There's been little or no "bashing". My major complaint is that there are no specifications. We know it's a USB radio and that it has some kind of directional antenna. Beyond that, there's little to bash. My issue is that the eBay web page shows promises of test and specifications which have not materialized in several months. There also doesn't seem to be an FCCID number. In short, you don't know what you bought, only that it works for you. If there were some trade secret involved that justified protecting analysis of the contents to the point of it being sold as a sealed "black box", then perhaps limiting the published specifications is justified. However, this is apparently a simple 802.11g USB client, with a better than typical antenna, and not some major technological innovation. I have bought products without much evidence of performance and efficacy (i.e. prescription medicine) in the past, and usually find myself disappointed. Without the numbers, facts, and approvals, such products are in my never humble opinion no better than snake oil.
The odd part is that the product actually does have some value and could be sold on its own merits with proper specifications and type certification. However, that would expose it to comparison with comparable products. I don't know if such a comparison would be favorable or worth the risk.
I'm still waiting for the test data and specifications before I proceed with my traditional project bashing, er... evaluation.
I just happened to see the post and appreciate anything good that was said. I'm still not up to the production level we need to be yet. Maybe in a couple weeks. And the bashers comparing the Signal Seeker to snake oil will see in time that the product is what it is. People with the intelligence to know what other units can do and then see that the Signal Seeker does it better will be satisfied. As far as specification anyone that has done there home work and done comparison and did an intelligent purchased has been more than once disappointed. So like I said the proof is in the pudding time will tell. Have Fun and have a Great Day. Ed
Actually Ed, I'm on both sides of that fence. I think you should get over being in love with the product long enough to rationally test and describe it. In the meantime, I've even recommended that someone take a look at your product in another very popular group. I might even buy one myself because I think you have a pretty good idea, but your reluctance to be objective is definitely off-putting.
Is that a couple of weeks for production quantities of product or for the missing technical data and FCCID?
I'm the one that compared it to being little better than snake oil without specifications. If I offered to you a bottle of un-defined, un-labelled, un-identified, and un-certified elixir, and suggested it as a cure for everything from packet loss to co-channel interference, would you buy it? In my never humble opinion, that's exactly what you're doing. Show me the numbers.
Great. Here's your competitors USB radios with panel antennas.
some tests. Post some results. Numbers, not glittering generalities. If you need help with the methods, hardware, and site requirements necessary for testing, please email. Performance will tend to be proportional to the antenna size, which is different in each product. Still, it's possible to get an idea of how much difference it makes from the test results.
That doesn't make any sense. Please repair the grammar so I can decode what you're talking about.
I'm not trying to prove anything, with or without the pudding. I'm simply trying to get you to deliver on your perpetual promises of performance specs and test results. Please remove your proof from the pudding, wash it carefully, and present it for my target practice.
Sorta. You've ignored answering every question that I and others have offered. I'm not offended, but I really don't like trying to be helpful, and then getting ignored. I'll try one more time.
I'm 57 and retired in 1981. The problem was that I didn't realize that I had retired. Not much has changed except that I sign my own paycheck.
Ah, numbers finally. 5x6" will do about 7 to 9 dBi gain. The Tecom
505025e is close enough at 4.5 x 6.75" with 9dBi gain:
built on G10/FR4, the gain will be towards the low end due to circuit board losses.
Impossible with such a small aperture size. The best you can do in a
30 sq in panel is about 9dBi gain which will give a -3dB beamwidth of about 45 degrees. The above Tecom antenna is specified at 44 degrees elevation and 90 degree azimuth beamwidth. However, this assumes a panel antenna. If it's really a biquad in disguise, then the gain is about 9 to 10dBi and beamwidth of about 60 degrees with the ears, and about 75 degrees without the ears. I can post both 4NEC2 calcs, graphs, and some crude field test results on these.
Incidentally, radios don't have "gain" and are not measured in "db" which is a ratio. My guess is you meant that it has +13dBm of RF output to the antenna. That's only 20 millwatts which is not too good when compared to other radios, but is typical of the "key chain" type USB radios. It's also roughly what I measure coming out of radios that claim +17dBm output, but neglect to include the connector and internal cabling losses.
Suggestion. Check with the US Office of Patents and Trademarks and see if "signal seeker" and "extreme" are trademarked in the wireless business sector. I'm sure that both are trademarked and you may have legal problems using them.
Copper is cheap? What manner of exotic materials are you using? I use roofers copper sheet and rolls for building panels and the stuff is very expensive compared to aluminum and plated mild steel. Even G10/FR4 circuit board material is cheaper.
There, you've succeeded. The big advantage of a USB radio is the elimination of RF coaxial losses.
No you haven't. Is it a panel, patch, dipole array, biquad, or exotic variation on the above? Is the dielectric circuit board, air, or foam? What are the specifications of the antenna: - Maximum gain - Bandwidth - VSWR over rated bandwidth - V/H -3dB beamwidth - Antenna pattern (showing side lobes and front/back)
No you haven't. I submitted a list of similar (not identical products). Compare your performance with those. If you lack equipment, fire up Netstumbler and compare readings from a common access point (the readings at the client end will different). That should take all of about $150 in competitive purchases and perhaps 3-4 hours of setup. Incidentally, watch out for ground reflections as one online test report apparently did not.
Well lets see if the numbers make sense. 500mw is +27dBm. 25ft of LMR-400 will loose 0.07dB/ft or 1.8dB loss. Add another 2dB loss for assorted connectors. So, the RF to the antenna is: +27 -1.8 -2 = +23.2dBm You didn't specify which type of antenna was used so I'll assume a very conventional +9dBi biquad antenna. Subtract another 1dB for my sloppy construction. That yields an EIRP of: +23.2 +9 -1 = 31.2dBm radiated from the antenna for the 500mw example.
Now, let's do your USB antenna using your numbers. The transmitter puts out +13dBm into an alleged +14dBi antenna. There are no coax or connector losses. Therefore, the EIRP is: +13 +14 = +27dBm That's about 4dB *WORSE* than the 500mw system. If I used my guess as to your antenna gain, it would 7dB worse than the 500mw system. Wanna try again with better numbers?
What's the FCC ID number so I can look on the FCC ID web site and see what's inside?
Oops. I didn't notice that you specified a 14dBi antenna on the 500mw system. So, I can add another 5dB of antenna gain for an EIRP of: +23.2 +14 -1 = 36.2 Comparing that with your USB radio/antenna, the USB is 9dB worse. At
6dB for double the range, that's a huge difference.
Well, I guess I should be fair and also do the receive side of the puzzle. The 500mw system has coax cable losses that your USB radio does not. For identical antennas, your USB radio/antenna should have about 4dB less receive loss (coax and connector loss). Therefore, the
500mw system transmits as much as 3 times furthur than your USB radio/antenna, but only hears 70% as far. However, if we use my guess of the more realistic gain of your antenna, the difference in gain is about the same as the difference in coax losses, resulting in a tie on receive range. That's more an indictment against power amplifiers than an endorsement of USB radio/antennas.
Has you know nothing is in stone. Look at my feed back. Your calculations are correct for gain using your data. I have just been able to do it better. My antenna is 5x6 you can take it with you easily. I don't want to dispute you. I'm just saying I have been able to do it better. Look at my feed back people have compared it to 14db panels and mine hangs right in there. Ed