signal booster

anyone tried these? available on ebay for £3 pack
of 6!

I suffer with having to walk round the works car
park, till I get a signal.
will it improve things?

Roy

---

› See More: signal booster

"royc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> anyone tried these? available on ebay for £3 pack
> of 6!
> I suffer with having to walk round the works car
> park, till I get a signal.
> will it improve things?
> Roy
>
>
Think about it, if they worked the manufacturers would include them

Your best bet is to change to a network with better coverage in your area

Stand in an area where you can't get your network and do a
manual network scan on your phone
It will show which networks it found, but that does not mean
they are strong enough to use

Try that in several of your weak spot areas and you should
get an idea of which networks are consistent

Steve Terry

"Steve Terry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "royc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> anyone tried these? available on ebay for £3 pack
>> of 6!
>> I suffer with having to walk round the works car
>> park, till I get a signal.
>> will it improve things?
>> Roy
>>
>>
> Think about it, if they worked the manufacturers would include them
>
> Your best bet is to change to a network with better coverage in your area
>
> Stand in an area where you can't get your network and do a
> manual network scan on your phone
> It will show which networks it found, but that does not mean
> they are strong enough to use

Someone recently posted here that they appear in the list
in order of signal strength, with the strongest first.
Intuitively, I feel that is not the case though.

What happened to pull-up aerials on mobiles?
I feel sure these were more effective than the internal ones
especially at 900Mhz
73s

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

In news:[email protected],
Steve Terry <[email protected]> typed, for some strange, unexplained
reason:
: "royc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: news:[email protected]...
: >
: > anyone tried these? available on ebay for £3 pack
: > of 6!
: > I suffer with having to walk round the works car
: > park, till I get a signal.
: > will it improve things?
: > Roy
: >
: >
: Think about it, if they worked the manufacturers would include them
:
: Your best bet is to change to a network with better coverage in your
: area

Not always possible if it's a company provided phone.

Our company phones are all on Vodafone. Guess which network has virtually
no coverage at our site..?!


Ivor

"royc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> anyone tried these? available on ebay for £3 pack
> of 6!
>
> I suffer with having to walk round the works car
> park, till I get a signal.
> will it improve things?
>
> Roy
>
>
bound to ....must be good... just like everything else digital ............

"royc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> anyone tried these? available on ebay for £3 pack
> of 6!
>
> I suffer with having to walk round the works car
> park, till I get a signal.
> will it improve things?
>
> Roy
>
>
if you have ever seen a nokia dual band antenna you will know why you have a
crap signal...try and find an old phone with an external antenna .....

Graham. wrote:

> Someone recently posted here that they appear in the list
> in order of signal strength, with the strongest first.
> Intuitively, I feel that is not the case though.

It isn't the case. They are listed in order of signal strength, but with
the home network (if found at all) listed first.

> What happened to pull-up aerials on mobiles?
> I feel sure these were more effective than the internal ones
> especially at 900Mhz

Don't think they were, but if you hold your mobile with your fingers up
to the top of the case, you will shield the antenna. Hold it with your
hand at the bottom end and you may fid some improvement.

In news:[email protected],
Iain <[email protected]> typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:
: Graham. wrote:
:
: > Someone recently posted here that they appear in the list
: > in order of signal strength, with the strongest first.
: > Intuitively, I feel that is not the case though.
:
: It isn't the case. They are listed in order of signal strength, but
: with the home network (if found at all) listed first.
:
: > What happened to pull-up aerials on mobiles?
: > I feel sure these were more effective than the internal ones
: > especially at 900Mhz
:
: Don't think they were, but if you hold your mobile with your fingers
: up to the top of the case, you will shield the antenna. Hold it with
: your hand at the bottom end and you may fid some improvement.

They were dummies, actually made out of plastic..! Totally useless and
added purely because (at the time) customers felt there should be an
external aerial.

The same was true of the 'flip' on the early flip phones. They were purely
decorative (although they did act as a keyboard cover) but they didn't, as
was often thought, contain the microphone element.

Ivor
(showing my age by finding out the other day that my first ever mobile
phone is now on display at the Science Museum in London..! (Well not my
actual phone, but you know what I mean..!)

Ivor Jones wrote:
>
> They were dummies, actually made out of plastic..! Totally useless and
> added purely because (at the time) customers felt there should be an
> external aerial.
>
> The same was true of the 'flip' on the early flip phones. They were purely
> decorative (although they did act as a keyboard cover) but they didn't, as
> was often thought, contain the microphone element.

Neither is true.

I broke and replaced aerials - there was even a measurable
performance difference between the manufacturer's own aerial and
some 3rd party replacements. Sometimes the coupling into the aerial
was capacitive, so the aerial would function either fully up or
fully down.

The very early flips did have the microphone in the flip, but they
did move over quickly to having the mic in the bottom of the phone
and the flip was often used to answer or close the call.

regards, Ian

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 23:40:43 UTC, "Ivor Jones"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> They were dummies, actually made out of plastic..! Totally useless and
> added purely because (at the time) customers felt there should be an
> external aerial.

Certainly not true of my first two Orange phones (years ago). There was
defnitely a difference on one depending on whether you extended the
antenna or not. I broke the antenna on the other one and it did not work
at all well until I fitted a new antenna.

I suspect the later, fixed 'lumps' at the top of a phone may have been
dummies.

--
Bob Eager
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 20:22:21 UTC, Iain <[email protected]> wrote:

> Graham. wrote:
>
> > Someone recently posted here that they appear in the list
> > in order of signal strength, with the strongest first.
> > Intuitively, I feel that is not the case though.
>
> It isn't the case. They are listed in order of signal strength, but with
> the home network (if found at all) listed first.
>
> > What happened to pull-up aerials on mobiles?
> > I feel sure these were more effective than the internal ones
> > especially at 900Mhz
>
> Don't think they were, but if you hold your mobile with your fingers up
> to the top of the case, you will shield the antenna. Hold it with your
> hand at the bottom end and you may fid some improvement.

Pretty sure one of my Nokias (6500 slide I think) says to hold it at the
top...!
--
Bob Eager
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

In news:[email protected],
Ian Smith <[email protected]> typed, for some strange,
unexplained reason:
: Ivor Jones wrote:
: >
: > They were dummies, actually made out of plastic..! Totally useless
: > and added purely because (at the time) customers felt there should
: > be an external aerial.
: >
: > The same was true of the 'flip' on the early flip phones. They were
: > purely decorative (although they did act as a keyboard cover) but
: > they didn't, as was often thought, contain the microphone element.
:
: Neither is true.

Not on any phone I've ever seen.

: I broke and replaced aerials - there was even a measurable
: performance difference between the manufacturer's own aerial and
: some 3rd party replacements. Sometimes the coupling into the aerial
: was capacitive, so the aerial would function either fully up or
: fully down.
:
: The very early flips did have the microphone in the flip, but they
: did move over quickly to having the mic in the bottom of the phone
: and the flip was often used to answer or close the call.

The latter was true enough, but never seen a mic element in a flip on an
early phone. Examples..?

Ivor

Ivor Jones wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> Ian Smith <[email protected]> typed, for some strange,
> unexplained reason:
> : Ivor Jones wrote:
> : >
> : > They were dummies, actually made out of plastic..! Totally useless
> : > and added purely because (at the time) customers felt there should
> : > be an external aerial.
> : >
> : > The same was true of the 'flip' on the early flip phones. They were
> : > purely decorative (although they did act as a keyboard cover) but
> : > they didn't, as was often thought, contain the microphone element.
> :
> : Neither is true.
>
> Not on any phone I've ever seen.

I've replaced aerials on Moto MR1, Philips of the same vintage and
two Ericsson (pre SE) and all were real. I've never seen a 'false'
aerial.

>
> : I broke and replaced aerials - there was even a measurable
> : performance difference between the manufacturer's own aerial and
> : some 3rd party replacements. Sometimes the coupling into the aerial
> : was capacitive, so the aerial would function either fully up or
> : fully down.
> :
> : The very early flips did have the microphone in the flip, but they
> : did move over quickly to having the mic in the bottom of the phone
> : and the flip was often used to answer or close the call.
>
> The latter was true enough, but never seen a mic element in a flip on an
> early phone. Examples..?

The believe that the early Ericsson had the element in the flip
(they certainly had the little hole at the bottom of the flip), but
don't ask for model numbers - they were thrown away years ago!

regards, Ian

"Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In news:[email protected],
> Ian Smith <[email protected]> typed, for some strange,
> unexplained reason:
> : Ivor Jones wrote:
> : >
> : > They were dummies, actually made out of plastic..! Totally useless
> : > and added purely because (at the time) customers felt there should
> : > be an external aerial.
> : >
> : > The same was true of the 'flip' on the early flip phones. They were
> : > purely decorative (although they did act as a keyboard cover) but
> : > they didn't, as was often thought, contain the microphone element.
> :
> : Neither is true.
>
> Not on any phone I've ever seen.
>
> : I broke and replaced aerials - there was even a measurable
> : performance difference between the manufacturer's own aerial and
> : some 3rd party replacements. Sometimes the coupling into the aerial
> : was capacitive, so the aerial would function either fully up or
> : fully down.
> :
> : The very early flips did have the microphone in the flip, but they
> : did move over quickly to having the mic in the bottom of the phone
> : and the flip was often used to answer or close the call.
>
> The latter was true enough, but never seen a mic element in a flip on an
> early phone. Examples..?

Ericsson T28 for starters.

--
Unlock Your Phone's Potential
www.UselessInfo.org.uk
www.ThePhoneLocker.co.uk
www.GSM-Solutions.co.uk

On 28/09/2008 10:27, Richard Colton wrote:

> "Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> The latter was true enough, but never seen a mic element in a flip on an
>> early phone. Examples..?
>
> Ericsson T28 for starters.

The Nokia 8110 (OK, not a flip cover, but a sliding cover) also had the
mic on the cover, you could see the two metal tracks carrying the signal
on the reverse.