|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > T-Mobile cellular service > August 2005 > Alternate phone antennas
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Alternate phone antennas
|
|
|
| Many companies advertise alternate cell phone antennas (antennae?) that
supposedly are more useful in weak signal situations than the factory
provided one. Has anybody here tried them with Moto V330 and can swear
by them?
Thanks,
Rudy
| |
| Donald Newcomb 2005-07-29, 5:48 pm |
|
"R. P." <r_pol12gar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GO-dnRtj3awzTHTfRVn-vg@comcast.com...
> Many companies advertise alternate cell phone antennas (antennae?) that
> supposedly are more useful in weak signal situations than the factory
> provided one. Has anybody here tried them with Moto V330 and can swear
> by them?
Ask yourself, "Why would Motorola, who has some of the best RF engineers in
the business, put a second rate antenna on their product?" It just doesn't
make sense. Like all the conspiracy theories that said that by adding a
widget to your car's carburetor you could double the gas mileage. The car
makers could have done it but they were paid off by the oil companies to
leave it out. Remember that rubbish? Same thing with trick antennas and
"signal boosters". A good external antenna can help in areas of weak signal
but these things are larger than the phone.
--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net
| |
| Steve Sobol 2005-07-29, 5:48 pm |
| Donald Newcomb wrote:
>
> Ask yourself, "Why would Motorola, who has some of the best RF engineers in
> the business, put a second rate antenna on their product?"
Yes. There are a number of things I don't like about Motorola phones, but
even I have to concede that their handsets' RF performance is stellar,
probably the best in the industry... at least for GSM. For CDMA they're tied
(in my experience) with Kyocera and the new Nokias, but they're still way up
there.
My guess is that a third-party antenna would probably be a waste of money in
this case.
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
| |
| John Richards 2005-07-29, 11:48 pm |
| Donald Newcomb wrote:
> Ask yourself, "Why would Motorola, who has some of the best RF engineers in
> the business, put a second rate antenna on their product?" It just doesn't
> make sense.
If you've ever worked for a large manufacturer, you'd know that engineers
don't get the last word. Often the stylists and the marketing department
have considerable influence on product design.
Third party antennas are typically ugly and large, not the sort of thing
that sells phones.
--
John Richards
| |
|
| "Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
>
> Yes. There are a number of things I don't like about Motorola phones,
> but even I have to concede that their handsets' RF performance is
> stellar, probably the best in the industry... at least for GSM. For
> CDMA they're tied (in my experience) with Kyocera and the new Nokias,
> but they're still way up there.
>
> My guess is that a third-party antenna would probably be a waste of
> money in this case.
Thanks for confirming that my scepticism in those 3rd party antennas was
well founded. I was also thinking about the mathematical relationship of
antenna size to the frequency, or rather wave length that is received
and transmitted on it and I figured that the factory version is probably
optimized for best performance for that frequency.
Rudy
| |
| Corvus 2005-07-30, 2:48 am |
| I have had friends use after market antennas, but not actual
replacements per se, but like the stubby smaller than stock ones or the
ones with the flashing LEDs and stuff. More times than not, signal
performance suffered greatly, even in strong signal areas.
I have had no experience with external antennas, ones that plug into
the phone to enhance performance in fringe areas, but I really doubt
they make that much of a difference, though Im sure alot of peeps will
tell me otherwise. If I ever get one and try it out in the real world,
I will let you know my results.
| |
| Mike S. 2005-07-30, 5:48 pm |
|
In article <As-dnW8CyK_7ZXffRVn-3Q@comcast.com>,
R. P. <r_pol12gar@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
>
>Thanks for confirming that my scepticism in those 3rd party antennas was
>well founded. I was also thinking about the mathematical relationship of
>antenna size to the frequency, or rather wave length that is received
>and transmitted on it and I figured that the factory version is probably
>optimized for best performance for that frequency.
This may be true for phones that use only a single frequency band.
However, modern phones use up to 4 different ranges of frequencies, and a
single element antenna CANNOT be optimized for all of them.
I'd suspect that it is in this area where a high gain, frequency-optimized
third party antenna COULD conceivable perform better than the
cost-and-size optimized factory stock. But, as people have pointed out, in
actual practice most third-party drop-in replacements do no better, and
often worse.
The type that intrigues me is the telescopic whip. The fact that its
length is adjustable might allow it to be manually optimized to the
frequency band in use. Of course, doing so would require having an
objective method of measuring signal strength, and there are too many
other variables in play when a phone is in use in the field, to allow
accurate adjustments by a casual user.
| |
| R. P. 2005-07-30, 11:48 pm |
| "Mike S." <retsuhcs@xinap.moc> wrote:
> This may be true for phones that use only a single frequency band.
>
> However, modern phones use up to 4 different ranges of frequencies,
> and a
> single element antenna CANNOT be optimized for all of them.
Good point, Mike. Actually my V330 is also a quad band phone but in
reality we only use one or two of those bands with a given service
provider. However, as I plan to use the same phone in Europe, too, the
antenna optimized for the US market and for the frequency used by
T-Mobile, might not be optimal for the others.
> The type that intrigues me is the telescopic whip. The fact that its
> length is adjustable might allow it to be manually optimized to the
> frequency band in use. Of course, doing so would require having an
> objective method of measuring signal strength, and there are too many
> other variables in play when a phone is in use in the field, to allow
> accurate adjustments by a casual user.
That's the one I was interested in, too, not that silly printed circuit
board looking sheet that you supposed to insert inside the phone, on top
of the battery. That sounds to my like one of those fuel saver magnetic
device scams advertised in automotive magazines.
Rudy
| |
|
| i have lived and worked in gsm fringe areas in los angeles. i had to stand
at my the curb or in the parking lot to use my motorola v300. i wanted to
get rid of t-mobile in the worst way. i happened to see the wilson
electronics short whip antenna and tried it. it was good for 1 or 2 extra
bars and made my phone usable at home/work without resorting to running to
the curb or the parking lot. i now use a v3 which is a lot more sensitive
than the v300 but occasionally when the signal fades for me, the antenna
does make a difference. i just wish i lived/worked in better signal areas.
oh well.
"John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote in message
news:OdyGe.1213$gQ5.444@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> Donald Newcomb wrote:
>
> If you've ever worked for a large manufacturer, you'd know that engineers
> don't get the last word. Often the stylists and the marketing department
> have considerable influence on product design.
> Third party antennas are typically ugly and large, not the sort of thing
> that sells phones.
>
> --
> John Richards
>
>
>
| |
|
| "Irv" <irving@ktb.net> wrote:
>i have lived and worked in gsm fringe areas in los angeles. i had to
>stand at my the curb or in the parking lot to use my motorola v300. i
>wanted to get rid of t-mobile in the worst way. i happened to see the
>wilson electronics short whip antenna and tried it. it was good for 1
>or 2 extra bars and made my phone usable at home/work without resorting
>to running to the curb or the parking lot. i now use a v3 which is a
>lot more sensitive than the v300 but occasionally when the signal fades
>for me, the antenna does make a difference. i just wish i lived/worked
>in better signal areas. oh well.
That Wilson company seems to know what they are doing but from what I
can see on their Web site, their antennae are pretty elaborate
contraptions and not the kind of small telescopic models I was thinking
of. So I don't even know what "short whip" antenna you are talking
about there. Do you know of a Web site showing its picture?
Rudy
| |
| John Richards 2005-07-31, 11:48 pm |
| Well, you just proved wrong all those misinformed people who claim
that a better (bigger) antenna won't help improve reception on a
GSM phone.
Thanks for sharing your real world experience.
--
John Richards
Irv wrote:[color=darkred
]
> i have lived and worked in gsm fringe areas in los angeles. i had to stand
> at my the curb or in the parking lot to use my motorola v300. i wanted to
> get rid of t-mobile in the worst way. i happened to see the wilson
> electronics short whip antenna and tried it. it was good for 1 or 2 extra
> bars and made my phone usable at home/work without resorting to running to
> the curb or the parking lot. i now use a v3 which is a lot more sensitive
> than the v300 but occasionally when the signal fades for me, the antenna
> does make a difference. i just wish i lived/worked in better signal areas.
> oh well.
>
> "John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote in message
> news:OdyGe.1213$gQ5.444@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
| |
|
| this looks like what i have. the magnet is really strong and is meant for
the top of a car. you also have to get an adapter specific to your
particular phone. sometimes the guys on ebay have wilson stuff at good
prices.
http://wilsonelectronics.com/antennas/wcmagnet.htm
"R. P." <r_pol12gar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:yfmdnWlsuZoYu3D
fRVn-3A@comcast.com...
> "Irv" <irving@ktb.net> wrote:
>
> That Wilson company seems to know what they are doing but from what I can
> see on their Web site, their antennae are pretty elaborate contraptions
> and not the kind of small telescopic models I was thinking of. So I don't
> even know what "short whip" antenna you are talking about there. Do you
> know of a Web site showing its picture?
>
> Rudy
| |
|
| In article <J4mdnYLLrYTIr23fRVn-uw@comcast.com>,
"R. P." <r_pol12gar@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Irv" <irving@ktb.net> wrote:
> for
>
> I thought you were talking about the kind of telescopic antennas shown
> on the following Web page and replace the factory one:
>
> http://www.cellphoneshop.net/v300antenna.html
>
> Rudy
I wonder how much loss is in a 10 foot piece of RG-58 coax at 1900 Mhz?
Would there be enough gain in the antenna to overcome the loss?
|
|
|
|
|