Re: How I would like to change the cell phone industry [was Re: AM electromagnetic waves: 20 KHz modulation frequency on an astronomically-low carrier frequency]

07-15-2007, 02:45 PM

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 1, 7:24 am, shawn.cormi...@gmail.com wrote in
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...0c8ed13?hl=en&
> :

> > how would u like to change the cell phone industry?

> Analog cells phones should stop using FM and should start using AM
> with SHF frequencies - at least 3 GHz and at most 30 GHz.

Analog cell phones are going away.

Cell phones already use frequencies in the 3 GHz region.

You are an idiot.

<snip crap>

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

07-15-2007, 02:56 PM

<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:vhdqm4-am8.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>
> Cell phones already use frequencies in the 3 GHz region.
>

Really? Which ones? I'm only aware of cell systems using 800, 900, 1800 and
1900 MHz. There are some (very few) multisystem phones that use all four of
those ranges.

07-15-2007, 03:31 PM

On Jul 15, 1:56 pm, "Brenda Ann" <bren...@shinbiro.com> wrote:
> <j...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>
> news:vhdqm4-am8.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>
>
>
> > Cell phones already use frequencies in the 3 GHz region.
>
> Really? Which ones? I'm only aware of cell systems using 800, 900, 1800 and
> 1900 MHz. There are some (very few) multisystem phones that use all four of
> those ranges.

.. . .

07-15-2007, 03:45 PM

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Brenda Ann <brendad@shinbiro.com> wrote:

> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> news:vhdqm4-am8.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
> >
> > Cell phones already use frequencies in the 3 GHz region.
> >

> Really? Which ones? I'm only aware of cell systems using 800, 900, 1800 and
> 1900 MHz. There are some (very few) multisystem phones that use all four of
> those ranges.

Notice the word "region"?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

07-17-2007, 05:32 PM

Thank you Jim. You did good, it will come around full circle, allways does!

Butch KF5DE
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:vhdqm4-am8.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
> In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 1, 7:24 am, shawn.cormi...@gmail.com wrote in
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...0c8ed13?hl=en&
>> :
>
>> > how would u like to change the cell phone industry?
>
>> Analog cells phones should stop using FM and should start using AM
>> with SHF frequencies - at least 3 GHz and at most 30 GHz.
>
> Analog cell phones are going away.
>
> Cell phones already use frequencies in the 3 GHz region.
>
> You are an idiot.
>
> <snip crap>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

07-17-2007, 05:46 PM

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:45:02 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
<vhdqm4-am8.ln1@mail.specsol.com>:

>In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 1, 7:24 am, shawn.cormi...@gmail.com wrote in
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...0c8ed13?hl=en&
>> :
>
>> > how would u like to change the cell phone industry?
>
>> Analog cells phones should stop using FM and should start using AM
>> with SHF frequencies - at least 3 GHz and at most 30 GHz.
>
>Analog cell phones are going away.

True.

>Cell phones already use frequencies in the 3 GHz region.

False.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

07-17-2007, 06:05 PM

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:45:02 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
> <vhdqm4-am8.ln1@mail.specsol.com>:

> >In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 1, 7:24 am, shawn.cormi...@gmail.com wrote in
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...0c8ed13?hl=en&
> >> :
> >
> >> > how would u like to change the cell phone industry?
> >
> >> Analog cells phones should stop using FM and should start using AM
> >> with SHF frequencies - at least 3 GHz and at most 30 GHz.
> >
> >Analog cell phones are going away.

> True.

> >Cell phones already use frequencies in the 3 GHz region.

> False.

1.9 GHz is in the ->region>- of 3 GHz.

..8 GHz is not in the ->region<- of 3 GHz.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

07-17-2007, 06:37 PM

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:05:01 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
<nn10n4-h67.ln1@mail.specsol.com>:

>In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:45:02 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
>> >Cell phones already use frequencies in the 3 GHz region.
>
>> False.
>
>1.9 GHz is in the ->region>- of 3 GHz.

False.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

07-17-2007, 06:55 PM

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:05:01 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
> <nn10n4-h67.ln1@mail.specsol.com>:

> >In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:45:02 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
> >> >Cell phones already use frequencies in the 3 GHz region.
> >
> >> False.
> >
> >1.9 GHz is in the ->region>- of 3 GHz.

> False.

It certainly is within about 20%.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

07-17-2007, 07:08 PM

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:55:01 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
<hv40n4-p4g.ln1@mail.specsol.com>:

>In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:05:01 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
>> <nn10n4-h67.ln1@mail.specsol.com>:
>
>> >In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:45:02 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
>> >> >Cell phones already use frequencies in the 3 GHz region.
>> >
>> >> False.
>> >
>> >1.9 GHz is in the ->region>- of 3 GHz.
>
>> False.
>
>It certainly is within about 20%.

No radio engineer would agree.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

07-17-2007, 07:55 PM

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:55:01 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
> <hv40n4-p4g.ln1@mail.specsol.com>:

> >In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:05:01 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
> >> <nn10n4-h67.ln1@mail.specsol.com>:
> >
> >> >In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:45:02 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
> >> >> >Cell phones already use frequencies in the 3 GHz region.
> >> >
> >> >> False.
> >> >
> >> >1.9 GHz is in the ->region>- of 3 GHz.
> >
> >> False.
> >
> >It certainly is within about 20%.

> No radio engineer would agree.

That should have been about 30%, but in any case, I am an engineer
and there isn't a whole hell of a lot of anything different between
1.9 GHz and 3 GHz.

What? Some trivial differences in path losses? Antennas a bit different
in size by what, 4 mm unless I slipped a decimal point in my head?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

07-17-2007, 08:36 PM

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com hath wroth:

>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> No radio engineer would agree.

I are an radio/RF/wireless/communications/whatever engineer and I
agree with John Navas that cellular is nowhere near 3GHz.

>That should have been about 30%, but in any case, I am an engineer
>and there isn't a whole hell of a lot of anything different between
>1.9 GHz and 3 GHz.

Baloney. See:
<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf>
<http://www.fcc.gov/oet/spectrum/table/fcctable.pdf>
Zoom in to the area between 1.9GHz and 3.0GHz. There's a huge amount
of point to point, wi-fi, WiMax, satellite, XM/Serius, radar,
military, etc, stuff in that area. That's also where Sprint and
others have recently purchased bandwidth for advanced data services.

>What? Some trivial differences in path losses? Antennas a bit different
>in size by what, 4 mm unless I slipped a decimal point in my head?

There's no disgrace in admiting that you've made a misake. There's
plenty in trying to bluster your way out of admitting it followed by
trying to trivialize your mistake.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

07-17-2007, 10:05 PM

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com hath wroth:

> >John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> No radio engineer would agree.

> I are an radio/RF/wireless/communications/whatever engineer and I
> agree with John Navas that cellular is nowhere near 3GHz.

> >That should have been about 30%, but in any case, I am an engineer
> >and there isn't a whole hell of a lot of anything different between
> >1.9 GHz and 3 GHz.

> Baloney. See:
> <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf>
> <http://www.fcc.gov/oet/spectrum/table/fcctable.pdf>
> Zoom in to the area between 1.9GHz and 3.0GHz. There's a huge amount
> of point to point, wi-fi, WiMax, satellite, XM/Serius, radar,
> military, etc, stuff in that area. That's also where Sprint and
> others have recently purchased bandwidth for advanced data services.

> >What? Some trivial differences in path losses? Antennas a bit different
> >in size by what, 4 mm unless I slipped a decimal point in my head?

> There's no disgrace in admiting that you've made a misake. There's
> plenty in trying to bluster your way out of admitting it followed by
> trying to trivialize your mistake.

I agree there is a lot of stuff allocated between 1.9 GHz and 3 GHz,
but FCC regulations wasn't the point.

Lemme try again.

Put up two transmitters with everything identical in terms of lambda,
one on 1.9 GHz, one on 3 GHz.

Run around all you want with a field strength meter.

There isn't going to be spit worth of difference.

Antenna sizes? A matter of millimeters.

Equipment construction techniques, part availability, etc? Negligable
differences.

There isn't much difference between 2 GHz radio and 3 GHz radio.

Do the above with 800 MHz and 3 GHz. Now you start seeing some
differences.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Re: How I would like to change the cell phone industry [was Re: AM electromagnetic waves: 20 KHz modulation frequency on an astronomically-low carrier frequency]