Kiwi's XPS test results are up.

[KrisW]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Reckless Loony
	Has anybody ever considered that JD maybe suffering from a mental disorder? Why else would he end up lying about something as innocuous as the number of booths at Joe Nall? There is absolutely nothing to be gained from lying about this and at such an event with so many independent witnesses such a lie is easily uncovered. Is it possible that JD is a pathological liar? http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_yo...hological_liar JD’s continued posting of BS reminds me of this recent series of Dr Phil shows about Matt. http://drphil.com/shows/show/1035 At any rate JD certainly loves to say (I have also seen a JD video interview) and post BS there is little point in confronting him, as it would achieve nothing. If Xjet or anybody else things that JD is going to admit the flaws with XPS well its just not going to happen because in his mind there is nothing wrong with it.

So, are we supposed to "understand" his condition, or put him out of business?

People who lie in this Hobby, especially those selling things, usually wind up being drummed right out of the Hobby, with big black boot marks on their butts as they run away.

[XJet]

	Quote: Originally Posted by KrisW
	People who lie in this Hobby, especially those selling things, usually wind up being drummed right out of the Hobby, with big black boot marks on their butts as they run away.

But I think JD said just a while ago that he's still in the paintball business.

And it's not anyone's job to put anyone out of business -- just redress the balance of hype and deception versus reality.

If it weren't for the FBs, this would be a simple task -- JD would say one thing, others (and Kiwi's tests) would say another. People could review both and make their own minds up.

Unfortunately, the FBs continue to praise Lord JD and keep alleging that the naysayers are simply on the payroll of Futaba or JR and have some kind of personal agenda against their exalted one.

Whenever anyone asks a legitimate question and an objective response, that response usually gets deleted by JD or shouted down by the FBs (chances are that the response I linked to, which simply read " No, they're about the best independent testing we've got at the moment" will have already been deleted by the time you read this).

That's why the "naysayers" maintain a presence -- to establish the balance necessary to keep otherwise uninformed people aware of the facts.

[Kiwi]

OK,

I was at the Nall, I spoke with JD on the Saturday or Friday from memory about a totally different subject. I had no agenda to sit down one one with him and he likely was the same. I dont like beating on a dead horse and there were lots and lots of other better things to do than try to reinvent the XPS system.

As for the system being flown at the Nall.

I think JD had an electric jet that he flew, there where some flying wings that were all up together that were XPS setups but I did not see anything else.

The interesting thing was with 600 pilots registered there was a maximum of 21 radios in the 72Mhz impound. That left a minimum of 579 radios out in the crowd capable of being switched on. In the seven days I was at the field there was not one single shoot down. While I cannot attest to the exact numbers I would have to say that Spektrum looked to be the leader in units on the flight line and FASST running hard behind.

Apart from the four XPS units I did not see any others but there could well have been. As a portion of market share I would say XPS was barely visible on the graph.

As I stated way back in the original posts in this thread. I have no bone to pick with Jim Drew. I just wanted to prove to myself one way or the other if XPS does what they claim. I done that, I shared what I found and the rest is up to the individual.

But the only thing I will say and I mean this from a safe flying perspective.

I would not ever use XPS in its current form for anything I valued or considered as a potential danger to people or friends at my flying locations. It works and there is no doubt about that, but it does not have any of the advantages, other than the ability to find a clear channel on startup, that any of the other Tier one systems have.

My feelings are use it at your own risk, but but be aware it does not hop channels, it has no antenna diversity, it is a less intrinsically safe system compared to JR SPEKTRUM or FASST.

Use your best judgement, the ball is absolutely in the users court with XPS.

[jonkoppisch]

Before it gets deleted...

This is interesting. Taken from the xps site at http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showt...97#post9820425

	Quote:
	Quote: Originally Posted by bergaliv Seeing that XPS will not provide proof of the claims for "intelligent frequency switching", I have contacted Graupner for clarification of the subject. I have asked for proof of those claims. According to the law in my country(Sweden), any claims from a manufacturer has to be proven to be correct. This is of course more important when safety issues are concerned. Either way, the burden of proof is on the manufacturer, not the customer. The interesting part in this is that I don't have to be a customer to file a formal complaint to the authoritys. Should Graupner fail to provide such evidence, that shows that the system in fact work as advertised, i will file a formal complaint to the authoritys here. This could lead to two things; 1. Graupner/XPS shows how the system works, and that it in fact switch frequency if needed. 2. Graupner/XPS fails to show such evidence, and are then forced to remove any claims that says so. On the second scenario, it will end up in court, with all that goes with that. It should also force Graupner in Europe to take back all systems from customers that so choose. I don't own an XPS/Graupner system, but I was close to buying one. The reason I take this one step further is that it seems like people are getting ripped off. I do not like it when a good company(graupner) try to sell me something based on a lie. I could be wrong, and it's possble that the system works as advertised, but I'm yet to see any proof of that. Let me say it again, In Sweden(and probably in all of Europe) it's the manufacturer that has the burden of proof. If you claim something, you HAVE to show that what you claim is true. Since Mr Jim Drew clearly states that he's system works as advertised, this issue should be very, very, very easy to solve. Just show us that it works as advertised. Again, Graupner has to do this according the Swedish law. There are no "if", "or", or "butt" about it, they are bound by the law. After reading the US law, i know that's the same there, the burden of proof is on the manufacturer, not the customer. So, Mr Jim Drew, no matter how you respond to this, the system will have to prove that it does what you say it will. You either show it here, or Graupner shows it in Swedish court. The Swedish law works like this. I don't have to take it to court my self. There is a departement in Sweden that handles consumers rights, and they will take it to court. I don't even have to file the complaint with my name, i can do it anonymously. I DO think that they will take this to court, due to the fact that we are talking about a system where safety is a major concern, an r/c jet doing 500km/h running without radio control is quite dangerous. I'm posting this in the XPS forum, because I think that XPS should have a fair chance of providing proof before I take it any further. If this post gets deletet, then I have to post similar information somewhere else, where it can't be deleted. It's time to get the facts on the table, there has been to much "he said, you said" on this matter.

[jonkoppisch]

& the results are (after the responses are all deleted)....

	Quote:
	We are not concerned about this, as we know how the system works. We are not ablidged to share exactly how it works as it falls under technology trade secrets, but we certainly can demonstrate it. The very reason for our extreme range is how this works.

[Pale Rider]

LOL--just the answer I expected

[adjonym]

	Quote: Originally Posted by jonkoppisch
	& the results are (after the responses are all deleted).... Quote: We are not concerned about this, as we know how the system works. We are not ablidged to share exactly how it works as it falls under technology trade secrets, but we certainly can demonstrate it. The very reason for our extreme range is how this works.

JD has one thing correct. He doesn't have to share exactly how it works. What he(or in this case Graupner) HAS to prove is THAT it works.
The Swedish consumers law is written in a way that no "we didn't write it exactly like that, so we are home free" scenario will NOT work for a company. If a consumer gets the impression that the system, or whatever, should work in a way, that's enough for a legal case.

Let me explain more about how this works in Sweden(hopefully JD is reading this, since the original thread is closed).
Any person can file a case against a company that makes false claims for their goods. In this case, a technical product.
The authoritys HAVE to respond to the claim filed. In the Graupner case, the authoritys will contact Graupner, asking for proof that the system works as adertised. If they aren't happy with the proof provided, they will ask for a system, to be taken to an independent 3:d party for testing. And, no JD's "we know it works" is not concidered evidence in a court of law in Sweden. Neither is "we know how it works".

If that testing facility finds that the product isn't doing what it's said to do, and order to stop the current marketing is issued. Failing to comply will lead to further actions taken. Normally a fine, or in extreme cases prison follows.

Now, with JD's refusal to give any information on the parameters required to "hop", the 3:d party testers would probably do the same tests KIWI did, and of course fail to make the system jump.

Quote:
"but we certainly can demonstrate it"
end quote.
Hmm, then why haven't they?

I can't see in any way that the range of the XPS system has anything what so ever to do with the frequency jumping. That might be me, and my lack of understanding of the technology though.

Quote
"We are not concerned about this"
end quote
Hmm, i'd be quite concerned. Graupner, being one of the most well known companys in the RC world, at least in Europe, being involved in a legal case should, at least if I was in JD's shoes, be quite embarrasing. All that because JD doesn't want to reveal the conditions he's system needs to "jump". I mean, come on, if it works as he says, how hard could it be to just say "this is what's needed to complete this test".
I guess Graupner will have to fight he's battle in court.

[XJet]

	Quote: Originally Posted by adjonym
	I can't see in any way that the range of the XPS system has anything what so ever to do with the frequency jumping. That might be me, and my lack of understanding of the technology though.

Surprisingly enough, there may be *some* truth in this.

I'm sure JD has designed frequency agility into XPS, the problem is that it's like being given a raincoat on a sunny day -- it only works when it's not needed.

So long as the transmitter and receiver can still talk to each other, they may well be able to negotiate a new frequency and coordinate a switch. *IF* that's the case, then it could be that when reaching the limits of range (and packet-loss gradually starts to increase), the system will rescan and find the quietest channel available -- which will then be switched to.

Unfortunately, although such a mechanism will work (when the sun is shining) it fails completely when strong interference occurs, even at close range -- the problem being that if the transmitter and receiver can't communicate, they can't negotiate a new frequency so the link fails.

Now given the receiver sensitivity of the XBeePro modules and the effective radiated power of 100mW, I would expect the system to have at least 2-3 miles of range even without re-optimizing its operating frequency for minimum noise. So in effect, the agility that may exist simply solves a problem that doesn't exist (lack of range) and completely ignores the more important problem of avoiding typical 2.4GHz interference.

This also ties in with JD's repeated assertion that XPS *does* hop and may even explain how the guys at Boeing got it to hop (if they did).

When I get some time I'll try a *very* gradual rise in the noise floor on the XPS operating channel and I would not be surprised if XPS changed channels.

Unfortunately, JD thinks that simply by claiming that this very gradual rise in the noise floor is how interference works on 2.4GHz that his system is therefore able to dodge it. This is not the first time he's simply "redesigned reality" to suit his claims.

I'm sorry, but that's where it all falls apart. After considerable "real world" monitoring of the 2.4GHz band *from a moving aerial platform* (ie: UAV/model) I can categorically say that you will almost *never* see a gradual rise in the noise level.

Due to the line-of-sight nature of 2.4GHz signals and the fact that they usually "appear" suddenly when the interfering device is turned on, the noise-source becomes "visible" from behind a shadowing object/terrain, or the noise source has changed frequencies to avoid interference *it* has detected.

As Kiwi's tests have shown, XPS is totally incapable of dealing with such a situation. I suspect the "ramp-up" time for a hop-inducing increase in the on-channel noise level for XPS is *far* slower than anything that could be considered acceptable as a method of avoiding *typical* interference.

As I've always said: XPS has no *useful*, robust frequency agility.

As for Graupner's alliance with JD.

Well they're a commercial enterprise faced with a difficult situation.

They saw an opportunity to gazzump competitors by selling a product for which wonderful claims were being made.

They asked questions, JD (who is apparently very charismatic and has the ability to make BS sound like gospel) answered those questions in his own inimitable way. It should be realized at this point that *many* people (particularly those charged with "technical" jobs) don't like to appear ignorant.

If JD rolled out a line of BS that sounded credible, who's going to question it?

It's also worth noting that JD is now the US agent for a range of Graupner products -- which means there was a double-plus in this relationship for Graupner.

Right now I bet there are a lot of anxious people at Graupner and some really hard questions being asked. They're in a very difficult position.

If they admit that they have no actual proof of JD's claims, or if their own testing has proven that it lacks the robustness claimed, they'll probably just try to withdraw the product from the market very quietly, probably by simply not restocking when existing units are sold.

If they still believe JD's claims and they are disproven by independent tests then they'll potentially suffer an enormous blow to their bottom-line and their credibility.

[jonkoppisch]

Graupner got the worst end of the exchange..... ie, graupner got xps products, jd got graupner turbines etc...

[easytiger]

"We are not ablidged to share exactly how it works"

I'm not normally one to bust on someone's spelling, after all, this here is them thar internets, but for a guy who claims to have gotten three college degrees at once at age 17, you would think he would know how to spell "obliged". That's not exactly an SAT word.

Look, guys...Jim Drew is lying. He's a proven liar. A pathological liar? I cannot say, I don't have the clinical definition of "pathological", only the street definition, which, in common useage, seems to mean "lies all the time". In which case, yes, Jim Drew is a pathological liar. He lies all the time. Rather continuously. Go ahead, sue me for libel, Jim. Go for it. You can't win, because what I'm saying is TRUE.

Jim Drew never graduated college at all, as far as anyone can see. He certainly did not graduate with three degrees at age 17 from U. Oregon, Klamath Falls. A simple phone call to the registrar put paid to that big whopper of a lie. He's just a snake-oil salesman with just enough self-taught knowledge of electronics to be dangerous.

I said this really early on, and I got pilloried for it. Now it's rather obvious. There is no point in continuing to refute each of his new claims, point by point, or his old ones...pretty much nothing he says is true.

Don't risk your planes, even your foamies, to XPS. Sooner or later, someone is going to lose an eye. It's been a very near thing so far, that giant twin turbine airliner crashing into the autobahn in Germany was a wake-up call.

[BZFrank]

	Quote:
	It's been a very near thing so far, that giant twin turbine airliner crashing into the autobahn in Germany was a wake-up call.

Allow the small correction: It was a giant three engine turbine airliner (model of a MD-11) and AFAIK it crashed near a federal road (fortunately not into it).

Here a flight video of the model (when it was flying still on 35 Mhz a few months before):

YouTube - rc airliner MD-11 ~Peter Michel~

[jonkoppisch]

Now he says...

	Quote:
	Now that we have clearance from the FCC, we will post a video of the current hopping vs. the new code that will be released as a firmware upgrade. We are keeping the original method as it allows the range to be better than any other system. The addition uses multiple channels when necessary. We will also have a full time frequency hopping version required for Europe in August that will also be just a firmware upgrade.