Yes, I stalk Rob. I do.

That's why Rob followed me over to the AT&T forum to get ***** slapped some
more.

I posted
> P.S. - for better building penetration think of the short sine waves as
> having better penetration, like bass vs. treble in a sound system. Only
> radio frequencies effect electrons whereas sound waves affect air.
>

ROB posted:
True on relative penetration. But radio waves affect electrons? Ever
heard of gamma waves? Wave-particle duality? Radio waves travel on
their own.

Radio waves affect electrons only because we set up complex electronics
designed to respond to them. OK, sometimes *not* so complex, either.

--
-+-
RØß
O/Siris
I work for SprintPCS
I *don't* speak for them.


I posted:
Radio waves are created by the vibration of electric charge. They hit one
atom, causing the electons in that atom to vibrate and release a wave with
an equal frequency. Radio waves can travel through a vaccum, unlike
mechanical waves. But when they travel through a medium, such as air,
walls, etc., they effect the electrons in that medium. If they didn't, no
radio waves would reach the inside of your office or car.

Gamma waves also transmit through walls well, as they are on the other end
of the spectrum from radio waves. The waves in the middle of the spectrum,
such as visible light, have a harder time passing through walls. Since the
1900 MHz frequency is closer to the middle, it doesn't pass through the
walls as well as the 800 MHz. This is because the size of the wave is more
in relation with the size of the wall. In other words, the gamma rays are
so small that the waves don't interact with the huge gaping spaces found in
a wall (relatively speaking, of course). And lower frequency waves pass
through the walls because they're large and essentially ignore the wall
(again, relatively speaking.


>Radio waves affect electrons only because we set up complex electronics
>designed to respond to them. OK, sometimes *not* so complex, either.

Or they effect electrons because crap gets in their way, such as buildings,
trees, mountains, AIR, etc.


Then ROB posted:
Your analogy is falling apart then. Air is *the* medium by which sound
travels. Electrons are not for radio waves. At best, it's a side
effect.

--
-+-
RØß
O/Siris
I work for SprintPCS
I *don't* speak for them.



OK, Rob/Corky/Mr. Wizard - Radio waves DON'T effect electrons as they pass
through the air, walls, buildings, etc?

Creation and detection
When electrons move, they create a magnetic field. When electrons move back
and forth or oscillate, their electric and magnetic fields change together,
forming an electromagnetic wave. This oscillation can come from atoms being
heated and thus moving about rapidly or from alternating current (AC)
electricity.

The opposite effect occurs when an electromagnetic wave hits matter. In such
a case, it could cause atoms to vibrate, creating heat, or it can cause
electrons to oscillate, depending on the wavelength of the radiation.

http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/emwaves.htm Perhaps the School
for Champions can give Rob a special-needs based scholorship.

Rob, you have psychological issues. You got others to believe that I was
stalking you? And YOU follow me over to another forum to pick a fight?

---

› See More: Yes, I stalk Rob. I do.

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

> Rob, you have psychological issues. You got others to believe that I was
> stalking you? And YOU follow me over to another forum to pick a fight?

I don't think rob did very good in freshman physics.

"PHil_Real" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Rob, you have psychological issues. You got others to believe that I
was
> > stalking you? And YOU follow me over to another forum to pick a fight?
>
> I don't think rob did very good in freshman physics.

No crap. He probably didn't take physics. He was probably still trying to
pass sixth grade earth science when he failed out of the Sylvan Learning
Center and had to answer phones for SprintPCS.

In article <[email protected]>,=20
[email protected] says...
> That's why Rob followed me over to the AT&T forum to get ***** slapped so=
me
> more.
>=20

No, Justin, I've been there since December.

--=20
-+-
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
I work for SprintPCS
I *don't* speak for them.

"O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> That's why Rob followed me over to the AT&T forum to get ***** slapped
some
> more.
>

No, Justin, I've been there since December.

--
-+-
RØß
O/Siris
I work for SprintPCS
I *don't* speak for them.

Really. That's why a google search only lists FOUR posts from you over
there. The EARLIEST one from July 2003. You're not an active participant
by any stretch of the imaginiation. TWO of the posts over there are
responses to ME.

FIFTY PERCENT of the posts YOU posted in ATTWS this year have been responses
to MY posts.

No kidding, you're the stalker and you have psychological issues. Perhaps
you need some therapy.

There are the two trollers conspiring together. Physics are fine, but
in the real world it doesn't mean a hill of beans if the 800 mhz tower
is one mile closer than the 1900 mhz tower.

--
Chris

Please respond on Usenet or Phonescoop.com


"Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
>
> "PHil_Real" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Rob, you have psychological issues. You got others to believe that I
> was
> > > stalking you? And YOU follow me over to another forum to pick a fight?
> >
> > I don't think rob did very good in freshman physics.
>
> No crap. He probably didn't take physics. He was probably still trying to
> pass sixth grade earth science when he failed out of the Sylvan Learning
> Center and had to answer phones for SprintPCS.
>
>

[posted via phonescoop.com]

"Chris Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> There are the two trollers conspiring together. Physics are fine, but
> in the real world it doesn't mean a hill of beans if the 800 mhz tower
> is one mile closer than the 1900 mhz tower.
>
> --
> Chris
>
> Please respond on Usenet or Phonescoop.com


If the 800 MHz tower is one mile closer, the 800 MHz will work even better,
all other things being equal. Alot of it depends on the technology used as
well. There are tons of factors. Our discussion was concerning the
frequencies only, however, and the advantages of 1900 over 800 MHz, as Rob
claims there are several, which he can't post.

In the real world, it does make a difference.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Justin Green" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Chris Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > There are the two trollers conspiring together. Physics are fine, but
> > in the real world it doesn't mean a hill of beans if the 800 mhz tower
> > is one mile closer than the 1900 mhz tower.
> >
> > --
> > Chris
> >
> > Please respond on Usenet or Phonescoop.com
>
>
> If the 800 MHz tower is one mile closer, the 800 MHz will work even better,
> all other things being equal. Alot of it depends on the technology used as
> well. There are tons of factors. Our discussion was concerning the
> frequencies only, however, and the advantages of 1900 over 800 MHz, as Rob
> claims there are several, which he can't post.

1900 Mhz licenses cost more
1900 Mhz tower signal won't go as far
1900 Mhz won't penetrate buildings as well

What other advantages does 1900 MHz have?

In article <[email protected]>,
"Justin Green" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Chris Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Physics are fine, but
> > in the real world it doesn't mean a hill of beans



Remember that next time you're playing golf and stop under a tree during
a lightening storm.

Physics doesn't mean a hill of beans....

Must be a High School drop out that NEVER took college physics.

"PHil_Real" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Justin Green" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Chris Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > There are the two trollers conspiring together. Physics are fine, but
> > > in the real world it doesn't mean a hill of beans if the 800 mhz tower
> > > is one mile closer than the 1900 mhz tower.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Chris
> > >
> > > Please respond on Usenet or Phonescoop.com
> >
> >
> > If the 800 MHz tower is one mile closer, the 800 MHz will work even
better,
> > all other things being equal. Alot of it depends on the technology used
as
> > well. There are tons of factors. Our discussion was concerning the
> > frequencies only, however, and the advantages of 1900 over 800 MHz, as
Rob
> > claims there are several, which he can't post.
>
> 1900 Mhz licenses cost more
> 1900 Mhz tower signal won't go as far
> 1900 Mhz won't penetrate buildings as well
>
> What other advantages does 1900 MHz have?

LOL, exactly. I don't know. I've been waiting for a week for Rob to post
them. He refuses.

Justin Green wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> LOL, exactly. I don't know. I've been waiting for a week for Rob to post
> them. He refuses.

We now return to the Sprint pissing match, already in progress...

Justin -

Suppose we're in a classroom, meeting, etc., and someone asks a
question.
If I don't answer, does it necessarily mean I'm *refusing* to answer, or
is it possible that I just don't *know* the answer?

You've got a bunch of valuable info to offer, but unless it's presented
properly, no one's gonna listen.

I'm not siding with Rob, but you need to be a bit less antagonistic.

Larry

"Lawrence Glasser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Justin Green wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > LOL, exactly. I don't know. I've been waiting for a week for Rob to
post
> > them. He refuses.
>
> We now return to the Sprint pissing match, already in progress...
>
> Justin -
>
> Suppose we're in a classroom, meeting, etc., and someone asks a
> question.
> If I don't answer, does it necessarily mean I'm *refusing* to answer, or
> is it possible that I just don't *know* the answer?

What if I SAY I know the answer, and on top of that I SAY that I HAVE posted
the answers?


> You've got a bunch of valuable info to offer, but unless it's presented
> properly, no one's gonna listen.
>
> I'm not siding with Rob, but you need to be a bit less antagonistic.
>
> Larry

Antagonistic? Rob freaking came over to the damned ATTWS forum to pick this
fight, or did you miss that part?

"Lawrence Glasser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Justin Green wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > LOL, exactly. I don't know. I've been waiting for a week for Rob to
post
> > them. He refuses.
>
> We now return to the Sprint pissing match, already in progress...
>
> Justin -
>
> Suppose we're in a classroom, meeting, etc., and someone asks a
> question.
> If I don't answer, does it necessarily mean I'm *refusing* to answer, or
> is it possible that I just don't *know* the answer?
>
> You've got a bunch of valuable info to offer, but unless it's presented
> properly, no one's gonna listen.
>
> I'm not siding with Rob, but you need to be a bit less antagonistic.
>
> Larry


OK, sorry to post again, but let me see if I can post this clearly and less
antagonistically(sp). People were having a discussion about cell tower
affordability. I said, and I quote:

>They advertise coverage in areas where there is none. It's basically free
>to them if the customer just accepts the poor quality as a standard.
Sprint
>is at a disadvantage because they are allocated the 1900 MHz band.
http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&l...l%3Den%26lr%3D
lang_en%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26selm%3D20ff9a247b1beaf7d7af9f6d7aadc45f%2540news.teranews.com%26rnum%3D1

NOTE: This was not a response to Rob. Then Rob came in and posted:

> Next time, know what you're talking about. There are many reasonsfor
using
> 1900 MHz. Even Nextel is fighting to get some spectrum up in that range.

And thus the "discussion" began. Rob later said that Nextel's CEO said
there were advantages of 1900MHz over 800 MHz. He also said that 1900 MHz
was not inherently, oh, how did he put it:

>Actually, Larry, I didn't mean to imply that there's any inherent
>advantage. I was responding to what I still think is a wrong statement
>that it's an inherent DISadvantage. I disagree that it is.

And after that, he refused to discuss it further, posting about my
dishonesty, the fact that he had already listed the reasons why 1900MHz was
better, etc.

I became involved in "The Frequency Debate" in the ATTWS forum. I posted a
response and Rob began the attacks over there as well. So, please, do not
assume that Rob said he didn't know. He said he DID know, yet refuses to
post his discussion. He also said that he had posted the reasons(pl)
several times. These must have been in another forum, because I never saw
them. All I got was baseless accusations and "you're lying again" posts
from Rob. I can post a few with links if you'd like, but that would just
take up space. I think everyone's newsreaders have been inundated with
"Justin, you're lying again" posts by Rob.

I had also agreed to drop this conversation twice. But Rob continuted to
post, calling me a liar yet again. Then, as I described, he followed me to
another forum, where he claims to have been since December, and attacked me
there. Thus this thread.

Look, I can drop this again, but seriously, if he calls me a liar again for
posting the truth, I will respond. Alot of people came down hard on me, yet
I was the one trying to have a discussion in the first place until Rob began
the "you're a liar" posts in every post where I requested that he list his
reasons. Very few people must have followed the threads, and I can't blame
them. In the end, it was Rob who refused to discuss it, and Rob who was
antagonistic. If you don't believe me, I can repost some more.

So, no offense, and don't take this as antagonistic, but you are taking
Rob's side.


Justin

All spectrum styles has their ups and downs.

800MHz AMPS offers:

Better penetration
Further range
lower costs



1900MHz CDMA allows:

True digital signal (no static - unless its a mechanical fault in the
phone)
Higher tower capacity
Higher data speeds and capacity
Conserves battery life better by putting the power in the tower and not
in the phone

[posted via phonescoop.com]

"Tech Geek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> All spectrum styles has their ups and downs.
>
> 800MHz AMPS offers:
>
> Better penetration
> Further range
> lower costs
>
>
>
> 1900MHz CDMA allows:
>
> True digital signal (no static - unless its a mechanical fault in the
> phone)
> Higher tower capacity
> Higher data speeds and capacity
> Conserves battery life better by putting the power in the tower and not
> in the phone
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com]

True. But as far as the frequencies themselves are concerned, if you had
800MHz AMPS and 1900 MHz AMPS, then the 800 MHz would work better, right? I
mean, any advantages are due to the CDMA technology and not the frequency,
or so I understand it to be.