Mannerisms

Well, XG says they are moving towards deployment, but the claims it has been making for its technology cast serious doubts about their overall credibility. See for example http://marconig.wordpress.com

that´s not true at all John, it´s the claims by a low level engineer at Qualcomm that are being regurgitated by those who have very little knowledge of xMax. We´ll see in a few weeks.

Those involved have no doubts at all. Those outside don´t matter too much.

I believe I´m justified here as the company is worth 1.6 Billion. So far, so good.

John, just to add, kind of ridiculous to point to your own blog as backup to your unfounded claims.

Sad, really.

I've seen the technology - well, something in boxes - at a demo in Fla, met the people and, as far as I could, kicked the tyres. They're not big into tyre-kicking, Xg.

I remain very sceptical. As far as I understand the technology, it's both good and unique - but the unique bits aren't any good, and the good bits aren't unique. I'll be terribly surprised if the core idea, the single-cycle bit modulation, works in real life. I certainly haven't seen any real life results from tests in urban areas that in any way back up the claims. There's one technical report on the site, but it's completely lacking in detail and inappropriate.

The track record of the principals is also worth considering.

Hi Rupert,
Yes I've seen the doubts about Xg. When I've spoken to Mooers he simply says 'if we release details of how it works we'll get copied without compensation'.
And, if it's as good as he says it is, I suppose he would be.
And I know the past record but, for serial US entrepreneurs, it's not outrageously unusual.
So, for the time being, I'm suspending judgment.
Xg's got quite a long way along the trail to deployment.
And I'm a sucker for new technologies which could stir up the established order.
Especially in telecoms where the operators need a kicking
All the berst
David

Y'see, I think that's the loudest alarm bell of all - the fact that lots of people _want_ it to work. Look at Steorn, which has attracted 14m euros (apparently) and a most voracious following (definitely) on the promise of a perpetual motion machine that'll finish off Big Oil.

A perpetual motion machine. "But what if it _works_, Rupert?" ask the camp followers.

1. Enormous claims, enormous secrecy? Enormous bollocks. If you've got something you can't show because it's vulnerable to being ripped off, then don't even talk about it until you're ready to go. Otherwise you do not have a business plan.

2. Nobody - but nobody - who knows about the field gives them the time of day. What little has been published makes no sense. There's no mathematical basis, and what's been published shows that there can't be one, either. Not unless you're prepared to write large chunks of very well attested physics.

3. We know what success looks like in technical fields. It looks like long years of public development of basic ideas, of painstaking characterisation and experimentation, of broad co-operation and widespread discussion. Look at MIMO, for example, which is turning into the biggest thing in RF since the Yagi. That's based on ideas going back to World War II, on Bell lab's BLAST, on all manner work from all manner of people. It's very clever, it's not rewriting the laws of physics, it's going to make lots of people lots of money.

This does not look like that, not even a little.

Now, am I talking about Xg or Steorn in the above three paras?

You're absolutely right, that's normal. But, I think when XeroxPARC did the mouse and the GUI, when IBM did the floppy disc, when Dennard did the DRAM, and Frohmann the EPROM, they all came as a bit of a surprise.

I am even more cynical than Rupert...

For a start, XG are talking utter, total nonsense when they say: "if we release details of how it works we'll get copied without compensation"

If you do not have a patent: it won't matter whether you tell people, they'll simply buy a box (or use a spectrum analyser) and copy it.

But, of course, XG know that. The only way to protect their idea is to patent it.

Which they have indeed done, several times. And the deal with a patent is you describe in detail what it is you have done.

So "keeping it a secret" is nonsense: there are a list of places you can read what is involved.

And none of them are very clever, and none of them will rewrite the laws of physics.

http://www.google.com/patents?lr=&q=X+G+Technology+LLC&btnG=Search+Patents

Finally: "single cycle modulation" is nothing new. V.22 voiceband modems did it, for example.

Any first-years Comms student could explain about bps, baud and bandwidth -- and a very obvious reason XMAX looks like smoke & mirrors.

PS

Rupert mentioned Steorn

There is a discussion of them on the -wonderful- Bad Science site
http://www.badscience.net/?p=444

Thoroughly recommended

Many of the points made there apply to XG too

Roberto and Rupert,
Everything about Xg's technology suggests you're right.
But Xg is inching towards deployment.
How can that be?
Cheers
David

It says it's 'inching towards deployment'. I remember Silk Road saying similar things. It may even deploy something - but I'll bet a large foaming glass of beer that if it works, it won't work any better than existing technology (to which it may even default).

Check out what Phil Karn says at http://www.ka9q.net/xmax.html - yes, he's a Qualcomm engineer, but he's a real geek with top notch credentials. I don't see anyone taking him to task over his maths...

R

Great posts...Qualcomm is no longer able to do business because they are serial patent infringers

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070720/qualcomm_court_decision.html?.v=5

So you can say Phil Karn knows a lot, and I say Qualcomm has a LOT to lose when xG eats their lunch.

xG is now worth 1.7 Billion Dollars pre revenue. That is not a penny stock. It stands to reason that many many engineers and scientists along with financial analysts have looked deep into the co. and decided that the secrecy was worth a couple of bloggers doubts, as well as the risk of losing small investors. and that is put on them by those that actually know the insides of the tech. Nobody who has posted here can claim that.

Empirical evidence is what is needed here, and so far, the empirical evidence is that they are launching as we speak. As far as the founders, that is paranoia and you are grasping for straws. It´s obvious again some of you simply graze over facts and invent scenarios that simply don´t exist.

Far Reach is testing right now, and they are more than satisfied with xMax´s performance. That is what really counts.

The fundamental claim of xMax is that it allows communications with orders of magnitude less power than conventional techniques. The fact that this claim is false is as certain as the statement that no one can build a working perpetual motion machine. Anyone who studied communication theory would know that, and would understand why. As someone who teaches and does research in digital & wireless communication for a living, I am saddened to see that in spite of the fact that we are dealing with a topic where the truth is unambiguous and well understood, falsehoods are so easily propagated and people are so easily fooled.

As someone who teaches and does research in digital & wireless communication for a living, I am saddened to see that in spite of the fact that we are dealing with a topic where the truth is unambiguous and well understood, falsehoods are so easily propagated and people are so easily fooled.

Big Ben, those who teach never do, especially at the Halfway House you run your detention program. You are a dumb bunny Ben, everyone who knows you knows that. Get back to your Romper Room of a school. You´ve never created anything worthwhile and every single co. you have been involved with has fallen dead on its face.

Love ya,
Marc

Marc mentioned that we are inching closer to deployment in a few weeks, which is now little more than a year ago..
Also, Far Reach have been fired since then. Oh, and they were "very happy" with the results. quote "Far Reach is testing right now, and they are more than satisfied with xMax´s performance. That is what really counts. " July 2007....

So Marc, apart from stating the company evaluation as proof that it works, although that would be funny, since the evaluation is so much less now, does that mean it works a little less now too?, just following your logic.

I would love to see this working, as much as the next guy.
But, i don't care about the laws of physics, i just want proof. Some proof. any proof.

Not how you do it, but that you ARE doing it. i promise i won't look under the hood to see your special engine, or whatever it is..

We have all seen the marketing hype of WIMAX, that claimed high throughput nad high coverage and low power. Oh and mobility as well.
They just forgot to mention, "you can't do it at the same time.."
So, comparing all technologies, keeping all things constant, UMTS, CDMA, WIMAX, WLAN whatever.
I give you all an eiffel tower each and 1W output power. and the same bandwidth, say 100 khz. (or more or less, you decide)
Let us assume line of sight as you have done the demo that way.

What can you do?

And can you show that?

by the way, there seems to be no CTO in the company anymore, all finacial people. does this mean technology is not so important....?

Dying to see this Xg in action, or perhaps we can all unravel a potential boiler room scam? ref iDigi...

cheers

Ex base station sales guy