text:
The Best Drones of 2017
Looking for an aerial view? We bought 12 of the best camera drones and put them through 14 demanding tests over the course of more than 200 hours. With new models entering the market on a monthly basis it can be incredibly difficult to figure out which drone will actually fit your needs. We recruited testers ranging from professional drone pilots to complete novices to evaluate a wide range of models side-by-side, all so we could find the perfect drone for each situation. Whether you're looking to have some fun with the kids in the backyard, want to add some flair to your home videos, or are hoping to make a splash at the next big film festival, our detailed testing results will guide you to a drone that will both meet your expectations and fit your budget.
Read the full review below >
Test Results and Ratings
|Displaying 6 - 10 of 12
|<< Previous | View All | Next >>
Analysis and Award Winners
Updated April 2017
Although the Mavic and the Phantom 4 Pro+ are still our top recommendations, there have been a few aerial videography developments in the last month. Namely the GoPro Karma returned from its product wide recall and earned one of our best buy nods due to its versatility and relatively low cost. DJI also released the new Phantom 4 Advanced. It is a slightly inferior version of the 4 Pro, but doesn't come with enough of a price reduction for us to recommend it over the 4 Pro. DJI also announced that it will cease selling the Phantom 4 on April 30th. However, while it remains available on other retail sites, we still feel it is a great option for those looking for high end video on a budget.
Best Overall Camera Drone
DJI Phantom 4 Pro+
If epic, cinema quality pan rights and flyover shots are what you're after, the DJI Phantom 4 Pro+ will be your new best friend. DJI packed a number of updates into the 4 Pro+'s 4K camera, including a huge 1-inch sensor that produces bright and vivid footage and an adjustable aperture that gives you the flexibility to point the camera at the sun with minimal lens flare. The framerate was also increased to 60fps, double that of all the other models we tested. This gives the ability to slow footage down with no reduction in quality, so no worries if you filmed that flyby shot going a bit too fast. The 4 Pro+'s flight is incredibly stable and flipping it into sport mode will have you yee-hawing like Han Solo gunning down some tie fighters. The controller likewise gets an upgrade over the rest of the field with a built-in, 5.5" touchscreen that looks bright and sharp, even when in direct sunlight. The icing on the cake is a field leading 30 minutes of maximum flight time and an improved 5-direction obstacle avoidance system. The Phantom 4 Pro+ provides professional level quality and is so far ahead of the rest of the field it will probably sit upon our Editors' Choice Award throne for quite some time. The only downside is DJI's poor customer service, so make sure you buy from a dealer that you trust and that has a reputation for solid customer support. If you want to save a little cash but still want top notch video the DJI Phantom 4 Pro is the exact same drone but without the fancy built in controller screen.
Top quality, stable video
Great flight performance
Built-in controller screen
Read full review: DJI Phantom 4 Pro+
The new Phantom 4 Advanced
DJI's newest offering, the Phantom 4 Advanced, is essentially a Phantom 4 Pro but without the rear and side facing obstacle avoidance sensors. The Phantom 4 Advanced lists for $1350 with a standard controller and $1650 with a large screen controller, which is $150 less than the Phantom 4 Pro in both configurations. In our opinion, if you're already making a significant investment in one of these drones, it's worth spending a bit more to get the added peace of mind that the additional obstacle avoidance sensors provide.
Best Camera Drone for Travel
DJI Mavic Pro
The DJI Mavic Pro strikes a near perfect balance between video quality and portability. While it can't match the professional level footage of the Phantom 4 line, it easily matches the stability and clarity of video from the Phantom 3s. This is an incredibly impressive feat considering that the Mavic weighs only 1.6 pounds and folds down to the size of a 1-liter water bottle. This compact size earned the Mavic our Editors' Choice Award as the best camera drone for travel. It is the only model that we would ever consider bringing on a long hike or bike ride, and is the only capable camera drone we tested that doesn't require its own dedicated carry on bag for traveling. If you want to get aerial footage in remote areas and exotic locations and want a portable device that won't complicate your traveling logistics, then the Mavic Pro is the clear choice.
Small and packable
Good video
Great flight performance
Can't match video quality of Phantom 4's
Read full review: DJI Mavic Pro
What about the soft video quality?
Many of you may be wondering why we regard the Phantom 4 Pro+ and the Mavic Pro so highly when many people are complaining of 'soft' video that doesn't look sharp and vibrant. The reason for this soft video is a new feature in DJI's newest models that allows you to tap on the screen to focus on a specific subject. This is very useful if you're using the camera to snap a selfie, but once you get further off the ground it is useless as the focus should be set to infinity. This feature has caused many users, including our own testers, to accidentally fly with the focus set to something other than infinity. While making this such an easy mistake to make certainly is a design flaw, it is easily fixed by going into the settings and making the sure the focus is set to infinity.
Best Buy
GoPro Karma Quadcopter
The GoPro Karma Quadcopter provides great quality video in a reasonably portable package. We awarded it our Best Buy Award mostly due to its incredible versatility, which makes it a great overall value. The Karma's camera gimbal can be removed from the drone and held in hand or be mounted to just about anything, taking the stability of its aerial footage and applying it to pretty much any terrestrial application you can think of. It is the only drone we tested that can get an establishing aerial panning shot and then strap on to your mountain bike handlebars to get an incredible and stable first person view of your ride. Also, if you already have or are considering purchasing a $400 HERO5 Black GoPro camera, the Karma provides a multifaceted filmmaking suite for just $700 more. Our only real complaints: the controller joysticks are a little small, and the signature GoPro fisheye lens isn't ideal for aerial shots. This effect can easily be removed, but it does slightly lower the resolution. Luckily the HERO5 Black shoots in 4k, so you'll most likely have some resolution to spare.
Great video quality
Gimbal can be used in ground based filming as well
Controller joysticks could be better
Fisheye lens not ideal for aerial shots and must be digitally corrected
Read full review: GoPro Karma Quadcopter
Best Buy for High Quality Video
DJI Phantom 4
Though it was recently displaced from the top of DJI's Phantom line, the Phantom 4 can still punch in the heavyweight class. In our testing it produced amazing, professional quality footage that was, if anything, only a smidgen less clear and vibrant than that of its successor, the Phantom 4 Pro+. It also boasts a sharp, high quality video downlink and 28 minutes of maximum flight time. Since this quadcopter is no longer considered the gem of the Phantom line prices have been dropping at many online retailers. We've seen it selling for multiple hundreds of dollars below the list price, meaning you could snag a rig that produces professional level footage for nearly half of what the Phantom 4 Pro+ lists for. This value secured the Phantom 4 our Best Buy Award for High Quality Video award.
High quality, stable video
Great flight performance
Great video downlink
Can be expensive
Read full review: Phantom 4
Best Bang for Your Buck
DJI Phantom 3 Standard
The DJI Phantom 3 Standard is essentially the stripped down little brother of the Phantom 4, but it's a little brother with a chip on its shoulder, with something to prove. It still offers a high quality 2.7K camera, and its gimbal is able to keep that camera steady in all but the most difficult of circumstances. While some aspects of its flight are somewhat less stable and its video downlink is slightly more pixelated than those of the Phantom 4, none of these things will get in the way of you capturing the footage you want. While it's not the best, the Phantom 3 Standard is still an incredibly powerful cinematography tool, and it offers its functionality for a list price that is $600 less than that of the Phantom 4 (and can often be found for significantly cheaper online). This incredible value is what earned the Phantom 3 Standard our Best Bang for Your Buck award. If you're looking to get into the drone filmmaking game but can't justify spending upwards of a cold hard grand, the Phantom 3 Standard will get you most of the performance of more expensive models, while leaving a bit more breathing room in your bank account.
Inexpensive (especially when on sale)
Good video quality and stability
Controller not as nice as other Phantoms
Video quality slightly inferior to higher end models
Read full review: DJI Phantom 3 Standard
You should always obey the law while flying drones there are many FAA regulations regarding small unmanned aircraftthat you should be familiar with. The FAA site is user friendly and registering a new drone is very straightforward. Always check to see if the area where you plan to fly is restricted and never fly above 400 feet. Skyvector provides excellent charts for free.
Analysis and Test Results
In recent years small unmanned aerial vehicles, more colloquially referred to as drones, have been getting less and less expensive. This has made them economical enough for some commercial applications, and has even allowed the technology to be leveraged to do some real good in the world. This has also made camera angles and perspectives available to the average, amateur videographer that were once the sole domain of big name directors working on grandiose, huge budget blockbusters. As a result, there is a whole new community of people producing footage that uses unique angles to highlight the innate beauty in the things us crazy humans do every day. Whether you're already engaged in this community, or are excited to become a part of such a creative enterprise, our testing results and scores can guide you to the model that is going to give you the best possible experience.
All of our scores are based on real-world tests, which we designed around the goal of discovering which model can deliver the highest quality footage in the most reliable manner. For all of our tests we flew and captured footage ourselves, and rigorously compared the results side-by-side. For more on our testing procedures, check out our how we test article.
Video Quality
As fun as it can be to pilot radio controlled aircraft, the resulting video footage is the ultimate end goal of most users, thus we made its quality our most heavily weighted metric. The resolution, sharpness, and color quality created by a camera is vital to creating a good image. To test this we took similar footage with each one of our models and carefully examined the resulting video files side-by-side on the same high definition monitor. The best resolution and most vivid colors can be ruined if the video itself is shaky and unstable, or if there are rotors impeding on the camera's view. We tested these attributes of video quality by recording both broad panning shots and fast paced tight shots while following a fast subject. We then evaluated this footage based on how smooth and stable it was, how well the horizon was kept horizontal, and whether or not there were any visible rotors or rotor shadows present.
The DJI Phantom 4 Pro+ and the DJI Phantom 4 Pro shared a rare perfect 10 out of 10 in our video quality testing. The footage produced by these 4K models in our testing looked straight out of a BBC wildlife documentary with vivid color, crystal clear clarity, and impeccable image stabilization. The adjustable aperture also let us get great footage when pointing the camera into the sun. The DJI Phantom 4 was close behind the leaders with a score of 9. It also produces incredible 4K footage, but with just a touch less vibrancy than the Pro models. It also had some issues with annoying lens flares when pointing at the sun (though you might not mind this if you're trying to emulate J.J. Abrams). Like all of the Phantoms these models have some issues with propellor intrusion, but only when flying at high speeds that most aerial videographers probably won't hit when filming.
the above video compares footage from the top scoring DJI Phantom 4 Pro+ and the super portable DJI Mavic Pro. If you look at the evergreen trees you can see that the Phantom 4 Pro (top) captures a realistic and flatter color profile, which can easily be edited later. The Mavic Pro's camera (bottom) has upped the contrast, sharpness, and saturation in camera to provide a vivid look straight out of the box. This results in trees that look greener, almost unnaturally green in some instances, and a degree of sharpness that borders on pixelation. The lower bit rates (60Mbps of the Mavic vs. 100Mbps of the 4 Pro), as well as the in-camera processing leave you with a video file that is much harder to manipulate in post. The Phantom 4 Pro provides a cleaner image with a flatter color profile straight out of the box. Note that you can change sharpness, saturation ,and contrast in the DJI Go App for both cameras.
The GoPro Karma Quadcopter and the DJI Inspire 1 V2.0 both shared the score of 8 out of 10 in our video quality testing. Both of these models provide 4K video resolution and have excellent gimbals that all but eliminate vibration and produce perfectly smooth footage. The Inspire's gimbal can be operated by a second pilot and can spin 360˚, something no other model that we tested can do. Its propeller design also nearly makes propeller intrusion a non-issue. The Karma's design, like the Inspire, makes propellor intrusion nearly impossible. Additionally, while the trademark GoPro fisheye look is great for first-person point of view shots, it can cause an annoying curvature in the horizon when used in conjunction with the Karma. This effect can easily be corrected for in post processing, but it is done digitally, meaning some resolution is inevitably lost. The Inspire's dual controller design, while adding a lot of versatility, does take some practice to produce perfectly smooth shots. Also, the footage it produced was surprisingly and noticeably less crisp than that of the Phantom 4's.
The DJI Mavic Pro Earned a score of 7 in this metric. It had nearly no issues with propellor intrusion in our testing. Despite its small size the gimbal was surprisingly stable but did shake a bit more in quick maneuvers than the Phantom 4 models. The 4K footage is generally crisp, and the colors look bright. The Mavic's camera does have a relatively small sensor, and to make up for this the camera plays some tricks with exaggerated sharpness and saturation. This results in very vivid colors and a seemingly crisp image, but often with a sacrifice in quality. This results in footage that looks spectacular upon first glance, but doesn't quite stand up to scrutiny and cannot be extensively edited. For example, when first viewing some footage from the Mavic we thought, "Wow those trees look so green and crisp," and then when we watch again with more discerning eyes we thought, "those trees kind of look like they're made of playdough." Bottom line, it's footage that is fantastic for a Youtube highlight reel of your adventures, but not worthy of a visually stunning documentary or professional work.
Both the Autel Robotics X-Star Premium and the DJI Phantom 3 Professional also earned scores of 7 in this metric. Both of these models have workable gimbals, but we did start to see some shakiness when flying aggressively. The Phantom 3 Professional has a 4K camera that produces great footage, but we found it had slightly worse color aberrations when pointed at the sun than the Phantom 4. The Autel X-Star has a 4K camera that also captures great footage, but the colors are a bit cool, lending a slight blue tint to many shots.
The above video displays a direct comparison between the footage produced by the Phantom 3 Standard, which provides the best overall value of the models we tested, and the Phantom 4 Pro, which is the most inexpensive option for high quality video. Though a lot more clouds rolled in when the Phantom 4 took off, if you look at the trees it is clear that it captured much more detail than the Phantom 3 Standard.
Occupying the middle of the pack in our video quality testing were the DJI Phantom 3 Advanced and the DJI Phantom 3 Standard, both of which scored a 6 in this metric. These models are comparable to their higher priced brethren, but their lower price does bring some sacrifices in gimbal stability. Both models can still produce smooth images, but camera shake is induced more readily with aggressive flying than with the higher scoring models. The Phantom 3 Advanced sports a 2.7K camera and the Phantom 3 Standard also features a 2.7K apparatus. Both of these cameras produced great footage in our test, but upon very close inspection they could be seen to be just a bit less sharp than the footage from the top scoring models.
the above video displays the kind of propeller intrusion that is possible when flying fast and aggressively. This is one of the few weak points of DJI's Phantom line, though this really only occurs at speeds that exceed what you would hit during normal aerial filming.
At the bottom of the leaderboard in our video quality scoring were the Yuneec Breeze 4K and the Parrot Bebop 2. These models both scored a 3 in our testing. Lacking proper gimbals, these devices just were not able to produce the smooth footage of the other models. Video was inevitably jumpy, both due to a lack of camera stabilization and the inevitably jerkier flight of these smaller models. Additionally, their light weight meant wind significantly affected their flight performance. Even a light breeze was able to push them around, a problem we didn't experience with any of the gimbal models. The footage these models produce might be fun for kids to look at after they have fun zipping these little helicopters around, but really would not be suitable for any sort of filmmaking venture.
While fun to fly, non-gimbal models, like the YUNEEC Breeze, tend to produce quite shaky footage.
Ease of Use
It's easy to forget how much much technology is stuffed into these little quadcopters, and just how complex the required algorithms are that bend that technology to the will of the user. Effectively distilling all of this technology into a simple yet versatile user interface is a challenging task, and some manufacturers certainly do it better than others. Our ease of use testing covered every facet from opening the box, getting in the air, landing safely, and downloading footage. We evaluated initial setup, including charging batteries, installing rotors, downloading apps, and linking each model to the requisite controllers and smart devices. We also considered the controllers themselves, determining how they felt in our hands, how intuitive they were, and the usability of on screen menus. Finally, it is not a good feeling to realize the battery is about to die when the drone is still far away, or that a connection was lost and you no longer have control. We thus scored each model on how adequately they warned the user of such less than ideal situations in order to avoid a catastrophic ending to the flight.
In general we found that the gimbal models we tested were all relatively easy to setup and get in the air, and had nice controls. The non-gimbal models were also easy to setup but tended to have less streamlined user interfaces. The DJI Phantom 4 Pro+ and the DJI Mavic Pro both earned the top score of 9 out of 10 in this metric. Both had seamless initial setup processes and were in the air within 20 minutes of them arriving in our eagerly waiting hands. The Phantom 4 Pro+'s built in control screen streamlines use as you don't need to fumble around with connecting a smartphone. The Mavic Pro is so much easier to transport than any of the other gimbal models that we always felt pleasantly unencumbered when carrying it around.
Apart from the Phantom 4 Pro+ nearly all of the DJI Phantom models we tested were identical in their out of the box setup and controller design, thus most of them shared the same score of 8 out of 10. Setting each copter up out of the box and installing the rotors was easy using the quickstart guide. Downloading the DJI GO app onto your mobile device of choice and making it talk to the controller and drone was similarly painless. The DJI models did require downloading an update on a computer and transferring it to the drone, which was less than ideal but not particularly troubling. Most of these models share very similar controllers, which our testers generally enjoyed. They felt good in your hands, the joysticks felt solid and responsive, and are long enough to accommodate flying with just thumbs or using the more advanced technique of pinching with thumb and pointer finger. The only downside to the controller interface was the menu present on whatever mobile device was in use. While it allowed navigation through DJI's expansive catalog of options and adjustments, it felt a bit crowded on the screen and was not super intuitive upon first use. DJI controllers are quick to provide clear warnings about low battery, loss of signal, or flying in a poor RF environment, all of which made us feel confident we wouldn't unknowingly wander into a sticky situation.
The only DJI Phantom that earned a lower score in this metric was the Phantom 3 Standard, which scored a 7. In terms of ease of use it is identical to all of its siblings in every way, except it uses a slightly different controller. We felt the joysticks on this controller felt just a bit less supple, and that the included smartphone clip felt more like something you'd use to close a bag of potato chips than hold an expensive phone steady. Therefore it got bumped down a point.
The Autel Robotics X-Star Premium also scored an 8 in this metric. Our testers felt its setup was similar to the DJI Phantom's. Likewise, the controller had nice joysticks and a pleasant feel. The only place it lost ground was its app. Once installed it is easy to use and worked well on all of our mobile devices, but it took some digging and searching to actually find it on the app store. The GoPro Karma Quadcopter scored a 7 in our ease of use testing. It was definitely the easiest model to configure out of the box. The onscreen startup menu that runs through initial setup felt more like a video game than a calibration procedure, and it even provided a flight simulator to get accustomed to the controls before taking off. It lost points for its controller design. While we loved its built-in screen, which negates the need for a smartphone, and its compact form, we couldn't get over the joysticks. They are a bit smaller than those of other models and just didn't seem to provide the same nuanced in flight control as its competitors. Additionally, we found its integrated screen to be difficult to view in bright sunlight.
The DJI Inspire fell slightly behind the other gimbal models, scoring a 6 in this metric. While the Inspire's controller is ergonomic and has great feeling joysticks, it is definitely geared towards professional users. This means it requires much more complex setup, not only out of the box but before each flight. This is fine if flying is your full-time job, but this felt cumbersome for a hobbyist or even a very serious amateur. The worst scorers in our ease of use testing were the Parrot Bebop 2 and the Yuneec Breeze, both of which earned a score of 3. We found both of these models to be a bit finicky when connecting them to a smartphone. Both also use only a smartphone or tablet as a controller. This means virtual touch screen joysticks that provide no tactile feedbacks, making flight feel much more tenuous and much less controlled.
Flight Performance
Drones that are more responsive and fly in a more predictable manner don't only result in better footage, they reduce the stress of buzzing your $1000 investment around trees and over rivers. Additionally, being able to maintain solid flight control at higher speeds increases your possible repertoire of shots. Takeoff and landing are some of the riskiest points in any aircraft's flight, so in our testing we closely evaluated the stability of each model during these possibly tenuous maneuvers. We also determined how steadily each model was able to hover, and how well and smoothly each responded to the commands from the remote controls. We also tested each model's various autonomous flight functions. These include things like "cable cam" that flies a straight line between two predetermined points, often while still allowing adjustments in camera angle, and automatic return to home functions (note: it is our opinion that return to home functions should only be used as a last resort, click here for our full thoughts). Most models also have a follow function that will automatically follow a particular subject. We found these functions to be consistently mediocre across all of the models we tested. Thus they did not factor heavily into our scoring, and we would recommend manually piloting these copters to follow a moving subject when possible.
Before you start flying, make sure you are properly registered with the FAA. You can find out more about that process here.
The DJI Phantom 4s dominated our flight performance testing. The Phantom 4 Pro+, the Phantom 4 Pro, and the Phantom 4 all shared the top score of 9 out of 10. Across the board these models are incredibly stable and flight always felt solid and locked in. All of these models have sport modes that allow them to break 40 mph and fly like they were designed to race rather than capture footage. No other model was able to match this combination of reliable stability and sporty maneuverability. Combine that with rock solid takeoffs and landings, near-perfect orbit point of interest and cable cam functions, and incredible responsiveness, and you've got a fleet of top notch fliers.
Despite its small size the DJI Mavic Pro also earned a score of 9. We found it to be impressively stable in all aspects of flight, and it also has a sport mode that allows it to hit 40mph. The only slight downsides were due to its size. The smaller quadcopter did feel a bit less maneuverable in high winds, and its short stature meant we had to be very careful of high grass during takeoff and landing.
The GoPro Karma Quadcopter was just behind the Phantom 4s, scoring an 8. This model performed very similarly to the Phantom 4s in terms of stability, responsiveness, and autonomous flight functions. It could not match the Phantom 4s in terms of top speed and precise maneuverability. However, it was comparable in terms of the stable, lower speed flying required for capturing most quadcopter shots. It had a few other drawbacks as well. Its propellers are set very low to the ground, making taking off and landing in grass somewhat problematic. We also found that the small, recessed joysticks on its controller made precise control of the aircraft more difficult. It also provides a maximum of 20 minutes of flight time, compared to the Phantom 4's 28.
Orbit point of interest functions fly a circle around a determined point.
Apart from the Karma, a slew of other models also scored an 8 in our flight performance testing. These models include the DJI Phantom 3 advanced, the DJI Phantom 3 Professional, and the DJI Inspire 1 V2.0. All of these DJI models provide very similar design and flight performance to the top scoring Phantom 4, with some minor drawbacks. Both the Phantom 3 Standard and Advanced were just slightly less stable than the Phantom 4 during takeoff and landing and when hovering. We would still consider them impressively stable in these aspects of their flight, they just couldn't match the absolute rock solidness of the Phantom 4s. The Inspire was very stable, but tended to react in a jerky manner to any control input when starting from a hover, and offers a relatively short maximum flight time of 18 minutes compared to the Phantom 4's 28. We were eventually able to correct this jerkiness by make making adjustments deep within its settings, but this would be very difficult for all but very experienced pilots.
Slightly distanced from the rest of the DJI pack was the Phantom 3 Standard, which scored a 7. It lost some points because its hover felt just a bit less stable, and it felt just slightly less responsive when flying. These things would not be noticed in isolation, but are clear in a direct side by side comparison. The Autel X-Star Premium picked up a 6 in our flight performance testing. We found it to have solid autonomous flight functions and a maximum flight time of 25 minutes. It lost some points because it felt just a little less responsive than the DJI's, but mostly received a lower score due to its takeoff, landing, and hovering performance. In takeoff and landing it tended to drift unpredictably side to side, adding an unnecessary degree of stress. It also had poor altitude control when below 20 feet, randomly losing and gaining altitude five feet or more at a time. It seemed that one of its sensors was confused when in close proximity to the ground, causing this erratic dipping. This problem disappeared at higher heights.
In this metric the non-gimbal models were again at the bottom of the scoreboard, with both the Yuneec Breeze and the Parrot Bebop 2 picked up a score of 5. These models were much shakier than all of the others during takeoff and landing, and with their smaller size were inevitably less stable in all other aspects of flight as well. The Yuneec does have a suite of autonomous flight functions, including cable cam and orbit point of interests. We found that these functions worked, but the unstable flight made them less useful than on other models. The Bebop does not have these autonomous flight functions but has a much longer flight time of 25 minutes, compared to the Yuneec's 12 minutes.
Video Downlink
Video downlink refers to the live video feed that streams from the camera. For most models this is displayed on a third party smartphone or tablet, but some do have a screen built into the controller. A smooth, real time, high quality video downlink allows you to see exactly what is being recorded at any moment, meaning you can react quickly and effectively to get the exact shot that you want. For the more imaginative amongst us, it can make you feel like you're actually hanging outside of a helicopter with a video camera pressed to your face. If the video downlink is choppy or low quality, getting the perfect shot becomes a crapshoot. This is because instead of flying based on what the camera is seeing, you have to look at the drone itself, infer which way the camera is pointing, and guess at what the shot looks like. This disconnect can easily lead to subpar footage. Video downlinks are also very important for framing shots. If the downlink isn't showing exactly what the camera is seeing, or parts of the downlink are obscured by on screen menus, you can end up with things in the edge of your shot that you didn't want there. We evaluated video downlink quality by taking all of the models on a long flight while noting the quality of the picture and any glitches we experienced in flight.
Here again we saw a clear split in performance between the gimbal and non-gimbal models. The DJI Phantom 4 Pro+ led the field in this metric with another perfect 10 out of 10. Its downlink remained crystal clear and lag free throughout all of our testing. DJI claims the built-in controller screen is twice as bright as a smartphone and we believe it. It was the only downlink we were able to easily see even when bright sun was glaring down upon it.
The DJI Phantom 4, the DJI Inspire, the DJI Phantom 4Pro, and the DJI Mavic Pro all held the second step on the podium with a score of 9 out of 10. These models provided consistent, high definition video to their controllers throughout our testing with no glitches or drops in quality. The only minor complaint we had with the downlinks of these models, as well as the other DJI models we tested, had to do with the design of the DJIGO app. The menu bar at the top of the screen obstructs a small part of the video feed, making it difficult to see exactly what is at the very top of the shot. Swiping on the screen removes the menu and lets you see the entirety of the video, but then you can't monitor things like the amount of battery remaining. The Mavic is slightly better in this regard because its controller has a small built-in screen that displays some things like battery life.
With the exception of the Parrot and the Yuneec, which have limited ranges, we tested all models on a 3000-foot flight where the quadcopters remained within visual line of sight at all times. Some products advertise a range of up to three miles. Flying at such a distance would almost certainly put the copter completely out of sight, which is not recommended. The professional drone pilot we worked with has never had to fly at such a distance to get a shot, and we would suggest flying with your copter well within sight at all times, and according to the manufacturer's recommendations.
Two more DJI models, the Phantom 3 Professional and the Phantom 3 Advanced, scored 8 in our video downlink testing. These models were nearly identical to the top scoring DJI models, except the on screen video quality was just slightly reduced. Not at all to a degree that would affect your ability to get the perfect shot, but just enough to not feel quite as immersive as the top scoring models. The DJI Phantom 3 Standard and the Autel X-Star, both of which scored 7 in this metric, had similar on-screen video quality to the models that scored 8. However, on both of these models we experienced very occasional and short lived bouts of pixelation. Again, this issue was not bad enough to significantly detract from getting a great shot, but was a noticeable hiccup in an otherwise great user experience. The GoPro Karma also scored a 7. Its video stream was flawless, never wavering in quality. However, the on screen video resolution felt a bit soft and didn't pop like that of other models. In most cases this wouldn't be an issue, but in certain lighting conditions it may be harder to discern some details, and thus harder to frame the shot exactly as you'd like.
The Yuneec Breeze and the Parrot Bebop 2 both scored a 4 in this metric. This steep dropoff in scores was mostly due to their interfaces. Both of these models use only a third party mobile device as a controller, utilizing virtual touch screen joysticks to fly. Having your thumbs on the screen inevitably means you're blocking at least half of the video downlink from view. This makes it nearly impossible to effectively use the downlink to frame a moving shot. It works fine if you want to slowly maneuver the camera into place to take a still selfie, which is really what these models are better suited for overall. The resolution of the downlink of both of these models was also significantly lower than the rest of the field.
Customer Service
These are fairly complex machines that represent a fairly significant investment, so knowing you can get someone knowledgeable on the phone if something goes wrong provides vital peace of mind. We called and submitted customer service requests to the manufacturers of all of the models we tested, whether our issues were real or made up, and graded each company based on the helpfulness of those experiences.
Autel was the best performer in our customer service tests, earning the top score of 9 out of 10. We found its customer service to be exceptional. The model we received came with a dead battery. In one phone call we were quickly speaking to a customer service representative. They apologized, cited that the dead battery was most likely due to the warehouse storage conditions of the distributor we had purchased it through, and within three days we received a brand new battery in the mail, free of charge. This opinion of high quality customer service is corroborated by a number of online user reviews. Parrot was just slightly behind Autel, scoring an 8 in this metric. When calling the customer service line we were always put in touch with a representative right away, and those representatives were knowledgeable and helpful. GoPro also scored an 8 in this metric. We found GoPro customer service to be great. Whenever we called we were quickly connected with a knowledgeable customer service representative that was able to help with whatever issue we were having, real or fabricated. YUNEEC fell behind the top scorers, earning only a 5 in this metric. We did not get timely feedback from Yuneec's customer service department. When our Breeze malfunctioned and crashed we had much better luck getting a replacement from the retailer we purchased through than from YUNEEC.
Despite the high quality products they produce, DJI has a reputation for poor customer service. Our own experiences anecdotally verified that reputation, and DJI thus earned a score of 3 in this metric. When calling their customer service line there was almost always a long queue and we inevitably had to wait on hold for an extended period of time. You could skip the line by sending an email or using their live chat service, but we found DJI to be tardy in responding to those avenues of contact as well. Any contact with customer service required filling out long forms asking for extraneous information, which felt like a hurdle to getting any actual assistance, which was hard to come by. We much preferred dealing with the customer service of the dealer we bought our copters from, rather than DJI's itself. All of this talk about DJI's poor customer service may have left a bad taste in your mouth. However, the fact is we still feel DJI makes the best camera drone available, and the Phantom 4 Pro+ is still the model we would recommend to our friends. We would just suggest that you keep this customer service limitation in mind, and make sure to buy your copter through a dealer that has a generous return policy. We personally were able to easily get a replacement of our crashed Phantom 3 Standard through Amazon.
A Note About Reliability
Generally we like to identify any potential reliability issues in a product by scouring its online user reviews, looking for any trends or a significant percentage of reviews that mention a particular issue. This is difficult to do for drones, however, for a few reasons. First, there are not a huge number of online reviews for any of these products. At the time of this writing all of the models we reviewed have less than 1000 reviews on Amazon, with most well under the 200 mark. This just isn't enough data with which to draw meaningful conclusions. Secondly, the most common complaint across all models is some malfunction that led to a damaging crash. While this is clearly a concern, most of these reviews provide little detail regarding the circumstances of the crash. Most likely some portion of these crashes occurred from users doing something ill advised, like flying beyond line of sight, and it's difficult to parse out which ones indicate an actual reliability issue. Finally, the user reviews for these products are negatively skewed. For example, one of our top scoring models, the DJI Phantom 4, currently has an average amazon rating of 3.7 stars. In the world of amazon reviews, this corresponds to about a C+. These lower averages seem to be due to a disproportionate number of one-star reviews. Most of these reviews stem from people being understandably upset about their expensive new quadcopter crashing and getting damaged, but this brings us back to the issue of not being able to determine the actual causes of those crashes.
While analyzing online user reviews of these products did not yield the kind of meaningful data we would have hoped for, it did teach us one major lesson: no matter which model you buy, there is a chance you could end up with a dud that crashes for one reason or another. We experienced this firsthand as two of the models we purchased had odd malfunctions that caused quite spectacular crashes. As amazon user Alan Roy put it in his one-star review of the Phantom 4, "Do you feel lucky?" Knowing this sort of thing is a possibility makes customer service an even more important thing to consider in your purchase decision. The problem is the company that clearly makes the best quadcopters, DJI, also has the worst customer service. We would still recommend purchasing a DJI model, but also strongly recommend that you purchase it through a good retailer that offers quality customer service itself and has a generous return policy.
A Note About Return to Home Functions
While we're on the subject of reliability and crashes with unknown causes, we'd like to touch upon return to home (RTH) functions. RTH is an autonomous flight feature that flies the quadcopter back to its starting point and touches it down on the ground, all on autopilot. These functions take control out of your hands, drastically increasing the chances of hitting an obstacle. RTH is a great feature to have in an emergency situation, like some sort of controller malfunction that makes it impossible to pilot the quadcopter back yourself. However, RTH functions should only be used in these types of instances, not as a way to end every flight. We wanted to highlight this because, though all manufacturers suggest only using RTH in these emergency types of situations, some of their advertising can be misleading. For example, much of DJI's advertisements suggest RTH is a feature that can be used commonly, saying things like, " bring it back home at the tap of the finger." However, this seems to be in direct contradiction with the user manual that, depending on the exact model, says something along the lines of, "Only use the failsafe and Return to Home functions in case of an emergency."
We analyzed these drones both through our own beginner eyes and through the experienced eyes of our collaborating professional pilot. From both viewpoints it was clear that the DJI Phantom 4 Pro+ is the model to get if you want to take your amateur videography to the next level. It is easy to fly yet provides professional level footage and plenty of advanced settings to grow into as you expand your skill set. The the Phantom 4 Pro and the Phantom 4 also provide pro level footage, and the Mavic Pro delivers solid footage in a compact and portable package. After these top models we found that most of the other competitors performed fairly similarly, with the DJI Phantom 3 Standard providing the best value-per-dollar for an aerial videographer on a tight budget. We believe we've completed the most exhaustive and scientific side-by-side comparison of the current models available on the market, and we hope this has helped you decide which one you will use on your path to spreading awe on Vimeo, Facebook, and Instagram.
— Max Mutter and Steven Tata
Follow Us
Table of Contents
You Might Also Like


text: This programme presents the lives and works of Beethoven & Wagner, as featured in the BBC series 'Great Composers'. It examines the backgrounds, influences and relationships that make these composers part of the very fabric of the history of western music. Each composer's life and work is presented through extensive performance sequences, and through interviews and comment from some of today's greatest artists and most respected authorities.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
|Publication number
|Publication type
|Application number
|Publication date
|Jul 6, 2004
|Filing date
|Nov 30, 2001
|Priority date
|Nov 30, 2001
|Fee status
|Also published as
|Publication number
|Frederick E. Knight
|Original Assignee
|Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.
|Export Citation
|BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan
|Patent Citations (4), Non-Patent Citations (3), Referenced by (5), Classifications (13), Legal Events (7)
|External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
1. Field of the Invention
The present invention generally relates to a domain validation process for a bus (e.g., SCSI bus). More particularly, the invention relates to a domain validation process for a SCSI bus that is transparent to drivers associated with devices coupled to the bus. More particularly still, the invention relates to making a bus device driver aware of a state change of a device during a domain validation process that is transparent to the device driver.
2. Background of the Invention
Many types of electrical systems (e.g., computers) include a small computer system interface ("SCSI") to which one or more peripheral devices attach. The SCSI bus is particularly well suited for tape drives, CD ROM drives, and the like. One of the features specified in the SCSI standards is that a SCSI-compliant device can include a memory device into which "sense data" can be stored. Such sense data includes a variety of information. In the context of a tape drive, the sense data may indicate "end of tape," "rewind," etc. For a CD ROM drive, the sense data may indicate if the programmed block size associated with the disk has been changed.
A characteristic of the SCSI sense data is that it is generally only present in a SCSI device when a change has occurred only until the sense data is read by external logic such as a SCSI bus adapter. For example, a tape drive may have no sense data in its memory reserved for storing sense data. Then, when the end of tape condition occurs, the tape drive writes a value to the memory to indicate that the end of tape condition has occurred. That end of tape sense data remains in the tape drive's memory until the SCSI adapter reads the sense data. The tape drive alerts the SCSI adapter that sense data is present and the adapter responds by reading the tape drive's sense data. Once the sense data has been read, the tape drive clears the memory location in which the sense data was stored. Essentially, SCSI sense data is a "read once" type of data.
The SCSI standard is a highly flexible standard that permits system designers to assemble together various disparate types of devices. Because of this flexibility, it is possible for designers and operators of computers with SCSI components to violate, intentionally or not, certain basic requirements. For instance, two 16 bit SCSI devices might be mistakenly interconnected by an 8 bit cable (referred to as a "width" problem). In this situation, an error will not necessarily be reported, but every other byte of data will be dropped. By way of another example, an 80 MB/sec bridge device might be disposed between two 160 MB/sec SCSI devices (referred to as a "speed" problem). As such, the devices will not be able to correctly communicate at their full speed.
For problems such as those described above, the current version of the SCSI standard ("SCSI-3") includes a provision for a "domain validation" process. The domain validation process includes several tests that can be run. A basic test, for example, determines if the SCSI subsystem is capable of operating at a specified speed and width. Generally speaking, this test executes by sending a predetermined test pattern to a SCSI target device. Then, the target device is requested to return the test pattern and the returned test pattern is compared against the original pattern to ensure it is identical. The domain validation process is typically initiated during boot, and at other times by a specific user request. After a user changes a SCSI device or cable, for example, the user must request to run the domain validation process.
The SCSI-3 standard allows that the domain validation process be, if desired, transparent to the SCSI device drivers. When the domain validation process runs transparently, the device drivers are not involved in the performance of the test. A transparently run domain validation advantageously minimizes the complexity of the device drivers themselves and minimizes the performance impact on the system while running the domain validation.
Although a generally advantageous process, a transparently run domain validation process can result in a device driver being unaware of the current state of its device. This problem occurs when sense data becomes present during the domain validation process. For example, if a SCSI device or the entire SCSI bus is reset during the domain validation process or a tape reaches its end of tape condition during a domain validation process, such sense data will be made available in the effected devices. Such information will then be read by the SCSI adapter which is performing the domain validation process and then, as noted above, erased from the device. The SCSI adapter cannot pass the sense data on to the device's driver because, in a transparently run domain validation process, the device driver has no involvement. Thus, with nothing else to do with the sense data, the SCSI adapter simply drops the sense data. This situation is typically referred to as "losing state" because the adapter drops the information and the device itself erased the sense data after the adapter read it.
Most importantly, the device's driver is unaware that its device had sense data. If that lost state was an end of tape condition, the driver will be unaware that the tape is at its logical end. For CD ROM drives, for example, another piece of logic in the system may change the block size associated with the CD ROM during the domain validation. The device driver associated with the CD ROM will be unaware of this change and thus be unable to accurately retrieve date from the CD.
solution to this problem is needed. Such a solution preferably would make it possible for a device driver to be made aware of a state change that occurred during a domain validation process that runs transparently with regard to the device driver.
The problems noted above are solved in large part by an electronic system, such as a computer, which includes a bus, such as a SCSI bus, for which domain validation processes can occur transparently (i.e., without device driver involvement). The preferred embodiment of the system includes a SCSI bus adapter which runs firmware to support the domain validation process. The adapter initiates the domain validation process with respect to the peripheral devices on the SCSI bus. If any one or more SCSI peripheral device reports the presence of sense data to the SCSI adapter, the adapter records that sense data in its memory, or at least records that sense data was reported by a peripheral device. Then, towards completion of the domain validation process, the bus adapter resets the entire bus, or alternatively, resets only those peripheral devices that actually reported the presence of sense data.
By resetting the bus, or a subset of devices, the devices' device drivers will automatically be re-synchronized with their devices. The next time the device driver attempts to access the reset device, the device will report to the driver that it has been reset, in accordance with normal SCSI procedure. The driver will then initialize the device and, at that point, both the driver and its device will be synchronized (i.e., the driver will be accurately aware of the operational state of the device). In short, the reset during the domain validation process is used as a mechanism to cause the driver and device to again be synchronized following a change of state during a transparent domain validation of which the device driver would otherwise be unaware.
These and other advantages will become apparent upon reviewing the following disclosures.
For a detailed description of the preferred embodiments of the invention, reference will now be made to the accompanying drawings in which:
FIG. 1 shows a computer system embodying the preferred embodiment of the invention; and
FIG. 2 shows a method in which a SCSI bus is reset during domain validation to make the domain validation backward compatible with prior versions of the SCSI standard that do not support domain validation.
Certain terms are used throughout the following description and claims to refer to particular system components. As one skilled in the art will appreciate, computer companies may refer to a component and sub-components by different names. This document does not intend to distinguish between components that differ in name but not function. In the following discussion and in the claims, the terms "including" and "comprising" are used in an open-ended fashion, and thus should be interpreted to mean "including, but not limited to . . . ". Also, the term "couple" or "couples" is intended to mean either a direct or indirect electrical connection. Thus, if a first device couples to a second device, that connection may be through a direct electrical connection, or through an indirect electrical connection via other devices and connections. In addition, no distinction is made between a "processor," "microprocessor," "microcontroller," or "central processing unit" ("CPU") for purposes of this disclosure. To the extent that any term is not specially defined in this specification, the intent is that the term is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning.
The preferred embodiment described below is shown in the context of a SCSI bus and its domain validation process. Broadly, however, this disclosure and the claims which follow should not be limited to just the SCSI bus, but rather should apply to other types of busses having the same or similar type of issue noted above.
Referring now to FIG. 1, system 100 is shown constructed in accordance with a preferred embodiment of the invention. As shown, system 100 includes a host processor 102, a north bridge 104, system memory 106, a south bridge 110, an input device 112 (e.g., a mouse or keyboard), a SCSI adapter 120 and various SCSI-compliant devices 126 coupled to said SCSI adapter via a SCSI bus 128. The north bridge couples to the processor 102 and memory 106 and couples to the south bridge 110 via a peripheral component interconnect ("PCI") bus 108 (or other suitable type of bus). As shown, the SCSI adapter 120 couples to the PCI bus 108, but alternatively may attach to the system in other ways.
The SCSI adapter 120 includes many components as is commonly known. Several of those components are shown in FIG. 1 as a microcontroller 122, firmware 124 and a memory device 125 (preferably volatile memory). The firmware 124 is executed in whole or in part by controller 122 (a portion of the firmware may be executed by the host processor 102). Memory can be used as a temporary location to store data or instructions. For example, firmware 122 may permanently reside in non-volatile memory, such as a read only memory ("ROM"), copied to volatile memory 125 and executed therefrom by controller 122.
Each SCSI device 126 preferably includes a controller 130 to provide an interface to the SCSI bus 128. Within the controller 130, memory 132 is included in which sense data can be stored by the controller. Not all SCSI devices necessarily have sense data, but those devices that have sense data preferably include memory storage for the sense data. Device drivers for the SCSI devices 126 preferably are executed by the host processor 102.
When it is desired to perform a transparent domain validation process, the SCSI adapter 120 is signaled to begin the process. The preferred embodiment of this process is shown in FIG. 2 which should be reviewed in conjunction with the system diagram of FIG. 1. Preferred method 150 starts with step 152 in which the domain validation process is started. At this point, a domain validation flag can be set to false. This step may be triggered by a user requesting the initiation of the domain validation process following replacement of a SCSI device. In response, the SCSI adapter 120 runs its firmware to perform steps 154-166. In step 154 the SCSI adapter issues a diagnostic command to a device 126 on the SCSI bus 128. This command causes any one of a variety of tests to be performed which preferably are specified as part of the command itself and is part of the normal domain validation process. If the state of a device on bus 128 changes during the domain validation process, as detected by step 156 (by the device providing a check condition message), steps 160-166 are performed. Otherwise, if no sense data is made available during the domain validation process, control continues in step 158 and the remaining devices on the bus 128 are checked as well.
If a device reports to the SCSI adapter that it has sense data available, the adapter issues a request sense command to retrieve the sense data from the device in step 160 or simply stores the fact that a device on the bus reported a check condition. For example, the domain validation flag noted above can be set to true to indicate the existence of sense data. In step 162, the domain validation process is continued with respect to that particular device. Step 162 may include, for example, issuing a receive diagnostic command to retrieve the results of the diagnostic test initiated in step 154 and analyzing the results for a domain validation error. Control then loops back to step 154 for the next device 126 on the SCSI bus 128 if step 164 determines that additional devices are present. When all devices on the SCSI bus 128 have completed the domain validation process, the loop is exited. In step 166, the flag is examined. If it is set to true, the SCSI adapter resets the SCSI bus (170) and the domain validation completes in step 168. If the flag is false, the SCSI bus is not reset and the domain validation process completes in step 168.
If the bus is reset, the width and speed negotiations must be reestablished with each device 126 on the SCSI bus 128. This is performed using the results of the just completed domain validation process. After a bus reset is issued, no commands capable of generating a check condition are issued to any device on the SCSI bus.
The bus reset in step 164 is used a mechanism to ensure that the device driver(s) are "synchronized" to the devices themselves. That is, the device drivers and devices are placed into a state in which each driver accurately knows the current operational status of its device. In accordance with the preferred embodiment of the invention, this is accomplished by causing the devices on the SCSI bus 128 to transition to a predetermined state which will eventually cause an action by the device's driver which, in turn, will cause the driver to be accurately aware of the state of the device. The state to which the device is transitioned by the adapter preferably is the reset state. In accordance with normal SCSI behavior, the first access by a driver to a device that has been reset results in the device reporting to the driver that the device, in fact, has been reset. Further, the driver then initializes the device after which the driver and device can be used for normal operation. Thus, by resetting the devices, their drivers will ultimately initialize the devices and, at that point, the devices and drivers will be synchronized. Moreover, the bus reset action in 164 is a technique by which conventional SCSI protocols can be used to synchronize drivers and devices.
In an alternative embodiment, rather than resetting all of the devices on the SCSI bus, the SCSI adapter 120 can keep a record in its memory 125 as to which SCSI devices 126 have reported sense data during the domain validation process (the flag may be stored on a per device basis). The addresses associated with the device can be used to keep track of which devices have reported sense data. Then, the adapter can cause just those devices to reset, not all of the devices on the bus 128. A bus device reset ("BDR") message can be transmitted to the device(s) that reported sense data. Then, the drivers associated with the reset devices will become re-synchronized with their devices. All other SCSI devices are not reset. This alternative embodiment provides a finer granularity of system control in that only those devices are reset, and subsequently re-initialized, for which the driver may not be aware of the current operational state of the device
The above discussion is meant to be illustrative of the principles and various embodiments of the present invention. Numerous variations and modifications will become apparent to those skilled in the art once the above disclosure is fully appreciated. It is intended that the following claims be interpreted to embrace all such variations and modifications.
|Cited Patent
|Filing date
|Publication date
|Dec 26, 1979
|Mar 30, 1982
|International Business Machines Corp.
|Communication controller transparently integrated into a host CPU
|Mar 29, 1994
|Nov 23, 1999
|The United States Of America As Represented By The Secretary Of The Navy
|Method of sensing target status in a local area network
|Mar 15, 1999
|Jul 3, 2001
|Western Digital Corporation
|Disk drive method of determining SCSI bus state information after a SCSI bus reset condition
|Dec 10, 1998
|Jul 31, 2001
|Unisys Corporation
|System and method for retrieving tape statistical data
|Information Technology SCSI Domain Validation (SDV), Terry Gibbons, Working Draft Technical Report, Revision 07, Sep. 21, 2001 (19 p.).
|Information Technology-SCSI-3 Architecture Model, Charles Monia, Draft, X3T10, 994D, Revision 18, Nov. 27, 1995 (73 p.).
|Information Technology—SCSI-3 Architecture Model, Charles Monia, Draft, X3T10, 994D, Revision 18, Nov. 27, 1995 (73 p.).
|Citing Patent
|Filing date
|Publication date
|Feb 11, 2003
|Feb 21, 2006
|Dell Products L.P.
|System and method for managing target resets
|Jun 29, 2001
|Jun 5, 2007
|Intel Corporation
|Method and apparatus for deterministic removal and reclamation of work items from an expansion bus schedule
|Jun 29, 2001
|Jan 2, 2003
|Abramson Darren L.
|Method and apparatus for deterministic removal and reclamation of work items from an expansion bus schedule
|Feb 11, 2003
|Aug 12, 2004
|Richard Golasky
|System and method for managing target resets
|Jun 23, 2005
|Dec 28, 2006
|International Business Machines Corporation
|System and method of remote media cache optimization for use with multiple processing units
|U.S. Classification
|710/19, 710/313, 710/15, 710/18, 710/74, 710/62, 710/306
|International Classification
|Cooperative Classification
|European Classification
|Nov 30, 2001
Owner name: COMPAQ INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, L.P., TEXAS
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:KNIGHT, FREDERICK E.;REEL/FRAME:012342/0391
Effective date: 20011129
|May 12, 2004
Owner name: HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P., TEXAS
Free format text: CHANGE OF NAME;ASSIGNOR:COMPAQ INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES GROUP LP;REEL/FRAME:014628/0103
Effective date: 20021001
|Jan 7, 2008
|Fee payment
Year of fee payment: 4
|Jan 14, 2008
|Maintenance fee reminder mailed
|Sep 23, 2011
|Fee payment
Year of fee payment: 8
|Nov 9, 2015
Owner name: HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT LP, TEXAS
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P.;REEL/FRAME:037079/0001
Effective date: 20151027
|Dec 29, 2015
|Fee payment
Year of fee payment: 12


text:
It's interesting to look back on if only because the recent past contrasts so starkly with a present of promise and even fulfilled potential for France. Indeed at this early point in their evolution and rise from their own ashes, a quarter-final appearance can be considered a mission accomplished for the team and redemption of sorts for one man.
Follow our World Cup live blog here
It was only months after Patrice Evra stood out as the leader of an ill-advised coup that ripped apart his country's 2010 World Cup campaign that he showed an immaturity that was becoming synonymous with that generation. When asked about Lilian Thuram's idea that he should be banned from playing for France, rather than offer evidence to the contrary, his answer added lead weight to the notion. "Walking around with books on slavery in glasses and a hat does not turn you into Malcolm X," he riled. Yet here we are with Evra now the emotional leader of a team in the last eight.
France 2 Nigeria 0 match report
Credit where it's due for it is not just because there are only four members from that embarrassing journey still about that he is the go-to-guy in terms of experience. It's because he's improved his attitude to the point that he's perhaps reached national forgiveness, an idea that was unthinkable not long ago.
France 2 Nigeria 0 player ratings
France 2 Nigeria 0 player ratings
1/23 France: Hugo Lloris
The Tottenham stopper was always there when his country needed him, producing a string of fine saves. 7
2/23 Mathieu Debuchy
The right-back once again seemed more convincing in attack than when defending. 6
3/23 Patrice Evra
A typically steady performance from the Manchester United left-back. 6
4/23 Raphael Varane
Constantly impressive in the air, but the Real Madrid twice lost concentration with balls played in behind the defence. 7
5/23 Laurent Koscielny
Was kept busy by Emenike, but stood up well to the challenge. 6
6/23 Paul Pogba
A little careless at times, but he was dominant in both defence and attack, eventually breaking the deadlock with a 79th minute header. 8
7/23 Blaise Matuidi
A strong performer in midfield, but blotted his copybook with a poor challenge that ended Onazi's game, and was worthy of a red card. 6
8/23 Yohan Cabaye
A quiet game nearly exploded with a stunning volley that struck the crossbar in the second half. 6
9/23 Mathieu Valbuena
At the heart of France's best attacking moments, but his final ball often could have been better. 7
10/23 Olivier Giroud
A physical presence in attack, but this was one of the Arsenal forward's less influential days before his removal around the hour mark. 5
11/23 Karim Benzema
Anonymous until the introduction of Griezmann, but then played his part in a strong French finish. 5
12/23 Antoine Griezmann
The arrival of the Real Sociedad forward turned the game in France's favour. 7
13/23 Nigeria: Vicent Enyeama
Impressed with some theatrical shot-stopping, but was at fault for France's opener. 6
14/23 Efe Ambrose
Distribution let down the Celtic defender on a number of occasions. 5
15/23 Juwon Oshaniwa
Unleashed some thumping tackles early on, but was often caught out by France's quick movement.6
16/23 John Obi Mikel
Struggled with the fluent moving of Valbuena, and failed to dictate play in midfield for the Nigerians. 5
17/23 Joseph Yobo
A landmark fixture for the captain ended with the disappointment of a late own-goal. 6
18/23 Kenneth Omeruo
The youngster again impressed, especially in the air when dealing with Giroud. 7
19/23 Peter Odemwingie
Another inconsistent performance from the Stoke forward. 6
20/23 Ogenyi Onazi
Was tidy while on the pitch, but twice departed on a stretcher, and was unable to recover the second time. 6
21/23 Emmanuel Emenike
A menace up front for Nigeria, and on another day his disallowed first half goal would not have been flagged offside. 7
Getty Images
22/23 Ahmed Musa
Not as much of an attacking threat for the Nigerians in this one, but showed a willingness to get up and down the left flank. 7
23/23 Victor Moses
Often lacked finesse, but showed incredible workrate, not least when clearing off the line from Benzema. 7
But if the France of 2010 seem unrecognisable, the problem is Evra seems unrecognisable from the player he was then as well. For along with his mental rise has been a physical fall highlighted brutally here.
Once more against Nigeria yesterday, his engine chugged and stuttered. Get too far forward and he couldn't get back. Stay deep and it was a case of hoping for the best.
When Victor Moses, in particular, picked up the ball in Brasilia, Evra would immediately cover yards in backward steps for damage limitation. The trade-off is clearly that offering up vast space in front of him is better than being bypassed and offering up that same space behind him. It's been a problem for so long that it was little surprise Nigeria looked to exploit it throughout. In fact by the time the second half came about, even Efe Ambrose was occasionally abandoning his post at the back and looking to exploit the obvious flaw. It could become the fatal flaw in the French team.
"He was 22-years-old when I met him at Monaco," said Didier Deschamps of Evra beforehand. "He's very experienced, he's a competitor, I think it's his ninth season with Manchester United, he's won a lot of titles, was sometimes captain there. He's a winner, it's obvious, he's accustomed to big matches and prepared really well to be ready for this competition. We saw that in his first two matches."
It was as if Deschamps was talking about a bygone version of the player because none of those physical attributes were on show in the second round. Indeed, for all that the manager has done in seeing out the violent vibrations of the past, his loyalty to Evra is now by far France's biggest weakness.
The manager was brave and has already been proven correct in his axing of Samir Nasri and Gael Clichy as there's now great harmony in this group. Outside of Karim Benzema, there are no star players, even if Paul Pogba lived up to some of his hype in this game. It's a team effort that has made them more than the sum of their parts.
But in such a set-up, there's no leftover ability to cover for anyone when they play the best sides, yet it's what Laurent Koscielny was forced to do repeatedly against Nigeria as he diverted from the middle when needed. His reading of the situation was impressive because when Evra was easily dragged out of possession, he was quick to get across and lock the door before it was opened.
It's a pity because while Evra now represents the evolution of France in terms of a mentality that has got them this far, his limitations represent why they may not go any further.Reuse content


text:
25% off iPhone cases, Samsung cases, and iPhone wallets. Use code PHONE25
Elmo decorations for Christmas.
Thank you for looking at my Photography!!!
Viewed 1457 times as of 12/24/15Viewed 1748 times as of 4/6/16Viewed 1924 times as of 10/2/16
elmo children child kid kids disney present presents christmas sesame street character holiday holidays decor decorative decorations season seasonal seasons wrapping bows colorful red green home decor contemporary art modern art indoors interior cheery framed scene scenic scereny december 24 25 snow retro magical winter still life in cynthia guinn
This is excellent work!
Thank-you for your submission to Mustard Seeds~
Thank you so much for the feature!
Thank you so much for featuring my work!
Loading more work by Cynthia48...
10% off
for joining the Redbubble mailing list
Receive exclusive deals and awesome artist news and content right to your inbox.
Free for your convenience.


text:
MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) - The Vermont Senate has rejected a proposal that would move up the state's primary election to early August.
Senators on Wednesday amended the election bill to remove the part that would have moved the primary to the first Tuesday in August and then voted 29-0 in favor of the amendment.
Vermont's primary used to be held in mid-September but was moved to the fourth Tuesday in August in 2010 to ensure the secretary of state's office has time to produce general election ballots in time to meet federal deadlines, including sending absentee ballots to overseas service members.
But Secretary of State Jim Condos has said even more time is needed.
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


text:
EPA's Report on the Environment
Childhood Cancer Incidence
The term "cancer" is used to characterize diseases in which abnormal cells divide without control. A cancerous cell loses its ability to regulate its own growth, control cell division, and communicate with other cells. If left unchecked, cancer cells can invade nearby tissues and can spread through the bloodstream and lymphatic system to other parts of the body (NCI, n.d.). The cellular changes caused by cancer cells are complex and occur over a period of time. This may be accelerated in children. The classification of cancers in children differs from the classification used for adult cancers. The International Classification of Childhood Cancer classifies childhood cancer based on tumor morphology rather than, as for adults, the site of the tumor (Steliarova-Foucher et al., 2005).
As stated by NCI (2014), "The causes of most childhood cancers are not known. Most cancers in children, like those in adults, are thought to develop as a result of mutations in genes that lead to uncontrolled cell growth and eventually cancer." Environmental exposures have long been suspected of increasing the risk of certain childhood cancers, such as exposure to ionizing radiation. Researchers continue to examine environmental influences on childhood cancer, such as prenatal pesticide exposure, parental exposure to carcinogenic substances, and exposure in childhood to infectious agents, but studies conducted to date have produced mixed outcomes (
This indicator presents incidence rates for childhood cancers from 1973 to 2012 using data collected through the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. The SEER Program collects and publishes cancer incidence and survival data from 9 (SEER 9), 13 (SEER 13), and 18 (SEER 18) population-based cancer registries, including state, central, metropolitan, and Alaska Native registries. This indicator uses data collected through NCI's SEER 9 Registries, which cover nearly 10 percent of the U.S. population and have the most years of available data (NCI, 2015).
What the Data Show
In general, overall childhood (ages 0-19 years) cancer incidence for the U.S. has increased slightly between 1973 and 2012 (Exhibit 1), increasing over time from an age-adjusted incidence rate of 13.8 per 100,000 in 1973 to a high of 18.1 per 100,000 in 2011, but then decreasing to 17.7 per 100,000 in 2012. From 1973 to 2012, males generally had higher childhood cancer incidence rates than females. In 2012, females and males age 0-19 years had overall incidence rates of 17.3 and 18.0 cases per 100,000, respectively. Whites consistently had higher rates than blacks from 1973 to 2012. In 2012, whites and blacks had overall incidence rates of 18.4 and 16.1 cases per 100,000, respectively (Exhibit 1).
Exhibit 2 presents the age-adjusted incidence rates for the top 10 cancers among children 0-19 years of age in 2012, and shows incidence rate trends for these 10 cancers between 1973 and 2012. In general, there are no clearly identifiable temporal trends in rates among any of the top 10 cancers over the reported time period. In 2012, leukemia continued to be the most frequently diagnosed cancer in children age 0-19 years (4.2 cases per 100,000) followed by brain and other nervous system cancers (2.9 cases per 100,000). The incidence rates of Hodgkin's lymphoma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, cancer of the soft tissue including heart, thyroid cancer, neuroblastoma, and bones and joints are all very similar, with rates ranging from 1 to 1.5 cases per 100,000. The remaining top 10 sites include cancer of the kidney and renal pelvis (0.5 cases per 100,000), and melanoma of the skin and cancer of the eye and orbit, which are tied as the 10th top site (0.4 cases per 100,000).
- SEER 9 Registries data cover approximately 10 percent of the U.S. population, though it is designed to be representative of the entire U.S. population. EPA acknowledges that other cancer incidence data sources exist, and is examining and considering these other sources for future ROE updates.
- Incidence data generated from SEER are updated annually. There may be changes in the numerator (e.g., revised counts of newly identified cases) or denominator (e.g., revised population counts) numbers that result in small changes in the overall incidence rates for the same year, depending on when a query is run within the SEER database. For example, the SEER database queried in 2009 generating incidence rates for the year 2000 may provide different incidence rates than the database queried in 2008 for the year 2000.
Data Sources
Cancer incidence data for this indicator were obtained by querying the National Cancer Institute's SEER Program database through its Cancer Query System (CanQues) (
For More Information
- National Cancer Institute Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)
- National Cancer Institute Childhood Cancer Information
- EPA: America's Children and the Environment
- This indicator relates to the ROE question on Disease and Conditions
This page provides links to non-EPA websites that provide additional information about this topic. You will leave the EPA.gov domain, and EPA cannot attest to the accuracy of information on that non-EPA page. Providing links to a non-EPA website is not an endorsement of the other site or the information it contains by EPA or any of its employees. Also, be aware that the privacy protection provided on the EPA.gov domain (see Privacy and Security Notice) may not be available at the external link.
You will need the free Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page. See EPA's PDF page to learn more.


text:
Advice on DRUNK head chef....
First back story...So I am currently a culinary kid (yeah yeah i know but listen linda...) Iv worked in and around the industry for YEARS! I don't know it all but I know a lot. I work hard, i work fast and I work clean. I heard about an opening for a sous chef at a restaurant downtown and jumped on it! I did a Stage for 1 day and got the job. He told me he normally stages for 2 weeks but that i was a beast on the line and we had a good chemistry. I did play as if I was totally green, in an effort to have a chance to learn from this amazing chef. I know how annoying it is to have a know it all culinary kid. I got daily rave reviews from this guy. Texts telling me he just walked into the most pristine kitchen he's ever had in all his EC years. Best sous ever! yad yad.
WELL, Its the head chef and the GM who are EQUAL partner owners, but since day one they fight like cats and dogs. It all very uncomfortable but the staff and them tell me its just how they are.
Fast forward to today, its now been 2 weeks there. I left last night after dinner service and closing down the kitchen by myself (no biggie) while chef got S FACED and was duking it out with the GM. about an hour after i leave i get a text saying take the day off tomorrow, that i don't get until the AM....what? Tomorrow is brunch and one of our busiest services and Im the Lead chef that day...I tried to call him, no answer. So I called the restaurant and spoke to the GM who told be the other line cook who was supposed to work with me called out sick and she had noone else and that yes i was working. SO i went in. Ran the whole service by myself cleaned up to my usual pristine condition and got ready to leave, when i find a text from Chef saying i was fired for not following directions.
I WAS FIRED BC I CAME INTO WORK WHEN I WAS ASKED! What! i mean...WHAT!!!????
I feel like maybe I was a tool he used to put in GM in a bind. I LOVED this job, i NEEDED this job. I was an OUTSTANDING SOUS. But now its all down the drain. Do i want to work for a chef like that? idk Im lost, heartbroken, confused. What the hell is going on? And what do i do....yes yes besides suck it up and find another job.
Today he asked me to come in and "talk". Came in...he talked in circles i think he attemped to swallow some pride and admit he was wrong and whatever it was all cool. Got back on the line and started the night. He proceeds to get drunk again and leaves me ALONE balls deep in tickets. comes back attemps to play catch up but really just helps to screw up things more and yells....YELLS at GM for "NOT HAVING A TICKET"!!! the ticket was right there and blames her for screwing everything up and leaves again. I get everything done, plated and sent out and start preping to close up and he tells me to go home for the night. FINE! i was ready to leave 30min ago. IDK i can deal with alot of stuff but a constantly drunk chef...i need this job, idk if i good enough to go anywhere else but he say im great all the time. Hes a great chef but...always drunk.


text:
Our students reflect the ethnic, cultural, and economic diversity of Seattle. Student supports include: counselors "looping" with students for 3 years; on-site tutor coordinator; on-site Group Health Student Wellness Center and Seattle Parks Community Learning Center; Treehouse services; after-school programs; Saturday School; and arts, music, and athletics programs. The PTSA actively supports the WMS community with direct fundraising and family training, volunteer activities, and parent conferences.
Our mission at WMS is to create a safe, trusting, collaborative, learning-focused community where we can all be our BEST selves.
B - Brave
E - Empathetic
S - Safe
T - Tenacious
A welcoming community of engaged, diverse and inspired learners.
Enrollment Information
School Profile (School Reports, CSIP, District Scorecard and more)
2101 S Jackson St.
Seattle, WA 98144
Main Office: 206-252-2600
Attendance: 206-252-2604
Fax: 206-252-2601
Nurse Fax: 206-743-3183
Principal: Susan Follmer
Assistant Principal: Tia Yarbrough
Assistant Principal: Sana Tariq
Start Time: 8:45 a.m.
End Time: 3:15 p.m.


text:
Having problems with your Bissell Healthy Home HEPA Bagless Upright Vacuum - Metallic Blue ?
Very loud screeching ,continuous when turned on
Answers :
Hi dfabin,
Does the screeching come from the motor area or the brush/belt area?
If it's from the motor. Turn it off. It needs repair.
If it's from the brush/belt area, most likely your belt is either slipping or rubbing on something.
Do you have an owner's manual?
If you do, and the noise come from the belts, take the belt(s) off and check them for wear, stretching, anything imbedded in them. Be sure to clean all debris out of the area. and reassemble. If still noisy, the belt may be slipping and needs to be replaced.
Here's a site where you can view the parts breakdown and order parts: http://www.vacpartswarehouse.com/Bissell-Healthy-Home-Models-5770-5990-6100-6405-s/600.htm
Hope this helps. If it does, I'd appreciate a vote. Thanks,
Handie Andie
Does the screeching come from the motor area or the brush/belt area?
If it's from the motor. Turn it off. It needs repair.
If it's from the brush/belt area, most likely your belt is either slipping or rubbing on something.
Do you have an owner's manual?
If you do, and the noise come from the belts, take the belt(s) off and check them for wear, stretching, anything imbedded in them. Be sure to clean all debris out of the area. and reassemble. If still noisy, the belt may be slipping and needs to be replaced.
Here's a site where you can view the parts breakdown and order parts: http://www.vacpartswarehouse.com/Bissell-Healthy-Home-Models-5770-5990-6100-6405-s/600.htm
Hope this helps. If it does, I'd appreciate a vote. Thanks,
Handie Andie
Repair Help & Product Troubleshooting for Bissell Healthy Home HEPA Bagless Upright Vacuum - Metallic Blue
Tips for a great answer:- Provide details, support with references or personal experience .
- If you need clarification, ask it in the comment box .
- It's 100% free, no registration required.
Suggested Questions/Answers :
Very loud screeching ,continuous when turned on
Hi dfabin,Does the screeching come from the motor area or the brush/belt area?If it's from the motor. Turn it off. It needs repair.If it's from the brush/belt area, most likely your belt is either slipping or rubbing on ... Bissell Healthy Home HEPA Bagless Upright Vacuum - Metallic Blue
It's making a very loud noise when running. I have a Bissell Quicksteamer series 2080. When I was using it yesterday it was making a light squealing noise then it turned into a loud racket. I shut it off and and cleaned the brush (lots of dog hair on it) But the racket continued.
... Bissell 1770 Quicksteamer II Upright Vacuum
Rainbow Vacuum, about 5 yrs old (bought new, no issues prior) - my 6yr old tipped it on it's side while water was in basin. Now when I turn the power on, it makes a very loud sound in the motor and you can feel the vibration on the floor. The suction still works and basin still catches dirt - the noise is just so loud and I'm not sure if I should continue use or how to fix -?
Although a wet/dry vacuum, it cannot tolerate water in the motor. Water will cause the motor to short out, which will cause the motor to act/sound like yours does now, if it continues working at all.\015\012To prevent additional problems, the ... Rainbow E series Canister Wet/Dry Vacuum
We have a Bissell Clearview Revolution #3595 and the motor when turned on Screeches, loudly, it does ****, just incredibly noisy we have already changed the belt
Sounds like a bad motor, part # \015\012\015\012\015\012\015\0122032211It would cost around $60 for a new one. Did you check the brush roll to see if it is making alot of noise, if it is then replace it. ... Vacuums
Bissell vacuum model # 4104 Powergroom has loud screeching noise when turned on
Most likely the belt check for obstruction on agitator(spining brush on bottom) 1st.if there is no obstruction you will need to remove bottom cover(usualy 4 to 5csrews to inspect rubber belt&replace if needed bypulling agitator remove belt&re ... Bissell Vacuums
Screetching noise Motor makes a loud screeching noise when turned on.
... Black & Decker PHV1800 Bagless Handheld Cyclonic Vacuum
Hoover vaccum is screeching loud
... Hoover Flair Bagless Vacuum with Powered Nozzle
Easy-Flo 1525 will not turn off
There is a relay back on the master unit. When the hose is plugged into the inlet the metal on the coupling completes the electrical circuit to the relay. In your case the coupling has a split and the circuit continues to the switch in the handle. As ... Easy Flo EF1400 Central System Vacuum
LOUD noise Turned on vacuum one day and it made a reallly loud noise like the belt had broken. So we replaced the belt correctly, and turned it on and the noise is still there it is also rattling violently. HELP PLEASE not exact same model but close enough
The armiter or fan is broken and if you get it replased it should work like new ... Hoover U5227-930 Elite Upright Vacuum
Loud noise, smell smoke, brushes turn slower than before, stoped using
Yes there are replacement parts for your hoover call any athourized hoover dealer and give them your model # usualy the motors are more expensive than the hole machine ... Hoover Floormate H3000 Upright Wet/Dry Vacuum
I have a Kenmore canister model 116.25812 that makes a very loud beating noise when the powermate is turned on. I replaced the belt, but still has the sound. Also replaced the bag and both filters. Suction is great, but is very loud when the brushes turn.
... Vacuums
Kenmore canister model 116.25513506 wont turn on. when handle switch is turned to floor. vac motor does not turn on. When switch is turned to carpet, floor nozzle works but vac motor does not. I checked fuse, all o.k. checked continuity for plug, o.k. removed wires for bag full switch...motor wont run. I wired motor directly power cord...motor runs. Thinking it must be the circuit board, how do I bypass it or test it?
... Vacuums
It won't turn on. I have partially disassembled it and have continuity between the power cord (wide blade) and one of the connectors where the switch assembly snaps in. Also, switch is working fine. There is continuity across it, then no continuity across its connectors when the switch is pressed. Not sure what to try next.
\015\012Please provide the make and model. Thanks. ... Vacuums
Loud rotating carpet brush noise: Just got my new Shark Navigator, but it makes a really loud noise when I turn it in the position to clean carpets. Is this normal?
... Shark Navigator Bagless Upright Vacuum
Belt wont turn makes a loud noise when put on carpet setting
If this is a Dyson with a protected belt that can't be replaced then it will have to be sent out to Dyson or get a Dyson servicepersonnel to check it over - protected belt motors are difficult to fix by yourself. If its clicking all the time, then it ... Dyson DC07 Animal Bagless Upright Cyclonic Vacuum
Kirby Sentria Hi, I have a new Sentria & used it for the first time today. It was going fine & then I could smell smoke & it started to make a loud noise so I turned it off quickly. If I turn it on it immediately starts making the noise again & I can see it is all lit up inside like something is burning or sparking. I have checked the roller & it is moving & I have checked the fan which is moving & doesn't appear to be damaged in anyway. This product is from the US & we are in the UK & we are us
Sounds like the motor burned up. not sure if travel adapters will handle a large load like a motor, around 8 or amps. power needs in US are 110 volts ac, 60 hertz.I believe UK is 220 volts and 50 hertz. usually when a vac is brought to eu ... Kirby Vacuums
Loud Noise My Kirby vacuum makes a very loud noise when it is turned on. It still works and picks up trash, but the noise is new.
I believe you will find the answer you seek by clicking on this link. \015\012\015\012http: ... Kirby Ultimate G Bagged Upright Vacuum
My vacuum is making a loud noise like I sucked up somehting I shouldn't have I have cleaned all the hair and made sure there was nothing else stuck in there but it continues to make that loud noise is there something else that will cause it to make this ugly noise, and how can I fix it
... Dyson DCO7 Upright Vacuum
I have a Bissell 9200e that has only been used a few times. When I have gone to turn it on it made a loud crack and then tripped the electricity and everytime I turn it on it trips the electricity. Any ideas what may be wrong?
Check plug to exclude short there, if none its an internal short circuit and machine would need opened to find it so if only used a few time return for under warranty repair. ... Bissell 9200 Upright Vacuum
I have a DC14. About a wk ago it was making loud sound and bar stopped turning. i unclogged everything....now the suction works great. However, the bar still wont turn. The belt inside is still intact and isnt loose. Several solutions suggested resetting the "Red" button...i have searched the vacuum over and over. there is NO red or any other color reset button. The bar is set down perfectly in there, the cover plate is installed properly. What other problems could there be? Or do i just need to
... Dyson DC14 Animal Bagless Upright Cyclonic Vacuum
Loud noise I have a Shark UV610 model of the Cordless sweeper. All of the sudden there is now a loud noise when I turn on the power to vacuum. Any suggestions?
... Euro-Pro Cordless Bagless Upright Sweeper - Blue/Gray
When I turn my vacuum cleaner on the noise of the motor is extremely loud. It is only about three months old and was never this loud. Any ideas?
Http://www.geeksquad.fixya.com/ThreadView.aspx?prdid=0&thid=545013\015\012Generic problem for all Vacuums\015\012When I turn my vacuum\015\012Posted by Danedinburgh on Apr ... Vacuums
Bissell lift off vacuum about 4yrs old. Extremely noisy. OK until before Christmas but getting worse every time it's used. Washable filters washed, HEPA filter replaced. brush bar cleaned of every scrap, hose empty,everything that can be cleared has been. Noise high pitched, screeching and can only bear to use it for a few seconds at a time. Suction OK. Mine is so loud I can't use it very long-high pitch screech. Can this be fixed or does the whole vacuum need to be replaced? It still cleans gr
Sounds like a bad motor. Could be either foot motor or main motor either way cost will be more than half of the unit. ... Bissell Lift-Off(R) Revolution(R) Turbo Upright Vacuum
I replaced the belt on my Dirt Devil Featherlite Bagless Vacuum and the brush roller rubs and makes a very loud noise when turned on. I have gone exactly by the manual instructions and made sure the belt and end caps were on correctly, but the bristles still rub the back and it makes a very loud noise. Without the brush roller in the vacuum, it sounds and runs normal. What could the problem be?
Http://www.geeksquad.fixya.com/ThreadView.aspx?prdid=0&thid=561283\015\012Generic problem for all Vacuums\015\012I replaced the belt on\015\012Posted by piggyt ... Vacuums
Bearing screeching? when turned on the hoover will work normally but will give off a high pitched squeling noise which comes and goes. when it is turned off and the motor slows, the squealing also lessens in comparison to the revs.
Hello,Yes, it could be a motor bearing. Another possibility is the fan could be broken. Remove the bottom plate from vacuum. Spin the belt motor pulley slowly and view the fan. You may have a plastic fan \015\012\011\011\011that has broken or s ... Kirby G6 Bagged Upright Vacuum


text:
Bright Hope Trail is a 5.1 mile heavily trafficked loop trail located near Chesterfield, Virginia that features a great forest setting. The trail is rated as moderate and primarily used for hiking, walking, horses, and mountain biking. Horses are also able to use this trail.
mountain biking
horseback riding
I hiked this trail with a 25lb back pack on 3-18-16.It was 72 degrees outside and it took me 2:27 minutes.It was 5.48 miles,mostly dirt roads and woods,a few creeks and a small cemetery.I recommend this trail more for horse riding and mountain biking unless you just want to get a 5 plus mile hike in.
Not a bad hike for my "backyard". Nice scenery and relatively flat.
Downgraded to 3 stars for the ticks and chiggers. Every time I hike it, I'll pull a couple of ticks of my dog. Also don't venture off the trail too much because of the chiggers. I always wear long pants on this trail for that reason.
Still it's a good hike and worth the time.
Great trail for hiking! Mixture of slight uphill and downhill slopes. Creek running through trail in parts. Trail surface is dirt and small gravel mixture
Nice running lop trail. Good mix of hills and scenic areas.
This was my first trail run in VA. I just moved here from Italy and I really enjoyed it. I may have gone off course a little (cause I got lost) but I really enjoyed the run.
Plenty of plants and some wildlife to see. Lots of ticks, so be careful.
This is a loop trail, not point-to-point as was previously labeled.
Nice, pleasant hike for a family. Not too challenging. There are some elevation changes, but they are easily handled. A lot of the trail is on fire roads so a group can easily walk and converse.
Easy trail, rated moderate for length only. Nice trail for horses. Bring bug spray in the summer months, we didn't see any other wildlife though. Don't miss the cemetery.
This was a nice trail; it was very wide, as in big enough for a car for much of it. The surface was fine gravel/sandy dirt most of the time. Very few rocks and roots, and very flat. It was pretty but nothing about it jumped out at us like, "Wow" to make me rate it more than 3 stars. We did enjoy it and it was very peaceful.


text:
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Verari Raises $13.275M For Blade Server Systems
San Diego-based Verari Systems has raised $13.275M for its blade server systems. The Series B funding came from Carlyle Venture Partners, the venture fund managed by private equity giant The Carlyle Group. Existing Verari Systems investors Sierra Ventures, Voyager Capital, and Celerity Partners also participated. The company said that it would use the investment to increase its research and development for its blade servers, which the company is targeting toward the utility computing market. Verari also said that it had added Bob Grady, Managing Partner of Carlyle, to its board. The funding brings the company's total venture funding to $34.146M. Verari has more than 265 employees worldwide. More information »


text:
USD/JPY: Yen moves in range from 97.00 to 98.50
FXstreet.com (Barcelona) - The pair remains in range since past Tuesday, moving between 97.00/98.50. Hourly indicators remain flat while 20 SMA and 200 EMA also, giving no clear signals at the moment.
Yesterday's low around 96.90 seems to be a good buying opportunity for many traders, as the price has rebounded around there in previous three 4 hours candles.
Valeria Bednarik, collaborator at FXstreet.com said: Slightly bullish above recent high around 98.00 the pair could regain some bullish strength in the next hours.


text:
We ship to over 100 countries, including:
Please select the language that you would like to browse the site in.
Please select the currency you would like to shop in. Your order will be transacted in USD.
Size: Select a Size
Oops! We encountered an issue trying to perform this action. Please try again.
Thanks! We've received your email address and will send you a note when this item is back in stock.
Please login or create account before adding to wishlist
Style: 20637641 Color Code:
Brass body chain which wraps around neck and shoulders. Connecting metal links add a falling arrow design to the center of the piece. Can be worn as a necklace.By AK VintageBrassMade in USA22 " Long
Canyonlands Body Chain styled by the FP Me community
Hey you!
Be the first to write a review.


text:
Fortunately my 18+ year career exposed me to the inner workings of top corporations. Many times the objectivity of marketing metrics has humbled me. Other times, senior managements' inability to listen to voice of their customers has stupefied me. From these experiences, I am better suited to help optimize marketing channels to be positioned for exponential growth. Lazydays RV is the world's largest RV dealership and the industry market leader. With over 600 employees in only two locations, annual sales exceed $500 million and projected to reach near $600 million this year alone. SHOP.COM + Market America is a top 60 Internet Retailer and Global Direct Ecommerce leader with over $600 million annual sales, 15 websites, 3 million customers and 180,000 independent distributors in 7 countries. We moved from 70 to 57 on the Internet Retailer Top 500 E-commerce companies and were the #1 fastest growing M-Commerce site.
Work ExperienceEdit
Interests & GroupsEdit
- no interests
- Surf
- Soccer
- Tennis
- Volleyball
- NSCAA CYSA Calsouth Simi Valley Eclipse Simi Valley Chivas Select Cities Soccer Club Moorpark College Women's Soccer Chatsworth HS Varsity Soccer
Education HistoryEdit
Limit Reached
You hit your limit of Direct Messages for the month. To send more direct messages this month, you will need to upgrade to the next level.