Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
Janie Collins wrote:
>
> Tx,
>
> Janie
Problems communicating?
Notan
Janie Collins wrote:
>
> Tx,
>
> Janie
Problems communicating?
Notan
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
No, I've simply read different places that the Moto 265 has "superior RF"
(?) when compared to the LG 6100 and wondered what a "good" RF is.
Tx.
"Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
news:41EF4627.967BAC44@ddress.com...
> Janie Collins wrote:
>>
>> Tx,
>>
>> Janie
>
> Problems communicating?
>
> Notan
No, I've simply read different places that the Moto 265 has "superior RF"
(?) when compared to the LG 6100 and wondered what a "good" RF is.
Tx.
"Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
news:41EF4627.967BAC44@ddress.com...
> Janie Collins wrote:
>>
>> Tx,
>>
>> Janie
>
> Problems communicating?
>
> Notan
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
It's relative (and more than likely subjective if you
heard it here). They are simply saying that they
either see more boars on their 265 than they thought
they saw on their 6100 (or their friends) or they found
that they could get a signal on there 265 in locations
where they couldn't on their 6100. 90% of people on
here don't know what a db is. They are simply comparing
subjective impressions derived from end usage (making
calls and looking at the bars). Naturally there are a lot
of additional factors that go into the end result. How
good the RF section of the phone is could be one of
them.
My wild guess is that there isn't a whole lot of variation
in RF design from one phone to another. I suspect that
the 1/2 wave length antenna on my Kyocera 7135 compared
to the normal 1/4 wave length antenna found on most
CDMA phones makes a whole lot more difference than
the RF chips used in it compared to others.
There is good information when numerous people post
to say they tried this phone and that phone and got
better reception with one or the other. This can be
taken into account to weight one's decision when
choosing a phone.
I think your question is quantitative and you will probably
not get an answer here. I believe you're asking for some
standard RF test measure. For example given a signal
of a certain power, what is the db of the received signal
at a certain distance under controlled conditions. Given
this measure what qualifies as "good".
-Quick
Janie Collins wrote:
> No, I've simply read different places that the Moto 265
> has "superior RF" (?) when compared to the LG 6100 and
> wondered what a "good" RF is.
>
> Tx.
>
> "Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
> news:41EF4627.967BAC44@ddress.com...
>> Janie Collins wrote:
>>>
>>> Tx,
>>>
>>> Janie
>>
>> Problems communicating?
>>
>> Notan
It's relative (and more than likely subjective if you
heard it here). They are simply saying that they
either see more boars on their 265 than they thought
they saw on their 6100 (or their friends) or they found
that they could get a signal on there 265 in locations
where they couldn't on their 6100. 90% of people on
here don't know what a db is. They are simply comparing
subjective impressions derived from end usage (making
calls and looking at the bars). Naturally there are a lot
of additional factors that go into the end result. How
good the RF section of the phone is could be one of
them.
My wild guess is that there isn't a whole lot of variation
in RF design from one phone to another. I suspect that
the 1/2 wave length antenna on my Kyocera 7135 compared
to the normal 1/4 wave length antenna found on most
CDMA phones makes a whole lot more difference than
the RF chips used in it compared to others.
There is good information when numerous people post
to say they tried this phone and that phone and got
better reception with one or the other. This can be
taken into account to weight one's decision when
choosing a phone.
I think your question is quantitative and you will probably
not get an answer here. I believe you're asking for some
standard RF test measure. For example given a signal
of a certain power, what is the db of the received signal
at a certain distance under controlled conditions. Given
this measure what qualifies as "good".
-Quick
Janie Collins wrote:
> No, I've simply read different places that the Moto 265
> has "superior RF" (?) when compared to the LG 6100 and
> wondered what a "good" RF is.
>
> Tx.
>
> "Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
> news:41EF4627.967BAC44@ddress.com...
>> Janie Collins wrote:
>>>
>>> Tx,
>>>
>>> Janie
>>
>> Problems communicating?
>>
>> Notan
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message news:1106242829.162264@sj-nntpcache-5...
>
>
> .... 90% of people on
> here don't know what a db is.
>
> -Quick
>
Just for starters, one-tenth of a Bel is a "dB", not a "db".
"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message news:1106242829.162264@sj-nntpcache-5...
>
>
> .... 90% of people on
> here don't know what a db is.
>
> -Quick
>
Just for starters, one-tenth of a Bel is a "dB", not a "db".
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
John R. Copeland wrote:
> "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1106242829.162264@sj-nntpcache-5...
>>
>>
>> .... 90% of people on
>> here don't know what a db is.
>>
>> -Quick
>>
>
> Just for starters, one-tenth of a Bel is a "dB", not a
> "db".
Well, I spelled "there" and "boars" wrong. This wasn't
a spelling mistake though, just an error. I gave up shortly
after they started using "K" for both 1024 and 1000. It was
about the time they followed up by making "B" and "b"
ambiguous -
It probably was OK in the context of my
reply but my bad none the less.
I believe you're one of the 10%.
Are there some basic tests and measures commonly
used for RF sensitivity (in phone or similar applications)?
Is there any significant variation in the RF section design
of mainstream cell phones?
Is there any significant variation in performance?
Was I correct in the assumption that the physical antenna
is probably the most significant contributing factor to
performance in cell phones?
-Quick
John R. Copeland wrote:
> "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1106242829.162264@sj-nntpcache-5...
>>
>>
>> .... 90% of people on
>> here don't know what a db is.
>>
>> -Quick
>>
>
> Just for starters, one-tenth of a Bel is a "dB", not a
> "db".
Well, I spelled "there" and "boars" wrong. This wasn't
a spelling mistake though, just an error. I gave up shortly
after they started using "K" for both 1024 and 1000. It was
about the time they followed up by making "B" and "b"
ambiguous -
It probably was OK in the context of myreply but my bad none the less.
I believe you're one of the 10%.
Are there some basic tests and measures commonly
used for RF sensitivity (in phone or similar applications)?
Is there any significant variation in the RF section design
of mainstream cell phones?
Is there any significant variation in performance?
Was I correct in the assumption that the physical antenna
is probably the most significant contributing factor to
performance in cell phones?
-Quick
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
Doh!
Quick wrote:
> Was I correct in the assumption that the physical antenna
> is probably the most significant contributing factor to
> performance in cell phones?
that should read "RF performance".
-Quick
Doh!
Quick wrote:
> Was I correct in the assumption that the physical antenna
> is probably the most significant contributing factor to
> performance in cell phones?
that should read "RF performance".
-Quick
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
Thanks, Quick, for your explanation. I realize how stupid I am when I ask
a question that I think can be answered by "XX", only to find out that I
have no clue what I'm asking. When I first got my 4400 (now have a 6100) my
phone was not connecting properly with the tower and consequently didn't
ring 1/2 the time. I wrote about it on here and Josh told me how to check
the RF. I thought that I could remember what a "good" reading is because
it's only been a year and a half, but I can't. I'm sure it doesn't even
matter anyway, I just was curious if my 6100 "had a better signal" than my
4400 and asked what I (in my finite wisdom thought had a simple answer.
My 6100 is great and pretty (such a important feature for me, Ha) and the
volume got even better after I removed the blue protective covers from the
earpiece and speaker! Read about that on Howard Forums--what a Bozo!
Thanks again,
Janie
"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106242829.162264@sj-nntpcache-5...
> It's relative (and more than likely subjective if you
> heard it here). They are simply saying that they
> either see more boars on their 265 than they thought
> they saw on their 6100 (or their friends) or they found
> that they could get a signal on there 265 in locations
> where they couldn't on their 6100. 90% of people on
> here don't know what a db is. They are simply comparing
> subjective impressions derived from end usage (making
> calls and looking at the bars). Naturally there are a lot
> of additional factors that go into the end result. How
> good the RF section of the phone is could be one of
> them.
>
> My wild guess is that there isn't a whole lot of variation
> in RF design from one phone to another. I suspect that
> the 1/2 wave length antenna on my Kyocera 7135 compared
> to the normal 1/4 wave length antenna found on most
> CDMA phones makes a whole lot more difference than
> the RF chips used in it compared to others.
>
> There is good information when numerous people post
> to say they tried this phone and that phone and got
> better reception with one or the other. This can be
> taken into account to weight one's decision when
> choosing a phone.
>
> I think your question is quantitative and you will probably
> not get an answer here. I believe you're asking for some
> standard RF test measure. For example given a signal
> of a certain power, what is the db of the received signal
> at a certain distance under controlled conditions. Given
> this measure what qualifies as "good".
>
> -Quick
>
> Janie Collins wrote:
>> No, I've simply read different places that the Moto 265
>> has "superior RF" (?) when compared to the LG 6100 and
>> wondered what a "good" RF is.
>>
>> Tx.
>>
>> "Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
>> news:41EF4627.967BAC44@ddress.com...
>>> Janie Collins wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Tx,
>>>>
>>>> Janie
>>>
>>> Problems communicating?
>>>
>>> Notan
>
>
Thanks, Quick, for your explanation. I realize how stupid I am when I ask
a question that I think can be answered by "XX", only to find out that I
have no clue what I'm asking. When I first got my 4400 (now have a 6100) my
phone was not connecting properly with the tower and consequently didn't
ring 1/2 the time. I wrote about it on here and Josh told me how to check
the RF. I thought that I could remember what a "good" reading is because
it's only been a year and a half, but I can't. I'm sure it doesn't even
matter anyway, I just was curious if my 6100 "had a better signal" than my
4400 and asked what I (in my finite wisdom
thought had a simple answer.My 6100 is great and pretty (such a important feature for me, Ha) and the
volume got even better after I removed the blue protective covers from the
earpiece and speaker! Read about that on Howard Forums--what a Bozo!
Thanks again,
Janie
"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106242829.162264@sj-nntpcache-5...
> It's relative (and more than likely subjective if you
> heard it here). They are simply saying that they
> either see more boars on their 265 than they thought
> they saw on their 6100 (or their friends) or they found
> that they could get a signal on there 265 in locations
> where they couldn't on their 6100. 90% of people on
> here don't know what a db is. They are simply comparing
> subjective impressions derived from end usage (making
> calls and looking at the bars). Naturally there are a lot
> of additional factors that go into the end result. How
> good the RF section of the phone is could be one of
> them.
>
> My wild guess is that there isn't a whole lot of variation
> in RF design from one phone to another. I suspect that
> the 1/2 wave length antenna on my Kyocera 7135 compared
> to the normal 1/4 wave length antenna found on most
> CDMA phones makes a whole lot more difference than
> the RF chips used in it compared to others.
>
> There is good information when numerous people post
> to say they tried this phone and that phone and got
> better reception with one or the other. This can be
> taken into account to weight one's decision when
> choosing a phone.
>
> I think your question is quantitative and you will probably
> not get an answer here. I believe you're asking for some
> standard RF test measure. For example given a signal
> of a certain power, what is the db of the received signal
> at a certain distance under controlled conditions. Given
> this measure what qualifies as "good".
>
> -Quick
>
> Janie Collins wrote:
>> No, I've simply read different places that the Moto 265
>> has "superior RF" (?) when compared to the LG 6100 and
>> wondered what a "good" RF is.
>>
>> Tx.
>>
>> "Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
>> news:41EF4627.967BAC44@ddress.com...
>>> Janie Collins wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Tx,
>>>>
>>>> Janie
>>>
>>> Problems communicating?
>>>
>>> Notan
>
>
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message news:1106245651.575266@sj-nntpcache-3...
> John R. Copeland wrote:
>> "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1106242829.162264@sj-nntpcache-5...
>>>
>>>
>>> .... 90% of people on
>>> here don't know what a db is.
>>>
>>> -Quick
>>>
>>
>> Just for starters, one-tenth of a Bel is a "dB", not a
>> "db".
>
> Well, I spelled "there" and "boars" wrong. This wasn't
> a spelling mistake though, just an error. I gave up shortly
> after they started using "K" for both 1024 and 1000. It was
> about the time they followed up by making "B" and "b"
> ambiguous - It probably was OK in the context of my
> reply but my bad none the less.
No problem.
I hate that "M" can be a thousand or a million, too.
>
> I believe you're one of the 10%.
Thanks. Even your 10% estimate could be generous.
Just see how many circuit-design people will try to distinguish
between "Voltage dB" and "Power dB", for instance.
>
> Are there some basic tests and measures commonly
> used for RF sensitivity (in phone or similar applications)?
What I think is the best receiver measurement isn't commonly used.
Noise Figure, or equivalent Noise Temperature would be my
engineering choice, but you'll rarely see that quoted anywhere.
Without that, we're stuck with an ambiguous number involving
microvolt sensitivity, which isn't defined by everyone the same way.
> Is there any significant variation in the RF section design
> of mainstream cell phones?
I'm no expert there, but I think a large number of handsets use
Qualcomm chips, which give everyone about the same starting point.
I think Qualcomm has gone, or is going toward, direct conversion
to baseband, which means heterodyning in one step down to an
intermediate frequency of zero. I used to say that couldn't work well,
but Qualcomm has some extremely respected engineers,
and if they say it works, I'm inclined to believe them.
> Is there any significant variation in performance?
> Was I correct in the assumption that the physical antenna
> is probably the most significant contributing factor to
> performance in cell phones?
Yes, there's some variation in performance among handsets,
but it'll take an expert from that technical specialty to tell us why.
In some cases it could be antenna style and/or placement.
In other cases it could be better or poorer impedance matching
between the antenna and the circuitry.
I can tell you from direct, first-hand experience that antenna design
for handhelds is a hot technical specialty all over the world.
The antenna people are doing the very best they can, considering
the difficult constraints imposed by the handheld environment.
I have one friend, in fact, who designed a kind of triple-unit antenna
for handhelds, working in space-diversity mode to combat selective
fading in narrow-band telephony like GSM and other TDMA systems.
(It's not effective for CDMA, though, because of the wider bandwidth.)
That antenna is used in some current-production handsets by NTT.
Given all that, my personal opinion is that the antenna is only
a second- or third-most abused factor in practical handset design.
I readily agree with you that it could be the top factor
if were not being handled as well as it is.
Too many user complaints involve poor audio quality, so I think that
the mundane area of audio has suffered from design compromises.
But without any inside information, my opinion is no better than yours.
"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message news:1106245651.575266@sj-nntpcache-3...
> John R. Copeland wrote:
>> "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1106242829.162264@sj-nntpcache-5...
>>>
>>>
>>> .... 90% of people on
>>> here don't know what a db is.
>>>
>>> -Quick
>>>
>>
>> Just for starters, one-tenth of a Bel is a "dB", not a
>> "db".
>
> Well, I spelled "there" and "boars" wrong. This wasn't
> a spelling mistake though, just an error. I gave up shortly
> after they started using "K" for both 1024 and 1000. It was
> about the time they followed up by making "B" and "b"
> ambiguous -
It probably was OK in the context of my> reply but my bad none the less.
No problem.
I hate that "M" can be a thousand or a million, too.
>
> I believe you're one of the 10%.
Thanks. Even your 10% estimate could be generous.
Just see how many circuit-design people will try to distinguish
between "Voltage dB" and "Power dB", for instance.
>
> Are there some basic tests and measures commonly
> used for RF sensitivity (in phone or similar applications)?
What I think is the best receiver measurement isn't commonly used.
Noise Figure, or equivalent Noise Temperature would be my
engineering choice, but you'll rarely see that quoted anywhere.
Without that, we're stuck with an ambiguous number involving
microvolt sensitivity, which isn't defined by everyone the same way.
> Is there any significant variation in the RF section design
> of mainstream cell phones?
I'm no expert there, but I think a large number of handsets use
Qualcomm chips, which give everyone about the same starting point.
I think Qualcomm has gone, or is going toward, direct conversion
to baseband, which means heterodyning in one step down to an
intermediate frequency of zero. I used to say that couldn't work well,
but Qualcomm has some extremely respected engineers,
and if they say it works, I'm inclined to believe them.
> Is there any significant variation in performance?
> Was I correct in the assumption that the physical antenna
> is probably the most significant contributing factor to
> performance in cell phones?
Yes, there's some variation in performance among handsets,
but it'll take an expert from that technical specialty to tell us why.
In some cases it could be antenna style and/or placement.
In other cases it could be better or poorer impedance matching
between the antenna and the circuitry.
I can tell you from direct, first-hand experience that antenna design
for handhelds is a hot technical specialty all over the world.
The antenna people are doing the very best they can, considering
the difficult constraints imposed by the handheld environment.
I have one friend, in fact, who designed a kind of triple-unit antenna
for handhelds, working in space-diversity mode to combat selective
fading in narrow-band telephony like GSM and other TDMA systems.
(It's not effective for CDMA, though, because of the wider bandwidth.)
That antenna is used in some current-production handsets by NTT.
Given all that, my personal opinion is that the antenna is only
a second- or third-most abused factor in practical handset design.
I readily agree with you that it could be the top factor
if were not being handled as well as it is.
Too many user complaints involve poor audio quality, so I think that
the mundane area of audio has suffered from design compromises.
But without any inside information, my opinion is no better than yours.
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
John R. Copeland wrote:
> "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1106245651.575266@sj-nntpcache-3...
>> John R. Copeland wrote:
>>> "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
>>> message news:1106242829.162264@sj-nntpcache-5...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> .... 90% of people on
>>>> here don't know what a db is.
>>>>
>>>> -Quick
>>>>
>>>
>>> Just for starters, one-tenth of a Bel is a "dB", not a
>>> "db".
>>
>> Well, I spelled "there" and "boars" wrong. This wasn't
>> a spelling mistake though, just an error. I gave up
>> shortly after they started using "K" for both 1024 and
>> 1000. It was about the time they followed up by making
>> "B" and "b" ambiguous - It probably was OK in the
>> context of my reply but my bad none the less.
>
> No problem.
> I hate that "M" can be a thousand or a million, too.
>
>>
>> I believe you're one of the 10%.
>
> Thanks. Even your 10% estimate could be generous.
> Just see how many circuit-design people will try to
> distinguish
> between "Voltage dB" and "Power dB", for instance.
>
>>
>> Are there some basic tests and measures commonly
>> used for RF sensitivity (in phone or similar
>> applications)?
>
> What I think is the best receiver measurement isn't
> commonly used.
> Noise Figure, or equivalent Noise Temperature would be my
> engineering choice, but you'll rarely see that quoted
> anywhere.
> Without that, we're stuck with an ambiguous number
> involving
> microvolt sensitivity, which isn't defined by everyone
> the same way.
>
>> Is there any significant variation in the RF section
>> design of mainstream cell phones?
>
> I'm no expert there, but I think a large number of
> handsets use
> Qualcomm chips, which give everyone about the same
> starting point.
> I think Qualcomm has gone, or is going toward, direct
> conversion
> to baseband, which means heterodyning in one step down to
> an
> intermediate frequency of zero. I used to say that
> couldn't work well,
> but Qualcomm has some extremely respected engineers,
> and if they say it works, I'm inclined to believe them.
>
>> Is there any significant variation in performance?
>> Was I correct in the assumption that the physical antenna
>> is probably the most significant contributing factor to
>> performance in cell phones?
>
> Yes, there's some variation in performance among handsets,
> but it'll take an expert from that technical specialty to
> tell us why.
> In some cases it could be antenna style and/or placement.
> In other cases it could be better or poorer impedance
> matching
> between the antenna and the circuitry.
> I can tell you from direct, first-hand experience that
> antenna design
> for handhelds is a hot technical specialty all over the
> world.
> The antenna people are doing the very best they can,
> considering
> the difficult constraints imposed by the handheld
> environment.
>
> I have one friend, in fact, who designed a kind of
> triple-unit antenna
> for handhelds, working in space-diversity mode to combat
> selective
> fading in narrow-band telephony like GSM and other TDMA
> systems.
> (It's not effective for CDMA, though, because of the
> wider bandwidth.)
> That antenna is used in some current-production handsets
> by NTT.
>
> Given all that, my personal opinion is that the antenna
> is only
> a second- or third-most abused factor in practical
> handset design.
> I readily agree with you that it could be the top factor
> if were not being handled as well as it is.
>
> Too many user complaints involve poor audio quality, so I
> think that
> the mundane area of audio has suffered from design
> compromises.
> But without any inside information, my opinion is no
> better than yours.
Thanks.
That's pretty much what I figured. I lump the
impedance matching in as being part of the
antenna so that should move it up a notch.
(I'm feeling pretty full of myself. I only had to mumble
when I read "space diversity mode". Not bad for an
upper level software guy.)
-Quick
John R. Copeland wrote:
> "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1106245651.575266@sj-nntpcache-3...
>> John R. Copeland wrote:
>>> "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
>>> message news:1106242829.162264@sj-nntpcache-5...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> .... 90% of people on
>>>> here don't know what a db is.
>>>>
>>>> -Quick
>>>>
>>>
>>> Just for starters, one-tenth of a Bel is a "dB", not a
>>> "db".
>>
>> Well, I spelled "there" and "boars" wrong. This wasn't
>> a spelling mistake though, just an error. I gave up
>> shortly after they started using "K" for both 1024 and
>> 1000. It was about the time they followed up by making
>> "B" and "b" ambiguous -
It probably was OK in the>> context of my reply but my bad none the less.
>
> No problem.
> I hate that "M" can be a thousand or a million, too.
>
>>
>> I believe you're one of the 10%.
>
> Thanks. Even your 10% estimate could be generous.
> Just see how many circuit-design people will try to
> distinguish
> between "Voltage dB" and "Power dB", for instance.
>
>>
>> Are there some basic tests and measures commonly
>> used for RF sensitivity (in phone or similar
>> applications)?
>
> What I think is the best receiver measurement isn't
> commonly used.
> Noise Figure, or equivalent Noise Temperature would be my
> engineering choice, but you'll rarely see that quoted
> anywhere.
> Without that, we're stuck with an ambiguous number
> involving
> microvolt sensitivity, which isn't defined by everyone
> the same way.
>
>> Is there any significant variation in the RF section
>> design of mainstream cell phones?
>
> I'm no expert there, but I think a large number of
> handsets use
> Qualcomm chips, which give everyone about the same
> starting point.
> I think Qualcomm has gone, or is going toward, direct
> conversion
> to baseband, which means heterodyning in one step down to
> an
> intermediate frequency of zero. I used to say that
> couldn't work well,
> but Qualcomm has some extremely respected engineers,
> and if they say it works, I'm inclined to believe them.
>
>> Is there any significant variation in performance?
>> Was I correct in the assumption that the physical antenna
>> is probably the most significant contributing factor to
>> performance in cell phones?
>
> Yes, there's some variation in performance among handsets,
> but it'll take an expert from that technical specialty to
> tell us why.
> In some cases it could be antenna style and/or placement.
> In other cases it could be better or poorer impedance
> matching
> between the antenna and the circuitry.
> I can tell you from direct, first-hand experience that
> antenna design
> for handhelds is a hot technical specialty all over the
> world.
> The antenna people are doing the very best they can,
> considering
> the difficult constraints imposed by the handheld
> environment.
>
> I have one friend, in fact, who designed a kind of
> triple-unit antenna
> for handhelds, working in space-diversity mode to combat
> selective
> fading in narrow-band telephony like GSM and other TDMA
> systems.
> (It's not effective for CDMA, though, because of the
> wider bandwidth.)
> That antenna is used in some current-production handsets
> by NTT.
>
> Given all that, my personal opinion is that the antenna
> is only
> a second- or third-most abused factor in practical
> handset design.
> I readily agree with you that it could be the top factor
> if were not being handled as well as it is.
>
> Too many user complaints involve poor audio quality, so I
> think that
> the mundane area of audio has suffered from design
> compromises.
> But without any inside information, my opinion is no
> better than yours.
Thanks.
That's pretty much what I figured. I lump the
impedance matching in as being part of the
antenna so that should move it up a notch.
(I'm feeling pretty full of myself. I only had to mumble
when I read "space diversity mode". Not bad for an
upper level software guy.)
-Quick
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message news:1106252587.784774@sj-nntpcache-5...
>
>
>
> (I'm feeling pretty full of myself. I only had to mumble
> when I read "space diversity mode". Not bad for an
> upper level software guy.)
>
> -Quick
>
Ah, good deal. I used to do system software, too, Quick.
At first I thought my buddy's antenna had to be polarization diversity,
because I thought his spacings were too small to allow space diversity.
But he gently corrected me, saying that he had *just barely* enough
distance available in the handset to make space diversity work for him.
"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message news:1106252587.784774@sj-nntpcache-5...
>
>
>
> (I'm feeling pretty full of myself. I only had to mumble
> when I read "space diversity mode". Not bad for an
> upper level software guy.)
>
> -Quick
>
Ah, good deal. I used to do system software, too, Quick.
At first I thought my buddy's antenna had to be polarization diversity,
because I thought his spacings were too small to allow space diversity.
But he gently corrected me, saying that he had *just barely* enough
distance available in the handset to make space diversity work for him.
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
If you have any of those "special" Rx's just send them my way. I could use
all the oxy,hydro - codone you can get. Yes...that's what I said.
"Janie Collins" <jjcollins@triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news
5HHd.27119$dt3.2718636@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> Tx,
>
> Janie
>
>
If you have any of those "special" Rx's just send them my way. I could use
all the oxy,hydro - codone you can get. Yes...that's what I said.
"Janie Collins" <jjcollins@triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news
5HHd.27119$dt3.2718636@twister.southeast.rr.com...> Tx,
>
> Janie
>
>
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
News Windows 11 will reportedly display a watermark if your PC does not support AI requirements- Started by Admin
- Replies: 6
-
Question r9 390 a good budget option since rx 580s are overpriced?- Started by jordanbuilds1
- Replies: 3
-
-
Question a boot loop for IBM x3550 m4 but it immediately turns off
- Started by abdus1
- Replies: 2
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram