Відео

cc1101 would be for detecting the RC control right? Anyways, good luck on the project!

Yeah and a few other things. I got them for $1.50. Figured I could learn something RF related. Eyeballing a rf one clone (15$). Memory marinating until I can eventually detect drones and fpv. Just ordered parts for an OpenIPC system. Good luck on your project as well. Subbed with notifications. Really interesting stuff!

@@thirtythreeeyes8624 the hardware I’m using can be tuned to any frequency (similar to how Tramp uses SPI to set freq) I’m just using a “standard frequency table” to make the search faster. But I can write a separate mode to sweep the entire frequency range from 5.0-6.0 GHz

@@BirdRunHD the plan is actually more like Drone - AWACS or EWR

@@Jdogdrums7 Those are nice too but the real hot topic now days is how to get a drone to burn through jamming and you have a part of the solution with off the shelf parts that corps can buy some day.

@@BirdRunHD Personally I think this would be more usable as a “Home on Jam” device rather than something to steer an airborne transmitter. A better solution thats already solvable is to point an airborne directional antenna via compass bearing via ELRS telemetry data (out of the rear of the drone - so “rear bearing”). That would eliminate the sweeping which would breakup video quality.

@@JonnyWaldes This is monitoring only

For jamming, you could hook up a transmitter and write the frequency over SPI to “ReJam” the locked frequency once found

​@@Jdogdrums7 It wouldn't work very well unless you have heaps more power than the drone or get the jammer up high enough for LOS to the receiver and then they could be using the opposite polarization antenna lol

@@thirtythreeeyes8624 yea you would need a network of jammers which would get very involved very fast. This is mainly for detection and direction finding

@@alexanderg-p3z will post another update this weekend. Hopefully will make a much better video demonstrating the performance and possibilities with networking and remote access features that I just tested.

@@De1taX That’s doable for sure. Basically you would just convert degrees to “clock” direction using a map() function or something. The reason for degrees is to eventually map the frame azimuth into the code, so that the output is actually a magnetic compass bearing.

@ That’s awesome! I’ve been messing around with a Raspberry Pi Moisture sensor watering system, almost done with it and is working well so far. Next project I want to get into is something similar to this but with 3D Lidar Mapping.

@ nice! Lidar sounds like a really fun sensor to use and experiment with.

The other videos explain it better. This is a direction finder for Analog FPV video commonly used on drones.

@@giorgitskitishvili5038 the one in this vid is just the Serial Monitor / Plotter in the newest Arduino IDE (I run dark mode on everything :D)

​@@Jdogdrums7 ty:) i havent seen an option for a plotter in the arduino ide but i will update it now

@@giorgitskitishvili5038 also try hitting “CTRL-SHIFT-L”

@@olfolf5705 Hitech 485s I believe…it’s just a prototype. This is just a proof of concept with parts I had laying around spare

This is based on 3 major components…Arduino Nano, RX5808 FPV module, and Servo pan/tilt

@@mrstarklabs I am currently in development and will try to post updates as the project comes along. In the meantime, another Open source project “rx5808 pro” is based on Arduino and a common FPV module “Rx5808” found cheap online. This module is also what my project is based off of. If you acquire the 2 pieces of hardware and get it working (Arduino / Rx5808), then in the future, my system can easily be adapted and firmware uploaded to Arduino with addition of a directional antenna

you could literally just ask chat gpt to make this for you lol

​@@Jdogdrums7was going to ask who's app that was. I take it, it's your own?. Backing a few projects at the moment to get an open source signal anayser that's works with rtl and hack rf modules.

@@TheWebstaff this is actually just the old Arduino IDE before it got updated. I did write a plotter script in Python for the new hardware, but it’s still in testing. I posted a video of the newer hardware and basic functions.

@@pickeljuice9325 I’m better than chat gpt muahaha

LOL

or us. got no idea wtf this is or why youtube recommended it.

@@DPIAPU More than that, I’m testing direction finding capabilities. This vid is a few months old, and I have a working prototype now.

@@Jdogdrums7 What does your prototype do differently than the current tech out there?

@mejcaprod1413 well I would have to compare specifically with an example…but my goal is: Cheaper, Open-Source, COTS parts, and Modular with other common hardware/software

I remember building one of these years back. There are a lot of projects like this. In my experience documentation quality will be the make or break for adoption.

@@AlexanderGee The ultimate end goal is integration with an SDR suite. The current hardware is paired with a cheap Hardware 5.8GHz demodulator for picking up FPV for now.

@@vacoff2717 new project I’m working on

​@Jdogdrums7 anything to do with lights in the sky? 😆

@@lukepowell3179 we’ll have to hang out and fly drones haha

The main purpose of this setup really has nothing to do with Load / Generator matching, but is to test 3 concepts: 1. Increasing Rectification efficiency, not anything to do with Conversion efficiency (equivalent to the type of Motor Drive commutation) If you look at Motor MTPA (max torque per amp), you find that Field Oriented Control is a more efficient commutation method than BLDC Trapezoidal commutation (Tangential or “Direct” axis current losses compared to the Useful “Quadrature” current) These losses can be observed in Rectifying from a Motor and not just driving it with current. I guess you could call it MAPT or (Maximum Amp per Torque) meaning no Losses suffered from incorrect or “Direct” axis current flow 2. Field Oriented control eliminates the Usual need for very large DC Ripple capacitors like found in most Mechanical Generator setups. This is because the only capacitors required is really for the Transients due to the MOSFET switching and not the “Sinusoid humps” that are usually found with Passive Diode rectifiers. Diodes act like Gates, and instead of letting the Current follow the Quadrature axis completely, they are Passive and uncontrolled, and so they allow Direct axis current flow. They also usually have a larger forward voltage drop and higher Resistance across them than closed MOSFETS do. 3. You now have Way more control over your rectification (diodes are just based on Voltage drop between the motor and the load) and the VESC can limit that, or it can even Drive the motor (useful for starting up the ICE in a neat package, you would need a separate starter in a Diode rectifier setup) You can choose between what your Priority is for your operating conditions: DUTY CYCLE (Varies torque and current for stability) CURRENT CONTROL (useful for meeting specific torque or wattage needs) SPEED CONTROL (if your Setup needs to be regulated based on Physical RPM without much priority on Power regulation) TLDR: This test really isn’t testing ICE generators at all, this is just a Generator setup to test varying Rectification differences and efficiencies. These things could be applied to any Mechanical generator (small DIY Wind Turbines, Low head dam turbines, etc.)

We don't have actual boost numbers yet, only theoretical numbers based on RPM's that we've achieved compared to Compressor maps. Whatever your current HP on your engine is, multiply it by 1.3 and that is approximately what I've achieved so far. HP gains vary on your engine.

It’s a valid concern for sure, but I guess I’ve gotten to a point where I’ve been chopped and hit so many times that I probably take some more risks than I should lol

just a cheap Flipsky 4.20 for this test. There aren't any VESC's much worse than what I used here

I’m not sure 1/8 will do much of anything. This Castle motor I’m using is rated above 10HP.

final Impeller rpm was around 25k We need a higher voltage battery to get more speed at this point but we knew that at the beginning.

@@Jdogdrums7 Love the work you're doing, awsesome stuff

The direction of the power does not affect an ESC. This VESC feels the same driving the motor, as it does rectifying current from the motor.

We do have a restrictor at the end of the black hose which builds pressure within the housing. However I agree that this does not simulate an engine at all…it’s the best way that we can test the setup without putting it into a car

It was just moving air in this demo. In order to make boost it needs to be able to force in more air than an engine it's connected to consumes naturally. So the amount of boost it can make is not a property of just the turbo, it depends on the combination of turbo and engine. Regarding spool / lag time, I would expect it to be very low, since an electric motor can deliver maximum torque from a standstill, so it should be able to spool up very quickly. Also since it's not relying on the exhaust flow to power it, you can spool it up preemptively, or perhaps in some circumstances even choose to keep it spooled up and use a blowoff valve to control boost pressure.

It is indeed building pressure due to a restrictor plate at the end of the black hose. It’s the only way for us to simulate building pressure without actually putting this on an engine…which is difficult to do because that engine needs to be tuneable and must be strong enough to take the boost without blowing up. We don’t have an engine like that to Test with yet, but we’re working on it

to do what? push air through the electric motors? You do realize what you're saying here, right?

​@@8Ham_Radios yes

@@8Ham_Radios electric turbos are for electric cars, sounds legit

Yeah good argument. At this point you might as well throw 2 electric motors on the rear axles, and spin the tires, instead of a turbine. Nonetheless, interesting video, I want to see some more applications.

Something to consider though, is the cost and effort. If the electric supercharger and its battery adds power for say, $1000 and takes only a few days of constant work to add on, and 2 electric motors and its battery costs $5000, and takes 5-10 days of constant work to add on, then there's a good reason to choose an electric super charger over an electric motor.

Your comment contradicts itself... If you are using a 50HP electric motor (Which has actually been demonstrated to gain 150HP - 200HP to a 6.0 Liter engine), then that is much more beneficial than only adding 50 HP to the drivetrain by adding power to the wheels. The reason for this is that you are actually changing the Volumetric efficiency of the Gasoline engine which is a non-linear relationship between Power required to boost, and power achieved BECAUSE of that boost.

@@drdaedalus880 The main benefit of an Electric supercharger is that you can now Store and Manipulate power at different times compared to a regular Supercharger. With a regular Supercharger, the power in and power out is Simultaneous due to a Mechanical belt-drive. With an electric Supercharger, you can charge power back into batteries over time during Normal Engine use...and then Spend the power Boosting during High Power demands without any power being robbed during that pull.

@Jdogdrums7 Interesting, I didn't know the power gains were that substantial. It goes against intuition to think that a 50hp electric turbo and 50hp of direct drive produce 2 wildly different results. I didnt think of volumetric efficiency.

Just a spare Flipsky I had laying around. I discovered a heat issue with the Flipsky regulators so I’ll probably be getting an OEM soon

@@Jdogdrums7 im having some issues with my throttle on the flipsky controller, they are very sensitive, any idea how to fix that?

@@tomsgokart Are you using Current or Duty cycle control? If you are using Current, then your input sensitivity is determined by your max Motor current. The VESC maps your input range to your Minimum and Maximum Current range (Usually starts at 0 and goes to maximum).