anything
AirNav RadarBox
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
 


Author Topic: The "Static" and "Filters" problem etc.  (Read 13135 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

AirNav Support

  • AirNav Systems
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4124
Re: The "Static" and "Filters" problem etc.
« Reply #30 on: May 21, 2009, 10:58:12 AM »
malc41,

Wait a second before you send it back. The failure of the SAW filter makes itself apparent when your reception is very limited, i.e (down more than 80% of your usual coverage)

If you had always had low message count its not a RB issue its due to your location and the amount of signal you are getting. I would suggest taking your RB with a laptop to a hill nearby and then running it and seeing whether your reception is much better to put your mind rest.

Also to any customers do NOT send back your RB without contacting us first, as it will be a waste of our and your time and money if there was no issue.
Contact Customer/Technical support via:
http://www.airnavsystems.com/contact.html
[email protected]

malc41

  • RadarBox Beta Testers
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 586
Re: The "Static" and "Filters" problem etc.
« Reply #31 on: May 21, 2009, 10:59:47 AM »
Thanks support

Will give it a try

15 Miles East of EGNJ

daveg4otu

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
Re: The "Static" and "Filters" problem etc.
« Reply #32 on: May 21, 2009, 04:04:42 PM »
Just a quick update.....


At 1645BST the  Aircraft count in "MyLOG" passed 1400.... previously I  reached that total  on one day but it took from 7am to midnight.... today  that total took just under  8 hours!

Whatever was done it has made a a significant change in performace - or LATCC are having a very busy day.
5 Miles N of BHD at 50.28.28 N/3.30.43W...400ft amsl.

Hampshire, Devon, Dorset and Isle of Wight  Airfields Websites.....
http://devonairfields.tripod.com/index.htm

ACW367

  • Guest
Re: The "Static" and "Filters" problem etc.
« Reply #33 on: May 21, 2009, 04:38:35 PM »
I have had the static range fault for around 3 months now, my range dropped from around 180 miles down to 25 miles.  However as I still get around 1200 aircraft a day in that 25 mile range cone and with the configuration of the airports and airways near my house, I haven't lost a great amount of overall movements.  I just see them on the box for a lessor amount of time.  I still cover all my visual range.

I decided I would wait until Support got V2.1 out and sorted before I bothered them.  Therefore I plan to send mine back sometime in July.

daveg4otu

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
Re: The "Static" and "Filters" problem etc.
« Reply #34 on: May 21, 2009, 04:48:33 PM »
AWC- looking at your location  a bit of attenuation might be a blessing!


:)
5 Miles N of BHD at 50.28.28 N/3.30.43W...400ft amsl.

Hampshire, Devon, Dorset and Isle of Wight  Airfields Websites.....
http://devonairfields.tripod.com/index.htm

TedLoon

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 49
Re: The "Static" and "Filters" problem etc.
« Reply #35 on: May 21, 2009, 05:11:51 PM »
ME pictures dave with a dirty big grin on his boat race:)

Glad yer back up n running mate.......Colin

Hawkeye

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 289
Re: The "Static" and "Filters" problem etc.
« Reply #36 on: May 21, 2009, 05:12:49 PM »
At my age, being one of the ‘concessions’ (sounds better than Old Age Pensioner) :-) I don’t normally get involved in matters where my contribution may seem contentious and I hope this posting is not taken as a dig at AirNav. That is not my intention.

But he two linked threads:- “The Static and Filters problem etc”  and “Radarbox Faulty” are not really getting very far by way of  a positive explanation and solution to the problems a number of users are experiencing which would appear to be solely connected to the SAW filter fitted in the earlier RBs.
I feel that AirNav are being a little evasive and could perhaps comment on the points raised below.

Firstly, AirNav said in reply to my earlier posting that:- “It is not a design problem. The levels of returns are still very low for it to be considered an problem. We acted in a maner at the time these came to light to increase the protection in newer batches.”
It quite clearly is a design problem no matter what percentage of users have experienced failure. Otherwise there would be no need to change the spec in boxes manufactured after July 2008.
Would you expect, or do you not think it reasonable to assume more of the earliest boxes will sooner or later develop this fault?

From todays posting it would appear that the new spec filter significantly increased the number of flights daveg4otu logged from even before the filter ‘failed’.
Have you done tests with older and newer boxes running side by side? Could it be that users who have boxes in the earlier batch have less contacts than those with later ones and would never know unless the filter ‘went worse’ and their RBs had to be returned??  If so, shouldn’t all boxes made before the July 2008 ones be recalled and modified.
 
In his first posting, daveg4otu said:-
"My question is this ... is it static  via the antenna  causing this? - or is there a  more deepseated cause (design flaw perhaps)?

I struggle to see how  static is going to cause this - after all   any antenna  is exposed to wind/rain etc .....if static was going to do this - then I might expect  my scanner, Digibox and any other  radio rx/tx  to  suffer.

As a radio Ham I have had in the past all manner of antennas  up in the sky - and other than pulling   everything when there was lightning about  for safety - I have never had to take any kind of  extra precautions"
Sounds reasonable to me.
Is there an explanation as to why, if you are convinced there is no design problem, and that static is indeed the cause of the problem, why it only affects RadarBoxes and not the competitor’s units and why it affects them no matter whether the supplied antenna or an alternative is connected?

Regards
Syd

AirNav Support

  • AirNav Systems
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4124
Re: The "Static" and "Filters" problem etc.
« Reply #37 on: May 21, 2009, 05:32:45 PM »
To answer your questions:

1.) No, its small number as mentioned by development. We increased the design to limit static getting back into the filter further in the newer box. Considering many of these boxes have now been running for 2 years we do not see a rise in a return from this batch. Even so we have explained that any customers from this batch having an issue related to static damaging there SAW fiter after there warranty period, we will still fix it for free.

2.) No, Other customers who have returned RB for static damage have got it back with the same reception as before. I think atmospheric conditions and maybe a difference in antenna location has caused this. Also you know when you have SAW filter failure as the difference is massive from when its working properlly.

3.) Both devices are senstive, and more senstive than what you have mentioned due to specfic signal they are looking for. We also posted a link showing how static can affect any device.

As long as your antenna is of anti static design or grounded or has a preamp bleeding away any static you should be fine.

In total in both batches, were talking about percentage of customers less than 0.5% who have been affected.

Hope that helps. We are not hiding the details, its just spread out across many threads customer start. We will put this in the FAQ section soon.
Contact Customer/Technical support via:
http://www.airnavsystems.com/contact.html
[email protected]

daveg4otu

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
Re: The "Static" and "Filters" problem etc.
« Reply #38 on: May 21, 2009, 05:52:31 PM »
AirNav Support

May I make a couple of comments regarding you last  post.....

In 2) you said....
I think atmospheric conditions and maybe a difference in antenna location has caused this

In fact the antenna is the same antenna in the same position as before...... and as UHF signals are essentially  line-of-sight, weather is never going to be a major issue (barring  extreme precipitation conditions).

The fact is that this box - one of the later batch as you know ...when first received  would peak at about  60  aircraft in "My Flights"....this dropping to   zero - 10 when the  box first went wrong.

After the first repair ("fixed dry joints on filter and USB)" , performance was the same as original  until the  box died for the second time.

Now after the second repair ("Replaced SAW filter") ....there is a noticable upsurge in  performance - overall at a guess it is receiving approx 50% more signals(within the same footprint) ....this is far more than can be explained by "atmospheric conditions".

Even now at close to 1900 local time (when previously I might have expected 40 or so flights) it is showing 84.

 Please don't think I am complaining - in fact very much the opposite - I'm pleased as Punch....but remember , that like most new users,I had nothing to compare with when I first ever  used the box.

5 Miles N of BHD at 50.28.28 N/3.30.43W...400ft amsl.

Hampshire, Devon, Dorset and Isle of Wight  Airfields Websites.....
http://devonairfields.tripod.com/index.htm