Kiwi's XPS test results are up.

[1bwana1]

Well Kiwi, there we have it. We owe you a very big thank you for all of your efforts. I know it took a lot of time, and some money, for you to do this research. We have all learned a lot from your efforts. Clearly we still don't know everything about the players in the 2.4 game, but we know a lot more than we did. The information you provided demonstrates, that there are big differences in robustness when operating in a "dirty" environment between the tier 1, and tier 2 companies. This will help people choose the right system for their needs, and budget.

Once again, THANKS!!

[xed]

	Quote: Originally Posted by XJet
	Not unexpectedly, JD has not bothered to reply to or address any of the points I raised in the post from which the above quote was taken. N'uff said.

He never addressed you directly but I did see a comment from him today on RCGroups in regards to these videos along the lines of "Who flies with a WiFi antenna in their plane"... He just doesn't get it.

[KrisW]

	Quote: Originally Posted by ylf
	How many "personalities" do you have on this site?

Just this one. Max would get ticked off if I did that to him. Besides, this is Flying Giants. . how could I EVER get banned HERE???? nyuck nyuck nyuck. . .

Besides, the only reason I have so many accounts on RCU is to prove that. . . A) they can't stop me .. . B) their # of members record is totally bogus. . .C) it's a thumb your nose at the powers that be kind of thang. . . just to do it. Like riding motorcycles with no underwear. . .

[Flyfalcons]

You go girl.

[KrisW]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Flyfalcons
	You go girl.

[Fish07]

	Quote: Originally Posted by KrisW

[ylf]

	Quote: Originally Posted by xed
	He never addressed you directly but I did see a comment from him today on RCGroups in regards to these videos along the lines of "Who flies with a WiFi antenna in their plane"... He just doesn't get it.

I was thinking about the posts quite a while back from France where two helis went down, for no reason, at the same exact time using XPS while others using Fasst and Spektrum were ok, and how Kiwi's videos may directly relate to what happened there. It was determined that the field in France was pretty close to an airport with radar and that was likely a factor. So, I'm imagining a scenario where these two guys are flying along with XPS and they have both linked up on channels near the bottom (or top) end of the XPS channel range. Along comes the airport's radar which is either above or below 2.4ghz and bleeding into the 2.4 range a bit filling up the first (or last) few 2.4 channels just like we see in Kiwi's video when the airhorn is on.

If the nearby radar bleeds over and wipes out the first 1/4 of the 2.4 band and your XPS is sitting on a low channel you're toast, as shown by these videos. If you're on Fasst or Spektrum you're ok since you are not committed to one channel. Jim always claims that in the real world any interference strong enough to wipe out one channel will wipe them all out. But I propose that strong interference that is just catching the edge of the 2.4 band could wipe out part of the band and leave the rest usable, even "in the real world".

So, is this a plausible scenario?

[GBR2]

I've never thought his all or nothing arguement was accurate. Just seems like a justification for his system not responding to any noise except his mystery hopping conditions.

[KrisW]

	Quote: Originally Posted by ylf
	I was thinking about the posts quite a while back from France where two helis went down, for no reason, at the same exact time using XPS while others using Fasst and Spektrum were ok, and how Kiwi's videos may directly relate to what happened there. It was determined that the field in France was pretty close to an airport with radar and that was likely a factor. So, I'm imagining a scenario where these two guys are flying along with XPS and they have both linked up on channels near the bottom (or top) end of the XPS channel range. Along comes the airport's radar which is either above or below 2.4ghz and bleeding into the 2.4 range a bit filling up the first (or last) few 2.4 channels just like we see in Kiwi's video when the airhorn is on. If the nearby radar bleeds over and wipes out the first 1/4 of the 2.4 band and your XPS is sitting on a low channel you're toast, as shown by these videos. If you're on Fasst or Spektrum you're ok since you are not committed to one channel. Jim always claims that in the real world any interference strong enough to wipe out one channel will wipe them all out. But I propose that strong interference that is just catching the edge of the 2.4 band could wipe out part of the band and leave the rest usable, even "in the real world". So, is this a plausible scenario?

Indubitably!

[Kiwi]

Kris,

Was that undoubtably?? Has your spell checker taken a dump or is it stuck in the big tree at Triple Tree mate. :-)

YLF. I'm not at all an electronics guy but I tamper or tinker with stuff until I find out how it works.

Now just how JD can even look at himself in the mirror with a ridiculous statement like that defies my logic. Any bleed over from an adjoining band does not have to take the whole damned band out. If it did then where would it stop, its just not at all logical. You can easily saturate any channel in the 2.4 Ghz spektrum without even leaking an ounce of signal into the adjoining channels if your system is well and truly tuned and maintained.

Leakage from adjoining frequencies may just seep in or it may cover a lot but there's no law that says once its leaked in that it blots out the entire band.

I might be green but I'm not a cabbage.

[KrisW]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Kiwi
	Kris, Was that undoubtably?? Has your spell checker taken a dump or is it stuck in the big tree at Triple Tree mate. :-) YLF. I'm not at all an electronics guy but I tamper or tinker with stuff until I find out how it works. Now just how JD can even look at himself in the mirror with a ridiculous statement like that defies my logic. Any bleed over from an adjoining band does not have to take the whole damned band out. If it did then where would it stop, its just not at all logical. You can easily saturate any channel in the 2.4 Ghz spektrum without even leaking an ounce of signal into the adjoining channels if your system is well and truly tuned and maintained. Leakage from adjoining frequencies may just seep in or it may cover a lot but there's no law that says once its leaked in that it blots out the entire band. I might be green but I'm not a cabbage.

Ahem. . .

indubitably

One entry found.

indubitable

Main Entry: in·du·bi·ta·ble Pronunciation: \(ˌ)in-ˈdü-bə-tə-bəl, -ˈdyü-\ Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English indubitabyll, from Latin indubitabilis, from in- + dubitabilis dubitable Date: 15th century : too evident to be doubted : unquestionable
— in·du·bi·ta·bil·i·ty \-ˌdü-bə-tə-ˈbi-lə-tē, -ˌdyü-\ noun
— in·du·bi·ta·ble·ness \-ˈdü-bə-tə-bəl-nəs, -ˈdyü-\ noun
— in·du·bi·ta·bly \-blē\ adverb

Spell Checker. . .Trees at Joe Nall. . .INDEED!!!

[Kiwi]

Gawd durn it Kris,

Not only are the master of all engine issues but your a flamin scholar in linguistics as well. But tell you what I know why you dont see it used very often.

Try and pronounce the durned thing.