechanical adjustments, the final output is going to be biased toward the design frequency and falls off the further it goes from the design frequency.

Out of simplicity, in some circuits made for use across a wide audience, Channel 1 can be chosen by default with the thought tat the audience is looking for plug and play integration.

Another design approach made for a specialty audience that is more concerned over actual RF performance could be designed for the middle of the range. These companies may use some from each design.

Some of these channels are linear ( from lowest to highest) where some could be assigned as pairs (to allow full duplex design potential) and may have two "sets" of frequencies ; a high and a low. You can see this approach in the common "channels" shared between the GMRS and FRS radios used for voice in the 450 MHz band.

The thing to take away from the power charts would be that in order for the power to be the same throughout the entire band would require a broadband design, which is not as "clean" of a signal as one from a design that is sharply focused. In our application, cleaner is better. We have a number of frequencies we are juggling, and don't want to have to cope with dirty designs where one band interferes with another.

Holy crap... English please?

 

[wkf94025]

Dalite -- great tutorial for those of us that are not RF studs. Thanks!

Anyone -- do you have the chart or #'s for the ImmersionRC 250mW? I have their 250mW and 600mW and not seeing much of a range difference between them.

Kelly