Not really very clever--it's the only way this would really work and nobody would design a system any other way. You kind of answered this yourself with the "interference of the two x-mitters". Any system that split the RF signal would not work reliably exactly because of this interference, and likewise if the antennas split the received RF signal would have interference issues on receive as well. So FLARM A and B have to be two independent transmitters and receivers. And sure enough if you pull apart one of these units you'll see the separate diversity chip communicating with the main FLARM chip digitally, but with it's own RF stages.

On Monday, January 18, 2021 at 2:23:43 PM UTC-8, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
If true, that's very clever!
On Monday, January 18, 2021 at 1:12:55 PM UTC-8, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Matt Herron Jr. wrote on 1/18/2021 11:12 AM:
Question;

The FCC limits the amount of power that can be broadcast on the FLARM frequency. Given that the new fusion FLARM x-mitts on both antennas, does this mean that each antenna is putting out 1/2 the power of the original powerflarm core with a single x-mitting antenna? If so, wouldn't we expect fewer blind spot with the fusion, but less overall range than the core?

Also, would we need to concern ourselves with nodes of poor reception due to the interference of the two x-mitters?

My understanding for Powerflarm (and I assume, Fusion) is there is a transceiver for each
antenna, and that they don't broadcast at the same time, so each transmission could be at full
power and no chance of nodes. Dave will set me straight if that's wrong :^)


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1