On 2009-03-09, RogerN wrote: ...
| I was interested in a wireless video camera in a RC heli years ago and got | my no code Technician license and then learned morse code and got a General | class license. I haven't used the knowledge and don't remember the | frequencies for Amateur TV, but they have text overlay for video that you | can use for data and could put your call sign on the display every 10 | minutes.
Yes, it can be done, but off-the-shelf cheap gear doesn't do it. Especially if it's tiny gear meant to put in a plane.
Personally, even though I've got my ham license too, I wouldn't use ham gear for it, just so I wouldn't have to worry about IDing myself.
|> | chase off varmints
Sounds like a recipe for ruined planes! :)
|> | maybe get video of deer and other wildlife in the area,
It's easier to just get a self-contained video camera that records to a SD card and go up and fly and record, then look at what you've got after the flight. No RF to deal with, gear is now smaller and you generally get better quality to boot.
For example, here's a bunch of pictures taken like that --
Granted, not video, but the camera can do 640x480 video too. I just preferred the pictures ...
| Thanks for the reply, I remember from studying for the Amateur radio tests | about the lower frequency bands being world bands
i.e. 30 MHz and below (sometimes it can go higher, but not higher than
60 MHz.) Considering that fast scan TV takes 6 MHz, it's not really done in that range. Everything that you're looking at is VHF or UHF, and skip isn't an option or a problem.
| and lower frequencies being less directional and less "line of | sight" but wasn't sure if I'd be better off using 434Mhz and viewing | on channel 59 or getting a 900Mhz wireless TX and RX.
Ultimately it doesn't matter much. Personally, I'd go 900 MHz just to avoid any need for ham radio rules.
-- Doug McLaren, firstname.lastname@example.org A chubby man with a white beard and a red suit will approach you soon. Avoid him. He's a Commie.