Wireless Network from a Helicopter

Anybody interested in helping me brainstorm a flying wireless network?

What I need to do is be able to take pictures with a Canon 20D and use their
wireless adapter to offload the images from the camera and somehow get them
down to a laptop on the ground. My first thought was to have a wireless
laptop on board to accept the images from the camera (which probably could
be done just as easily with a wired setup between camera and laptop of some
kind), then somehow have a wireless connection from the laptop in the
helicopter down to a laptop in a truck on the ground.

We never take pictures any higher than 2000 feet above the ground, and we're
typically within about 1/2 a mile of the photo site. So probably the longest
straight-line distance the data would need to travel is approximately 3,300
feet.

I've researched several different options. I first looked into 802.11g with
a hi-gain antenna on both the helicopter and on the truck. That seems to be
the simplest option, I'm just concerned about what kind of range I can
really expect.

I've also researched the Wi-Max system, but I don't think any hardware has
been made available yet. It sounds like a great alternative, I just don't
know how much something like that would cost, how much the equipment weighs,
what kind of power source it would require, and how difficult it would be to
setup. Please advise me if you know about it.

I've even looked into EVDO technology through Verizon, I was thinking of
getting EVDO cards for both laptops and just ftping the files from one to
another, my concern about that is the laptop on the ground may be able to
download them quickly, but what about upload speeds? It's gotta be fast on
both sides, right?

Please help, all opinions or suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.

Adam




Adam Creager

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 02:51:14 GMT, "Adam Creager"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Anybody interested in helping me brainstorm a flying wireless network?
>


This has been done with winged aircraft about 1 month ago in LA with
war-driving

>What I need to do is be able to take pictures with a Canon 20D and use their
>wireless adapter to offload the images from the camera and somehow get them
>down to a laptop on the ground. My first thought was to have a wireless
>laptop on board to accept the images from the camera (which probably could
>be done just as easily with a wired setup between camera and laptop of some
>kind), then somehow have a wireless connection from the laptop in the
>helicopter down to a laptop in a truck on the ground.

The pictures you take would be on a memory card, but all the cameras
i've seen have to be placed in the on-transfer picture mode to view
the pictures, ie: the memory card becomes a drive on the laptop



Your your camera has a video output, you could stream the video to the
laptop on the ground via wireless.

either way the pictures would NOT be in real time, they would be
viewed or streamed in a separate SECOND operation, not as they are
taken,

The only way you could stream the video would be via a digital video
camera. not a still picture camera.


>We never take pictures any higher than 2000 feet above the ground, and we're
>typically within about 1/2 a mile of the photo site. So probably the longest
>straight-line distance the data would need to travel is approximately 3,300
>feet.

Wireless would have no problem going LOS 3k feet, it just has to
connect between the two data radios and then start the transfer
protocol


>I've researched several different options. I first looked into 802.11g with
>a hi-gain antenna on both the helicopter and on the truck. That seems to be
>the simplest option, I'm just concerned about what kind of range I can
>really expect.
\\

hi gain antennas are out if they are directional,,, you would have to
place the heliocopter in the correct orientation for the antenna to
work... An OMNI (4-14dbi vertical) on the bottom of the helicopter and
a sector (180degree) on the truck could pass the data)


>I've also researched the Wi-Max system, but I don't think any hardware has
>been made available yet. It sounds like a great alternative, I just don't
>know how much something like that would cost, how much the equipment weighs,
>what kind of power source it would require, and how difficult it would be to
>setup. Please advise me if you know about it.

no difference between wi-max and wi-fi,,, the stumbling block is the
still picture camea,,, you can't do it in real time.



>I've even looked into EVDO technology through Verizon, I was thinking of
>getting EVDO cards for both laptops and just ftping the files from one to
>another, my concern about that is the laptop on the ground may be able to
>download them quickly, but what about upload speeds? It's gotta be fast on
>both sides, right?


your going to see either 10mb or 54 mb depending on the connection
speed, signal, etc.



>Please help, all opinions or suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.
>
>Adam
>


Good luck adam, but I really don't think your going to be able to do
this in real time with a Still Camera. It's going to take two
operations,

1.) take the picture
2.) transfer the image to the laptop and to the ground


Bob Smith



Bob Smith
Robert Smith Consulting
"Wireless Installations -- Government, Businesses & ISP's"
F.C.C. Licensed-Commercial & Amateur Services
A.R.S NA6T
ARRL Life Member
Fort Bragg, California 95437

"On The Air-Conditioned Mendocino Coast, In REAL Northern California"
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message.
However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

Bob Smith <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


> Good luck adam, but I really don't think your going to be able to do
> this in real time with a Still Camera. It's going to take two
> operations,

I had someone take aerial photos of my property from a blimp. The blimp
was about 15 feet long, and had a video camera and still camera. The two
were fixed to the same gyro controlled table.
The pilot was on the ground, with control of the blimp and the table. He
would view something on the video, and then snap a picture with the camera.

In this case, it was tethered with 500 feet of cable, but wireless could do
the same thing.

We don't know what the need is for the real-time delivery of the photos in
the original post. A webcam might be the proper thing. It is live video
with a still frame capability, downloaded to a PC automatically, which
could be on a shared folder for WiFi retrieval in near-real-time.

A WiFi camera could provide real time to the ground, with still selection
captured there.


--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

Adam Creager wrote:
> Anybody interested in helping me brainstorm a flying wireless network?
>
> What I need to do is be able to take pictures with a Canon 20D and
> use their wireless adapter to offload the images from the camera and
> somehow get them down to a laptop on the ground. My first thought was
> to have a wireless laptop on board to accept the images from the
> camera (which probably could be done just as easily with a wired
> setup between camera and laptop of some kind), then somehow have a
> wireless connection from the laptop in the helicopter down to a
> laptop in a truck on the ground.
>
> We never take pictures any higher than 2000 feet above the ground,
> and we're typically within about 1/2 a mile of the photo site. So
> probably the longest straight-line distance the data would need to
> travel is approximately 3,300 feet.
>
> I've researched several different options. I first looked into
> 802.11g with a hi-gain antenna on both the helicopter and on the
> truck. That seems to be the simplest option, I'm just concerned about
> what kind of range I can really expect.
>
> I've also researched the Wi-Max system, but I don't think any
> hardware has been made available yet. It sounds like a great
> alternative, I just don't know how much something like that would
> cost, how much the equipment weighs, what kind of power source it
> would require, and how difficult it would be to setup. Please advise
> me if you know about it.
>
> I've even looked into EVDO technology through Verizon, I was thinking
> of getting EVDO cards for both laptops and just ftping the files from
> one to another, my concern about that is the laptop on the ground may
> be able to download them quickly, but what about upload speeds? It's
> gotta be fast on both sides, right?
>
> Please help, all opinions or suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.
>
> Adam

Don't understand why you want to reinvent the wheel, and why you
specifically sabatoged the way that already works by saying you looked at
something different/new that may/may not work.....

Been using a digital camera for years, and have a USB memory card reader on
the laptop (to read the photos off the memory card and copy em to the
laptop), and an 5220 card in the laptop, always on and with internet access
(1X in areas that are 1X only but EVDO in areas that are EVDO active) to
send email/files (or email with files attached) to pretty much any internet
address. Even used the same thing with a Sat phone to xmit
pictures/email/voice from way out the way places that don't have anything
(oil rig in northern Alaska, sailboat in the middle of the pacific, etc).

Someone else was asking about asking about live video from a RC boat.. We
have succesfully used an x10 wireless spy video camera (transmits on channel
61), and a usb TV receiver on a laptop (receives the sig on channel 61,
displays it/stores it on the laptop, and also xmits it over a datacard to
other locations). The camera watches an area outside, and sends the video
feed to a monitoring office (when someone is doing maint/repair, they can
see it on the local screen). Works in factories/racecars/planes/regular
boats/motorcycles etc, don't see why it wouldn't work from an RC boat too.
The video camera and transmitter are extremely litewieght (about 3 oz's)

I don't think I was clear enough on what my intentions were with the
pictures. That detail is probably pretty important in order to find the
right wireless solution. The intent is to take high-resolution pictures
(roughly 8.5 megapixels) and attempt to sell them to either residential or
commercial properties. The motivation for an instant wireless transfer is to
have the ability to display the picture within seconds of actually taking
it, and being able to take another shot at another angle if desired, without
having to land to review the images.

Canon has introduced a new wireless file transmitter accessory to their
high-end Digital SLR Cameras. This is what I'm intending on using rather
than pulling the memory card out of the camera and loading the files into a
separate laptop. Below is a quote from the press release introducing this
new peripheral.

"New for the EOS-1Ds Mark II camera (also available for the EOS-1D Mark II
and EOS 20D via a firmware upgrade) is the optional Wireless File
Transmitter (WFT-E1A). Given the enormous popularity of LAN-based image
transmission systems and the demands for higher speed image distribution in
the reporting fields, Canon developed this new accessory that allows
photographers to transmit images from their cameras directly to a computer
over a wired or wireless local area network (LAN). The WFT-E1 transmitter
includes a mini antenna, a long and short IEE1394 cable, a case and camera
mounting screw."

I like the idea mentioned in another post about using an OMNI antenna on the
bottom of the helicopter and another broad 180 degree antenna on the ground,
but what type of router or repeater would I use?

Can anybody tell me how much the Omni antenna weighs? What about power? I
can hook up a 12-volt inverter in the helicopter to power it, assuming it's
a 110-volt system, but how much power can I expect it to pull?

I appreciate all of your time and comments on the matter. Thanks again.
Looking forward to all of your comments and criticisms.


"Adam Creager" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:CwWMd.850$(E-Mail Removed) .net...
> Anybody interested in helping me brainstorm a flying wireless network?
>
> What I need to do is be able to take pictures with a Canon 20D and use
their
> wireless adapter to offload the images from the camera and somehow get
them
> down to a laptop on the ground. My first thought was to have a wireless
> laptop on board to accept the images from the camera (which probably could
> be done just as easily with a wired setup between camera and laptop of
some
> kind), then somehow have a wireless connection from the laptop in the
> helicopter down to a laptop in a truck on the ground.
>
> We never take pictures any higher than 2000 feet above the ground, and
we're
> typically within about 1/2 a mile of the photo site. So probably the
longest
> straight-line distance the data would need to travel is approximately
3,300
> feet.
>
> I've researched several different options. I first looked into 802.11g
with
> a hi-gain antenna on both the helicopter and on the truck. That seems to
be
> the simplest option, I'm just concerned about what kind of range I can
> really expect.
>
> I've also researched the Wi-Max system, but I don't think any hardware has
> been made available yet. It sounds like a great alternative, I just don't
> know how much something like that would cost, how much the equipment
weighs,
> what kind of power source it would require, and how difficult it would be
to
> setup. Please advise me if you know about it.
>
> I've even looked into EVDO technology through Verizon, I was thinking of
> getting EVDO cards for both laptops and just ftping the files from one to
> another, my concern about that is the laptop on the ground may be able to
> download them quickly, but what about upload speeds? It's gotta be fast on
> both sides, right?
>
> Please help, all opinions or suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.
>
> Adam
>
>

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 07:10:20 GMT, "Adam Creager"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I don't think I was clear enough on what my intentions were with the
>pictures. That detail is probably pretty important in order to find the
>right wireless solution. The intent is to take high-resolution pictures
>(roughly 8.5 megapixels) and attempt to sell them to either residential or
>commercial properties. The motivation for an instant wireless transfer is to
>have the ability to display the picture within seconds of actually taking
>it, and being able to take another shot at another angle if desired, without
>having to land to review the images.
>
>Canon has introduced a new wireless file transmitter accessory to their
>high-end Digital SLR Cameras. This is what I'm intending on using rather
>than pulling the memory card out of the camera and loading the files into a
>separate laptop. Below is a quote from the press release introducing this
>new peripheral.
>
>"New for the EOS-1Ds Mark II camera (also available for the EOS-1D Mark II
>and EOS 20D via a firmware upgrade) is the optional Wireless File
>Transmitter (WFT-E1A). Given the enormous popularity of LAN-based image
>transmission systems and the demands for higher speed image distribution in
>the reporting fields, Canon developed this new accessory that allows
>photographers to transmit images from their cameras directly to a computer
>over a wired or wireless local area network (LAN). The WFT-E1 transmitter
>includes a mini antenna, a long and short IEE1394 cable, a case and camera
>mounting screw."
>
>I like the idea mentioned in another post about using an OMNI antenna on the
>bottom of the helicopter and another broad 180 degree antenna on the ground,
>but what type of router or repeater would I use?
>

The information on the accessory you are talking about is pretty
sparce, even on the canon website, it does say that it has a cable and
an antenna, check with canon first, then take a look at the site below
for the omni antennas,


The omni antenna can weigh as little as a few pounds
http://www.hyperlinktech.com/web/ant...0_out_omni.php

I don't know if the turbulence of the helicopter would negate the use
of a magnetic mount antenna but the link above has all sorts of omni
antennas including mag mounts.

as to a router or repeater, I don't know if the Canon WiFi transmiter
would act as a bridge or what, but if you can set their wifi radio in
the ad-hoc mode and the laptop on the ground in the same mode the
radios would talk to each other just as two laptops would in an office
inviornment.


As to the power needed, i can only assume that the camera would be
self contained with it's own battery power. You could also use a
small inverter for 12v-110vac operation. a 120watt inverter would draw
approximately 10amps at 12 volts.

Bob Smith
Robert Smith Consulting
"Wireless Installations -- Government, Businesses & ISP's"
F.C.C. Licensed-Commercial & Amateur Services
A.R.S NA6T
ARRL Life Member
1-707-964-4931 w/answering machine
Fort Bragg, California 95437

"On The Air-Conditioned Mendocino Coast, In REAL Northern California"
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message.
However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

>Can anybody tell me how much the Omni antenna weighs? What about power? I
>can hook up a 12-volt inverter in the helicopter to power it, assuming it's
>a 110-volt system, but how much power can I expect it to pull?
>
>I appreciate all of your time and comments on the matter. Thanks again.
>Looking forward to all of your comments and criticisms.
>
>
>"Adam Creager" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:CwWMd.850$(E-Mail Removed) k.net...
>> Anybody interested in helping me brainstorm a flying wireless network?
>>
>> What I need to do is be able to take pictures with a Canon 20D and use
>their
>> wireless adapter to offload the images from the camera and somehow get
>them
>> down to a laptop on the ground. My first thought was to have a wireless
>> laptop on board to accept the images from the camera (which probably could
>> be done just as easily with a wired setup between camera and laptop of
>some
>> kind), then somehow have a wireless connection from the laptop in the
>> helicopter down to a laptop in a truck on the ground.
>>
>> We never take pictures any higher than 2000 feet above the ground, and
>we're
>> typically within about 1/2 a mile of the photo site. So probably the
>longest
>> straight-line distance the data would need to travel is approximately
>3,300
>> feet.
>>
>> I've researched several different options. I first looked into 802.11g
>with
>> a hi-gain antenna on both the helicopter and on the truck. That seems to
>be
>> the simplest option, I'm just concerned about what kind of range I can
>> really expect.
>>
>> I've also researched the Wi-Max system, but I don't think any hardware has
>> been made available yet. It sounds like a great alternative, I just don't
>> know how much something like that would cost, how much the equipment
>weighs,
>> what kind of power source it would require, and how difficult it would be
>to
>> setup. Please advise me if you know about it.
>>
>> I've even looked into EVDO technology through Verizon, I was thinking of
>> getting EVDO cards for both laptops and just ftping the files from one to
>> another, my concern about that is the laptop on the ground may be able to
>> download them quickly, but what about upload speeds? It's gotta be fast on
>> both sides, right?
>>
>> Please help, all opinions or suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>

Bob Smith <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 07:10:20 GMT, "Adam Creager"
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>The information on the accessory you are talking about is pretty
>sparce, even on the canon website, it does say that it has a cable and
>an antenna, check with canon first, then take a look at the site below
>for the omni antennas,
>
>The omni antenna can weigh as little as a few pounds

A few ounces, not pounds.

>http://www.hyperlinktech.com/web/ant...0_out_omni.php
>
>I don't know if the turbulence of the helicopter would negate the use
>of a magnetic mount antenna but the link above has all sorts of omni
>antennas including mag mounts.

There is no way a mag mount would be suitable for a helicopter.

There are two significant things about antennas which will have
to be considered. One is the directional characteristics of an
"omni-directional" antenna. The other is polarization.

All of the antennas described as "omni-directional" only meet
that specification for azimuth when they are vertically oriented.

In every case the "gain" (listed in dBi, or gain over an
isotropic antenna) is the result of directional characteristics
in elevation. Which is to say, the antenna radiates equally 360
degrees *perpendicular* to the antenna. However, as the angle
of elevation changes from 90 degrees to 0 (the antenna is
pointing directly at the distant end) the signal goes from
having "gain" to having "loss".

If you mount an antenna pointing straight down from a helicopter
the antenna will have significant reduction in signal strength
at a receiver located directly beneath the aircraft compared to
if the antenna is mounted parallel to the ground.

But, if you mount the antenna parallel to the ground, then
polarization becomes significant too. The antenna on the ground
must then be in a horizontal plane rather than vertical, and if
the ground based antenna is pointing north then maximum signal
happens when the helicopter antenna is pointing either north or
south... and minimum signal happens the helicopter is pointing
east and west.

Which is all to say, antenna orientation is necessarily going to
be a problem.

One solution is to have two antennas mounted perpendicular to
each other. Then either have two radios, or use a splitter to
feed them both from the same radio. (A slitter necessarily
causes a 3 dB lower signal, because each antenna gets half the
power.)

Perhaps the best arrangement is to have dual antennas both on
the ground and on the helicopter, but I suspect that in practice
it would be sufficient to have dual antennas on the ground and
mount only one on the aircraft. That will be true if the antenna
does not have enough gain to make the "vertical beam width" too
narrow. In this instance you get *nothing* from a "high gain"
antenna!

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) (E-Mail Removed)

(E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>If you mount an antenna pointing straight down from a helicopter
>the antenna will have significant reduction in signal strength
>at a receiver located directly beneath the aircraft compared to
>if the antenna is mounted parallel to the ground.

What about a panel 'gain' antenna mounted on the bottom of the
helicopter pointing at the ground and another one on the truck
pointing up? Yeah, you're going to have polarization losses, but as
long as you keep your gain down you shouldn't have any beam issues...

>> I don't know if the turbulence of the helicopter would negate the use
>> of a magnetic mount antenna but the link above has all sorts of omni
>> antennas including mag mounts.
>
> There is no way a mag mount would be suitable for a helicopter.
>
> There are two significant things about antennas which will have
> to be considered. One is the directional characteristics of an
> "omni-directional" antenna. The other is polarization.

Actually there is one significant thing about Helicopters......

They have Non Ferrous metal skins (usually aluminum or fiberglas)
Same problem with planes... Magnets don't stick.

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 07:10:20 GMT, "Adam Creager"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I like the idea mentioned in another post about using an OMNI antenna on the
>bottom of the helicopter and another broad 180 degree antenna on the ground,
>but what type of router or repeater would I use?

Been there, done that on a bigger scale. Some of the problems
encountered were:
1. Nasty vibration from the rotors crossing over the tail caused the
pictures to be fuzzy even at 1/1000 sec.
2. Autofocus didn't work in the haze.
3. Grad student in charge of holding a cast aluminium 24dBi dish
antenna had trouble aiming the antenna at long range. A counter
balance on a heavy duty camera tripod was a big help, but accurate
aiming still difficult. The result was some fairly lengthy dropouts
that required tweaking the TCP/IP stack timing to prevent disconnects
and aborted downloads.
4. The antenna design was a mess. An 8dBi panel antenna did not have
enough side gain (at 90 degrees) to work as the bird approached the
horizon. They would lose the signal at about 1 mile when near the
ground, but work to 2 miles if it was at perhaps 500ft altitude. An
8dbi omni antenna (bent brass rod collinear) worked much better going
to perhaps 4 miles near the horizon, but would crap out directly
overhead. The best results were obtained using a diversity bridge
radio, with two dish tracking antennas spaced about 50ft apart run by
two grad students. I designed and half built an electronic dish
tracker, but grad students were deemed cheaper and allegedly more
reliable.
5. Interference over populated areas was a serious problem. They
would lose control erratically when tested over the city, but it would
work just fine in the middle of nowhere.
6. The pilot noted that his simulator didn't function the same way as
the real overloaded model helicopter and was having control problems.
The helicopter cost $2000 so much simulator practice is recommended.
Tower Hobbies has useable small kits for $200-$500.
Free flying model simulator:
http://www.heliguy.com/nexus/fms.html
http://n.ethz.ch/student/mmoeller/fms/index_e.html
http://n.ethz.ch/student/mmoeller/fms/links_e.html
There are others...

The final compromise was to install a huge CF card and a timer on the
camera. The camera would take pictures very 30 seconds or so. They
would hover over the area of interest, shoot as many photos as
possible, look at the results, and try again if they weren't good
enough.

Incidentally, here is a web page full of high res photos of the
California coastline.
http://www.californiacoastline.org
However, these were taken from a full size helicopter and not a model.
Might give you some ideas.


--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558