<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div apple-content-edited="true">That doesn't sound too impossible given the 27MHz transmission frequency. The standard 50Hz PWM seems like a pretty light load for such a signal. How many channels can an RC controller handle? Are they multiplexed?
</div><div apple-content-edited="true"><br></div><div apple-content-edited="true">Tom</div>
<br><div><div>On 26 May 2017, at 17:49, Quincas Moreira <<a href="mailto:quincas@gmail.com">quincas@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">this is the direction I'm leaning towards!<div><br></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">"I hope it was clear that I wasn't saying one has to use existing RC radios</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">and their standard sample rate (which is based on limitations of circuitry</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">now decades obsolete). The same general protocol could be implemented at</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">a much higher sampling/repetition rate in a higher frequency band, and *if</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">both are implemented at the same sample rate* it's hard for a digital</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">packet protocol to beat it on latency." <a href="mailto:mscala@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca">mscala@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca</a></span><br></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 11:31 AM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mskala@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca" target="_blank">mskala@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On Fri, 26 May 2017, <a href="mailto:rsdio@audiobanshee.com">rsdio@audiobanshee.com</a> wrote:<br>
> Another issue is that the RC solution is limited to a 50 Hz sample rate,<br>
> whereas the digital word protocol could manage a higher sample rate -<br>
<br>
</span>I hope it was clear that I wasn't saying one has to use existing RC radios<br>
and their standard sample rate (which is based on limitations of circuitry<br>
now decades obsolete). The same general protocol could be implemented at<br>
a much higher sampling/repetition rate in a higher frequency band, and *if<br>
both are implemented at the same sample rate* it's hard for a digital<br>
packet protocol to beat it on latency.<br>
<span class="im HOEnZb"><br>
--<br>
Matthew Skala<br>
<a href="mailto:mskala@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca">mskala@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca</a> People before principles.<br>
<a href="http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/</a><br>
</span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Synth-diy mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Synth-diy@synth-diy.org">Synth-diy@synth-diy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://synth-diy.org/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://synth-diy.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/synth-diy</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Quincas Moreira<br>Test Pilot at VBrazil Modular</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>Synth-diy mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Synth-diy@synth-diy.org">Synth-diy@synth-diy.org</a><br>http://synth-diy.org/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy<br></blockquote></div><br></body></html>