NEWS: Apple Released Test Videos To Demonstrate Antenna Problems in Nokia, BlackBerry, HTC Droid and Samsung
in [Wireless Internet]
|
Prev: NEWS: Apple unsure when it will be able to meet demand for iPhone 4, iPad
Next: Save Up to $300 When You Sign up with 2 Go Media Before July 31th
From: Jeff Liebermann on 24 Jul 2010 02:44 On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 20:48:35 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >So much for accurate signal strength readings. [sigh] >This is with a 3G (W-CDMA) signal, >but I think it's the same with a GSM signal. (...) More test results: <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/cellular/cell-test.htm> I made it into a web page so I can easily add additional test phones (and fix my mistakes). I only had one working AT&T phone that would allow me into the test mode. My point is that the tests performed by Apple, showing a signal loss measured in "bars", it useless. What's needed are real numbers from the test mode. The problem is that Apple or AT&T have conspired to remove the test mode utility from the iPhone 4. Bottom line: When held loosely and over the antenna, the Apple iPhone 4 drops -19.8dB. The worst phone I tested dropped -9dB. -20dB is a 200 times signal loss. -9dB is about an 8 times signal loss. Little wonder the iPhone drops calls. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl(a)cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
From: John Navas on 24 Jul 2010 10:49 On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 23:44:15 -0700, in <tc2l461ehva5bd3s9f2shgv0kqiq55d649(a)4ax.com>, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> wrote: >On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 20:48:35 -0700, John Navas ><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >>So much for accurate signal strength readings. [sigh] >>This is with a 3G (W-CDMA) signal, >>but I think it's the same with a GSM signal. >(...) > >More test results: ><http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/cellular/cell-test.htm> > >I made it into a web page so I can easily add additional test phones >(and fix my mistakes). I only had one working AT&T phone that would >allow me into the test mode. > >My point is that the tests performed by Apple, showing a signal loss >measured in "bars", it useless. What's needed are real numbers from >the test mode. The problem is that Apple or AT&T have conspired to >remove the test mode utility from the iPhone 4. > >Bottom line: When held loosely and over the antenna, the Apple iPhone >4 drops -19.8dB. The worst phone I tested dropped -9dB. -20dB is a >200 times signal loss. -9dB is about an 8 times signal loss. Little >wonder the iPhone drops calls. Kool. But we're not the intended audience for the Apple video. Steve Jobs may be many things, but stupid isn't one of them. He almost certainly knew the Apple video would be debunked, but didn't care. Because the intended audience doesn't care. Those who have drunk the Kool-Aid just need a plausible lie ... er ... excuse. "iPhone 4, Its design is perfect" <http://regmedia.co.uk/2010/07/23/design_is_perfect_two.png> BTW, I've found out how to get my Android into Testing mode (field test mode, by entering *#*#4636#*#*), so I'll hopefully have some better numbers shortly. -- John If the iPhone and iPad are really so impressive, then why do iFans keep making excuses for them?
From: Larry on 24 Jul 2010 15:59 Jeff Liebermann <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> wrote in news:tc2l461ehva5bd3s9f2shgv0kqiq55d649(a)4ax.com: > Bottom line: When held loosely and over the antenna, the Apple iPhone > 4 drops -19.8dB. The worst phone I tested dropped -9dB. -20dB is a > 200 times signal loss. -9dB is about an 8 times signal loss. Little > wonder the iPhone drops calls. > > 20db is a 100 times signal los (10 x 10). 23db is a 200 times signal loss. 9db loss is (2x2x2) (3db is 1/2 times 3 to get to -9).../8 loss is correct. Little wonder the iPhone lost the signal....(c;] same results...logic and reason. Your fav repeater on 2, 440 or what band, Jeff? We have so many repeaters interconnected around here everyone is afraid to ragchew any more for fear of jamming every available frequency. It's crazy. Best repeater is 147.300+. 1,878' up the TV tower in perfectly flat coastal plain Charleston sits in. Range to a 50W mobile is 90 miles! -- iPhone 4 is to cellular technology what the Titanic is to cruise ships. Larry
From: Jeff Liebermann on 24 Jul 2010 19:13 On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 19:59:06 +0000, Larry <noone(a)home.com> wrote: >Jeff Liebermann <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> wrote in >news:tc2l461ehva5bd3s9f2shgv0kqiq55d649(a)4ax.com: > >> Bottom line: When held loosely and over the antenna, the Apple iPhone >> 4 drops -19.8dB. The worst phone I tested dropped -9dB. -20dB is a >> 200 times signal loss. -9dB is about an 8 times signal loss. Little >> wonder the iPhone drops calls. >20db is a 100 times signal los (10 x 10). 23db is a 200 times signal loss. >9db loss is (2x2x2) (3db is 1/2 times 3 to get to -9).../8 loss is correct. Yes, I know. At midnight, after a rough day, my brain isn't always in gear. That's why I did a web page instead of dumping the numbers into the newsgroups, which can't be easily retracted or corrected. I originally used the -24.6dB number from the iPhone 4 test page, which is 288 times. I then realized that was worst case covering the phone with what looks like both hands. I didn't do that so I changed it to the -24.6dB number to the "holding naturally" number of -19.8dB. I changed it some places, but not others, resulting in the muddle. I've corrected it on the web page at: <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/cellular/cell-test.htm> By 1AM, I didn't care. I'll be adding a few more phones. Thanks for the correction. Grumble... >Little wonder the iPhone lost the signal....(c;] same results...logic and >reason. 12.5 times worse is a rather substantial difference between the other cell phones and the iPhone 4. My guess(tm) is that something else is happening besides detuning the antenna or reducing its Q, such as an oscillator or regenerative rx front end. >Your fav repeater on 2, 440 or what band, Jeff? 440Mhz. Fewer idiots. 900Mhz if I want to discuss something technical without interruptions. Unfortunately, the 440 repeater I'm suppose to be building: <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/K6BJ-MSF5000/> is turning into a real nightmare due to a grossly inefficient linear power supply and extremely lossy cavities. I'm thinking of taking a giant step backwards and temporarily installing two Maxtrac's or SM50's while replace the power supply with a switcher. >We have so many repeaters interconnected around here everyone is afraid to >ragchew any more for fear of jamming every available frequency. It's >crazy. Linked repeaters are useless. All you're doing is creating a huge party line. They're not even useful in an emergency, where separating traffic by type is more important than everyone fighting for an available slot. Pull the plug on the links and use separate PL tones for chit chat, and linking. For long range, connect the radio links as needed, or use IRLP to connect repeaters. >Best repeater is 147.300+. 1,878' up the TV tower in perfectly flat >coastal plain Charleston sits in. Range to a 50W mobile is 90 miles! Swell. I know of several repeaters that are higher. The problem is that they cover perhaps 20,000 hams. We have 2,000 just in the Santa Cruz area. So, when the ground shakes or some other disaster arrives, everyone gets on the highest level repeater. Instead of listening, they ask for status info. The repeaters that are genuinely useful are low level. Sheesh.... talk about topic drift. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl(a)cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
From: Thomas T. Veldhouse on 26 Jul 2010 15:01
In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 23:44:15 -0700, in > <tc2l461ehva5bd3s9f2shgv0kqiq55d649(a)4ax.com>, Jeff Liebermann > <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> wrote: > >>On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 20:48:35 -0700, John Navas >><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> >>>So much for accurate signal strength readings. [sigh] >>>This is with a 3G (W-CDMA) signal, >>>but I think it's the same with a GSM signal. >>(...) >> >>More test results: >><http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/cellular/cell-test.htm> >> >>I made it into a web page so I can easily add additional test phones >>(and fix my mistakes). I only had one working AT&T phone that would >>allow me into the test mode. >> >>My point is that the tests performed by Apple, showing a signal loss >>measured in "bars", it useless. What's needed are real numbers from >>the test mode. The problem is that Apple or AT&T have conspired to >>remove the test mode utility from the iPhone 4. >> >>Bottom line: When held loosely and over the antenna, the Apple iPhone >>4 drops -19.8dB. The worst phone I tested dropped -9dB. -20dB is a >>200 times signal loss. -9dB is about an 8 times signal loss. Little >>wonder the iPhone drops calls. > > Kool. But we're not the intended audience for the Apple video. Steve > Jobs may be many things, but stupid isn't one of them. He almost > certainly knew the Apple video would be debunked, but didn't care. > Because the intended audience doesn't care. Those who have drunk the > Kool-Aid just need a plausible lie ... er ... excuse. > > "iPhone 4, Its design is perfect" > <http://regmedia.co.uk/2010/07/23/design_is_perfect_two.png> > > BTW, I've found out how to get my Android into Testing mode (field test > mode, by entering *#*#4636#*#*), so I'll hopefully have some better > numbers shortly. > On my Droid X I just go into settings, Phone Info, Status and see: Signal Strength: -81dBm 0asu It seems to fluctuate between -81 and -83dBm as I write this. No field test mode necessary. Surrouding the entire phone with both hands with just enough room to see the display brought the value down to -91dBm (and that is in the building where no other carrier works in any reliable manner ... where everybody else runs for the window or exit to talk). BTW, it is very tough to surround the entire Droid X with two hands ... it is a big phone, but I managed (minus a small gap to look in and see the display). -- Thomas T. Veldhouse Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple. |