Signal Seeker

At least he sent you a check, that's a positive note. Thanks for something "to hang our hat on" regarding this product. I'm not sure why you don't write in all caps and use terrible grammar, but I think you really are one of Ed's customers regardless.

Subject: Signal Seeker

Ed Williams wrote on April 22, 2005:

I am fairly new to WiFi use and am not equipped for doing technical tests like measuring gain, but here are some practical observations.

I purchased one of his 5" x 6" units in March. His advertising calls the Signal Seeker an "extreme range" device, and claims that it performs better than a can antenna. I have a homemade cantenna connected with a 5' pigtail cable to a Belkin F5D7000 client card. On the same computer, my cantenna/card combination consistently outperformed the Signal Seeker, the cantenna giving stronger signal and faster data transfer. In one location, the cantenna made a usable connection to a distant site that the Signal Seeker detected but wouldn't connect to. I also tested the Signal Seeker against a Netgear WG111 USB wireless dongle adapter (with no enhancing reflector), using the same USB cable. In any particular place, the Signal Seeker performed only modestly better than the unassisted Netgear adapter, and I was not able to get the Signal Seeker to make a usable connection where the Netgear WG111 would not. Comparing the Signal Seeker's performance with the performance of a Tenda USB wireless adapter, similar to the Netgear one, gave similar results. This is not what I would call "extreme range."

Details: At one location where I can get usable connections with the three devices listed below, placing each one successively in the same spot and aimed toward the access point, I ran the online download speed test at

Below are numerical results (each result averaged from five successive tests, rounded to the nearest integer):

Netgear WG111 USB wireless adapter with no signal enhancement: 485 kbps

Signal Seeker, on the same 15' USB cable: 688 kbps

6 1/2" x 3 7/8" soup-can cantenna on 5' pigtail cable, on Belkin F5D7000 client card (assembled using instructions on Gregory Rehm's site at 744 kbps

Thus, the Signal Seeker did give measurably faster performance than the unaided Netgear USB adapter, but the cantenna clearly worked best (and would presumably do even better on a shorter coaxial cable). And with a simple parabolic reflector added, the Netgear adapter would probably perform as well as the Signal Seeker.

I e-mailed Mr. Williams about this, saying I wanted to return the Signal Seeker for refund because it was not as advertised. He replied that the problem must be shipping damage or a "malfunction," and offered to replace the unit. I saw no visible sign of shipping damage, but I agreed to give a replacement unit a chance, and returned the one I had tested. However, this week I received a refund check (minus shipping cost) rather than a replacement unit, so I will not be doing any additional tests. Based on my experience, I would *not* recommend that anyone buy the Signal Seeker if they want a compact wireless client device with the best possible range and performance.

P.S.--Regarding the type of radio in the Signal Seeker, the installation software installs a driver for "802.11b Pen Size Wireless USB

2.0 Adapter HW.31 V.1.00."

Donald I remember you writing me. Like I said there several things that could occur. Like something happening is shipping, some times electronics don't always act as they should or one just got out that wasn't up to par. I said I would do what ever you wanted me to do. But in your letter it said you wanted a refund. I have use the Signal-Seeker with several different cards and the Signal-Seeker always out performs a can type antenna and I have used it against much larger antenna's. The Signal-Seeker hangs right in.

Oh, so you like big words. I bet you think Jeff is literate.

I'll wait until the check clears before deciding. ;-)

I ONY RITE LIKE THAT FER THE GOOOD REVUEZ... ;-) (Actually, I proofread for a scientific journal, and it carries over here. And when reading newsgroups, I always take more seriously and am more inclined to respond to the people who can express issues logically and literately, so I expect that the same applies to those who read my own posts.)

I said I wanted a refund in my original complaint of April 6, but after you responded on April 8 as I quoted in my post, I amended that. Below are the actual words from my followup e-mail to you of April 8:

"It's possible that it has a defect, so I'm willing to send it back for replacement. But if the replacement performs no better, I'd like a refund."

I then mailed back the Signal Seeker, but subsequently received the refund check, not a replacement.

If so, you would be much more persuasive if you would simply post some details about your specific tests and results, with names and models of devices and numerical comparisons, as I did in the excerpt below. That is the sort of information that buyers need to decide whether your device might work better for them than something else they may have tried, and whether it performs as advertised after they buy it.

I consider it my mission in life to improve the general quality of questions and answers in a few newsgroups and mailing lists. If I can convince people to get organized and include:

- What are you trying to accomplish?

- What do you have to work with (Mfg and model numbers)?

- What have you done to try and fix it? then I will consider myself successful.

My methods are simple. I intimidate, humiliate, insult, ridicule, demand, and intentionally misinterpret the person asking until they disclose the necessary information. This often takes several insulting postings as many people apparently assume that I have super-human powers of deduction or can use remote viewing to supply the missing information. This works well but creates as many irate users as answers. I fear I'll probably run out of insults before we run out of clueless users. Then, I won't be able to answer questions and will be forced to pollute a different newsgroup or mailing list.

I seriously believe that if people were logical and literate enough to frame a proper answerable question that contains the necessary information, they also would do the necessary research using Google and not ask the question. In effect, the ability to frame a question is a filter of sorts. What we're left with are those that can't frame a proper question, don't supply the necessary information, don't know how to use Google, have a limited technical vocabulary, English as a

2nd language, or are just plain lazy. It's a tough job and somebody has to do it.

I'm not a literal. I'm a conservative.

8*) Thanks, Jeff, I needed that!