Telescoping antennas

[Guest]

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

Other than looking cool, do telescoping antennas offer any more sig
reception? I know it's not going to be incredibly more. Even a little
improvement would be worth it. I'm just concerned about SWR. Should
I be concerned about the tuning of the antenna?

 

[Guest]

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

Big Dummy wrote:
> Other than looking cool, do telescoping antennas offer any more sig
> reception? I know it's not going to be incredibly more. Even a little
> improvement would be worth it. I'm just concerned about SWR. Should
> I be concerned about the tuning of the antenna?

Antennas work best if they are the length of a wave of the frequency
they are receiving. full wave, half wave, quarter wave. So it depends
on the frequency you are using. VZW is CDMA 800Mhz. My Kyocera
7135 has an extendable 1/2 wave antenna (close to it) which is longer
than most. Most are 1/4 wave but still need to be extendable to reach
that length given the size of phones today. My wife has a VX4400 with
an extendable antenna that is 1/4 wave. Generally speaking the 1/2 wave
antenna will perform better than the 1/4 wave antenna.

Then there are compromises. My phone is a tri-mode phone and works
with 800 CDMA, 1900 PCS, and 800 AMPS ? I imagine the antenna
is a compromise and not completely tuned (length wise) to 800 or 1900.

So... you will often find that many/most of the GSM phones operating
(primarily) at the higher frequencies will not have extendable antennas.
Shorter wave length so 1/4 wave antenna fits reasonably within the
phone. With 800 CDMA you will do better with an extendable antenna.

Note: all the above is handwaving based on little (and likely wrong)
information. Its correct in the general idea and that for CDMA an
extendable antenna is better and for GSM maybe not much.

-Quick

 

[Guest]

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

Big Dummy <jdkopke@nospam.rcn.com> wrote in message news:<r91na0h8c17iv2jlmedrmhh125t56np5vo@4ax.com>...
> Other than looking cool, do telescoping antennas offer any more sig
> reception? I know it's not going to be incredibly more. Even a little
> improvement would be worth it. I'm just concerned about SWR. Should
> I be concerned about the tuning of the antenna?

There's a lot more to reception than just antenna. There's also the
recever/transmiter in the handset as well as the abilty for the phone
to find a useable network (800mhz digital/analog or 1900PCS).

My Audiovox 9500 has a very long antenna(6" 1/2 wave) and I get some
of the best analog reception of any phone ever used. My friends with
the stub antenna's generally have poor fringe area performance. Don't
get a (Motorola) stub for fringe reception areas.
The Nokia 3595i has incredible Digital reception, and a strange
patch/extendable antenna. The chips used in the Nokia seem to very
quickly find a usable network.

Another advantage may be to get a phone with an external antenna
adapter. It won't work miracles and is a litte complicated, but it
will get the signal outside of a car. For remote locations, a Yagi
will pull in, and most important, will TRANSMIT over a great distance,
provided it set up and aimed properly. The real weak link is the
limited power to reach back to the tower. The tower has plenty of
power, but phones are limited. This is where antenna designs help to
"boost" the limited power a bit.

Advice, search "best reception" or get some handset recomendations,
then try the phone out in some local fringe areas.
A handset that has ample power and a good antenna, as well as the
ability to find a usable network, should work well in fringe areas.


I'm going to try to rig a Yagi for car use. Stationary of course,
since it requires precise aiming. Mounting a 3 foot Yagi, on a
telescoping pool brush handle, attached to the trailer hitch mount is
the plan...so far.

-
David

 

[Guest]

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

I have a LG4400 & have never found that extending the antenna does any good.
I'm guessing they added it just to look impressive. Possible if I was in an
analog area it might help somewhat.

"Quick" <dhorwitz@NOSPAMcisco.com> wrote in message
news:1084985626.468409@sj-nntpcache-3...
> Big Dummy wrote:
> > Other than looking cool, do telescoping antennas offer any more sig
> > reception? I know it's not going to be incredibly more. Even a little
> > improvement would be worth it. I'm just concerned about SWR. Should
> > I be concerned about the tuning of the antenna?
>
> Antennas work best if they are the length of a wave of the frequency
> they are receiving. full wave, half wave, quarter wave. So it depends
> on the frequency you are using. VZW is CDMA 800Mhz. My Kyocera
> 7135 has an extendable 1/2 wave antenna (close to it) which is longer
> than most. Most are 1/4 wave but still need to be extendable to reach
> that length given the size of phones today. My wife has a VX4400 with
> an extendable antenna that is 1/4 wave. Generally speaking the 1/2 wave
> antenna will perform better than the 1/4 wave antenna.
>
> Then there are compromises. My phone is a tri-mode phone and works
> with 800 CDMA, 1900 PCS, and 800 AMPS ? I imagine the antenna
> is a compromise and not completely tuned (length wise) to 800 or 1900.
>
> So... you will often find that many/most of the GSM phones operating
> (primarily) at the higher frequencies will not have extendable antennas.
> Shorter wave length so 1/4 wave antenna fits reasonably within the
> phone. With 800 CDMA you will do better with an extendable antenna.
>
> Note: all the above is handwaving based on little (and likely wrong)
> information. Its correct in the general idea and that for CDMA an
> extendable antenna is better and for GSM maybe not much.
>
> -Quick
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

"Rich Cacace" <richcacace-REMOVETOREPLY-@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:2h3re6F8roraU1@uni-berlin.de...
> I have a LG4400 & have never found that ebyxtending the antenna does any
good.
> I'm guessing they added it just to look impressive. Possible if I was in
an
> analog area it might help somewhat.

I promise you this is not the case. Longer antennas do have a real effect.
You probably don't ever use your phone on the fringes. If you go into the
service menu on the LG 4400 and go into the "Screen" field test you can see
the received signal strength. If you put up your antenna you will probably
see it go up (err, well the number will get larger but since it is
negative...) about three decibels. Now what this translates to is that if
you put the antenna up in a fringe area you may be able to make a call or
have a clearer call than if the antenna was down (remember that a 3db
increse in signal strength is a doubling of the signal).

Also, if you put the antenna up even in a great signal coverage area your
phone will not hae to broadcast with as much power (and hence will fry your
brain less and use less battery power).

I have an LG 4400 and I *always* use the antenna.

-Eric

 

[Guest]

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

Rich Cacace wrote:
> I have a LG4400 & have never found that extending the antenna does any good.
> I'm guessing they added it just to look impressive. Possible if I was in an
> analog area it might help somewhat.

Or how about some facts

http://www.denbeste.nu/cdmafaq/antenna.shtml

This has lead some people to conclude that the antenna is not actually
doing anything for them, which is not quite correct.

Roger

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 20 May 2004 11:48:38 -0700, "Roger Binns"
<rogerb@rogerbinns.com> wrote:

>Rich Cacace wrote:
>> I have a LG4400 & have never found that extending the antenna does any good.
>> I'm guessing they added it just to look impressive. Possible if I was in an
>> analog area it might help somewhat.
>
>Or how about some facts
>
>http://www.denbeste.nu/cdmafaq/antenna.shtml
>
> This has lead some people to conclude that the antenna is not actually
> doing anything for them, which is not quite correct.
>
>Roger
>
Thanks for all the input. Being a HAM I do understand a little about
freq, and antenna length. Having the VX6000 which is all digital,
would it also be correct to say "PCS" (1900 Mhz)? Then a telescoping
length of 3 inches would be perfect.

 

[Guest]

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

Roger Binns wrote:
>
> Rich Cacace wrote:
> > I have a LG4400 & have never found that extending the antenna does any good.
> > I'm guessing they added it just to look impressive. Possible if I was in an
> > analog area it might help somewhat.
>
> Or how about some facts
>
> http://www.denbeste.nu/cdmafaq/antenna.shtml
>
> This has lead some people to conclude that the antenna is not actually
> doing anything for them, which is not quite correct.

Why is Steven's information "not quite correct?"

Just curious.

Larry

 

[Guest]

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

Lawrence Glasser wrote:
> Roger Binns wrote:
> >
> > Rich Cacace wrote:
> > > I have a LG4400 & have never found that extending the antenna does any good.
> > > I'm guessing they added it just to look impressive. Possible if I was in an
> > > analog area it might help somewhat.
> >
> > Or how about some facts
> >
> > http://www.denbeste.nu/cdmafaq/antenna.shtml
> >
> > This has lead some people to conclude that the antenna is not actually
> > doing anything for them, which is not quite correct.
>
> Why is Steven's information "not quite correct?"

Which Steven are you referring to? The only relevant one I can see for this
thread is the owner of that web page (Steven Den Beste). That statement is
a quote from the page referenced (you did read it?). It is presented in
contrast to what I quoted from Rich.

Roger

 

[Guest]

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

"Big Dummy" <jdkopke@nospam.rcn.com> wrote in message news:qj9qa09lruiv8qq2h49ot728moa77kdttd@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 20 May 2004 11:48:38 -0700, "Roger Binns"
> <rogerb@rogerbinns.com> wrote:
>
> >Rich Cacace wrote:
> >> I have a LG4400 & have never found that extending the antenna does any good.
> >> I'm guessing they added it just to look impressive. Possible if I was in an
> >> analog area it might help somewhat.
> >
> >Or how about some facts
> >
> >http://www.denbeste.nu/cdmafaq/antenna.shtml
> >
> > This has lead some people to conclude that the antenna is not actually
> > doing anything for them, which is not quite correct.
> >
> >Roger
> >
> Thanks for all the input. Being a HAM I do understand a little about
> freq, and antenna length. Having the VX6000 which is all digital,
> would it also be correct to say "PCS" (1900 Mhz)? Then a telescoping
> length of 3 inches would be perfect.

"Perfect" is less clear-cut than that.
The impedance of the antenna, too, is a complicated function of its length.
The antenna designer must be able to match the circuitry to the impedance
of the antenna, all in view of the need to minimize the amount of RF current
flowing on the body of the handset.
Current flowing on the handset body gets disturbed by the way the user
holds the unit, in turn affecting both antenna pattern and impedance.

Quarter-wave and Five-Eighths-wave antennas over a ground plane
have "nice" patterns and impedances, but lots of ground-plane current.
However, handsets are certainly not "nice" ground planes.
Half-wave antennas have good patterns with minimal ground-plane currents,
but they have uncomfortably high impedances when they are end-fed.

Many popular external antenna designs are nearly a half wavelength
to minimize the disturbing effects of the human holder, but enough
less than a half wavelength to still give a matchable impedance.
Internal antennas often are very different designs,
with the printed-circuit Inverted-F antenna seen frequently right now.
Patch antennas show up occasionally, but not as often as they do in
handheld GPS receivers.

When "Quick" spoke earlier in this thread about compromises,
he was exactly right. My good friend of more than forty years,
Dr. Kyohei Fujimoto, has published some of the definitive work
on the relevant topics in his "Mobile Antenna Systems Handbook"
and in other technical articles.
If you're interested in the technology, you can Google him for references.
Most of Dr. Fujimoto's material is published in English.
He's working on four more articles at this very moment.
---JRC---

 

[Guest]

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

Roger Binns wrote:
>
> Lawrence Glasser wrote:
> > Roger Binns wrote:
> > >
> > > Rich Cacace wrote:
> > > > I have a LG4400 & have never found that extending the antenna does any good.
> > > > I'm guessing they added it just to look impressive. Possible if I was in an
> > > > analog area it might help somewhat.
> > >
> > > Or how about some facts
> > >
> > > http://www.denbeste.nu/cdmafaq/antenna.shtml
> > >
> > > This has lead some people to conclude that the antenna is not actually
> > > doing anything for them, which is not quite correct.
> >
> > Why is Steven's information "not quite correct?"
>
> Which Steven are you referring to? The only relevant one I can see for this
> thread is the owner of that web page (Steven Den Beste). That statement is
> a quote from the page referenced (you did read it?). It is presented in
> contrast to what I quoted from Rich.

Your post could have been interpreted in one of two ways...

1) The conclusion that some people reached, after reading the article, was
"not quite correct."

2) The article, itself, was "not quite correct."

Apparently, I chose the wrong answer! <g>

Larry