Sony Ericsson / Sony : General : poor signal strength on SE phones.
>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
Sony Ericsson / Sony >
General
> poor signal strength on SE phones.
Bookmark topic
Quote:
On 2004-11-29 12:49:03, bobafett wrote:
Good rec do effect batt performance, thats fact. Thatswhy the amazing results at lab tests, what unfortunately confuse and disappoint many users after reading the manual and later compare it with their own experiences.
If you were responding to my post then I suggest you read my post again. I said I was not convinced that the battery has any significant effect on the reception of the phone -- not the reception having significant effect to the battery.
I do know for a fact that poor reception -- especially no reception, causes faster battery drain because it forces your phone's system to send more request signals. Poor reception caused by interference (magnetic / capacitive / inductive) drains the battery even more as it changes the overall impedance of the antenna which in effect, changes the SWR (standing wave ratio) and causes power loss in the transmitter of the phone. New phones with internal antenna are very prone to this interference, when it is very near to metals, body parts, electronic/electrical devices etc. FYI
--
Posted: 2004-11-30 04:42:57
Edit :
Quote
@black it was my opinion, pls dont take it as offense. It was more against the brands.
This message was posted from a T68i
--
Posted: 2004-11-30 08:42:18
Edit :
Quote
@boba. Yes, battery performance did drop. The batteries emptied faster. Even on phones with better signal performance, the batteries still drained faster because even they had to put more effort into holding onto those weak signals.
--
Posted: 2004-11-30 08:49:57
Edit :
Quote
@bobafett, sorry if I sounded hostile
I never meant or intended to -- just wanted to clarify that's why I started with "If ...". The rest of the FYI message was for the general public in support to your post.
--
Posted: 2004-11-30 08:56:39
Edit :
Quote
@black ok! Do u think that external aerials are more effective as internal ones?
This message was posted from a T68i
--
Posted: 2004-11-30 09:09:39
Edit :
Quote
definitely! I even assumed that's the reason why Samsung took a long time to adopt internal antenna in their designs.
--
Posted: 2004-11-30 09:13:31
Edit :
Quote
Thats what i do miss aswell. Did u make any experiences with /// aerials? My 388 is one of the best imo.
This message was posted from a T68i
--
Posted: 2004-11-30 09:24:35
Edit :
Quote
Sorry, my experience with using /// phones are quite brief, but I do agree that quality was definitely their forte. Talk about tough - some models can literally be used as a hammer!
Would you prefer that SE bring back external antenna in their designs?
--
Posted: 2004-11-30 09:35:56
Edit :
Quote
Well, external aerials are for me a label for /// fones u know. However a t68m would be interesting with a t39 aerial but a bit smaller one. Actually i could imagine some stylish aerials on some se fones, t6x0 and p9 series.
This message was posted from a T68i
--
Posted: 2004-11-30 09:58:02
Edit :
Quote
As I have said: some old phones with long external antennas could not afford smooth speech. Despite of normal GSM-coverage the speech was quite often hacked.
I love my T68i because even in reception level 1-2 the speech is usually very clear and mild.
I guess that people experience bad reception especially in GSM 1800 and GSM 1900. Those frequencies have smaller [narrower] coverage and not so good penetration (especially in buildings).
There are quite many GSM-operators in the world who use only GSM 1800 or GSM 1900.
All dualband, threeband or quadband mobile phones are "teached" first of all select the higher frequency.
PS. 3G [UMTS] has the worst coverage and penetration as it works at 2000-2100 MHz.
[ This Message was edited by: Aivar on 2004-11-30 09:03 ]
--
Posted: 2004-11-30 10:00:01
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
