Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Stubby or Extendable antenna

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
August 18, 2004 5:46:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On a CDMA system such as Verizonwireless, antenna length makes a
difference. Some Verizon phones have stubby and some have extendable
antennas.

My previous Motorola V60i had an extendable antenna and my present LG
VX 6000 has a stubby. I think my V60i had slightly better reception.
I bought a cheap extendable screw on extendable antenna for the 6000
which is longer than the stubby one and it seems to add a bar to the
meter and improve reception slightly.

I was wondering if extendable antennas or phone quality makes the
difference in reception. Do the stubby antennas along with the
phone's design somehow compensate for their lack of length? Should the
antenna be a factor in the purchase of a phone?
August 18, 2004 5:46:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

You will likely get several opinions, but here's
mine. It's better to have an extendable antenna
than not to have one. "Internal" out-of-sight
antennas are a Marketing thing. Less important
on the "PCS" band than on the 800 Mhz "Cellular"
band. Antenna requirements and design are the
subject of much engineering. One should understand
that when you are holding a phone, your body
parts are part of the antenna. Due to the very wide
range a cellular phone antenna must function, it is
not possible to make a very highly efficient antenna
for that reason. Cellular antenna characteristics to
me are somewhat similar to those of a piece of string.
If you want to see the difference that an antenna
makes, then learn to put your phone in the "test"
mode and obseve the difference in signal strength
with and without antenna/extended or not extended.
I personally would not buy a cell-phone without
an antenna. Best regards..
Anonymous
August 18, 2004 8:38:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Teddeli wrote:
> On a CDMA system such as Verizonwireless, antenna length makes a
> difference. Some Verizon phones have stubby and some have extendable
> antennas.

Antennas are more efficient when they are a full wavelength long.
Often that is not practicle so next best is 1/2 wavelength long.
I have a Kyocera 7135 (CDMA 850). It has a 1/2 wavelength
antenna. Next best, and most common, is a 1/4 wavelength
antenna. CDMA (800) pretty much requires an extendable
antenna unless you have a really long phone. My LG TM510
had an extendable, 1/4 wavelength antenna. When you get
to the 1900 band a 1/4 wavelength is much shorter and so the
antennas can be fixed and either a stub or entirely inside the
phone.

So for 850 CDMA a 1/2 wavelength is (very) roughly 8".
1/4 wavelength 4". Measure from the bottom of the phone
since they will run the antenna the length of the phone inside
plus whatever sticks out/is extendable out the top.

-Quick
Related resources
Anonymous
August 18, 2004 11:53:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Spike" <gator2@webmail.co.za> wrote in message
news:2ohpr8FarpjmU1@uni-berlin.de...
> You will likely get several opinions, but here's
> mine. It's better to have an extendable antenna
> than not to have one. "Internal" out-of-sight
> antennas are a Marketing thing. Less important
> on the "PCS" band than on the 800 Mhz "Cellular"
> band. Antenna requirements and design are the
> subject of much engineering. One should understand
> that when you are holding a phone, your body
> parts are part of the antenna. Due to the very wide
> range a cellular phone antenna must function, it is
> not possible to make a very highly efficient antenna
> for that reason. Cellular antenna characteristics to
> me are somewhat similar to those of a piece of string.
> If you want to see the difference that an antenna
> makes, then learn to put your phone in the "test"
> mode and obseve the difference in signal strength
> with and without antenna/extended or not extended.
> I personally would not buy a cell-phone without
> an antenna. Best regards..

How do I put my phone in test mode- (LG VX10)?

Dan'l.
August 18, 2004 11:53:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Contact the manufacturer of your phone
and be nice. However, if inexperienced
look for someone experienced. Sometimes
referred to as debug mode, sometimes field-
test mode, sometimes engineering mode.
Luck!!!
August 19, 2004 12:21:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Teddeli <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
: On a CDMA system such as Verizonwireless, antenna length makes a
: difference. Some Verizon phones have stubby and some have extendable
: antennas.

: My previous Motorola V60i had an extendable antenna and my present LG
: VX 6000 has a stubby. I think my V60i had slightly better reception.
: I bought a cheap extendable screw on extendable antenna for the 6000
: which is longer than the stubby one and it seems to add a bar to the
: meter and improve reception slightly.

: I was wondering if extendable antennas or phone quality makes the
: difference in reception. Do the stubby antennas along with the
: phone's design somehow compensate for their lack of length? Should the
: antenna be a factor in the purchase of a phone?

My Nokia 3589i has two antennas: an internal antenna and a
retractable antenna. In theory the retractable antenna kicks in only
when fully extended, but I've read at least one account from someone
who took the phone apart saying it is not connected at all. Because I
have found that extending this antenna makes no difference in my
average signal strength (I'm looking at numbers in test mode, not just
"bars"), I think this is likely true.

My 3589i gets great reception and I almost never extend the
retractable antenna - I do only when I think I'm getting poor
reception, but again I think it makes no difference.

To really answer your question: I think how an antenna works depends
on the design of the phone. And I think the 3589i is an excellent
design that works well with its internal antenna. Other phone designs
may need an external antenna to work well.

Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
*******************************************************************
Anonymous
August 19, 2004 6:04:50 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In my VX4500, you can press Menu -> 0 -> 000000
to get to the Technical menu.

"Spike" <gator2@webmail.co.za> wrote in message
news:2oi36oFb6689U1@uni-berlin.de...
> Contact the manufacturer of your phone
> and be nice. However, if inexperienced
> look for someone experienced. Sometimes
> referred to as debug mode, sometimes field-
> test mode, sometimes engineering mode.
> Luck!!!
>
>
Anonymous
August 19, 2004 6:04:51 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 02:04:50 GMT, "C C" <someone@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

>In my VX4500, you can press Menu -> 0 -> 000000
>to get to the Technical menu.
>
That works on my LG VX3200. I think GPS info is buried somewhere in
there, i.e....

Lat:MS
0.00000d
Long:MS
0.00000d

SV NO: 000
PPM NO: 000

Of course I have NO IDEA what that tells me.

Also, what the heck is "gpsOne" and "Ephemeris"?

Regards, - Sandy
Anonymous
August 19, 2004 9:32:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com (Andrew) wrote in message news:<caxclazcasdu42382646209@bizaveMYSHOES.com>...
> Teddeli <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> : On a CDMA system such as Verizonwireless, antenna length makes a
> : difference. Some Verizon phones have stubby and some have extendable
> : antennas.
>
> : My previous Motorola V60i had an extendable antenna and my present LG
> : VX 6000 has a stubby. I think my V60i had slightly better reception.
> : I bought a cheap extendable screw on extendable antenna for the 6000
> : which is longer than the stubby one and it seems to add a bar to the
> : meter and improve reception slightly.
>
> : I was wondering if extendable antennas or phone quality makes the
> : difference in reception. Do the stubby antennas along with the
> : phone's design somehow compensate for their lack of length? Should the
> : antenna be a factor in the purchase of a phone?
>
> My Nokia 3589i has two antennas: an internal antenna and a
> retractable antenna. In theory the retractable antenna kicks in only
> when fully extended, but I've read at least one account from someone
> who took the phone apart saying it is not connected at all. Because I
> have found that extending this antenna makes no difference in my
> average signal strength (I'm looking at numbers in test mode, not just
> "bars"), I think this is likely true.
>
> My 3589i gets great reception and I almost never extend the
> retractable antenna - I do only when I think I'm getting poor
> reception, but again I think it makes no difference.
>
> To really answer your question: I think how an antenna works depends
> on the design of the phone. And I think the 3589i is an excellent
> design that works well with its internal antenna. Other phone designs
> may need an external antenna to work well.
>
> Andrew

I took the 3585 apart and did some simple tests with a VO/continuity
meter. The metallic ends of the external antenna makes contact with
the internal, when it's in the down position. Extended, it is just
sitting in a plastic holder next to the internal. There appears to be
no hard wired contact for the antenna in the up position. Unless some
inductive type of transfer is involved through the plastic mount, that
is more efficient than a hard wired contact, I'd say the external
antenna is doing more in the down position. Also from testing in
fringe areas, putting the antenna up doesn't make much of a
difference. If anyone has a better explanation, I'd love to hear it.
There are two sets of contacts under the patch antenna (metallic
coated piece of plastic, inside at top of phone, which snaps out). One
is for cellular frequencies. I'm guessing the other set is for a part
of the patch which receives GPS freqencies.

If anyone has a ruined 3585/3589i for parts, I'd love to get a new
patch assembly, since I broke off one of the contacts trying to wipe
it clean, when it caught on some fabric:(  Jeez what a brittle contact.
One of the dangers of taking stuff apart, in the pursuit of knowledge.
I did make a little contact piece out of stainless steel to fit, but
would rather have a stock part. Nokia wil only sell the $6 part to a
service center who will charge $50 to snap it in place:( 
-
David

Davlindi (at) hot-mail (dot) com
Anonymous
August 19, 2004 10:18:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Teddeli <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<vbn6i0tju2r4tgrpgbovt5dc4jef04gaek@4ax.com>...
> On a CDMA system such as Verizonwireless, antenna length makes a
> difference. Some Verizon phones have stubby and some have extendable
> antennas.
>
> My previous Motorola V60i had an extendable antenna and my present LG
> VX 6000 has a stubby. I think my V60i had slightly better reception.
> I bought a cheap extendable screw on extendable antenna for the 6000
> which is longer than the stubby one and it seems to add a bar to the
> meter and improve reception slightly.
>
> I was wondering if extendable antennas or phone quality makes the
> difference in reception. Do the stubby antennas along with the
> phone's design somehow compensate for their lack of length? Should the
> antenna be a factor in the purchase of a phone?

When out in camping with groups of people those with the stub antennas
seem to have trouble making calls. It's pretty telling when there is
one tower and one open parking lot near a lake to see who has to get
right next to the water
IIRC it was a Audiovox 4500/4600 with a stub that I had to get the kid
right out on the edge of the lake to make a call. Other poor
performers were the Motorola t720 and a Kyocera, (forgot the model)
both with extendable antennas.
My Audiovox 9500 has a very long antenna and can make fringe calls
better than most other phones anyone had out camping. Although my
Nokia 3585/3595i has tested much better for fringe digital coverage
and it uses a patch. The Nokia also finds the correct network very
quickly.
I'm tempted to hard wire an antenna jack for use with an external Yagi
just to see if even more extraordinary reception is possible with the
Nokia electronics alone, driven by a boosted signal from a seperate
Yagi antenna. The contact points for the antenna are clearly visible
on the circuit board. Maybe the patch contacts can be disconnected and
used to attach an external jack. The resulting disconnected patch
could then be drilled and a the jack mounted...maybe.

I'm not certain, but would like to test if the Nokia has a really
good internal receiver/transmiter, apart from the supplied patch
antenna construction.
Nokia patch antennas have also been reported to work surprisingly well
in fringe areas with their TDMA phones (8260).

The Nokia 3585/3595i does not have an external antenna jack, but must
use an inferior inductive antenna pickup. The people that sell the
inductive types have reported poor results, so there may not be much
gain over the stock set up.

I definitely would not get a phone with a stub antenna, on principle,
unless there were some user reports of good reception. Whip, patch or
stub, what counts is the ability to complete calls. Fairly easy to
determine by making a number of test calls (611 from unactivated
phones works ok) from the same fringe area, with several contending
handsets.

-
David
Anonymous
August 20, 2004 7:53:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Teddeli wrote:

> On a CDMA system such as Verizonwireless, antenna length makes a
> difference. Some Verizon phones have stubby and some have extendable
> antennas.
>
> My previous Motorola V60i had an extendable antenna and my present LG
> VX 6000 has a stubby. I think my V60i had slightly better reception.
> I bought a cheap extendable screw on extendable antenna for the 6000
> which is longer than the stubby one and it seems to add a bar to the
> meter and improve reception slightly.
>
> I was wondering if extendable antennas or phone quality makes the
> difference in reception. Do the stubby antennas along with the
> phone's design somehow compensate for their lack of length? Should the
> antenna be a factor in the purchase of a phone?

Honestly Ive never notice the difference in signal strenght between
phones with external antenna (ie vx 4400 or my old sprint qualcom 1920)
or phones with a stub antenna (ie sprint touchpoint 120 or my current
vx4500) if you have usuable signal strength and the phone is setup
correctly from the hardware and software stand point a external antenna
really wont make and differance at all. A good example of a pos phone
with a external antenna I had was a kyocera 2035a I had with verizon
that phone never work well from day one and it was extremelly easy to
crash the software doing mudane tasks like useing it built in caluator.
Were as my beloved lg tm510 got the same signal strength reguardless
if the antenna was up,down or even if I unscrewed from it socket and
detached the antenna from the phone, no difference. Look how many
millions of nokia's are out there and work just grovie with no external
antenna at all! (yes I know gsm and cdma have slightly different tech
specs and from bill radios posts cdma can get some benefit from a small
four to five inch antenna) But from my personal experance going back
from the mid 1990's it the quality of phone's hard/software and the
bulid out the cell network that are more important to sucessful cell
phone use than any antenna issues. Thats my 2 cents.
August 20, 2004 10:53:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On 19 Aug 2004 18:18:37 -0700, davidlind@my-deja.com (David L) wrote:

>Teddeli <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<vbn6i0tju2r4tgrpgbovt5dc4jef04gaek@4ax.com>...
>> On a CDMA system such as Verizonwireless, antenna length makes a
>> difference. Some Verizon phones have stubby and some have extendable
>> antennas.
>>
>> My previous Motorola V60i had an extendable antenna and my present LG
>> VX 6000 has a stubby. I think my V60i had slightly better reception.
>> I bought a cheap extendable screw on extendable antenna for the 6000
>> which is longer than the stubby one and it seems to add a bar to the
>> meter and improve reception slightly.
>>
>> I was wondering if extendable antennas or phone quality makes the
>> difference in reception. Do the stubby antennas along with the
>> phone's design somehow compensate for their lack of length? Should the
>> antenna be a factor in the purchase of a phone?
>
>When out in camping with groups of people those with the stub antennas
>seem to have trouble making calls. It's pretty telling when there is
>one tower and one open parking lot near a lake to see who has to get
>right next to the water
>IIRC it was a Audiovox 4500/4600 with a stub that I had to get the kid
>right out on the edge of the lake to make a call. Other poor
>performers were the Motorola t720 and a Kyocera, (forgot the model)
>both with extendable antennas.
>My Audiovox 9500 has a very long antenna and can make fringe calls
>better than most other phones anyone had out camping. Although my
>Nokia 3585/3595i has tested much better for fringe digital coverage
>and it uses a patch. The Nokia also finds the correct network very
>quickly.
>I'm tempted to hard wire an antenna jack for use with an external Yagi
>just to see if even more extraordinary reception is possible with the
>Nokia electronics alone, driven by a boosted signal from a seperate
>Yagi antenna. The contact points for the antenna are clearly visible
>on the circuit board. Maybe the patch contacts can be disconnected and
>used to attach an external jack. The resulting disconnected patch
>could then be drilled and a the jack mounted...maybe.
>
> I'm not certain, but would like to test if the Nokia has a really
>good internal receiver/transmiter, apart from the supplied patch
>antenna construction.
>Nokia patch antennas have also been reported to work surprisingly well
>in fringe areas with their TDMA phones (8260).
>
>The Nokia 3585/3595i does not have an external antenna jack, but must
>use an inferior inductive antenna pickup. The people that sell the
>inductive types have reported poor results, so there may not be much
>gain over the stock set up.
>
>I definitely would not get a phone with a stub antenna, on principle,
>unless there were some user reports of good reception. Whip, patch or
>stub, what counts is the ability to complete calls. Fairly easy to
>determine by making a number of test calls (611 from unactivated
>phones works ok) from the same fringe area, with several contending
>handsets.

According to several articles I've read including:

http://home.san.rr.com/denbeste/antenna.html

Antenna length does make a difference especially the difference
between cellular (800 Mhz) frequency and PCS (1900 Mhz) frequency.

"800 MHz cellular has a wavelength of approximately 37 centimeters,
about 15 inches. So an ideal antenna would be half that, about seven
and a half inches. This refers to the dipole, the distance from the
tip of the antenna to the opposite end of the antenna buried inside
the phone somewhere (usually near the bottom). 1900 MHz PCS has a
wavelength of approximately 16 centimeters, about six inches. So the
ideal antenna dipole is about 3 inches."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anonymous
August 20, 2004 3:37:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "800 MHz cellular has a wavelength of approximately 37 centimeters,
> about 15 inches. So an ideal antenna would be half that, about seven
> and a half inches. This refers to the dipole, the distance from the
> tip of the antenna to the opposite end of the antenna buried inside
> the phone somewhere (usually near the bottom). 1900 MHz PCS has a
> wavelength of approximately 16 centimeters, about six inches. So the
> ideal antenna dipole is about 3 inches."

I do notice, more with my Sprint phone than with any of my Verizon phones,
that when I'm in an area with a fringe signal, extending the antenna makes
a huge difference. Of course, the Sprint phone runs at 1900. Both of the
Verizon markets I've lived in (Cleveland/Detroit and Los Angeles) are 800.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
August 20, 2004 8:09:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message news:<1092872055.679202@sj-nntpcache-5>...
>
> Antennas are more efficient when they are a full wavelength long.
> Often that is not practicle so next best is 1/2 wavelength long.
>

I'm no expert, but always thought that 1/2 the wavelength was optimum
and a full wave length antenna would just cancel the signal? The 5/8
length being longer to present a 1/2 wave profile to the vertical
axis, when held holding the handset/antenna at an angle, as occurs in
use... Longer antennas can be made, but they seem to be stack and tune
dipoles of 1/2 wave to be additive.

Note the graph...
CDMA FAQ: Antenna questions

http://home.san.rr.com/denbeste/antenna.html

-
David
Anonymous
August 20, 2004 8:51:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

David L wrote:
> "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<1092872055.679202@sj-nntpcache-5>...
>>
>> Antennas are more efficient when they are a full wavelength long.
>> Often that is not practicle so next best is 1/2 wavelength long.
>>
>
> I'm no expert, but always thought that 1/2 the wavelength was optimum
> and a full wave length antenna would just cancel the signal?

Errrrrr... Ummmm.... that's what I meant. (yea, that's the ticket -:) ).

-Quick
Anonymous
August 20, 2004 10:32:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On 19 Aug 2004 17:32:03 -0700, davidlind@my-deja.com (David L) wrote:

>usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com (Andrew) wrote in message news:<caxclazcasdu42382646209@bizaveMYSHOES.com>...
>> Teddeli <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>> : On a CDMA system such as Verizonwireless, antenna length makes a
>> : difference. Some Verizon phones have stubby and some have extendable
>> : antennas.
>>
>> : My previous Motorola V60i had an extendable antenna and my present LG
>> : VX 6000 has a stubby. I think my V60i had slightly better reception.
>> : I bought a cheap extendable screw on extendable antenna for the 6000
>> : which is longer than the stubby one and it seems to add a bar to the
>> : meter and improve reception slightly.
>>
>> : I was wondering if extendable antennas or phone quality makes the
>> : difference in reception. Do the stubby antennas along with the
>> : phone's design somehow compensate for their lack of length? Should the
>> : antenna be a factor in the purchase of a phone?
>>
>> My Nokia 3589i has two antennas: an internal antenna and a
>> retractable antenna. In theory the retractable antenna kicks in only
>> when fully extended, but I've read at least one account from someone
>> who took the phone apart saying it is not connected at all. Because I
>> have found that extending this antenna makes no difference in my
>> average signal strength (I'm looking at numbers in test mode, not just
>> "bars"), I think this is likely true.
>>
>> My 3589i gets great reception and I almost never extend the
>> retractable antenna - I do only when I think I'm getting poor
>> reception, but again I think it makes no difference.
>>
>> To really answer your question: I think how an antenna works depends
>> on the design of the phone. And I think the 3589i is an excellent
>> design that works well with its internal antenna. Other phone designs
>> may need an external antenna to work well.
>>
>> Andrew
>
>I took the 3585 apart and did some simple tests with a VO/continuity
>meter. The metallic ends of the external antenna makes contact with
>the internal, when it's in the down position. Extended, it is just
>sitting in a plastic holder next to the internal. There appears to be
>no hard wired contact for the antenna in the up position. Unless some
>inductive type of transfer is involved through the plastic mount, that
>is more efficient than a hard wired contact, I'd say the external
>antenna is doing more in the down position. Also from testing in
>fringe areas, putting the antenna up doesn't make much of a
>difference. If anyone has a better explanation, I'd love to hear it.
>There are two sets of contacts under the patch antenna (metallic
>coated piece of plastic, inside at top of phone, which snaps out). One
>is for cellular frequencies. I'm guessing the other set is for a part
>of the patch which receives GPS freqencies.
>
>If anyone has a ruined 3585/3589i for parts, I'd love to get a new
>patch assembly, since I broke off one of the contacts trying to wipe
>it clean, when it caught on some fabric:(  Jeez what a brittle contact.
>One of the dangers of taking stuff apart, in the pursuit of knowledge.
>I did make a little contact piece out of stainless steel to fit, but
>would rather have a stock part. Nokia wil only sell the $6 part to a
>service center who will charge $50 to snap it in place:( 
>-
>David
>
>Davlindi (at) hot-mail (dot) com


My LG VX 6000 has a stubby antenna. It doesn't appear to be attached
to anything inside the phone. Just screws off.
Anonymous
August 20, 2004 10:34:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:37:02 -0500, Steven J Sobol
<sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

>Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "800 MHz cellular has a wavelength of approximately 37 centimeters,
>> about 15 inches. So an ideal antenna would be half that, about seven
>> and a half inches. This refers to the dipole, the distance from the
>> tip of the antenna to the opposite end of the antenna buried inside
>> the phone somewhere (usually near the bottom). 1900 MHz PCS has a
>> wavelength of approximately 16 centimeters, about six inches. So the
>> ideal antenna dipole is about 3 inches."
>
>I do notice, more with my Sprint phone than with any of my Verizon phones,
>that when I'm in an area with a fringe signal, extending the antenna makes
>a huge difference. Of course, the Sprint phone runs at 1900. Both of the
>Verizon markets I've lived in (Cleveland/Detroit and Los Angeles) are 800.

I noticed that too when was a Sprint customer.
Anonymous
August 21, 2004 8:07:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On 20 Aug 2004 16:43:53 -0700, davidlind@my-deja.com (David L) chose to add
this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

>Bob 1 <ThatWouldBeTelling@DrakeIsSix.com> wrote in message news:<xNOdnZUPUuKrRbjcRVn-vw@giganews.com>...
>>
>> . A good example of a pos phone
>> with a external antenna I had was a kyocera 2035a I had with verizon
>> that phone never work well from day one and it was extremelly easy to
>> crash the software doing mudane tasks like useing it built in caluator.

I never had ANY trouble with my 2035a.

>I imagine for most people, most of the time, there is sufficient
>signal strength to not notice any difference in call completion, when
>having the extendable antenna up or down.
>However, when going to a fringe signal area, just a few db's of signal
>strength can make a difference. Also checking the debug screen shows
>some improvement with the antenna up. Any small improvement can help
>to maintain a call when... one's head is between the antenna and
>tower, the cell coverage shrinks when everyone gets on at 8PM, a cars
>metal skin or trees block the signal, or when all the previous signal
>blockers happen at once.
>
>At the limits of coverage, a decent antenna can make a difference and
>provide some margin for error and not drop calls, but with some phone
>designs, it's obviously less noticable. Out west or anywhere it's
>hilly, there is just no getting around a hill blocking the tower
>signal, so often there is either a signal present or not.

On a CDMA phone, even if you have an excellent signal, having the antenna
up can slightly reduce the transmitting power necessary, thereby extending
battery life. Maybe not enough to be entirely worthwhile, though...

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"We don't use straws in combat, fella." - Cprl. Radar O'Reilly
!