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!

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