Kiwi's XPS test results are up.

[Woketman]

Mr. Jim Drew jhas posted some of his BS: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showt...46#post9963088

[jonkoppisch]

It's a series of vids supposedly debunking kiwi's vids.... (I haven't watched them and I really don't have any interest..)

The name of the thread is

Discussion - Debunking the video tests

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showt...46#post9963088


BTW, I flew my jet again today on FASST while using switches, regulators & li-ions!!!!

[Pale Rider]

[quote=jonkoppisch;478985
BTW, I flew my jet again today on FASST while using switches, regulators & li-ions!!!![/quote]

[XJet]

As I said on RCG...

Take very careful note of where JD holds the XPS receiver while showing how well it works. It's right over to the left of the PC being used -- about 8 inches from the airhorn antenna.

Then note that he *never* holds either the Futaba or JR receivers that far away from the Airhorn. In fact, their antennas are just an inch or so from the Airhorn.

Also note where the RC transmitter is placed... to the left of the screen.

This means that the XPS in 8-inches closer to the transmitter and 8-inches further from the noise source.

Given the effects of the inverse-square law and the distances involved, I'd say that in the first part of that demo where he shows how the XPS still works, it is receiving a 20-fold lower level of noise than he's exposing the JR or Spektrum to.

Yes, just more sleight of hand from JD in an attempt to defend the indefensible.

And you'll also notice that XPS worked quite well until the interfering signal corresponded with CH11 that XPS was using. So how come it didn't hop to that part of the band which was clearly unaffected by the Airhorn at that stage?

JD himself told us that if XPS encountered interference such as a WiFi system, it would hop away from the interfering signal -- but his own test proves this to be a blatant lie.

I've suggested that copies of this video be sent to Graupner and the Swedish consumer authorities as definitive proof, from no less than the manufacturer, that XPS does not hop as described on the Graupner/IFS website.

It looks as if Jim's only opening his mouth to change feet these days.

[gregw]

I've uploaded the videos from JD's thread to my Youtube account. To see the high quality version, you'll need to click on the link on top of the video to go to YouTube, and then click "watch in high quality".

XPS1.Divx

YouTube - XPS1.Divx

XPS2.Divx

YouTube - XPS2.Divx

XPS3.Divx

YouTube - XPS3.Divx

XPS4.Divx

YouTube - XPS4.Divx

[Toumal]

Aha, so this is how they play it. I was kinda curious about the use of the word "saturation" earlier. Interestingly enough, we're all talking about interference.

1) We created interference on specific channels. JD is saturating the front-end of the receiver module.

2) Kiwi's setup had the RX at a distance to the interfering transmitter, JD is holding the receiver antennae right against the interfering transmitter.

3) JD is talking about saturating a frequency, saturating a band.... Fact is: You cannot "saturate" a band - you saturate the receiver. Saturation is something that happens in the receiver, and often the saturation signal level is even specified by the manufacturer.

4) XPS may well be more resilient against saturation, that could very well be true. However, saturation is not something usually happening while flying. As such, JD's benchtest is even farther away from field reality than Kiwi's.

[XJet]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Toumal
	4) XPS may well be more resilient against saturation, that could very well be true. However, saturation is not something usually happening while flying. As such, JD's benchtest is even farther away from field reality than Kiwi's.

Actually, quite the reverse is true. The XBeePro modules are very sensitive and far more susceptible to front-end overload than FASST or Spektrum.

They are *not* designed for use in highly dynamic applications - they are designed for fixed-point operations (such as networking) where field strengths remain relatively constant and the appearance of unexpected on or off-channel interference is not a factor.

JD simply demonstrated what we already knew... that XPS doesn't hop.

[Woketman]

	Quote: Originally Posted by jonkoppisch
	It's a series of vids supposedly debunking kiwi's vids.... (I haven't watched them and I really don't have any interest..) The name of the thread is Discussion - Debunking the video tests http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showt...46#post9963088 BTW, I flew my jet again today on FASST while using switches, regulators & li-ions!!!!

Perhaps Jon, but we know that you LIKE living on the edge!!!

[jonkoppisch]

Especially when my plane lives to fly again another day!!!!

[Woketman]

Well, I just viewed the vids for the first time. XJet was right! To get the Spektrum & FASST to lock-up, JD had to put them right up to the Airhorn, but he held XPS farther away towrds the TX. What a bullsh_t artist that guy is!!!

[Gordito Volador]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Woketman
	Well, I just viewed the vids for the first time. XJet was right! To get the Spektrum & FASST to lock-up, JD had to put them right up to the Airhorn, but he held XPS farther away towrds the TX. What a bullsh_t artist that guy is!!!

I prefer "Snake Oil Selling Huckster" myself.

[GBR2]

I think the purpose behind JD's videos was really to counter what happened in Kiwi's videos, namely that XPS actually stopped working when the interference was on channel while Spektrum and FASST just continued to work in the same conditions. So he did what he did to show that the other 2 guys also would stop working, making the assumpition that his front end was saturated due to its greater sensitivity. However, in all of Kiwi's tests the receivers were certainly not next to the Air Horn. So he really didn't prove anything thing except everything stops working if the level is high enough. I also found it strange that he said his Spectrum Analyzer was off to the side somewhere. Why not use it in the video rather than his quasi-analyzer (XDP)?

As to hopping, he would probably have to have available similar equipment to what Tycho used in the video that started this whole hopping/no hopping debate over XPS. None of that equipment was anywhere in sight either. I have to agree with XJet. There is enough controversy over this equipment that I don't understand why he just doesn't have it independently tested. Would it really be that expensive to do that the cost isn't justified? I don't know, maybe someone who does can comment.

[Kiwi]

That guy does not know when to lie down and shut up.

In my tests the receivers were all located in exactly the same location. ASSAN, FASST, XPS and SPEKTRUM.

The whole sole reason for my tests was to show XPS IS A SYSTEM THAT DOES NOT FUNCTION AS ADVERTISED

Without any hanky panky and holding receivers hard up against the source of noise XPS failed totally and completely while the other two systems did not. BUT THAT WAS A BY PRODUCT OF THE TEST!!!! The aim was to show if it hops.

XPS DOES NOT HOP, IT HAS NO FREQUENCY AGILITY, THE MARKETING HYPE IS FALSE. That was the result of the tests, the fact it is not as good as the two major players in a simulated RC environment has nothing to do with who went into fail safe and who did not.

Rather than wasting my time again, which I have no intention of doing anyway perhaps JD can now show us how XPS moves away from rising noise floors. After all he has proven that he can make a video, four to be precise.

If he can show me that XPS hops away from interference I will happily apologize.

In the meantime I need to get back to re-powering my car with hydrogen. I figure if I use a jam jar, an A123 battery and some calcium I can get 90 miles to the gallon. Thats because I have a spherical radiation ionizer with super hydrogen LSD producer psychedelic amplifier that makes more gas than I can burn which converts the unused gas to petrol which refills the tank on long trips. That way I can also save on water.

Its a great system trust me.

[klhoard]

	Quote: Originally Posted by GBR2
	. . .<snip>. . I don't understand why he just doesn't have it independently tested. Would it really be that expensive to do that the cost isn't justified? I don't know, maybe someone who does can comment.

.
.
The simple reason is that he's not selling enough to come up with the cash. . . and he certainly doesn't want to risk getting lambasted by some testing that is not under his control. . .
.
.

[Flyfalcons]

I'm going to post some videos that prove all servos stop functioning when you take a sledgehammer to them.