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."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
).
Facebook
Twitter