|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For what it is worth, I think that all the tests that I have seen/heard/read about have been accurate and honest - both yours and the guys at Boeing. The big question is what was different that can explain the disparate results? That is what has not been documented. |
|
|
|
|
You're dead right Tim.
Kiwi has fully documented his tests in terms of the parameters and equipment used so they can be reproduced by anyone who wants to -- but we've heard *nothing* about the Boeing tests that would allow anyone else to reproduce them.
So in my book, Kiwi's test have the greatest veracity.
Just as JD said "it hops", we have the guys from Boeing saying "it hops"
But just as JD refused to provide the parameters -- the guys from Boeing have been strangely silent about *how* they got it to hop.
Now disclosing the testing parameters would not expose the Boeing boys to any risk of being sanctioned by their employers (the excuse given to date for not releasing a more formal report) -- so why haven't they.
In my experience of such things, if it smells like a rat, squeaks like rat and refuses to prove it's not a rat -- then it's probably a rat.
And how did Boeing do it?
Well I'm picking they very gradually increased the noise floor (over a period of 11 seconds using a signal within +/- 15MHz of the XBeePro's center-operating frequency). If JD's claims are correct, this *would* produce hopping -- but that's a scenario indicative of flying at the extreme of range and *not* the profile of a typical 2.4GHz interference source.
So the bottom line is this:
JD said XPS would hop so as to avoid potential interference.
Kiwi (and others) tested by subjecting XPS to potential and real interference
It didn't hop.
JD lied.
So JD came back and said "the hopping was never intended to avoid interference, only to extend the range"
So JD admitted that he lied.
But we still have folks saying "Kiw's tests are invalid" and claiming "it does hop"
Unbelievable!