diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index a46b120..9358f88 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -32,13 +32,12 @@ - Transmitter frequency deviation: 10 kHz - Receiver channel filter bandwith: 20.8 kHz -![FieldTest5](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/765a2461-4184-4c2f-b034-b31db0d643b4) + ### LoRa -With LoRa, reception and response were stable with an RSSI of -116 dBm and +17 dBm Tx power -at 18 km distance line of sight, with the following configuration (and as well just simple -wire antennas): +With LoRa, reception and response were stable with an RSSI of -116 dBm and +17 dBm Tx power at 18 km +distance line of sight, with the following configuration (and as well just simple wire antennas): - LNA highest gain, boost on, 150% LNA current - Signal bandwidth: 41.7 kHz @@ -46,17 +45,16 @@ - Error correction code rate: 4/5 - Low Data Rate Optimization -![FieldTest8](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/6570100d-76c0-4678-ac04-e4bbb1f21067) + -So, as expected, and without taking the RSSI too literally, range is increased -with LoRa, and the link is much more robust when there are obstacles in the path, -such as buildings and terrain. +So, as expected, and without taking the RSSI too literally, range is increased with LoRa, +and the link is much more robust when there are obstacles in the path, such as buildings and terrain. -The latter seems to be the more advantageous improvement with LoRa, since the -range with line of sight is already long with FSK. +The latter seems to be the more advantageous improvement with LoRa, since the range with line of sight +is already long with FSK. Anyway, these radio modules work very well with both modulation schemes! Here's the transmitter placed at Mont-Saint-Aubert, with a nice view to Mont de L'Enclus: -![Transmitter](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5ef7898a-f510-4f30-ab93-302a0ff44af7) +