Have 3G antennas improved in the past 2 years?


Last Updated:

  1. Android 17

    Android 17 Well-Known Member This Topic's Starter

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    575
    Likes Received:
    176
    This may seem like an odd question, but, right now I'm using a late 2008 model Samsung Rant (I cannot wait to ditch it), I seem to have good 3G signal on it, but it seems to be sluggish at the start of using data.

    Basically what I'm asking is, have the 3G antennas used in phones improved in the last few years? Can I expect an upgrade in that manner or has it pretty much been the same technology for several years?
     

    Advertisement
  2. marctronixx

    marctronixx Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    5,699
    Likes Received:
    3,503
    antennas get smaller and smaller because consumers want smaller and smaller devices (people call the evo HUGE? i remember phones in the early 2000s that make the evo look like a palm centro) so reception actually worsens because you have BT,wif,1X,EV(and now) 4g antennas all cramped inside the phone. this causes a lot of RF interference and reception goes down.

    3g has not changed so the way devices pick it up will not change. what you really want is a powerful antenna...but to do so will cause to much microwave energy to be at your head.

    yeah i know "get to the point marc!"... ok ok.. to directly answer your question, its the same... some devices may pick up better than others but overall nothing new has happened in 3G..

    its like the CD. you music production folks know 44.1 is the sample frequency of CD.. well we now have 48K and 96K.. those are more robust sample rates but the STANDARD (red book) that ALL CD players must adhere to is 44.1... so the tech has changed but we still use the same tech today as we did in 1986 when the CD boomed...
     
  3. neodorian

    neodorian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,113
    Likes Received:
    276
    Agree. I think engineering works out better solutions in the layout of a device and software improves but physics will always trump all.
     
  4. reallynotnick

    reallynotnick Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    67
    Maybe it's just me but that last analogy didn't really fit into the rest of your post, it kind of contradicted it, unless you are saying we have improved 3G antennas but are not using them...

    I agree with the first part though.
     
  5. adseguy

    adseguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2010
    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    50
    Hey,

    First post here as I've been lurking on the EVO for a bit now. I had to post up that most of this is incorrect. I'm a Electrical Engineer with communications as my emphasis. Antennas are built to a specific size for the frequency needed. For most modern cell phones that about a centimeter or two. Size is never the issue and neither is interference. There is a reason the FCC controls the frequency bands this is so we avoid interference. True a little interference happens between wifi/bluetooth and GSM/CDMA but so does the wavelength of light itself so shine a bright light at your phone and you'll get the same interference (hence not much) because of the different wavelengths. The power consumption also has nothing to do with being close to your head. This always makes me crack up. Think, again, of the flashlight. You think that the cell tower that you are looking at isn't spitting out WAAAAAY more radiation (not cancer radiation BTW) then your phone? That's a big flashlight pointed right at your body. The truth is those frequencies are just too big to interfere with DNA in your body to cause cancer. The smaller waves like Gamma and such can and do. You don't even need much exposure really. The biggest factor in cell phone reception from phone to phone is the antenna placement and the power delivered to it.

    Sorry, I'm not pissing on your parade, just clearing a few things up.:)

    Can't wait for the EVO and throwing my 3Gs
     
    mrk likes this.
  6. RiverOfIce

    RiverOfIce Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    1,715
    Likes Received:
    1,254
    Ok, i have read what you posted 5 times and you lost me. I do not understand. Could you try to explain it more?

    If size and interference is never an issue, then every phone would have the same reception as every other phone. But that is not true. We know that the phones that have the same radios can have a huge difference in signal.

    I am really confused. Could you give us more details on this, please.
     
  7. Rigmaster

    Rigmaster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,584
    Likes Received:
    220
    Antennae are better now than a few years ago, but they're still receiving the same signals from years ago and have more in-phone obstacles to deal with. Even a great antenna will struggle with weak signal. Not much difference in phones compared to other electronics.

    Think of how a regular radio antenna can pick up signal reasonably. But if you cover it with something that blocks or insulates it from signal, then it doesn't appear to work as well. Truth is, it's working as well but it cannot overcome some obstacles.

    From my non-EE degreed but technically obsessed understanding (which I'm not claiming is all-knowing in any way), the radios in phones tend to be too crowded and simply struggle to pick up weak signal.

    Spectrum and technology make a difference too. Cordless house phones struggle with reception, but the newer 6.0 DECT phones do better. But even a DECT phone will struggle if you're trying to use them in a concrete bunker with many rooms and walls between the phone and it's base receiver/transmitter.
     
  8. adseguy

    adseguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2010
    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    50
    Right,

    The antennas are a lot more crammed. You do get electromagnetic interference from even the smallest wires are the smallest voltage/currents.

    I think one problem may be that some people are comparing one phone's antenna to the next just by the little bar signal at the top of your screen. Even though the signal must be intercepted, translated, processed, power ramped up/down, through different chipsets, drivers, all through an operating system that may or may not control it. I hope you see my point that the problem isn't an antenna in 99% of cases it's going to be the overall phone design considering all the listed elements (and probably more).

    I remember in the old days a few years before the iPhone I hacked my old Sanyo phone to ramp up power on ANY phone call. It's the used the same power as if you tried calling 911. The phone got hotter then normal, but I always had a great signal.
     
  9. Rigmaster

    Rigmaster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,584
    Likes Received:
    220
    Adseguy,

    I got your point. Was just trying to add the layman's terms for others.

    Personally, I'm thinking the quality of signal simply hasn't changed coming from cell towers either is having as much an impact because that signals not strong enough in the first place. But to your point, I live close to one of my carrier's tower sites, and it doesn't seem to make my calls come through any better. The site's new so I know it's my phone, not the service.

    I won't complain though - I've been in places where cell phones weren't an option at all.
     
  10. adseguy

    adseguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2010
    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    50
    I was just responding in general. You had it right too.
     

Share This Page

Loading...