LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11   Report Post  
Old March 30th 05, 08:14 AM
Butch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Nothing but a little receiver and a buzzer in the belt. The wire
radiates and the lil bitty receiver detects it and the little dog
regrets his closeness to his boundaries.

Butch

Scott wrote:

Ahhh! Then there must also be a transmitter in the collar to "answer
back" to the stationary transmitter? If so, maybe the thing works on
the amount of time calculated for the signal to travel round trip. A
radar mile (2 miles round trip) is about 12 microseconds, if I recall.
Rountrip at 90 feet would be something like 183 nanoseconds. If THIS is
how the unit works, running a kilowatt wouldn't make a difference. It
would require changing the interval time that the transmitter waits for
check-back. Maybe I'm making this too complicated It must be
simpler and then I would think they would use something other than 17
KHz....interesteing!!

Scott


Albert wrote:

Scott,

Your question brings much complication to a matter that should be easy
to answer. I'll do my best to avoid getting bogged down in the
explanation.

The transmitter has a very long range, much longer than 90 feet. I
believe the dogs collar hears the signal for a very long distance.
But, that the collar does not issue a correction if the dog wanders
past the range of the transmitter. If the collar acted in this manner,
it would preclude the dog from RE-ENTERING the protected area from the
outside of the 90 foot range.

In order for the collar to initialize, it must hear the transmitter
(initially). If the transmitter is turned off, and the collar is
turned on, no corrections are issued.
Also, if the collar is properly initialized and operating, abruptly
turning off the transmitter DOES NOT result in a correction being
issued. Corrections are only issued IF the dog is in the intermediate
zone, which appears to be a 3 foot wide area.

This type of operation is necessary to safeguard the dog, even though
it complicates the hardware some.

At 16 kilohertz with horrendously inefficient transmitting antennas, I
doubt there would be an FCC problem, especially with a modest boost in
ERP. The Earth and the solar system generates much noise on those
frequencies as well, we could probably increase the transmit power
quite a bit without creating problems.

Hope this helps.

A



On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:09:27 +0000, Scott
wrote:


I auume these thing work in reverse of conventional thinking. I
assume that as long as the receiver is receiving a signal, the dog
does not get shocked. If it strays too far and the receiver loses
the signal...ZAP! However, modifying the transmitter would violate
its Part 15 certification and the owner might be the one to get the
ZAP (from the FCC)...

Scott



 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Inverted ground plane antenna: compared with normal GP and low dipole. Serge Stroobandt, ON4BAA Antenna 8 February 24th 11 10:22 PM
Antenna Advice Chris Shortwave 5 September 20th 04 02:04 AM
Mobile Ant L match ? Henry Kolesnik Antenna 14 January 20th 04 04:08 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017