Shaggy505
Well-Known Member
OP, do you have a cell phone and how does that affect you if so? Assume you’d be posting on a pc.
Do we not need any sort of EMF protection from the RC? thoughts
- Thread starter jeremynotlin
- Start date
The transmitter does put out a lot of RF. Try filming your transmitter with your phone and you'll hear sound generated from radio interference.
I like the range of Mavic. I can fly with thick trees between me and craft and still have decent and useable signal strength to fly worry free.
I'm sure future warnings, just like the epileptic seizure notice on video game consoles, will exist on drone documentation.
I like the range of Mavic. I can fly with thick trees between me and craft and still have decent and useable signal strength to fly worry free.
I'm sure future warnings, just like the epileptic seizure notice on video game consoles, will exist on drone documentation.
Some people are intent upon their ignorance.
@Shawn3D, I wish you well. Your fear over some sort of non-existent difference between "man-made" radiation and natural radiation from the sun is harmless. The only person negatively affected by your erroneous beliefs is you, in wasted time and resources.
For the rest of you following this, as @gnirtS and I have amply demonstrated with factual information, the EM emissions from the transmitter are so tiny that they are completely overwhelmed by stronger radiation, in the same frequency band, of simple sunlight.
Yes, it is utterly amazing that with this very weak signal, and an even weaker signal at the RC coming back from the aircraft, that we can control it, and see clear video from it. Well, you have people like me to thank for that. At a very high level, it's done through modulation and encoding techniques that make it possible to pull meaningful signal up out of a noise dominated signal.
If this stuff was simple, it wouldn't take years of study to understand. It's clear, however, that @Shawn3D and the others here taking the "other side" have no fundamental understanding what Electromagnetic Radiation even physical is.
@Shawn3D, I wish you well. Your fear over some sort of non-existent difference between "man-made" radiation and natural radiation from the sun is harmless. The only person negatively affected by your erroneous beliefs is you, in wasted time and resources.
For the rest of you following this, as @gnirtS and I have amply demonstrated with factual information, the EM emissions from the transmitter are so tiny that they are completely overwhelmed by stronger radiation, in the same frequency band, of simple sunlight.
Yes, it is utterly amazing that with this very weak signal, and an even weaker signal at the RC coming back from the aircraft, that we can control it, and see clear video from it. Well, you have people like me to thank for that. At a very high level, it's done through modulation and encoding techniques that make it possible to pull meaningful signal up out of a noise dominated signal.
If this stuff was simple, it wouldn't take years of study to understand. It's clear, however, that @Shawn3D and the others here taking the "other side" have no fundamental understanding what Electromagnetic Radiation even physical is.
Please explain the scientific particulars of this measurement technique that led you to the conclusion that "the transmitter does put out a lot of RF".
Include in your analysis the additional fact that the aircraft, miles away, seems to be able to profoundly impact the receiver enough to deliver crystal clear video, with an exceeding tiny amount of signal power at the receiver.
So, perhaps the fact that an electronic device with extremely sensitive radio reception is affected by a nearby transmitter isn't any indication at all of the power of the transmitted signal. Rather, maybe it's an indication of the sensitivity of the cell phone.
Stick your head in 5 gal bucket full of water for 5 minutes and then let's check on your health.
Water must be dangerous.
GnirtS and dwallersv did a good job of explaining why your arguments demonstrate why you don’t adequately understand the science behind any of this.
Not only are microwave ovens vastly more powerful than the RC you use with the Mavic, they’re designed to tightly concentrate that power in a confined area, a metal box. The transmitter on your RC is designed to disperse its much smaller power over a wide area.
A powerful laser will burn a hole right through you. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t use electric lights.
An observation. It would be pretty silly to think that no radio emissions are coming from a transmitter. Read the fine print on cell phone use. I do know that you need power to transmit the achievable range of the Mavic on its operating frequencies. I don't need tools for logic.
Actually no, you don't know. You fail to appreciate anything at all to do with choice of frequency, bandwidth, modulation and other aspects. Its not "logic". Its an incorrect conclusion based on a lack of knowledge.
There's a reason engineers get paid a lot. The good ones $200k+.
It's because without the engineering background, none of you would ever be able to accomplish anything like this, even though you had a Radio Shack 150 in 1 electronics kit when you were a kid.
This is Rocket Science.
And lest anyone think I'm boasting, far from it. The same descriptions apply to myriad professional vocations.
I wonder: Do any of the alarmist even know how, on a physics level, a microwave even works? How beaming short wavelength radio waves at some things will heat them up?
Why does a microwave heat a slice of bread quickly, but seems to struggle mightily to heat a saltine cracker?
Why does a microwave heat a slice of bread quickly, but seems to struggle mightily to heat a saltine cracker?
TrayBoz
Well-Known Member
FWIW: - it's well known that the videos of making popcorn pop with a cell phone were a total hoax. There are YouTube videos that show exactly how those hoaxes were done.
Misguided hostility over a silly thread. I certainly wouldn't buy or fly such a device if I was afraid of "EMF" protection needs. The best engineering advances in technology make complex machines easy enough for a child to use. Your assumptions clearly show the target audience of aforementioned engineers. Sounds like you're worried that this thread will result in an FCC investigation of the power output of the transmitter. That's the only reason I see anyone getting bent out of shape over such a posting. Clearly...misguided. And completely missed the mark. I hope your flying is better than your postings. This is so silly I can't even remember what got you so upset. Lol.
Most people know exactly how it works. Its you that seems unaware of the technicalities involved (and seem completely unfamiliar with actual power output and utterly ignorant of forms of modulation on signals).
You avoided the statement. You state it needs "power" to get distance. This is demonstrably incorrect. Its clear you have little or no knowledge of anything in this subject area.
As a side example, tell us all how GPS works given they use so low a power the received signal is actually below the thermal noise floor.... Apply your "power" logic to that for starters.
WHAT?!?!???!?!?!?
You need to read your post again, my friend. I, with you, am trying to educate these folks that think micropower EMF is dangerous.
Oh, and just to be accurate, most people have no idea how the physics of a microwave oven works (do you?). They just put stuff in it and it gets hot. Most things. Some things, like saltine crackers, not so much, and they have no idea why (do you?).
That was a reply to the wrong person - sorry. The idiot stating his flawed "logic" it was intended for not yours.
Sarcasm and snarkiness aside (although some of the replies have been pretty funny), I'm guessing the fear comes from a lack of understanding of the remarkable technology that lets modern RF devices such as drones and cell phones achieve such amazing fidelity over such a large range in such a high-RF noise environment.
The interesting thing is - transmit power levels have been dropping dramatically as technology has improved. In the old days, sending a signal a long distance required a huge amount of power and a giant antenna. Today, much better results are achieved with a tiny fraction of the power.
Why?
The primary technological progress has been making radios that LISTEN better.
Historical interest - one of the biggest inventions in this field was spread spectrum technology, invented by actress Hedy Lamar back in 1941. While Lamar was well known as a glamorous screen actress, few people knew she was also a pioneering inventor in radio communications. A second key contribution was MIMO (multiple input, multiple output) which allows multiple small antennas to capture signal much better than single large antennas - accredited to Stanford researcher Arogyaswami Paulraj in 1992. Finally, recent advances in digital signal processing (DSP) have dramatically improved receivers' ability to pull tiny signals out of a mass of radio-frequency noise - simply by applying computer processing to the signals coming from the antennas.
The sum of all these (as well as other) technologies allows radios to operate with very, very small amounts of power (compared with older transmitters).
For a metaphor, consider a hypothetical couple who has been married for decades. They each know each other's voice intimately and instinctively. Even though their hearing may be "normal" and their voices "normal", one might stand on the opposite side of a crowded restaurant from the other and simply whisper, and the other would hear and understand. The reason would not be the volume of the whisper or the sensitivity of the ear. It would be the ability of the "listener's" brain to ignore all of the loud voices at the other tables talking and singing, laughing, band playing, plates clanking, shouting in the kitchen - and focus in only on the tiny part of that wall of noise that it knew was the voice of the familiar partner.
The superpower in this example isn't "loud" talking or "super-sensitive" hearing. Nobody sitting near the whisperer or the listener is at risk of having their hearing damaged. It is simply the result of the brain doing remarkable filtering on the chaos coming into the ears.
This is exactly the situation with a Mavic and its controller (or a cell phone and tower, or...) Using only "whisper-level" transmit power, the transmitter can send a signal into the already-incredibly-noisy airwaves, encoded so that the receiver on the other end can ignore all but the almost-indiscernible signal arriving at the tiny receive antennas - and decode the information.
It's truly remarkable.
And, it is in no way a health hazard.
As has been previously mentioned, massive RF signals radiate from the sun, from TV and radio towers, from WiFi networks, and from countless other sources. Our bodies are constantly bombarded by these, and numerous studies have shown that they have no measurable effect on humans - even in long-term studies. The contribution of a Mavic controller or drone - even operated VERY near you - is but a tiny drop in the ocean of RF emissions hitting you every second of your life. If "natural" or "man-made" RF was a hazard (and there is really absolutely no difference between the two for these purposes) - humans would long since be extinct.
But, always wear sunscreen.
Kevin Morris
Electronic Engineering Journal
The interesting thing is - transmit power levels have been dropping dramatically as technology has improved. In the old days, sending a signal a long distance required a huge amount of power and a giant antenna. Today, much better results are achieved with a tiny fraction of the power.
Why?
The primary technological progress has been making radios that LISTEN better.
Historical interest - one of the biggest inventions in this field was spread spectrum technology, invented by actress Hedy Lamar back in 1941. While Lamar was well known as a glamorous screen actress, few people knew she was also a pioneering inventor in radio communications. A second key contribution was MIMO (multiple input, multiple output) which allows multiple small antennas to capture signal much better than single large antennas - accredited to Stanford researcher Arogyaswami Paulraj in 1992. Finally, recent advances in digital signal processing (DSP) have dramatically improved receivers' ability to pull tiny signals out of a mass of radio-frequency noise - simply by applying computer processing to the signals coming from the antennas.
The sum of all these (as well as other) technologies allows radios to operate with very, very small amounts of power (compared with older transmitters).
For a metaphor, consider a hypothetical couple who has been married for decades. They each know each other's voice intimately and instinctively. Even though their hearing may be "normal" and their voices "normal", one might stand on the opposite side of a crowded restaurant from the other and simply whisper, and the other would hear and understand. The reason would not be the volume of the whisper or the sensitivity of the ear. It would be the ability of the "listener's" brain to ignore all of the loud voices at the other tables talking and singing, laughing, band playing, plates clanking, shouting in the kitchen - and focus in only on the tiny part of that wall of noise that it knew was the voice of the familiar partner.
The superpower in this example isn't "loud" talking or "super-sensitive" hearing. Nobody sitting near the whisperer or the listener is at risk of having their hearing damaged. It is simply the result of the brain doing remarkable filtering on the chaos coming into the ears.
This is exactly the situation with a Mavic and its controller (or a cell phone and tower, or...) Using only "whisper-level" transmit power, the transmitter can send a signal into the already-incredibly-noisy airwaves, encoded so that the receiver on the other end can ignore all but the almost-indiscernible signal arriving at the tiny receive antennas - and decode the information.
It's truly remarkable.
And, it is in no way a health hazard.
As has been previously mentioned, massive RF signals radiate from the sun, from TV and radio towers, from WiFi networks, and from countless other sources. Our bodies are constantly bombarded by these, and numerous studies have shown that they have no measurable effect on humans - even in long-term studies. The contribution of a Mavic controller or drone - even operated VERY near you - is but a tiny drop in the ocean of RF emissions hitting you every second of your life. If "natural" or "man-made" RF was a hazard (and there is really absolutely no difference between the two for these purposes) - humans would long since be extinct.
But, always wear sunscreen.
Kevin Morris
Electronic Engineering Journal
Qoncussion
Well-Known Member
@tfmkevin - best response yet. I've been watching this thread, kinda like someone taking a second look at a car accident, in passing, to see if any dead bodies have piled up. The internet is an amazing place, where people can scream their opinion from the top of a mountain - and still be wrong. There is too much of that in this thread. For those who are boiling to the top, about to post their rebuttal to Kevin's information above - please support your post with some *actual* facts. Whether or not Kevin is right, it sure sounded good 
Honestly, this is the best advice I've read in this thread. Skin cancer from exposure to the sun while we're flying is a far bigger worry than the piddly little output from the RC.
Thankfully I already try to stand in the shade so I can see my iPad screen better!
Hollow Dog
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
1. Mini 2
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
New Threads
-
Mini 2 Beautiful Ordu City View From Boztepe Hill- Started by Cotyoran52
- Replies: 0
-
Mini 3 Yesnaby Castle, Orkney - to be featured on UK National TV this weekend...- Started by AlbionDrones
- Replies: 0
-
-
-