Cell Phone Tech Discussion - Gimmic Cell Phone Antenna "Improvers"

Author

Gimmic Cell Phone Antenna "Improvers"

Edward L. Mann

2005-07-31, 5:48 pm

Are those little antennas you stick under the battery that are supposed to
improve reception worth buying? I'm talking about the ones that were being
sold on TV and at Radio Shack. I am a former EE, and it sounds fishy to
me - but if it works, I might give it a try.

Don Schmidt

2005-07-31, 11:48 pm

What was it P. T. Barnum said about ".......... born every minute." ?

--
Don
Vancouver, USA

"Edward L. Mann" < guedo_sarragucci@yah
oo.com> wrote in message
news:mvidne70VvDpsHD
fRVn-iw@comcast.com...
> Are those little antennas you stick under the battery that are supposed to
> improve reception worth buying? I'm talking about the ones that were
> being
> sold on TV and at Radio Shack. I am a former EE, and it sounds fishy to
> me - but if it works, I might give it a try.
>
>

Seumas Elphen

2005-08-01, 5:48 pm

Edward L. Mann wrote:
> Are those little antennas you stick under the battery that are supposed to
> improve reception worth buying? I'm talking about the ones that were being
> sold on TV and at Radio Shack. I am a former EE, and it sounds fishy to
> me - but if it works, I might give it a try.
>
>
There was an article about this film insert a while back, de-bunking
the entire idea but I didn't bookmark it.

Cell phones are basicly little two way radios. Any Ham radio operator
will tell you if you want to improve reception/transmit then you need to
get/build a better antenna. When you start to understand how radio waves
and antennas work, it's pretty amazing that cell phones work at all
given the freq range and the stubby, if at all, antenna.

You can purchase aftermarket real antennas to fit most cell phones
that should improve performance. I'm waiting on mine to arrive as the
reception in my VX3200 sucks.

Seumas
The above advice is free of charge and should be considered worth as
much as you paid for it.

Richard Steinfeld

2005-08-09, 5:48 am

Seumas Elphen wrote:
> Edward L. Mann wrote:

....the ones that were

Yup. We all know that everything sold at Radio Shack is of impeccable
quality, don't we...
[color=darkred]
> Cell phones are basicly little two way radios. Any Ham radio operator
> will tell you if you want to improve reception/transmit then you need to
> get/build a better antenna. When you start to understand how radio waves
> and antennas work, it's pretty amazing that cell phones work at all
> given the freq range and the stubby, if at all, antenna.
>

Yeah. I know. I've worked on a few RF and cellular projects, and I keep
scratching my head about this. Car lock/alarm remote controls, too. I
believe that the car gizmos (damn noise polluters) work by actually
using the operator's body as an antenna. I wonder if there's a similar
effect with the cell phone via some kind of capacitance coupling. I can
see the reception working; after all, the transponder can put out a
hefty signal. But the transmission power from the handset is a whole
other matter -- very limited -- and I learned that this side of the
duplex can be a real problem.

> You can purchase aftermarket real antennas to fit most cell phones that
> should improve performance. I'm waiting on mine to arrive as the
> reception in my VX3200 sucks.
>

I'd like to know what you experience. I'd think that coupling to an
external car antenna would also produce even greater improvement. I
don't think that people who use cell phones pay enough atttention to how
they sound to the people on the other side of the call.

Richard

Seumas Elphen

2005-08-28, 5:48 pm

Well, after a couple of weeks of using both an after market extendable
for my VX3200 and and magnetic mount external vehical antenna, here is
my experience with them:

The extendable antenna needed an adaptor to connect to my phone. The
place I ordered it from provided it with the order. I called to make
sure of this. The extendable antenna added about 1/4 inch or so height
or so to the antenna (collapsed). It extends only about to 2 1/2 inches.
The physics of wave length vs antenna length don't really add up here
but; I noticed an inprovement in reception inside the house/office
(about one bar), and a decrease in dropped calls and fade in/out.
Well worth the $11 I spent.

External mag-mount for car:
I purchased a Wilson Electronics cell antenna, not to be confused with
Wilson antenna for ham/cb radios.
Drawbacks: It has a cable that needs attaching to the back of the phone.
Assisted in staying in place by a velcro tab, one half sticks to the
phone. The cable plugs into the phone via a jack on the back of the
phone. You have to remove the correct plug to get to the jack, maybe
exposing the phone's internals open to collect dirt when not in use or
you have to keep up with a small plastic plug about the size of.... well
very small. The connection to the phone was a little loose for me so I
tightened it up alittle by carefully bending the cables's tabs. Snug has
different meaning to different folks. The antenna is generic (cdma) but
needs a specific adaptor for specific phones. Check the website for the
correct one. The site that I purchased mine sold them as a combo. The
cable has to run from the phone to the antenna outside the vehicle.
Rather anoying if you have the power cord and the antenna cable plugged
in at the same time. Either you have to pop the antenna on the roof
every time and run the cable through the window or run the cable in a
fashion so not to get torn up by closing the door or window on the
cable. Cost about $50

Pluses: Although the drawbacks seem many, I got 5 bars in nearly all the
rural areas that I drive through when I could rarely make or keep a
phone call active before. I deem it a worthwhile purchase.

The addition of the cell antenna did not conflict very much with either
the 2 meter or 11 meter radio antenna I have mounted on my truck, as
long as I didn't push over 50 watts.

I looked at the passive (non-cabled, non-powered) so called "repeater"
cell phone antennas, but could not get anyone to explan the physics
behind them. As I understand radio wave physics, metal absorbs radio
waves, it does not absorb and rebroadcast at an equal or higher gain
without some sort of engery provided. It _might_ at a lower gain but
that is not the objective here.

I think the film antenna "boosters" fall into this catagory. Basic
electronics disproves it's marketing claims.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Seumas
--

The above advice is free of charge and should be considered worth as
much as you paid for it. No refunds

Please post replies in a polite manner. If you are rude and insulting,
I'll drop your username in the gulag and I'll never see another post
from you again.

Richard Steinfeld wrote:
> Seumas Elphen wrote:
>
>
>
>
> ...the ones that were
>
>
> Yup. We all know that everything sold at Radio Shack is of impeccable
> quality, don't we...
>
>
> Yeah. I know. I've worked on a few RF and cellular projects, and I keep
> scratching my head about this. Car lock/alarm remote controls, too. I
> believe that the car gizmos (damn noise polluters) work by actually
> using the operator's body as an antenna. I wonder if there's a similar
> effect with the cell phone via some kind of capacitance coupling. I can
> see the reception working; after all, the transponder can put out a
> hefty signal. But the transmission power from the handset is a whole
> other matter -- very limited -- and I learned that this side of the
> duplex can be a real problem.
>
>
> I'd like to know what you experience. I'd think that coupling to an
> external car antenna would also produce even greater improvement. I
> don't think that people who use cell phones pay enough atttention to how
> they sound to the people on the other side of the call.
>
> Richard

LinkBot