Kiwi's XPS test results are up.

[aramsdell]

Likewise, thou shalt not insult users of perfectly good radio systems. You allege that mine is not a good radio. It proves you wrong everytime it flies to the edge of sight.

[Woketman]

Sadly, however, there are many others who were not lucky with XPS, as you have been aramsdell. I know at least two who lost high dollar turbine airframes due to first gen XPS' issues. And yes, they had perfectly adequate power to the RX.

[aramsdell]

Why not let them complain, if they wish, what's your agenda? Please don't tell me you're saving the world.
Jim, hope I'm not screwing up the ad campaign.

[Woketman]

Nope, not saving the world. Just trying to save other R/Cers with high dollar planes from making a HUGE XPS mistake. I sure would appreciate it if they warned me about defective radio gear. And they did complain. All JD said was that they had crappy power. The same wornout excuse he has used to mask XPS issues from the start.

Oh oh.... there I go selling another 10,000 units for Jim!

[Julez]

Oh come on, aramsdell, now you resort to creating a strawman.

My cheap chinese system with its $15 recievers works perfectly to the limits of my sight as well, so don't act as if that was any great accomplishment.

Apart from that, you are trying to divert from the discussion about patents.
Any new facts from your side?

It appears that Jim is lurching a little what the alleged patent is really about:

	Quote:
	MaxStream has addressed the antenna issue with their patent-pending system that gives you an orb of RF energy. No matter how you rotate the antenna, it retains the basic orb shape. If it were not for this type of antenna technology, the first time you went to do a 3D manuver, the plane would have a fit.

But wait, what is this:
http://xtremepowersystems.net/prodde...prod=XPS-RX8SP

How does it come, that planes work just fine with this RX, without any patented antenna? With an antenna, that we can find in fact on any cheap chinese RX?

	Quote:
	The radio modules use a patent-pending spherical RF radiation pattern technology, developed by MaxStream.

Well, these quotes might convince one that the patent is about the radiation pattern, right?
Wrong!

	Quote:
	Digi's antenna patents pertain to their sensitivity and selectivity using their antenna.

Suddenly it's sensivity and selectivity...
What is ist now?

[tadawson]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Julez
	Well, Tim, I guess that most people here will regard the actually existing information from a support agent and the FCC sheets more credible than the non-existing information of an imaginary engineer. Hard facts is what counts, and so far, I am the only one who put his money where his mouth was. All I hear in response are alleged relationships, smoke and mirrors, but nothing substantial, nothing that can be relied upon, no patent number. If all you can do is to resort to insulting support agents, I fear that will not convince many people. The only *facts* we have point in the direction, that no antenna patents exist. What facts do you have to support your claim?

I do not speak to insult support staff - I held one of those jobs for a very major electronics mfg. on very large radio systems when I first started working, and they didn't tell us squat. I would have had no clue regarding FCC info on our system, nor would I have expected to. That's just the facts of life as a support puke - it's one of the lowest level jobs in most electronics companies, and they try to spend as little money, time, and effort there as possible, and well, you get what you pay for.

And actually, what you got from the support agent was no information - not anything useful. "I am not aware of anything" indicates ignorance of a topic, not any hard factual evidence. The FCC filings are different, and I can't argue with those, although I suspect there may be more latitude there than you think . . .

So, I'm not claiming that you are wrong, but simply that the lack of information that you are getting is most likely due to making requests via the wrong channels, that's all. Unless you are buying a bunch of product, Digi has zero motivation or reason to spend any time on your requests at all. Sad, but a way of business these days . . .

- Tim

[Julez]

Well, check out this chat I had a while ago with one of their agents.
It was at a time, when Jim denied that any different antenna type than the whip would work with the modules, as these were not the standard ones.

	Quote:
	The remote antenna will not work because it is physically not possible with our design.

I already knew at that time, that all modules are identical despite the antenna type mounted.
The support staff comfirmed this.
As you can see, we were right, as external antennas are now offered.
How can that be, as it is "physically not possible", I have to ask?

Stock XBee modules have nothing but "ground" and "RF source" soldering pads, as confirmed by support agents.

With just these pads available, there is no other way than the whip antenna being an ordinary groundplane antenna.

Module with this whip antenna have the FCC ID "OUR-XBEE" or "OUR-XBEEPRO".

Jim's modules and RXes have the same FCC ID.

Thus, Jim's modules and RXes modules and RXes must have the same antenna technology as described in the FCC test report, aka. groundplane antenna.

	Quote:
	Julian Holtz: You are now chatting with johns johns: Hello. johns: The PCBs are actually the same. johns: Just a different antenna or connector is populated. Julian Holtz: Hi John. Ok, so one can say, that, if one has the appropriate soldering skills, one can change the antenna or connector from two modules with different antenna options and both modules would still work after the swap? johns: Right. That will void the factory warranty, but assuming you have the skills that should work. Julian Holtz: ok, that is a great start. When one looks at the photos of an Xbees PCB, there are multiple golden areas. I assume these are the RF and ground contacts, Is there a description somewhere, which golden area is which, or can one find it out by checking the resistance to ground with a multimeter? Julian Holtz: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/attac...mentid=1262114 Julian Holtz: The thing is, I plan to build a coaxial antenna like this http://urly.de/f58c as I want to route the antenna out of an environment that would shield the RF. I know where the original whip antenna is soldered on, but I need an area where I can solder the shielding of the coaxial cable to... Julian Holtz: I apologize if this is a little much text for the beginning jayf: no problem... jayf: So you want to modify the XBee that you have in order to extend the antenna out of an enclosure? jayf: I don't think we have a description of the pads Julian Holtz: exactly, I learned that carfon fibre fuselages of RC planes shield RF. Unfortunatelly, the RC system manufacturer, who uses XBEE modules in his system, only offers whip and chip antennas. I want to develop a solution which allows me to route the antenna out of the carbon fibre fuselage. jayf: ok.. Julian Holtz: but the pads are either ground or RF source, right? jayf: right Julian Holtz: then I could just check the resistance to ground (like the sheetmetal cap on the back) for each pad to determine if it is ground or not? jayf: right. jayf: I'll see if I can find any info on those pads... Julian Holtz: Ok, very good so far. The RC system manufacturer claims that the perpendicular orientation of the whip antenna to the PCB is of critical importance. I assume because this has something to do with the PCB acting as groundplane. Julian Holtz: When I would solder on a coax cable on the appropriate pads, the antenna orientation does still matter or not? jayf: yes. But the module will still work if the antenna is bent horizantal (it just reduces the range) Julian Holtz: Ok, but when a cable is connected to a module that has the stock antenna connector, the remote antenna does still have to be in a special orientation towards the PCB, even when it is 10 inc or so aqay? Julian Holtz: * inch jayf: No. It would only matter in respect to the receiving module. Julian Holtz: ok, this has to do with polarisation and the antenna radiation pattern and stuff. Julian Holtz: so, to sum up: jayf: right Julian Holtz: one can connects a coaxial cable to the PCB by soldering it on the appropriate pads, and the module will still work ok, depending on how professional this work was done. jayf: Yes.

Your argument, that the support staff does not know squat, does not hold water.
And, as expected, no facts from your side, either.

[Woketman]

Well, Fan-Boyz, what ya say 'bout 'dat????

[JimDrew]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Julez
	Well, check out this chat I had a while ago with one of their agents. It was at a time, when Jim denied that any different antenna type than the whip would work with the modules, as these were not the standard ones. I already knew at that time, that all modules are identical despite the antenna type mounted. The support staff comfirmed this. As you can see, we were right, as external antennas are now offered. How can that be, as it is "physically not possible", I have to ask?

Simple... the receivers with external antennas do not work nearly as well due to the antenna radiation pattern. However, since these are used in gliders, where you are not doing 3D manuevers, they work fine for that application. I would not use one for a 3D plane. This is why the product is labeled as "sail plane" receiver.

[Julez]

No, wait.
What you said was NOT that they "do not work nearly as well", what you said was that it was "physically not possible" for them to work.
But actually, they do work.
It is hard to make up a consistent story over time when one's claims are not based on facts...
One time the alleged patent concerns selectivity, the next time it is responsible for the radiation pattern.
One time a specific antenna can impossibly work, the next time RXes are sold with that exact type of antenna.
You claim to have patents, but noone at Maxstream or Digi has ever heard of them.
You claim to use special modules, yet you use the FCC ID of the standard ones.
You claim that the special antenna was the cornerstone of your system, suddenly the system works better with a normal external dipole antenna attached.
Hmmmm...

[skubacb]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Woketman
	OK, so I take it from skubacb response that he concedes and admits that JD is full of crap. Thanks skubacb, it takes a big man to admit that. We respect you now!

I see you can't read well at all. No wonder you haven't posted one fact in a 100 posts.

So since you are slow and are trying to put words in my mouth I did not say.

I told you to go prove it rather that just blubbering all over the web. Go rent the chamber and prove something yourself. That is if you have any of the capabilities you claim.

Jules,
You and I both know that tech support is useless. The only time I was able to get meaningful support for my Air Force projects was to talk with the actual engineers.

Again why all this baloney? For the thousandth time go out and check for yourself. You do get spherical coverage with XPS receivers. How does your inability to get the paperwork obviate the need for field testing? Or that everyone that has done a field test gets a spherical pattern.

Kicking a dead horse. Try something new.

[Julez]

Interesting. Whenever someone states facts that do not fit in the Fanboys' world view, they immediately denounce him of incompetency etc, instead of presenting facts to challenge the information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
The tech support is useless in supporting false claims, in so far you are correct.
I assume you regard the autor of Digi's datasheeds as incompetent, too, as these do not support your belief in the magic antenna, do you? Do you claim that Digi's datasheets are wrong? Yes or no?
Ignorance is a bliss, this must be true.

[Woketman]

Scubacb: why should I bother re-creating the test data, just show us the imaginary Boeing data! Why don't you simply do that???

Could it be that it was just a lie??? NNNOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!

[Toumal]

It's bewildering to see this discussion still going on. And it's still about the "spherical coverage", apparently my degree and years of studying are worthless because -15dB "ain't much less" than 0dB.

It's still about basic stuff, like what a groundplane antenna is and what its RF characteristics are. And there's still people claiming using dual antenna don't give you added safety, while the latest Graupner catalogue has XPS/IFS receivers with antenna diversity in it.

Well at least one thing changed for the better: Graupner is no longer advertising XPS/IFS in german magazines. It's all Weatronic now ^_^

[JimDrew]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Julez
	No, wait. What you said was NOT that they "do not work nearly as well", what you said was that it was "physically not possible" for them to work.

You are confused. It is "physically not possible" to have a spherical pattern with the external antenna. The external antenna works fine, but it is nowhere near the same antenna characteristics of the 90 degree ground plane version, especially when adding the tuning traces.

Our new receivers use dual hardware switched diversity antennas... why? Because we won't license the Digi antenna patents, which helps keep our costs down. You will find all of these new receivers in Graupner's catalog introduced in Nuremberg. Graupner also finally has telemetry data available from their transmitter displays.