reply to discussion
Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    Larry
    Guest
    David G. Imber <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > There's at least one gentleman here who's asserted that the
    > iPhone's antenna is poorly designed/defective, using terminology that
    > I don't know well enough to properly assess his argument, and with
    > more words and less punctuation than I have enough ibuprofen to
    > endure.
    >
    >


    He DID call me a gentleman....I saw it!

    Any sellphone with the antenna ON THE BOTTOM has an antenna that sucks.




    See More: For those who've railed against the iPhone antenna...




  2. #2
    David G. Imber
    Guest

    For those who've railed against the iPhone antenna...

    There's at least one gentleman here who's asserted that the
    iPhone's antenna is poorly designed/defective, using terminology that
    I don't know well enough to properly assess his argument, and with
    more words and less punctuation than I have enough ibuprofen to
    endure.

    I don't have a fish in this fight because, as I say, I'm not
    qualified. But those who feel they are might find this interesting. I
    just found it on an Apple forum:

    http://www.gp.se/gp/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=444&a=440573

    "iPhone 3G Antenna Test"

    Cheers, DGI




  3. #3
    David G. Imber
    Guest

    Re: For those who've railed against the iPhone antenna...

    On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 01:09:00 -0400, David G. Imber
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >http://www.gp.se/gp/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=444&a=440573


    Sorry, seems I was late to the scene with this.

    DGI



  4. #4
    anonymousNetUser
    Guest

    Re: For those who've railed against the iPhone antenna...

    David G. Imber wrote:
    > There's at least one gentleman here who's asserted that the


    "gentleman"????

    You're being way too charitable.


    > iPhone's antenna is poorly designed/defective, using terminology that
    > I don't know well enough to properly assess his argument, and with
    > more words and less punctuation than I have enough ibuprofen to
    > endure.
    >
    > I don't have a fish in this fight because, as I say, I'm not
    > qualified. But those who feel they are might find this interesting. I
    > just found it on an Apple forum:
    >
    > http://www.gp.se/gp/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=444&a=440573


    Doesn' matter. The "gentleman" on this newsgroup wouldn't acknowledge
    the truth even if it was .45 caliber and pointed right at his head.




  5. #5
    David G. Imber
    Guest

    Re: For those who've railed against the iPhone antenna...

    On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 04:56:37 +0000, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:


    >Any sellphone with the antenna ON THE BOTTOM has an antenna that sucks.


    How did I know that was coming?

    DGI



  6. #6
    Carl
    Guest

    Re: For those who've railed against the iPhone antenna...

    Larry wrote:
    > David G. Imber <[email protected]> wrote in
    > news:[email protected]:
    >
    >> There's at least one gentleman here who's asserted that the
    >> iPhone's antenna is poorly designed/defective, using terminology that
    >> I don't know well enough to properly assess his argument, and with
    >> more words and less punctuation than I have enough ibuprofen to
    >> endure.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > He DID call me a gentleman....I saw it!
    >
    > Any sellphone with the antenna ON THE BOTTOM has an antenna that
    > sucks.
    >

    While I might take issue with the "bottom" vs "top" placement argument that
    Larry uses (at these UHF frequencies and short line-of-sight distances that
    these devices operate at, I doubt that an antenna placement of 4" one way or
    the other would make any substantial difference), I would like to point out
    that, while seemingly small, a difference of 3db is equivalent to a doubling
    of power. In two-way radio communications, as well as in wifi router
    systems, people pay additional money to buy antennas that offer a 3db gain.
    It is the equivalent of increasing the power output from, say, 1 watt to 2
    watts.

    These published test results show as much as a 2db difference bewteen the
    iPhone and the other two phones tested. Now that is not 3db, granted, but I
    wonder if that might constitute a significant difference? It is at this
    point that my knowledge of these things falters. Can anyone shed light on
    this?

    On another, but related point, years ago Motorola made a concerted effort to
    place its antennas on its flip phones so that they would be back and away
    from the user's head. There is some evidence that the UHF radiation emitted
    by cell phones can cause tumor growth with extensive use. At UHF
    frequencies, placing the antenna a few inches away from the head reduces the
    power reaching the head by a significant amount, power levels dissipating at
    some geometric rate with distance from the antenna. In light of that,
    Apple's bottom-placement of its antenna, keeping it close to your head at
    all times, may be detrimental to your health.

    Can anyone shed more light on this issue?





  7. #7
    Mike
    Guest

    Re: For those who've railed against the iPhone antenna...

    Carl wrote:
    > Larry wrote:
    >> David G. Imber <[email protected]> wrote in
    >> news:[email protected]:
    >>
    >>> There's at least one gentleman here who's asserted that the
    >>> iPhone's antenna is poorly designed/defective, using terminology that
    >>> I don't know well enough to properly assess his argument, and with
    >>> more words and less punctuation than I have enough ibuprofen to
    >>> endure.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> He DID call me a gentleman....I saw it!
    >>
    >> Any sellphone with the antenna ON THE BOTTOM has an antenna that
    >> sucks.
    >>

    > While I might take issue with the "bottom" vs "top" placement argument that
    > Larry uses (at these UHF frequencies and short line-of-sight distances that
    > these devices operate at, I doubt that an antenna placement of 4" one way or
    > the other would make any substantial difference), I would like to point out
    > that, while seemingly small, a difference of 3db is equivalent to a doubling
    > of power. In two-way radio communications, as well as in wifi router
    > systems, people pay additional money to buy antennas that offer a 3db gain.
    > It is the equivalent of increasing the power output from, say, 1 watt to 2
    > watts.
    >
    > These published test results show as much as a 2db difference bewteen the
    > iPhone and the other two phones tested. Now that is not 3db, granted, but I
    > wonder if that might constitute a significant difference? It is at this
    > point that my knowledge of these things falters. Can anyone shed light on
    > this?
    >
    > On another, but related point, years ago Motorola made a concerted effort to
    > place its antennas on its flip phones so that they would be back and away
    > from the user's head. There is some evidence that the UHF radiation emitted
    > by cell phones can cause tumor growth with extensive use. At UHF
    > frequencies, placing the antenna a few inches away from the head reduces the
    > power reaching the head by a significant amount, power levels dissipating at
    > some geometric rate with distance from the antenna. In light of that,
    > Apple's bottom-placement of its antenna, keeping it close to your head at
    > all times, may be detrimental to your health.
    >
    > Can anyone shed more light on this issue?
    >
    >


    I don't know how you hold your phone but I tend to keep the top (where
    the earpiece is) closer to my head than the mic. Also the bottom of the
    phone is further away from your brain.

    The telecoms industry as a whole dismisses fears of re radiation - well
    they would wouldn't they! - so I doubt this had anything to do with the
    positioning of the antenna. Apple will have stuck it wherever it's
    convenient.


    Mike



  8. #8
    Larry
    Guest

    Re: For those who've railed against the iPhone antenna...

    "Carl" <[email protected]> wrote in news:48b40444$0$29519
    [email protected]:

    > I doubt that an antenna placement of 4" one way or
    > the other would make any substantial difference)


    It's not the 4" that's the trouble. Lay an iphone back so you can see the
    bubble level on the display. The antennas MUST be somewhat directional
    AWAY from the conductive guts of it, like every other device ever made with
    an antenna. Let's suppose that directivity away from the guts of it
    radiates most of the energy in a cardioid-looking pattern (a donut half)
    down and away from you. That energy is pointed right into your hand
    holding the damned iPhone so you can see it. The energy that makes it
    through your cooking meat is radiating towards the FLOOR!....DOWN!....not
    towards the tower UP.

    Now, if we had designed it upside down so the antennas were along the TOP
    of the device you are holding in your hand admiring the bubble toy, that
    radiation pattern would NOT be pointing into your hand as your hand is on
    the bottom half in the back. The TOP of the device is open to the air and
    would be pointing in the direction of the TOP of some tower a half mile
    away....where those panel antennas are waiting to hear from it.

    The antennas cannot help but be directional away from the conductive PC
    board and the battery inside the box they are using for a ground plane. It
    won't radiate through the PC board/battery and the touchscreen much at all.

    The iPhone antenna couldn't be put in a worse location unless it was
    between the PC board and the display board. It sucks.

    A tiny 850/1900 Mhz pull up antenna like is on a Motorola V60 off the top
    edge of the iPhone would eliminate this problem and make it RADIATE much
    better. But that would hurt the pussy factor, wouldn't it?




  9. #9
    Larry
    Guest

    Re: For those who've railed against the iPhone antenna...

    "Carl" <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > These published test results show as much as a 2db difference bewteen
    > the iPhone and the other two phones tested. Now that is not 3db,
    > granted, but I wonder if that might constitute a significant
    > difference? It is at this point that my knowledge of these things
    > falters. Can anyone shed light on this?
    >
    >


    His bogus test inside a REFLECTIVE box is useless. See my rant about
    anechoic RF chambers and proper RF pattern testing.

    If you stand on a big sheet of aluminum plate while using it, its signal
    will go way up at the tower from the reflection of energy that was going
    into the ground, holding it in normal touchscreen use position.




  10. #10
    Larry
    Guest

    Re: For those who've railed against the iPhone antenna...

    "Carl" <[email protected]> wrote in news:48b40444$0$29519
    [email protected]:

    > Can anyone shed more light on this issue?
    >
    >
    >


    Sellphone radiation hazards are ZERO. There's no power output left and
    these crappy invisible antennas nearly radiate nothing, not to save humans
    from death, but to save sellphone carriers from you jamming adjacent cells
    reducing revenue per square mile.

    One of our UHF TV stations radiates 25,000,000 effective radiated power.
    All your local FM radio stations runn 100,000 watts ERP. Trunk radios on
    the plumber's truck radiate from 10 to 100 watts ERP from that little
    antenna on the truck. ANY paging transmitter worth its salt is radiating,
    continuously if they're making any money, several thousand watts ERP.

    The RF coming out of your .15w sellphone into a strip of pc board along the
    edge is about zip.




  11. #11
    Todd Allcock
    Guest

    Re: For those who've railed against the iPhone antenna...


    "Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    >> I doubt that an antenna placement of 4" one way or
    >> the other would make any substantial difference)

    >
    > It's not the 4" that's the trouble. Lay an iphone back so you can see the
    > bubble level on the display. The antennas MUST be somewhat directional
    > AWAY from the conductive guts of it, like every other device ever made
    > with
    > an antenna. Let's suppose that directivity away from the guts of it
    > radiates most of the energy in a cardioid-looking pattern (a donut half)
    > down and away from you. That energy is pointed right into your hand
    > holding the damned iPhone so you can see it. The energy that makes it
    > through your cooking meat is radiating towards the FLOOR!....DOWN!....not
    > towards the tower UP...
    >
    > ...A tiny 850/1900 Mhz pull up antenna like is on a Motorola V60 off the
    > top
    > edge of the iPhone would eliminate this problem and make it RADIATE much
    > better. But that would hurt the pussy factor, wouldn't it?


    Any yet the iPhone works (and doesn't work) in roughly all the same places
    as any other AT&T phone does and doesn't, your long-wave HAM
    experience-based theories notwithstanding. Would a nice retractable pull-up
    antenna be preferable? Perhaps, but outside of a few stubborn CDMA models,
    the age of the pullup or stub antenna is behind us, and seemingly
    unneccessary in the high-frequency cellular world we live in. Of all the
    GSM phones I've used regularly, only one, a Panasonic G51: the smallest
    color-display
    cellphone available at the time of it's release,
    <
    http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp...S&displayTab=F >
    had an external antenna, (probably because they couldn't fit it inside the
    case!) and it's reception was markedly inferior to any of the Nokia models
    (all with internal antennas) I used at the time.

    I don't pretend to ever have known as much about RF propagation as you've
    probably forgotten, but arguably, if the positioning of the iPhone's antenna
    was truly flawed, it would have much poorer reception than other AT&T phones
    on the same network, would it not? And while it's not the best performer in
    the pack, it certainly seems to be at least an average performer as a phone,
    reception-wise, so while perhaps not optimally placed from an engineering or
    theoretical perspective, it certainly seems "good enough" for everyday
    real-world use.






  12. #12
    Dennis Ferguson
    Guest

    Re: For those who've railed against the iPhone antenna...

    On 2008-08-26, Carl <[email protected]> wrote:
    > These published test results show as much as a 2db difference bewteen the
    > iPhone and the other two phones tested. Now that is not 3db, granted, but I
    > wonder if that might constitute a significant difference? It is at this
    > point that my knowledge of these things falters. Can anyone shed light on
    > this?


    For people who live in lossless free space it takes a difference of
    6 dB to double the range of the phone, which means that a 2 dB difference
    represents maybe a 20-25% range increase. For people who live in real
    life, lossy, cities and suburban areas, however, most models find it
    takes closer to 12 dB to double your distance, which means 2 dB buys you
    maybe 10% or so more range (you can check the percentages if you want,
    I haven't got my calculator so I'm guessing).

    This is something, but in the scheme of things isn't so much. Note that
    buying a phone with a pull-out antenna is probably worth a fair bit more
    than 2 dB to you, yet carriers don't sell these any more since people
    won't buy them. Carriers are supposed to design their networks to
    work with the phones they sell.

    > some geometric rate with distance from the antenna. In light of that,
    > Apple's bottom-placement of its antenna, keeping it close to your head at
    > all times, may be detrimental to your health.


    I don't get that. I don't believe RF heating has much to do with tumors,
    but I believe that RF energy which is spent heating up your head is
    RF energy that isn't making it to a tower, so minimizing this has
    some value. As far as I can tell both Apple and Motorola place their
    internal antennas in the part of the phone which is furthest from your
    head when you have the phone shoved to your ear. Internal antennas
    are a big compromise in any case, but if you have to have an internal
    antenna I don't know what you could do which would be better.

    Dennis Ferguson



  13. #13
    4phun
    Guest

    Re: For those who've railed against the iPhone antenna...

    On Aug 26, 6:35*pm, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Dennis Ferguson <[email protected]> wrote innews:[email protected]:
    >
    > > *Internal antennas
    > > are a big compromise in any case, but if you have to have an internal
    > > antenna I don't know what you could do which would be better.

    >
    > I'm thinking we could make a special iPhone backpack out of a kid's
    > aluminum snow coaster so when you brought it up to *your ear you could
    > FOCUS all that RF on the nearest tower. *Receive would greatlly benefit
    > from the large capture area of the 'dish" antenna, too!
    >
    > To turn it into a chick magnet, we'll put some rapper's logo on the back
    > of it. *
    >
    > For fanbois, it'll have Steve J's picture over the Apple logo....doubling
    > its price, of course.


    Larry I expect we will soon see a decline in stupid posts from Waffle
    Houses.


    Anyway I see over a hundred of them in the south declared bankruptcy
    yesterday. To bad so sad, all they need to do is price their coffee
    like StarBucks and they would make money off of people like you.




  14. #14
    Larry
    Guest

    Re: For those who've railed against the iPhone antenna...

    4phun <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:2695858d-3b7a-478c-ab18-140e4380cc45@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:

    > On Aug 26, 6:35*pm, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Dennis Ferguson <[email protected]> wrote
    >> innews:slrngb8h6d.4m.dcfer

    > [email protected]:
    >>
    >> > *Internal antennas
    >> > are a big compromise in any case, but if you have to have an
    >> > internal antenna I don't know what you could do which would be
    >> > better.

    >>
    >> I'm thinking we could make a special iPhone backpack out of a kid's
    >> aluminum snow coaster so when you brought it up to *your ear you
    >> could FOCUS all that RF on the nearest tower. *Receive would greatlly
    >> benefit from the large capture area of the 'dish" antenna, too!
    >>
    >> To turn it into a chick magnet, we'll put some rapper's logo on the
    >> back of it. *
    >>
    >> For fanbois, it'll have Steve J's picture over the Apple
    >> logo....doubling its price, of course.

    >
    > Larry I expect we will soon see a decline in stupid posts from Waffle
    > Houses.
    >
    >
    > Anyway I see over a hundred of them in the south declared bankruptcy
    > yesterday. To bad so sad, all they need to do is price their coffee
    > like StarBucks and they would make money off of people like you.
    >
    >


    What the hell are you talking about, now??




  • Similar Threads







  • Quick Reply Quick Reply

    If you are already a member, please login above.