No, not too good. I just didn't see a point in highlighting the statements you've made regarding PPM and PCM that are based upon nothing more than your assumptions. Although it might benefit the general community, I felt the potential damage to your integrity and credibility just weren't worth it. The number of points I disagreed with you on made it unlikely that you would have taken my post in the spirit in which it was intended. You probably would have viewed it as an attack, though it certainly would not have contained sarcasm.

Your statement about position modulation is valid. There is a variable starting pulse and negative 300us channel separation pulses shifted in time. However, the positive portion of the waveform consists of modulated pulse-widths. You can call it what you want. (duration of the negative pulses does not appear to be critical, as timing indicates the demux is postive-edge triggered) PPM, PWM, or PCM are modulation schemes, methods of adding some sort of intelligence to a signal. It's not necessary that they be the output of a mux.

What RCPilot100 is talking about is EMI and near-field RF radiation. This radiation wreaks havoc on our receivers by it's sheer magnitude and broad spectrum. The interference is induced and reradiated in the receiver, servos, leads, and antenna. This near-field induction is called evanescent or reactive coupling, and is not limited to H field emissions. As for artifacts causing distortion "in electromagnetic form" vs. being mixed, erm.. sure man. Your theory that "the distorted part of the signal blends in with the non distorted signal and kind of resonates to create a signal that is slightly off or fluctuating" is pure poetry.

Your statement about PCM not being reliant on signal timing is false. Both PCM and PPM rely on synchronization with each frame.

Your statement about PPM discarding corrupted frames and PCM chugging right along is actually backwards. PCM will discard a subframe after an error of a single bit. PPM will continue to process the frame, although if channel 1's pulse was so badly corrupted that it was to go unnoticed, channel 2's pulse could be sent to channel 1, and so on, until the beginning of the next frame. In the event of an error, a PCM receiver will simply hold the last valid frame's data in the decoder until the failsafe timeout. This is why short errors can go by unnoticed in a PCM system.

There is nothing more robust about the PCM waveform as it travels through the air. I can't say whether anyone puts better componentry in their PCM receivers, but front-end components aside, the robustness stems from PCM's CRC checks, the receiver's ability to hold an output in the event of a corrupted frame, and the fact that jitter errors do not affect the servo's position in a PCM system. While jitter can be evident in PPM systems, the frame repetition rate is high enough that it's effect is minimal.

While I appreciate your attack, I suggest that you claim "expertise" in another area of the hobby. I'll admit to being wrong once in a while, and I welcome it when people enlighten me, provided they do so in a professional manner. Disillusionment is a part of growth in engineering. If I believe in my point, I'll argue it, in a professional manner. You however, seem to enjoy attacking people with what little you know.

Have a nice day