Does anybody have an EVO 3D and they can just hold the phone completely still and watch the bars fluctuate from full bars, down the no bars and then anywhere in between? I can be sitting 10 feet from my airrave and it still does it.
Yeah my e3d has adhd too. I know it's not connecting to different towers because theres only one close by and in your case the air rave
I had changed phones because I was missing phone calls and stuff. I had never noticed the fluctuating bars like that until last night.
I can't remember where I read it but I read someone state that the E3D's antenna is at the bottom of this phone and might suffer the same signal loss issues as the original iPhone 4 (as in if you hold it a certain way, you lose signal). But I'm not entirely sure on the accuracy to that.
You're absolutely right. the antennae is at the bottom (really stupid) so whenever I hold my phone it drops at least three bars
Mine does this even when I'm not holding it. Spaz phones.
Sent from my HTC Evo 3D.
mine will do it when i dont have the airave hooked up at the house. mine is due to being in an overlap area of about 5 towers and the phone is constantly switching towers since they all roughly deliver the same signal strength at the house. When i have my airave plugged in i have no problems. it always stays hooked to the airave,
THEGAMEPLAY94 said:
You're absolutely right. the antennae is at the bottom (really stupid) so whenever I hold my phone it drops at least three bars
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am not really sure what you mean, [the antenna is at the bottom]. The antenna runs from the top of the device on the lower part of the motherboard down to the bottom, but it isn't like the antenna is actually at the bottom only.
It doesn't matter where the antenna is at in a device. There was a comment that was made that does have a slight amount of validity. I don't know if you guys have any knowledge of physics specifically electromagnetics, but I would like to do a little briefing for everyone, including those that have no knowledge of electromagnetism. I will keep this explanation as simple as I can without leaving out the most important details needed to have a good idea of the fundamentals of antennas, receiving and transmitting "signal". I will leave out the complex details like how it works on a subatomic level, because in this case it just won't be necessary to know that amount of detail to understand exactly what is happening on the macro level (ie our phones).
Transmitting and receiving "signal"
So, when you apply electricity to a conductive substance; copper wire, certain metals, etc the electric current produces electromagnetic radiation (radio waves). When electromagnetic radiation (radio waves) are applied to conductive substances it produces electric current in that substance. So, a cell tower uses electricity to produce the radio wave, the radio wave reaches the antenna of our cell phone, that produces electricity in our cell phone's antenna [which is just a thin copper wire inside the phone], the current that was produced by this process is amplified by the phone's hardware, and that electricity is sent to the speaker, or input/output system of the phone to process the electricity into data, and used to display webpages,download pictures, or whatever else you were intending to do at that time. So that is an oversimplified account of what is happening with the signal.
Antennas
Now to understand a little more about what may cause a particular phone, or cell tower, or the communication between the two to function at a standard lower than what we were expecting or hoping for we must now know a little about antennas. Antennas transmit, and phones receive via the science I gave above about electromagnetism.
Antennas transmit electromagnetic radiation (radio waves) in a direction that is perpendicular to the substance that the electricity was ran through. For a cell phone to receive and transform that electromagnetic radiation into an electric current the antenna has to be in a position that is perpendicular to the incoming radiation (radio waves). The figure below shows electric field (blue), magnetic field (red) and the black in the center will represent a cell tower transmitter, or antenna inside our phones.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Most cell towers nowadays have multiple transmitting antennas that will transmit signal in 360 degrees, and in multiple directions on an XY axis.
SO, in conclusion because of the way cell towers are PHYSICALLY designed, the will transmit and receive electromagnetic radiation (radio waves) that are going, and coming in from all three spacial dimensions. So if you have your phone vertical, horizontal, angled, upside down, etc the phone will transmit and receive signal the same way efficiently.
However: Because that is not the only thing that determines how much "signal" you have we can't rely on that to predict the quality of signal for a particular device, and network. The above explanation only illustrates proof that the antennas' location within the phone, and the way you hold your phone should have no bearing on signal quality. Some things that will affect your "signal" though:
Location from cell tower(s)
Frequency
Amount of traffic
(Important!) The amount of electromagnetic radiation from other technologies that could interfere with a cell towers' transmission
Transmitters electrical power
Receivers electrical power
Geographic factors like mountains, bridges, valleys, buildings, and if you are inside what the building is constructed of.
This bullet represents the plethora of other factors that can make your signal go catywampus.
Anyway, thanks for letting me ramble. Hope I helped someone, and someone learned something they didn't know. Otherwise ignore me.
Citing sources for images, and a few ideas incase I may have created something too similar to someone else' work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_site#Radio_power_and_health
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_network#Directional_antennas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_(radio)
Sad Panda said:
I am not really sure what you mean, [the antenna is at the bottom]. The antenna runs from the top of the device on the lower part of the motherboard down to the bottom, but it isn't like the antenna is actually at the bottom only.
It doesn't matter where the antenna is at in a device. There was a comment that was made that does have a slight amount of validity. I don't know if you guys have any knowledge of physics specifically electromagnetics, but I would like to do a little briefing for everyone, including those that have no knowledge of electromagnetism. I will keep this explanation as simple as I can without leaving out the most important details needed to have a good idea of the fundamentals of antennas, receiving and transmitting "signal". I will leave out the complex details like how it works on a subatomic level, because in this case it just won't be necessary to know that amount of detail to understand exactly what is happening on the macro level (ie our phones).
Transmitting and receiving "signal"
So, when you apply electricity to a conductive substance; copper wire, certain metals, etc the electric current produces electromagnetic radiation (radio waves). When electromagnetic radiation (radio waves) are applied to conductive substances it produces electric current in that substance. So, a cell tower uses electricity to produce the radio wave, the radio wave reaches the antenna of our cell phone, that produces electricity in our cell phone's antenna [which is just a thin copper wire inside the phone], the current that was produced by this process is amplified by the phone's hardware, and that electricity is sent to the speaker, or input/output system of the phone to process the electricity into data, and used to display webpages,download pictures, or whatever else you were intending to do at that time. So that is an oversimplified account of what is happening with the signal.
Antennas
Now to understand a little more about what may cause a particular phone, or cell tower, or the communication between the two to function at a standard lower than what we were expecting or hoping for we must now know a little about antennas. Antennas transmit, and phones receive via the science I gave above about electromagnetism.
Antennas transmit electromagnetic radiation (radio waves) in a direction that is perpendicular to the substance that the electricity was ran through. For a cell phone to receive and transform that electromagnetic radiation into an electric current the antenna has to be in a position that is perpendicular to the incoming radiation (radio waves). The figure below shows electric field (blue), magnetic field (red) and the black in the center will represent a cell tower transmitter, or antenna inside our phones.
Most cell towers nowadays have multiple transmitting antennas that will transmit signal in 360 degrees, and in multiple directions on an XY axis.
SO, in conclusion because of the way cell towers are PHYSICALLY designed, the will transmit and receive electromagnetic radiation (radio waves) that are going, and coming in from all three spacial dimensions. So if you have your phone vertical, horizontal, angled, upside down, etc the phone will transmit and receive signal the same way efficiently.
However: Because that is not the only thing that determines how much "signal" you have we can't rely on that to predict the quality of signal for a particular device, and network. The above explanation only illustrates proof that the antennas' location within the phone, and the way you hold your phone should have no bearing on signal quality. Some things that will affect your "signal" though:
Location from cell tower(s)
Frequency
Amount of traffic
(Important!) The amount of electromagnetic radiation from other technologies that could interfere with a cell towers' transmission
Transmitters electrical power
Receivers electrical power
Geographic factors like mountains, bridges, valleys, buildings, and if you are inside what the building is constructed of.
This bullet represents the plethora of other factors that can make your signal go catywampus.
Anyway, thanks for letting me ramble. Hope I helped someone, and someone learned something they didn't know. Otherwise ignore me.
Citing sources for images, and a few ideas incase I may have created something too similar to someone else' work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_site#Radio_power_and_health
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_network#Directional_antennas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_(radio)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All that may be true but I've seen over and over again at least a 10 dbm drop when I hold my phone in a normal position
It isn't impossible for you to be on a tower that is not using an omni-directional antenna or something. This shouldn't happen everywhere though, is this happening no matter where you are at?
I've tried this in multiple areas where I know on my evo i would have a strong signal....and my phone roams like crazy
Related
Ok, this is a weird one:
I have a powered mount from Seidio, but whenever I try to use my phone in it, I get a horrible static interference that is just loud enough to be very annoying. If I put my finger up to the antenna, it goes away, which makes me think its EMI that I'm grounding, and if I take the antenna off (I have one of those T-Mos that has a removable antenna - not by design, just by crappy glue) and the spring off from underneath, the interference goes down substantially. Anyone have an idea on fixing this problem?
Thanks.
I like 'em weird...
I would not use the unit without the antenna spring: you're possibly causing the unit to transmit at maximum power (because it's going to report low receive levels to the network) into a badly matched antenna, possibly causing damage to the final stage of transmitter, and/or causing abnormally high RF levels to hit the receive filter, the receiver or any other parts inside.
I'm not familiar with your 'powered mount'. And what exactly does the interference sound like? I can't easily imagine 'static' as in a white-noise or pink-noise hissing sound or high-frequency clicking or cracking. Is it the normal GSM 'whining sound' (with the characteristic 'whaaa, whamanap, whamanap, whamanapnap' when you hang up?). If so, try shielding the power (and possibly audio) wires from the antenna. Aluminum foil, pieces of metal, anything goes.
Guys i pre-ordered a TFPrime from amazon UK and will be getting it shortly (12-Jan). However after watching a few reviews, etc, I noticed the Wifi / GPS seems really buggy which could be a deal breaker for me. Can anyone share their experiences? Any workaround?
Wifi Issues: youtube.com/watch?v=nzCZc3pjtrA
GPS Issues: youtube.com/watch?v=YeiOh09v54I
dereking said:
Guys i pre-ordered a TFPrime from amazon UK and will be getting it shortly (12-Jan). However after watching a few reviews, etc, I noticed the Wifi / GPS seems really buggy which could be a deal breaker for me. Can anyone share their experiences? Any workaround?
Wifi Issues: youtube.com/watch?v=nzCZc3pjtrA
GPS Issues: youtube.com/watch?v=YeiOh09v54I
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Really?
You can't spit in any direction on this forum without hitting a thread that talks about these issues...why do you need yet another thread? A solution to these, if they are deal breakers for you, is to not buy the Prime.
Yep i guess your post signature leaves it clear... "Asus Transformer Prime (Waiting on a replacement) "
Wifi seems to be fine GPS is wacky but will get fixed
Yes wifi and gps have issues. Be careful about saying anything bad about the Prime in these forums.
A lot of town criers...
The WiFi is working fine, at least with mine anyways. GPS is still broken, but I have faith in ASUS that they'll come up with a fix.
You guys are killing me with this. I was hell bent on purchasing a Prime & Keyboard as soon as stock arrived. I checked all the reviews. I knew about it's pros & it's cons. I was sold. It was just a fluke that I wound up searching about the Prime's GPS accuracy and all of the BS ASUS has been covering up surfaced.
I'm not going to drop nearly $700 on a fancy toy if:
1. WiFi sucks. Especially on a portable device. That simply makes no sense.
2. GPS doesn't work. --I go to UC, so this bad boy needs to be LoJacked. I've seen too many laptops & tablets "walk off and disappear" during lecture.
3. Paying $700 for anything that doesn't have all of it's features intact is a non-starter.
ASUS makes great video cards & motherboards. But they need to get their sh*t together on this device if they plan to stay in tablet game.
Not gonna lie. I got my prime last week thru BB pre order and my GPS and wifi are working great! Not sure why other people $are having issues with this.
Early models did have hardware issues. (especially with wifi)
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1394611
This is one reason why you don't want to rush to get one.
A lot of people will state that their wifi and gps is working just fine, but they dont really know any better...
Wifi works but its got a very slow upload and download speed. They may be thinking GPS works but not realize they are using wifi location.
But yes on every unit regardless of what others may say. Wifi does not work as good as it should and GPS doesn't work at all.
And if it is any indication...
TF101 shipped with screen bleed & loose casing defects, to this very day Asus has not bothered to fix the issue.
jzen said:
A lot of people will state that their wifi and gps is working just fine, but they dont really know any better...
Wifi works but its got a very slow upload and download speed. They may be thinking GPS works but not realize they are using wifi location.
But yes on every unit regardless of what others may say. Wifi does not work as good as it should and GPS doesn't work at all.
And if it is any indication...
TF101 shipped with screen bleed & loose casing defects, to this very day Asus has not bothered to fix the issue.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is with bad Internet aka not what I normally use. Through a few walls about 30 from the really crappy router at my mom's house.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
I would say my wifi is fine. GPS is useless though. Don't say people don't know what they are talking about when you don't know them.
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using xda premium
jzen said:
A lot of people will state that their wifi and gps is working just fine, but they dont really know any better...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With so many people reporting problems with GPS and WiFi strength it's become almost a complete certainty that these devices are suffering from some sort of severe design flaw.
I wasn't on the design team for this device, so take anything I say with a grain of salt, but I am quite savvy as an engineer so I'll drop my 2 cents on this issue.
From my standpoint it's appears to be DEFINITELY the aluminum chassis. Aluminum is quite good at reflecting/bouncing RF signals at a focal point (receiver). When crafted correctly, aluminum is great at bouncing rf signals. When used incorrectly, aluminum is great at dispersing and blocking rf signals.
However, as frequency increases, so does penetration. This is most likely why people have been able to notice relatively normal WiFi strengths. Even at wireless-g speeds they're operating at as low as 2.4GHz and up to 5GHz. However CIV GPS operate at around 1.1GHz. In this case, the aluminum shell has turned the GPS unit's "moderate voice" into a "whimper" when it attempts to lock & fix on satellites. -- Think tin foil hats, but for your GPS & WiFi
I also believe ASUS outfitted the Prime with 2 WiFi antennas whereas I believe the GPS only has a single antenna. I won't speak for ASUS's design decisions, but I wouldn't doubt they opted for 2 antennas to deal with the interference from the aluminum casing. However, that's simply my speculation. Why they botched this tablet so badly just to conform to a silly aesthetic design boggles my mind. As Spock would say, "their decisions were highly illogical."
jzen said:
And if it is any indication...
TF101 shipped with screen bleed & loose casing defects, to this very day Asus has not bothered to fix the issue.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They'd be wise to rethink that choice.
I'm right now wondering if WiFi on my TF101 is OK, because it doesn't get a lock i a room adjacent to the one with the router while laptop in the same place has 3 to 4 bars! So if people say their WiFi and GPS are fine take it with a grain of sand. It's not easy to check them properly in a short time.
don_cheadle said:
With so many people reporting problems with GPS and WiFi strength it's become almost a complete certainty that these devices are suffering from some sort of severe design flaw.
I wasn't on the design team for this device, so take anything I say with a grain of salt, but I am quite savvy as an engineer so I'll drop my 2 cents on this issue.
From my standpoint it's appears to be DEFINITELY the aluminum chassis. Aluminum is quite good at reflecting/bouncing RF signals at a focal point (receiver). When crafted correctly, aluminum is great at bouncing rf signals. When used incorrectly, aluminum is great at dispersing and blocking rf signals.
However, as frequency increases, so does penetration. This is most likely why people have been able to notice relatively normal WiFi strengths. Even at wireless-g speeds they're operating at as low as 2.4GHz and up to 5GHz. However CIV GPS operate at around 1.1GHz. In this case, the aluminum shell has turned the GPS unit's "moderate voice" into a "whimper" when it attempts to lock & fix on satellites. -- Think tin foil hats, but for your GPS & WiFi
I also believe ASUS outfitted the Prime with 2 WiFi antennas whereas I believe the GPS only has a single antenna. I won't speak for ASUS's design decisions, but I wouldn't doubt they opted for 2 antennas to deal with the interference from the aluminum casing. However, that's simply my speculation. Why they botched this tablet so badly just to conform to a silly aesthetic design boggles my mind. As Spock would say, "their decisions were highly illogical."
They'd be wise to rethink that choice.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
An aluminium shell like on the Transformer can only distort the signals a bit but not completely block it (like many are experiencing with GPS). That is probably because of a manufacturing defect and not because of the aluminium shell.
WiFi on this device is fine. I get over 11 mbps speeds on a 15 mbps cable connection.
GPS also locks within a reasonable amount of time when view of sky is unobstructed.
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using xda premium
flight777 said:
An aluminium shell like on the Transformer can only distort the signals a bit but not completely block it (like many are experiencing with GPS). That is probably because of a manufacturing defect and not because of the aluminium shell.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually aluminum can do quite a bit to obstruct an RF signal. Depending on thickness, resistance can be quite high. While I somewhat agree it shouldn't be able to block a strong signal, the major function of GPS is to "listen", not to "talk." What I'm trying to say, is it is not producing strong signals, it's trying to receive them, and it's ability to listen is only as good as the ability of such signals to penetrate whatever is obstructing them. In this case, it's Aluminum.. which has quite a high resistance to RF.
mrljt said:
WiFi on this device is fine. I get over 11 mbps speeds on a 15 mbps cable connection.
GPS also locks within a reasonable amount of time when view of sky is unobstructed.
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
YOUR GPS also locks....
If you look at the poll in the GPS Problems thread you'll see that it's about 80 working GPSs to 50 non-working.
Just because yours locks, don't assume everyone else's does. Especially when there is a large amount of evidence to the contrary.
Col.Kernel said:
YOUR GPS also locks....
If you look at the poll in the GPS Problems thread you'll see that it's about 80 working GPSs to 50 non-working.
Just because yours locks, don't assume everyone else's does. Especially when there is a large amount of evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Got those numbers switched. It's around 50 working, and 80 not.
>However, as frequency increases, so does penetration
Higher frequency = shorter wavelength = less penetration. 5GHz wifi has shorter range than 2.4GHz wifi because it can't penetrate as well. Public hot spots only use 2.4GHz. More articulate explanations here. That wifi in the Prime is more functional than GPS is probably because wifi signals have more energy than the weak GPS signal.
I do agree that the Al shell is the main culprit, probably exacerbated by mediocre antenna design. I generally see better wireless performance from phone vendors (Moto, Samsung, HTC) than non-phone vendors (Acer, Asus).
>I'm right now wondering if WiFi on my TF101 is OK
Wifi on most mobiles will be less than that on laptops, because their antenna is usually much smaller and lacks diversity. Size isn't the only determinant in antenna gain, but it's a big determinant. Here are the GPS and wifi antennae on the OG Transformer.
Here is one (of many possible) design for laptop dual diversity antenna
You're right. I got the 2 switched. I distinctly remember writing that on the top of my cheat sheet in Phys. I'm sorry it's 2 am, and I can't brain.
Anyway, as for the signal strength, that's what I was saying earlier. I assume when you take into account considerable distances, even though routers are usually only pumping out around 250ma per antenna, they probably still yield much better signal strength than GPS satellites after the signal has reached the ground.
However aside from ASUS simply not attaching an antenna to GPS mod, it really can only be the aluminum shell creating such resistance. And the fact it seems to affect WiFi as well, although to a lesser degree, means it's most likely not a symptom faulty workmanship on part of the internals.
But as mentioned in other threads, it would be nice if someone tore the aluminum backing off of their brand new Prime to see if it's the real culprit.
This came from the FCC teardown. I missed the antennae in my first look since they were only in the first pic, and pics are lo-res. But here you can see the wifi and GPS antennae mounted on the frontplate. These are located at the "top" of the Prime when held in landscape. (Pics have been sharpened.)
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
The left PCB has two antennae, one is labeled GPS, and presumably the other is the main wifi ant.
The right PCB has the aux wifi (wlan) ant for spatial diversity.
Are we saying the GPS has TWO aluminum shields covering it?
Yep lmfao
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk
PrimeTimeBro said:
Are we saying the GPS has TWO aluminum shields covering it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No. The back cover is it.
Now we've confirmed the GPS antenna is on the front of the device, all this about the aluminium backplate killing GPS performance does surprise me. GPS signals, naturally, come from the sky. Assuming you're not holding the Prime upside-down, there's no aluminium between the satellites and the antenna?
I suppose it could inhibit picking up reflected signals, but would that be the difference between it working and not working? (It doesn't really seem to be in the spirit of GPS, either...)
Mithent said:
Now we've confirmed the GPS antenna is on the front of the device, all this about the aluminium backplate killing GPS performance does surprise me. GPS signals, naturally, come from the sky. Assuming you're not holding the Prime upside-down, there's no aluminium between the satellites and the antenna?
I suppose it could inhibit picking up reflected signals, but would that be the difference between it working and not working? (It doesn't really seem to be in the spirit of GPS, either...)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Pick up too much reflected noise and it will swamp out the signal gain.
Beards said:
Pick up too much reflected noise and it will swamp out the signal gain.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I didn't think it sounded desirable, no. So, if anything, having metal on the "wrong" side of the antenna could be beneficial, as far as GPS is concerned. Does make me wonder if the aluminium could be a red herring as regards to GPS performance (although it could be more of an issue for WiFi, since the access point could quite legitimately be below you).
Edit: Unless the aluminium back reflects signals back to the antenna and causes issues that way, of course. I don't know if that's likely.
Mithent said:
GPS signals, naturally, come from the sky. Assuming you're not holding the Prime upside-down, there's no aluminum between the satellites and the antenna?
I suppose it could inhibit picking up reflected signals, but would that be the difference between it working and not working? (It doesn't really seem to be in the spirit of GPS, either...)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Beards said:
Pick up too much reflected noise and it will swamp out the signal gain.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The two smartest things ive heard on the prime threads about GPS this week.
A lot of people seem to have the impression that GPS uses an omni antenna.
Im no radiology expert but is there material that absorbs radiowaves to stop the bounceback from smothering the GPS antenna?
A film of lead stuck on the backplate behind the GPS antenna comes to mind.
Okay, so now we know the antenna is covered by plastic and glass only towards the frontside of the Prime. That's good news.
I am still of the opinion that ICS may solve many of our issue, not because it's ICS but because ASUS actually spent time testing ICS and optimizing it, which is - obviously - not the fact for our current Honeycomb versions
Sokonomi said:
The two smartest things ive heard on the prime threads about GPS this week.
A lot of people seem to have the impression that GPS uses an omni antenna.
Im no radiology expert but is there material that absorbs radiowaves to stop the bounceback from smothering the GPS antenna?
A film of lead stuck on the backplate behind the GPS antenna comes to mind.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It doesn't have to be lead. Radar dishes are made from aluminum.
Diamondback2009 said:
Okay, so now we know the antenna is covered by plastic and glass only towards the frontside of the Prime. That's good news.
I am still of the opinion that ICS may solve many of our issue, not because it's ICS but because ASUS actually spent time testing ICS and optimizing it, which is - obviously - not the fact for our current Honeycomb versions
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The fact that a GPS antenna has a conical reception which is pointing up and away from the shield,
and the fact that people have indeed been reporting the clock behaving wonky leads me to believe the same.
GPS working sporadically and even getting a lock standing still does seem to prove it is indeed functioning.
Just a bit dodgy.
Nothing new, but another diagram from the FCC (WiFi SAR report 1 of 4, Report No. : FA182445-02)
robomo said:
Nothing new, but another diagram from the FCC (WiFi SAR report 1 of 4, Report No. : FA182445-02)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually this seems to be the best position to put any antennas in. The top bezel is hardly covered by hands or anything else.
I just did a short test of the Wifi antenna switching. It seems to work well for me:
Cover both WiFi antennas with your hands.
The Wifi reception should go lower
Now pull one hand away, the Wifi comes back to normal
Put the hand back on (both hands again) Wifi is worse again
Now pul lthe other hand away
Wifi signals are back to good levels again.
So at least for me the switching between the two Wifi antennas works.
Not entirely sure what the point is of installing wifi antenna diversity if both are in the exact same orientation.
To me it would make much more sense to put one at a 90' angle from the other,
so atleast one antenna polarity is in line with your router in both portrait and landscape mode.
Now it seems all or nothing?
Sokonomi said:
Not entirely sure what the point is of installing wifi antenna diversity if both are in the exact same orientation.
To me it would make much more sense to put one at a 90' angle from the other,
so atleast one antenna polarity is in line with your router in both portrait and landscape mode.
Now it seems all or nothing?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Check out the FCC Wi-Fi report for a look at orientation: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1423559
---------- Post added at 05:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:20 AM ----------
The above chart shows emissions at the edge of a 802.11n channel. The "Antenna polarity" I believe is referring to the orientation of the calibrated test antenna.
You'll notice that for
2483.5Mhz Horizontal (average)- 39.93 level
2483.5Mhz Vertical (average) - 36.94 level
The difference between vertical and horizontal seems to only be a few dB. It appears they've compensated for orientation fairly well with their antenna design.
>wifi antenna diversity if both are in the exact same orientation
Spatial diversity is different from what you're talking about, which is polarization diversity.
Wifi signals tend to be vertically polarized, although antenna design can allow dual polarization, which is why recent routers w/ internal ants can be mounted either horiz or vertical. The same would apply for ants of mobile devices, which can be held in various orientation.
GPS sigs are circularly polarized.
Interesting stuff. The seemingly parallel antennas threw me off,
as im used to fiddling with polarity a lot on my video drones.
"At your own risk"
Although it would void the warranty, one could take a Dremel cutter to the aluminum plate that sits over the Wifi and GPS antennas. It would provide a window exactly where the antennas are, and keep the backplate mostly in tact. This would probably increase the WiFi signal range and allow better GPS reception.
Step 2: fill in the window spaces with the plastic stuff e.mote posted below thanks e.mote
Not something I'm desperate to do, but it's an option for those who have no qualms about voiding warranty
Cover the cut-outs with this
http://www.amazon.com/InstaMorph-Moldable-Plastic-12-oz/dp/B003QKLJKQ
robomo said:
Although it would void the warranty, one could take a Dremel cutter to the aluminum plate that sits over the Wifi and GPS antennas. It would provide a window exactly where the antennas are, and keep the backplate mostly in tact. This would probably increase the WiFi signal range and allow better GPS reception.
Step 2: fill in the window spaces with the plastic stuff e.mote posted below thanks e.mote
Not something I'm desperate to do, but it's an option for those who have no qualms about voiding warranty
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can see it now: take a dremmel and you slip and now you have a complete see-through to the front panel. hole in the back and hole in the front make for a good place to tie string and use the Prime as a Christmas decoration.
Before I begin, I would like to state that my prime's WiFi is very acceptable. The farther you get from the router, the more the signal drops in comparison to other devices, but until now (due to the layout of my apartment and everywhere else I have been) it has never affected my browsing/video-watching experience.
However, there are a lot of people out there who suffer a lot from this (maybe bigger house, or prime has below prime-average wifi performance). And I can't help but think that I have been very lucky with my prime, and would hate to be in their shoes...
So... to those not so fortunate (or those who want to have the best wifi signal they can possibly get, even if what they have is enough) I wanted to find a way to improve their prime's WIFI experience (and maybe GPS's and BT's as well).
So, after all the threads about wifi, bt, gps... the ones where they even open the prime and mod it drastically (like making antenas pop out of prime); I have been thinking about a simple way to block (or bypass) the backplate's signal jamming in an efficient, low profile way. Meaning, you would just need to focus on the part where the gps and wifi antenas are (top of prime), without having to open the prime.
There were threads where someone would place some stuff near them and it would affect the signal (for better or for worse). So, i have been trying different materials.
I have been testing a lot of things. The results varied, but no big improvements were seen. Until... a thought hit me.
The backplate is behind the prime, so... we have the front clear of signal shielding. So i thought: What if I place something where the antennas are, but on the front of the tablet (the black part). Something to 'attract' the wifi signal to the front, so it is channeled to the antennas without having to pass through the back plate (passing from the front instead).
I started trying with some high profile stuff, and when results came, I focused on reducing the size/thickness of what i used. The final thing that i need to do is to use something as close to the black color of the prime as I can. Maybe painting it with a black marker hehehe. We'll see...
These are the results of initial testings (with images):
3 walls away from my router (light blue in graphic) (Without stuff attached)
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
3 walls away from my router (light blue/greenish one in graphic) (With stuff attached)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1 wall away from my router (blue in graphic) (Without stuff attached)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1 wall away from my router (blue in graphic) (With stuff attached)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then I placed thin metal pieces on yellow tape and placed it on prime:
1 wall away from my router (red in graphic) (With thinner stuff attached)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
jdudb said:
This has actually been gone over quite thoroughly before.http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1509794 I have had aluminium foil, cut carefully to a size and placed to give the best signal boost, stuck to the inside of a leather case that covers the bezel for a couple of months now. The signal boost I get is about 10db and makes a very significant increase in speeds when far away from the router.
Trial and error will give you the best size as it has to act as a parasitic antenna. Mine is about 1.5 X 4 cm. It works by being outside of the electrically noisy and shielded interior of the TP and therefor picking up a stronger signal, and then relaying it to the interior antenna.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, that is exactly what I am doing. With trial and error I get better and better results. I also get at least a 10db increase which is a huge boost.
For the first tries I used one of those things that carry the pills of some medical products. The round things are the slots where the pills are initially. It has a very thin metallic cover on the other side of the plastic part. (It was the quickest thing I could find to start testing lol)
The other thing which I covered with yellow tape was small pieces of thin metallic parts from old floppy disks I had around...
Though I would like to know what would be the best material to 'capture' the wifi signal. Then we could use even smaller and thinner stuff. My goal is to have something that is almost invisible on the prime, yet would give me the 10+db increase.
About making a video: I would love to make one, but unfortunately the only thing I have that can record video is the prime itself lol...
lol
One more thing.
When I had no stuff attached and was 3 walls away, I had 1-3Mbps...
When I had stuff attached and was 3 walls away, I had 6-14Mbps...
My Wifi is WPA2 Personal (TKIP or AES); Wireless-N only; 40MHz only; channel 1...
Local maximum speed is 65Mbps... Internet maximum speed is 24Mbps.
Thanks for sharing. I myself is one of the fortunate ones with only the GPS issue, but have dongle if needed.
My question is What is the stuff your using on each one of the tests?
Sent from my PG86100 using Xparent Blue Tapatalk 2
interesting results and thanks for finding the time to help others find a solution. I'm also curious as to what are those 2 strips with those button looking things. New .28 beta build I've been testing, with new wifi firmware/improvements, has improved my wifi alot. I get stronger signals now, range increased, & the stability of signal is good(the prime holding the stronger signal). lets hope others will see same good results I've been seeing. once firmware releases, test it out by itself. then test it with your mod. make sure to post results in this thread.
do you plan to make a video showing you make this mod & of it in action?
demandarin said:
I'm also curious as to what are those 2 strips with those button looking things.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was wondering the same thing, looks like the things that click together and hold on the back of a hat?? Looks like it helped a little bit from the pics
This has actually been gone over quite thoroughly before.http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1509794 I have had aluminium foil, cut carefully to a size and placed to give the best signal boost, stuck to the inside of a leather case that covers the bezel for a couple of months now. The signal boost I get is about 10db and makes a very significant increase in speeds when far away from the router.
Trial and error will give you the best size as it has to act as a parasitic antenna. Mine is about 1.5 X 4 cm. It works by being outside of the electrically noisy and shielded interior of the TP and therefor picking up a stronger signal, and then relaying it to the interior antenna.
Can't wait to do some experimenting with this information. Thanks OP and jdudb.
NeoMagus said:
I was wondering the same thing, looks like the things that click together and hold on the back of a hat?? Looks like it helped a little bit from the pics
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They seems pills blisters to me
Hmm, tried it with some copper tabe (should work right?) but no effect here...
thanks
jdudb said:
This has actually been gone over quite thoroughly before.http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1509794 I have had aluminium foil, cut carefully to a size and placed to give the best signal boost, stuck to the inside of a leather case that covers the bezel for a couple of months now. The signal boost I get is about 10db and makes a very significant increase in speeds when far away from the router.
Trial and error will give you the best size as it has to act as a parasitic antenna. Mine is about 1.5 X 4 cm. It works by being outside of the electrically noisy and shielded interior of the TP and therefor picking up a stronger signal, and then relaying it to the interior antenna.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats actually genius if signal performance boost is worthwile.
I'd be willing to pay for a cheap cover that enchances the primes signals, hell, i reckon asus should provide these gratis, nothing flashy, just built to purpose.
This should really be merged with this thread http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1509794 as it basically works on the same theory.
But I do thank the OP as this has renewed my interest. When the original thread was started I also messed around with various pieces of foil and had mixed results. This morning I tried again using aluminum tape used for hvac duct work and started sticking pieces on various spots. With some trial and error I came up with a design that gives me 10+ db pretty much consistently.
Sorry about the darkness from .20 to .59. as I dont have a tripod for my camera.
The video was taken in my detached garage which is the furthest location at home where I would use my Prime.
All hidden in my tfp case
I found that wrapping the aluminum around the back gave me a slightly better result.
I will ask a mod to merge this thread with the original.
http://www.pbpulse.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/061209-1a-rabbitears-2.jpg
My grandmother could have fixed the primes wifi?
Edited my post above to add video.
Just wondering if someone with one of the so called "fine WiFi " TFP could try this to see if this would have the same effect. Demandarin?..with your originally great preforming wifi + the latest update that improves the wifi + this tape you may be able to have that needle pegged from miles away
Introductory:
Hello all, cell phones produce radiation just in case you did not know. These radiation levels are measured in a value called SAR(Specific Absorbtion Rate) and it literally is the measurement of just the bottom line of what the human body absorbs, rather than just the amount that it radiating(ha, get it?) around the device. Radiation is bad in the human body where it is directly related to certain issues, including directly reducing bone density in the body. I am posting this as an accurate informational thread where you can draw your own conclusions based off of facts.
SAR Levels:
SAR, which stands for Specific Absorbtion Rate, levels fluctuate depending on numerous factors, in which we must go over in order to accurately understand. The key thing to understand is that the further the device is from your body, the levels begin to diminish by the milimeter(mm).
For a phone to receive an FCC certification, the device cannot have a SAR level of more than 1.6 watts per kilogram in the US, and 2.0 in Europe.
Galaxy Note Series Tests by Samsung:
Let's take a look at the Note series in order to keep this sequential and easier to remember from a timeline fashion of perspective. The Galaxy Note 1 was released first(obviously) and is the model number SGH-I717 for reference. Taken from Samsung's website directly, here are the Note 1 results, including the way that they perform their own measurements:
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
You can see in this writing the methods that are used for testing, and that the body specific SAR tests have the device at 1.0 centimeters(CM), equivalent to 10 millimeters(mm) away. Keep this in mind and we'll touch up on this later.
And here are the Note 2 specific values:
And here are the Note 3 specific values:
So as you can see the comparisons above, the Note 3 effectively produces 153% more Head SAR than the Note 2, and 196% more Head SAR than the Note 1!
I would calculate the Body SAR differences but we have a big problem with Samsung's specific tests...they test these values with the device 1.0 CM(or 10mm) away from the body. This Body SAR calculation is useless to you if your phone presses against your body at 0 mm away!
Let's think...why would Samsung measure in this fashion at 1.0 CM away? Well the Note 3 produces 1.28 Body SAR at 1.0 cm away, so the big question is what would it produce at 0 mm away/ AKA in your pants pocket? Maybe it would exceed the FCC limitation of 1.6?
CNET Testing:
Now let's take a look at a recent test performed by CNET on 1/16/14 to see what they have found in differences in the Note series in particular:
The above is literally all of the information they posted where it is tough to tell how the test was performed and/or what body part it was performed against. By comparing the numbers, it seems as though they tested the head only since it matches the Head SAR values by Samsung.
But there is only but one main discrepency...the Note 3 reads 0.63 SAR value by Samsung, while CNET tested it at 0.9 SAR. Which one holds true?
Device Model Top Charts:
As you can see in the following results, our devices do not hold the highest SAR values compared to the worst out there *ehem* Motorola!
And here are the lowest SAR values amonst all devices. Keep in mind how the Note 2 is 4th lowest.
Theorycrafting:
I researched more into studies being performed per the distance of an object from humans and have found some interesting results.
Here is a model of the human head for reference, spefical model for SAR testing:
And here is are one test's results from testing the SAR levels after altering different distances:
This is just me tipping the iceberg to not go on and on.
Shifting gears toward current events, check out 2/14/14's event of the Army buying 7,000 Note 2's for its troops HERE
The reason why I feel that this is relevant is that they definitely would not want to have their troops being exposed to radiation levels higher than other devices. What makes more sense though is that they tested it for quite some time before it was rolled out, but who knows?
General Radiation Reduction Techniques:
-Consider a cell phone radiation reduction case, Google Pong research to get started since I'm probably not allowed to post links
-Consider buying a device with low SAR levels
-Keep the device out of your pocket or anywhere where it is directly against your skin. Even a hip holster might help keep it a few cm away, or carry it in a purse/backpack.
-Use speakerphone as often as possible to keep the device far from your head.
-Devices use the most radiation when beggining and ending calls. Pull the phone away from your head, even if just a few centimeters, when beginning and ending calls.
-Devices also use high radiation when "hunting for a signal". This occurs when your device has no signal, and needs to omit more power consistently to find one. So keep it away at these times.
-Bluetooth uses less radiation, but overall can be more damage from keeping it on your head for long periods of time. LOSE THE BLUETOOTH!
-Text instead of calling whenever it is applicable/feasible
-Don't sleep with the device near your head....think about it, 6+ hours of it so close to your head...
-Last things I wanted to mention are beefing up on certain things you eat.
a.) Eat seaweed, it's very powerful against radiation
b.) Look for natural supplements that particularly repair already damaged cells in your body from radiation. They are alpha lipoic acid and vitamins C and E...BUT ONLY IF YOU DON'T GET THESE FROM NATURAL DIET
Conclusion:
Considering all of the above along with knowing that we are the guinea pigs for long term cell phone radiation, I strongly feel that it's best to consider SAR levels when purchasing a device. The SAR levels are obviously increasing with each new model being released and should be monitored closely.
It seems to show as being a factor toward brain tumors and bone density loss in only 1 of 2 legs in people(where they always kept their cell phone in the same pocket). I did not go much into detail here about these particular researches/tests, but I would recommend to now start looking into the tests performed for "decade-long cell phone radiation exposures". Imagine us after 50 years of exposure, and please feel free to comment here.
Your voice and opinions matter in this world, and you should speak up since you have a right to your own opinions, and I will respect it no matter what. While I don't really know the true effects of the radiation, my opinion is that I'm open minded so I'll keep the cell away from my body to be safe. I will post this across multiple forums that it belongs in and moderators, please let me know if I happen to post this in a forbidden section. Don't censor truth, and let the thread live.
Thank you for your time reading all of this and I hope it helps. If so, please rate the thread 5 stars and hit Thanks solely to promote the spreading of the word.
Thanks for this write-up. I use a headset or speakerphone whenever possible. One of my classmates happens to have written a paper on this topic so the fear has already been instilled in me.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
reserved
bigmiketn said:
Thanks for this write-up. I use a headset or speakerphone whenever possible. One of my classmates happens to have written a paper on this topic so the fear has already been instilled in me.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're welcome, I'm honored to be one to bring it your attention for your well being!
Oh and I just added a poll if you'd guys like to vote.
Thread cleaned of off topic banter that strays from the development plight. Move along if you have nothing to contribute.
This is a great thread. I really love that you have brought this to attention cause I will place my phone far from my body and not use it unless I have an emergency not related to my Facebook posts.
Sent from my SM-N900V using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
I have been doing more research into this. And I'll be honest, it worked me more and more. My kids sleep with cell phone by there head, I charge mine and my wife's next to mine. I have started to make sure we all put our phones in airplane mode while we sleep. I don't know if there's fear mongering going on, but I'm fearful. The internet usually has conflicted articles, but on this subject it seems to be way, way one-sided toward cell damage and such. I love my cell phone and its many uses a whole lot and hate to know (think) it may be harming my family and me. Sorry about the long rant.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
From what I've read, the cellular antennas for the Note 3 are at the bottom of the phone. See linked image from anandtech: http://images.anandtech.com/doci/7376/Screen Shot 2013-09-30 at 3.39.26 PM_575px.png - from article: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7376/samsung-galaxy-note-3-review/7
I've always held most of my phones, while talking, from the bottom corners and resting the earpiece against my ear. Now with this phone I try to hold it from the top, near my head, and let the bottom part curve outward - about 3-4cm from my mouth.
So if anything with the Note 3 we're radiating our lips? And those of us who hold our phone from the bottom - our fingers.
Just having our cellphones 20mm (2cm) further from our bodies halves the SAR radiation. Then is it safe to assume that using this phone is better than most because the cellular antenna is located at the bottom of the phone which sits (at least for me 3-4cm from my face). So I'm getting 4x less radiation than the listed .9 rating?
That said, I rarely use this phone for calling, so during WiFi usage (which is when I'm using it mostly) my hands are at the bottom - maybe 2-3cm from the WiFi radio - and I'm not sure if WiFi is as harmful or not vs cellular?
BigMcGuire said:
From what I've read, the cellular antennas for the Note 3 are at the bottom of the phone. See linked image from anandtech: http://images.anandtech.com/doci/7376/Screen Shot 2013-09-30 at 3.39.26 PM_575px.png - from article: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7376/samsung-galaxy-note-3-review/7
I've always held most of my phones, while talking, from the bottom corners and resting the earpiece against my ear. Now with this phone I try to hold it from the top, near my head, and let the bottom part curve outward - about 3-4cm from my mouth.
So if anything with the Note 3 we're radiating our lips? And those of us who hold our phone from the bottom - our fingers.
Just having our cellphones 20mm (2cm) further from our bodies halves the SAR radiation. Then is it safe to assume that using this phone is better than most because the cellular antenna is located at the bottom of the phone which sits (at least for me 3-4cm from my face). So I'm getting 4x less radiation than the listed .9 rating?
That said, I rarely use this phone for calling, so during WiFi usage (which is when I'm using it mostly) my hands are at the bottom - maybe 2-3cm from the WiFi radio - and I'm not sure if WiFi is as harmful or not vs cellular?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Great information, thanks for sharing this. When Samsung performs their tests, they test Head and Body SAR at "normal operating position" which I would assume is the device hugging your cheek. It's really tough to gauge the amount of radiation deduction from keeping it further from your head, but is logical to assume that it is much, much less radiation by keeping it a few CM away from your face...and I would say that this is good practice to not have to worry and relax if you do indeed do that.
WiFi is a whole other debatable topic, where the debate is that it is hurting children especially since their skulls are thinner while it is developing.
Moderator clearly didn't agree with my comment earlier, so decided to censor it. No curse words, was on topic... I think this is nonsense, the subject of this propaganda post in general. If you think your cell phone is going to kill you, maybe it was your time.
makeshiftharmony said:
I have been doing more research into this. And I'll be honest, it worked me more and more. My kids sleep with cell phone by there head, I charge mine and my wife's next to mine. I have started to make sure we all put our phones in airplane mode while we sleep. I don't know if there's fear mongering going on, but I'm fearful. The internet usually has conflicted articles, but on this subject it seems to be way, way one-sided toward cell damage and such. I love my cell phone and its many uses a whole lot and hate to know (think) it may be harming my family and me. Sorry about the long rant.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
BigMcGuire said:
From what I've read, the cellular antennas for the Note 3 are at the bottom of the phone. See linked image from anandtech: http://images.anandtech.com/doci/7376/Screen Shot 2013-09-30 at 3.39.26 PM_575px.png - from article: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7376/samsung-galaxy-note-3-review/7
I've always held most of my phones, while talking, from the bottom corners and resting the earpiece against my ear. Now with this phone I try to hold it from the top, near my head, and let the bottom part curve outward - about 3-4cm from my mouth.
So if anything with the Note 3 we're radiating our lips? And those of us who hold our phone from the bottom - our fingers.
Just having our cellphones 20mm (2cm) further from our bodies halves the SAR radiation. Then is it safe to assume that using this phone is better than most because the cellular antenna is located at the bottom of the phone which sits (at least for me 3-4cm from my face). So I'm getting 4x less radiation than the listed .9 rating?
That said, I rarely use this phone for calling, so during WiFi usage (which is when I'm using it mostly) my hands are at the bottom - maybe 2-3cm from the WiFi radio - and I'm not sure if WiFi is as harmful or not vs cellular?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good advice here, I'd rather be safe than sorry if possible. This whole post has made me think differently on how I use my phone. Thanks for the info.