Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 17 of 17
  1. #16
    tony d
    Guest

    Re: 6230 - functional integration stinks!



    "Chris Blunt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:38:42 +0000, [email protected] wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:01:29 +0800, Chris Blunt
    >><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:14:52 +0000, [email protected] wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:59:17 +0800, Chris Blunt
    >>>><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:49:46 -0000, "Alistair"
    >>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>"Greg N." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>>>>news:[email protected]
    >>>>>>> Sure the 6230 has loads of functions, is loved by many, wins
    >>>>>>> comparison
    >>>>>>> tests and all. Does nobody except me get upset by the horribly poor
    >>>>>>> function integration of this thing?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> A few exaples:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> - the Media/Radio won't play without headset, the Media/Music player
    >>>>>>> does.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>because the headset doubles as the aerial..what good is a radio
    >>>>>>without
    >>>>>>one?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>The phone appears able to pick up signals from cell sites quite
    >>>>>adequately without an external aerial, so why can't it pick up a
    >>>>>signal from commercial FM radio stations? I've seen several miniature
    >>>>>FM radio receivers that are able to function quite well without a
    >>>>>large external antenna. I'm sure Nokia could have improved the design
    >>>>>of this function a bit.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Because the wavelength of an FM signal is at least 10 times as great
    >>>>as that of the lowest frequency cell signal thus it needs a much
    >>>>longer antenna for efficient reception.
    >>>
    >>>So how come an AM radio, which receives signals 1,000 times the
    >>>wavelength of a cell signal still doesn't need an external antenna?
    >>>According to your explanation, it should need an antenna which
    >>>stretches across the road.

    >>
    >>
    >>Because it uses a long piece of wire wound onto a ferrite core which
    >>(electrically) stretches a very long way down the road.

    >
    > So it doesn't actually need to be physically long after all, it just
    > needs to appear 'long' electrically. Which brings us back to my
    > original point. If Nokia can incorporate an antenna for 1,000MHz which
    > will fit inside a phone, and an antenna for 1MHz will also occupy a
    > similar amount of space, Nokia should have been able to come up with
    > an antenna for 100MHz to do the same.
    >
    > Chris
    >


    I thought that this has just been explained.

    The MW and LW antenna is different from the FM antenna. To add a MW antenna
    would require adding a ferrite rod and coil. This would add to the bulk and
    weight of your phone. You like the phone small, no?

    However if you use a headset you can double that for an fm radio antenna,
    there are loads of cheap FM only radios that use the headset as an antenna.
    It is a clever additional functionality and you get the headset free!! I
    have no grumbles with the radio.


    Tony





    See More: 6230 - functional integration stinks!




  2. #17
    Chris Blunt
    Guest

    Re: 6230 - functional integration stinks!

    On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:35:47 +0000, [email protected] wrote:

    >On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:32:57 +0800, Chris Blunt
    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:38:42 +0000, [email protected] wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:01:29 +0800, Chris Blunt
    >>><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:14:52 +0000, [email protected] wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:59:17 +0800, Chris Blunt
    >>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:49:46 -0000, "Alistair"
    >>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>"Greg N." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>news:[email protected]
    >>>>>>>> Sure the 6230 has loads of functions, is loved by many, wins comparison
    >>>>>>>> tests and all. Does nobody except me get upset by the horribly poor
    >>>>>>>> function integration of this thing?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> A few exaples:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> - the Media/Radio won't play without headset, the Media/Music player does.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>because the headset doubles as the aerial..what good is a radio without
    >>>>>>>one?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>The phone appears able to pick up signals from cell sites quite
    >>>>>>adequately without an external aerial, so why can't it pick up a
    >>>>>>signal from commercial FM radio stations? I've seen several miniature
    >>>>>>FM radio receivers that are able to function quite well without a
    >>>>>>large external antenna. I'm sure Nokia could have improved the design
    >>>>>>of this function a bit.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Because the wavelength of an FM signal is at least 10 times as great
    >>>>>as that of the lowest frequency cell signal thus it needs a much
    >>>>>longer antenna for efficient reception.
    >>>>
    >>>>So how come an AM radio, which receives signals 1,000 times the
    >>>>wavelength of a cell signal still doesn't need an external antenna?
    >>>>According to your explanation, it should need an antenna which
    >>>>stretches across the road.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Because it uses a long piece of wire wound onto a ferrite core which
    >>>(electrically) stretches a very long way down the road.

    >>
    >>So it doesn't actually need to be physically long after all, it just
    >>needs to appear 'long' electrically. Which brings us back to my
    >>original point. If Nokia can incorporate an antenna for 1,000MHz which
    >>will fit inside a phone, and an antenna for 1MHz will also occupy a
    >>similar amount of space, Nokia should have been able to come up with
    >>an antenna for 100MHz to do the same.

    >
    >Why should they when they have a perfectly suitable antenna available
    >in the headphones?


    So that people can play the radio through the loudspeaker without
    needing to have the earphones hanging off the phone.

    Chris




  • Phones Discussed Above

    BlackBerry 6210 / 6230 More BlackBerry 6210 / 6230 topics RIM (Blackberry) Forum Reviews
  • Similar Threads

    1. alt.cellular.nokia
    2. alt.cellular.nokia
    3. Sony Ericsson
    4. Nokia
    5. Computers



  • Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12