Why You Still Can't Hear Me Now

In message <[email protected]> "Rod Speed"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Joseph <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> John Richards <[email protected]> wrote
>
>>> If you happen to be close to a tower you don't need a good antenna.
>>> But suppose you are in a fringe area where signal strength with a
>>> collapsed antenna is too low. Then you pull out the antenna, and
>>> voila, now you have enough signal to make a call.
>
>> You are under the impression that simply pulling out an antenna gives
>> you superior performance under all conditions with the assumption that
>> it "sees" the signal better. Such is not the case. Best performance
>> will happen when the *correct* size antenna is used.
>
>Its more complicated than that too with GSM.
>
>All you need is a good enough antenna, better than that gets you nowhere.
>

Sure, but good enough for what? Good enough to communicate with the
tower standing at the "digital cliff" with a clear line of sight?

Or good enough to transmit through multiple barriers to a tower located
no more then 1KM away?


--
"If it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent
that year in college"
-- Lewis Black

---

› See More: Why You Still Can't Hear Me Now

DevilsPGD <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> Mij Adyaw <[email protected]> wrote

>>> That is one the the reasons wny GSM systems are inferior to CDMA systems.

>> Nope, its an inevitable consequence of the completely different
>> design approach. GSM uses a high density of bases with a digital
>> cliff that sees the base ignore handsets that are further away than
>> a specified distance from the base, even when it can hear them.
>> In THAT situation internal antennas work fine.

>> CDMA is completely different with the technology allowing
>> communication with more than one base at a time, and that
>> means that the antenna requirements are quite different.

>>> They simply do not want to deal with replacing broken antennas.

>> That has absolutely nothing to do with it at all.

> I disagree --

Your problem.

> That is part of the issue,

Nope. All the manufacturers wouldnt have gone that route for that reason.
They arent even responsible for the broken antennas under warranty.

> otherwise they'd offer phones with antennas for users that want it.

Nope, essentially because they are useless on modern GSM handsets.

So are the stub antennas that were seen with the Nokia 5110
generation too and they werent even vulnerable to breakage.

> There are more factors then raw distance, if you're
> in a building that partially blocks the signal, raising
> the antenna can be enough to get a signal through.

Nope, the reality is that modern GSM handsets do as good with the
internal antennas as the dinosaurs did with their antennas extended.

And I know that because I have used all of those for years.

> I use an iDEN phone, which is TDMA based, and I'm often within
> the distance limit of at least one cell site, but more likely two or
> three, but yet going into a tunnel can cause the signal to drop out.
> If I extend the antenna, I can keep the call connected for two out
> of three tunnels on the train line I used to take into work.

Separate issue entirely to whether that handset with the antenna
extended does any better than a modern GSM handset there.

> Conversely, I've stood on the distance-edge of a cell site (Driving on
> the highway, at a rest stop), I had good signal at one edge of the rest
> stop, but zero signal on the other end. Diagnostic mode indicated
> I had a usable signal, but yet I was not able to make a call.

Separate issue entirely to whether that handset with the antenna
extended does any better than a modern GSM handset there.

> I phoned 611 and talked to a rep to complain about the coverage
> hole (Since I was still within the coverage area on the map), and
> the rep indicated that it was simply too far from the site due to
> TDMA's distance limit, but if I kept driving for another 5 minutes
> or so I'd be in range of another cell site. The rep was correct.

Irrelevant to what was being discussed, whether extendable
antennas have any value at all with modern GSM handsets.

They dont, which is why no manufacturer bothers with them anymore.

They dont bother with the fixed stub antennas either anymore.

For the same reason, they arent needed anymore.

"DevilsPGD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In message <[email protected]> "Rod Speed"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>Joseph <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> John Richards <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>>>> If you happen to be close to a tower you don't need a good antenna.
>>>> But suppose you are in a fringe area where signal strength with a
>>>> collapsed antenna is too low. Then you pull out the antenna, and
>>>> voila, now you have enough signal to make a call.
>>
>>> You are under the impression that simply pulling out an antenna gives
>>> you superior performance under all conditions with the assumption that
>>> it "sees" the signal better. Such is not the case. Best performance
>>> will happen when the *correct* size antenna is used.
>>
>>Its more complicated than that too with GSM.

>> All you need is a good enough antenna, better than that gets you nowhere.

> Sure, but good enough for what?

Good enough to not get any dropouts.

> Good enough to communicate with the tower standing
> at the "digital cliff" with a clear line of sight?

Nope. No antenna can do anything about that. The
handset is either too far away from the base or it aint.

> Or good enough to transmit through multiple barriers
> to a tower located no more then 1KM away?

Good enough to not get any dropouts.

You wont be able to find a single GSM handset with an extendible
antenna which does better in that situation than a decent modern
GSM handset which has the internal antenna properly designed.

Rod Speed wrote:
>
>
>
> Fraid not.
>
>

Thanks for the cite and links.

Rod Speed wrote:
> Some terminal sales ****wit claiming to be
> George Grapman <[email protected]>
> desperately attempted to bull**** its
> way out of its predicament in message
> news:[email protected]...
> and fooled absolutely no one at all. As always.
>
> No surprise that the best its ever been able to manage is sales ****wit.
>
>
Those last few days before the next welfare check are a *****.

wse wrote:
> Mij Adyaw <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:a9yle.84$4p.4@fed1read03...
>
>
>>Agreed.
>
>
> More fool you.
>
>
>>It seems that many of us here are victims of the Rod Speed TROLL.
>
>
> How odd that some have agree with me that you dont
> have a clue about the basics of antennas with GSM.
>
> Or anything else at all either.

What do you have a clue about , other than the timing of your welfare
checks?
>
>
>>I will add him to my kill-file.
>
>
> Fat lot of good that will ever do you, ****wit.
>
>
>
>>"John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>Mij Adyaw <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>message news:Cnsle.44$4p.14@fed1read03...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>A pull-out antenna will improve the performance for analog, GSM, CDMA,
>>>>>TDMA, ... etc.
>>>>
>>>>Wrong. When you have an adequate
>>>>signal level, the pull out antenna is useless.
>>>
>>>If you happen to be close to a tower you don't need a good antenna.
>>>But suppose you are in a fringe area where signal strength with a collapsed
>>>antenna is too low. Then you pull out the antenna, and voila, now you have
>>>enough signal to make a call.
>>>
>>>--
>>>John Richards
>>
>>
>
>


--

How to upset Rod Speed:

Ask him if he has ever admitted an error.
Ask him if he has ever said that he does not have an answer.
Ask him abut the menial job that he could not perform.
Ask him about his welfare check.

-

Notan <[email protected]> writes:

>I was under the impression that extendable antennas only
>enhanced analog signals, not digital.

The pull out antenna on my Motorola V60 snapped off on Monday, The phone
no longer got a signal or barely got a signal after that. A new V60 in
the same locations gets 5 bars of digital signal.

Brian Elfert

In article <[email protected]>,
"John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:

> The antenna length should be approximately half a wavelength,

IF the antenna were fed from the middle, you'd be correct, but for
cellphones, that's not the case.

For an antenna that's fed from the end, the "proper" length is a quarter
wavelength, but especially for frequencies as high those used by
cellphones, the best length in practice may be a bit different from the
theoretical.

Isaac

Joseph wrote:
> No. If you knew anything about antenna design you'd see that just the
> length of the antenna doesn't necessarily mean better reception and
> the technology used has a big bearing on what works best for which
> technology. You'll not find pull-out antennas for TDMA and GSM models
> while you will with CDMA models.

That's because Verizon insists on them for their phones, while AT&T and
Cingular didn't care. It has nothing to do with "the technology used".

--
I miss my .signature.

Joseph wrote:
> If you had bothered to do any research on antenna lengths and why CDMA
> handsets require pull-out antennas you'd look less like a fool.
>
> http://denbeste.nu/cdmafaq/antenna.shtml

If you could understand what's posted on the page you reference, you'd
be embarrassed to have said that.

--
I miss my .signature.

Joseph wrote:
> Yes wrong. CDMA requires it.

Definitely wrong. Verizon requires it. Sprint is CDMA and has lots of
phones with no extendable antennas that work just fine.

--
I miss my .signature.

Joseph wrote:

>>Definitely wrong. Verizon requires it. Sprint is CDMA and has lots of
>>phones with no extendable antennas that work just fine.
>
> Sprint also does not require it on models that just use PCS and do not
> have cellular on their handsets. No handsets/PDAs for GSM or TDMA use
> pull-out antennas.

I can confirm that my tri-mode 1900CDMA/800CDMA/800AMPS Samsung VGA-1000
has an extendable antenna. So did my tri-mode Samsung VI-660. (Samsung
model numbers SPH-A620 and SPH-A660, respectively.)


--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / [email protected] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

Isaac Wingfield <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> John Richards <[email protected]> wrote

>> The antenna length should be approximately half a wavelength,

> IF the antenna were fed from the middle, you'd
> be correct, but for cellphones, that's not the case.

> For an antenna that's fed from the end,
> the "proper" length is a quarter wavelength,

Not necessarily, depends on what you want the antenna
to do and other basic stuff like ground planes etc.

> but especially for frequencies as high those used by cellphones,
> the best length in practice may be a bit different from the theoretical.

In spades with a handset with no ground plane.

clifto <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Joseph wrote

>> No. If you knew anything about antenna design you'd see that
>> just the length of the antenna doesn't necessarily mean better
>> reception and the technology used has a big bearing on what
>> works best for which technology. You'll not find pull-out antennas
>> for TDMA and GSM models while you will with CDMA models.

> That's because Verizon insists on them for their phones, while AT&T
> and Cingular didn't care. It has nothing to do with "the technology used".

Have fun explaining why no current GSM handsets have pullout antennas
and many cdma handsets do. The reason is the technology used.

And US mobile telcos are completely irrelevant to GSM particularly.