Mike,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. Let me just point out a couple of things.
First, I'm not completely unintelligent. I am capable of separating the wheat from
the chaff. I know BS when I see it. I know science when I see it. I think most of
the people who subscribe to this list are also intelligent enough to figure this out.
We don't need anyone representing our collective "smarts" by suggesting that this
thread has educated us in some incomplete way (e.g. "you know a little more than you
did"). While you're technically correct, give us all the benefit of the doubt and let
us choose what to believe and what to dismiss.
Second, your remaining points were covered in the thread. Bringing them up now serves
no purpose other than to remind us that others didn't seem to agree with you. BTW,
the disagreement in the thread is what led to it being educational. Your posts led to
a better understanding--at least by me. Whether I agree or disagree, the debate
brought out some good points. For the record, I'm very happy with my dual conversion
PPM receivers and have no plans on switching.
Last, your assumption that I am not capable of conducting comparative testing (e.g.
"serve to confuse you more.. good luck..") without knowing my credentials and
capabilities is mildly offensive. I believe you underestimate the abilities of the
members of this list, and this member specifically.
Good day.
-Ben
Mike Stump wrote:
>
> At 03:21 PM 7/20/00 -0400, you wrote:
> >> I didn't know exactly how PCM worked before this thread. I certainly
> knew nothing about IPD. Now I do.<<
>
> no, you know a little more than you did...
>
> did you know the PCM coding for each manufacturer type is different?
>
> some manufacturers use more than one type?
>
> that differing PCM systems receivers react differently to interference (also
> depending on type of interference)?
>
> that refresh rates differ by brand & type?
>
> that not all PCM receivers "lock-out"?
>
> that not all PCM systems are equal in performance?
>
> Well, all of the above are true... unfortunately, in a not so thinly veiled
> "mine is better than yours" post proclaiming IPD as the best all time savior
> of RC integrity, ALL PCM was lumped together.... you can't do such a thing
> for comparing things and maintain adequate integrity..
>
> > I also have some ideas on how to conduct comparative tests on receivers.
> This is useful information and the discussion about it is appropriate for
> this list.<<
>
> embarking on such an adventure may teach you a lot.. or serve to confuse you
> more.. good luck..
>
> Mike Stump
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and
"unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
