On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 21:54:17 -0500, tom wrote:

On 7/12/2010 9:46 PM, Richard Clark wrote:

The only thing that remains a mystery, for me if for no one else here,
is the literal specification of the antenna. Google (gasp) fails me.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

And that does seem to be the crux of the matter. What is the antenna?
And what does it interact with that's not, be it part of the phone or
part of the user?

Hi Tom,

The antenna is reported as being the metal trim that surrounds the
perimeter of the phone. As that is much too large for the frequencies
involved to be taken literally, there is more to the story that
remains clouded. Maybe I'm wrong....

If the loop (or dipole) is suitably matched, it doesn't give much
polarization diversity. Perhaps no phone does anyway.

Insofar as being "part of the user," we well know the EM of HTs and
the hand/body contribution. If such were the case, then this would be
an agnostic problem that users of all mobile phones would complain of
(which mildly refutes what the gadget blogs dismissed). On the other
hand, the über-hip, whose complaints are more vocal for their "pain,"
would be outraged at the notion of their simply enjoying the identical
experience of techno-trash. Amazing what a 10 fold cost differential
brings to your perception of quality of service.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark Inscribed thus:

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 21:54:17 -0500, tom wrote:

On 7/12/2010 9:46 PM, Richard Clark wrote:

The only thing that remains a mystery, for me if for no one else
here,
is the literal specification of the antenna. Google (gasp) fails
me.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

And that does seem to be the crux of the matter. What is the antenna?
And what does it interact with that's not, be it part of the phone or
part of the user?

Hi Tom,

The antenna is reported as being the metal trim that surrounds the
perimeter of the phone. As that is much too large for the frequencies
involved to be taken literally, there is more to the story that
remains clouded. Maybe I'm wrong....

I think you're right. "Design Flaw" Someone messed up testing big time.

If the loop (or dipole) is suitably matched, it doesn't give much
polarization diversity. Perhaps no phone does anyway.

Aren't cell stations vertically polarised. The one near me is, and one
of the IF's is smack on 144.005 Mhz.

Insofar as being "part of the user," we well know the EM of HTs and
the hand/body contribution. If such were the case, then this would be
an agnostic problem that users of all mobile phones would complain of
(which mildly refutes what the gadget blogs dismissed). On the other
hand, the über-hip, whose complaints are more vocal for their "pain,"
would be outraged at the notion of their simply enjoying the identical
experience of techno-trash. Amazing what a 10 fold cost differential
brings to your perception of quality of service.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

From a casual look at the phone the metal band seems to be a continuous
loop. Its unlikely that there is a physical coupling between it and the
RX/TX, so any tuner or coupling is going to be affected by the hand
grasping it. Since suggestions have been made to hold the phone in a
different place, I would guess that the coupling method is suseptible
to adsorbtion effects and that the hot parts are near the base of the
phone.

FWIW Every mobile phone I've played with has the antenna and coupling
circuitry near the top behind the display.

73's
--
Best Regards:
Baron.

Baron wrote:
Richard Clark Inscribed thus:

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 21:54:17 -0500, tom wrote:

On 7/12/2010 9:46 PM, Richard Clark wrote:
The only thing that remains a mystery, for me if for no one else
here,
is the literal specification of the antenna. Google (gasp) fails
me.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
And that does seem to be the crux of the matter. What is the antenna?
And what does it interact with that's not, be it part of the phone or
part of the user?
Hi Tom,

The antenna is reported as being the metal trim that surrounds the
perimeter of the phone. As that is much too large for the frequencies
involved to be taken literally, there is more to the story that
remains clouded. Maybe I'm wrong....

I think you're right. "Design Flaw" Someone messed up testing big time.

If the loop (or dipole) is suitably matched, it doesn't give much
polarization diversity. Perhaps no phone does anyway.

Aren't cell stations vertically polarised. The one near me is, and one
of the IF's is smack on 144.005 Mhz.

Insofar as being "part of the user," we well know the EM of HTs and
the hand/body contribution. If such were the case, then this would be
an agnostic problem that users of all mobile phones would complain of
(which mildly refutes what the gadget blogs dismissed). On the other
hand, the über-hip, whose complaints are more vocal for their "pain,"
would be outraged at the notion of their simply enjoying the identical
experience of techno-trash. Amazing what a 10 fold cost differential
brings to your perception of quality of service.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

From a casual look at the phone the metal band seems to be a continuous
loop. Its unlikely that there is a physical coupling between it and the
RX/TX, so any tuner or coupling is going to be affected by the hand
grasping it. Since suggestions have been made to hold the phone in a
different place, I would guess that the coupling method is suseptible
to adsorbtion effects and that the hot parts are near the base of the
phone.

FWIW Every mobile phone I've played with has the antenna and coupling
circuitry near the top behind the display.


Not any more.. recent phones (last several years) put the antenna at the
bottom to reduce the SAR number, since the top of the phone is next to
your head, and the bottom isn't. There's a really good explanation from
a guy who does, oddly, wireless device antenna design consulting..
http://www.antennasys.com/
specifically
http://www.antennasys.com/antennasys...-antennas.html


http://www.anandtech.com/show/3794/t...one-4-review/2 has some
information

On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 13:51:46 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote:


http://www.anandtech.com/show/3794/t...one-4-review/2 has some
information

Thanx Jim,

Everything Apple didn't want you to know (Antennas, and oddly enough,
a report giving it an A+++ for signal quality).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Jul 13, 3:51*pm, Jim Lux wrote:
Baron wrote:
Richard Clark Inscribed thus:

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 21:54:17 -0500, tom wrote:

On 7/12/2010 9:46 PM, Richard Clark wrote:
The only thing that remains a mystery, for me if for no one else
here,
is the literal specification of the antenna. *Google (gasp) fails
me.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
And that does seem to be the crux of the matter. *What is the antenna?
And what does it interact with that's not, be it part of the phone or
part of the user?
Hi Tom,

The antenna is reported as being the metal trim that surrounds the
perimeter of the phone. *As that is much too large for the frequencies
involved to be taken literally, there is more to the story that
remains clouded. *Maybe I'm wrong....

I think you're right. *"Design Flaw" Someone messed up testing big time.

If the loop (or dipole) is suitably matched, it doesn't give much
polarization diversity. *Perhaps no phone does anyway.

Aren't cell stations vertically polarised. *The one near me is, and one
of the IF's is smack on 144.005 Mhz.

Insofar as being "part of the user," we well know the EM of HTs and
the hand/body contribution. *If such were the case, then this would be
an agnostic problem that users of all mobile phones would complain of
(which mildly refutes what the gadget blogs dismissed). *On the other
hand, the über-hip, whose complaints are more vocal for their "pain,"
would be outraged at the notion of their simply enjoying the identical
experience of techno-trash. *Amazing what a 10 fold cost differential
brings to your perception of quality of service.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

From a casual look at the phone the metal band seems to be a continuous
loop. Its unlikely that there is a physical coupling between it and the
RX/TX, so any tuner or coupling is going to be affected by the hand
grasping it. *Since suggestions have been made to hold the phone in a
different place, I would guess that the coupling method is suseptible
to adsorbtion effects and that the hot parts are near the base of the
phone.

FWIW Every mobile phone I've played with has the antenna and coupling
circuitry near the top behind the display.

Not any more.. recent phones (last several years) put the antenna at the
bottom to reduce the SAR number, since the top of the phone is next to
your head, and the bottom isn't. *There's a really good explanation from
a guy who does, oddly, wireless device antenna design consulting..http://www.antennasys.com/
specificallyhttp://www.antennasys.com/antennasys-blog/2010/6/24/apple-iphone-4-an...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3794/t...-4-review/2has some
information

My new antenna can easily handle this job.
You make it for the lowest frequency and it will handle all the
frequencies above at a constant impedance..... and with more gain and
the radiater smaller in size!

On Jul 13, 8:27*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

My new antenna can easily handle this job.
You make it for the lowest frequency and it will handle all the
frequencies above at a constant impedance..... and with more gain and
the radiater smaller in size!

Is it fractal?

On Jul 13, 9:10*pm, Bill wrote:
On Jul 13, 8:27*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

My new antenna can easily handle this job.
You make it for the lowest frequency and it will handle all the
frequencies above at a constant impedance..... and with more gain and
the radiater smaller in size!

Is it fractal?

No!
Total resistance = R1+ R2 The trick is to reduce
R2 in value so more current is being applied to radiation. Very simple
my dear Watson.

On 7/13/2010 9:42 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jul 13, 9:10 pm, wrote:
On Jul 13, 8:27 pm, Art wrote:

My new antenna can easily handle this job.
You make it for the lowest frequency and it will handle all the
frequencies above at a constant impedance..... and with more gain and
the radiater smaller in size!

Is it fractal?

No!
Total resistance = R1+ R2 The trick is to reduce
R2 in value so more current is being applied to radiation. Very simple
my dear Watson.

And he tells you nothing. And he provides no proof.

The master of vaportennas.

tom
K0TAR

Jim Lux Inscribed thus:

Baron wrote:
Richard Clark Inscribed thus:

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 21:54:17 -0500, tom wrote:

On 7/12/2010 9:46 PM, Richard Clark wrote:
The only thing that remains a mystery, for me if for no one else
here,
is the literal specification of the antenna. Google (gasp) fails
me.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
And that does seem to be the crux of the matter. What is the
antenna? And what does it interact with that's not, be it part of
the phone or part of the user?
Hi Tom,

The antenna is reported as being the metal trim that surrounds the
perimeter of the phone. As that is much too large for the
frequencies involved to be taken literally, there is more to the
story that
remains clouded. Maybe I'm wrong....

I think you're right. "Design Flaw" Someone messed up testing big
time.

If the loop (or dipole) is suitably matched, it doesn't give much
polarization diversity. Perhaps no phone does anyway.

Aren't cell stations vertically polarised. The one near me is, and
one of the IF's is smack on 144.005 Mhz.

Insofar as being "part of the user," we well know the EM of HTs and
the hand/body contribution. If such were the case, then this would
be an agnostic problem that users of all mobile phones would
complain of
(which mildly refutes what the gadget blogs dismissed). On the
other hand, the über-hip, whose complaints are more vocal for their
"pain," would be outraged at the notion of their simply enjoying the
identical
experience of techno-trash. Amazing what a 10 fold cost
differential brings to your perception of quality of service.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

From a casual look at the phone the metal band seems to be a
continuous loop. Its unlikely that there is a physical coupling
between it and the RX/TX, so any tuner or coupling is going to be
affected by the hand
grasping it. Since suggestions have been made to hold the phone in a
different place, I would guess that the coupling method is suseptible
to adsorbtion effects and that the hot parts are near the base of the
phone.

FWIW Every mobile phone I've played with has the antenna and coupling
circuitry near the top behind the display.


Not any more.. recent phones (last several years) put the antenna at
the bottom to reduce the SAR number, since the top of the phone is
next to
your head, and the bottom isn't. There's a really good explanation
from a guy who does, oddly, wireless device antenna design
consulting.. http://www.antennasys.com/
specifically

http://www.antennasys.com/antennasys...-antennas.html


http://www.anandtech.com/show/3794/t...one-4-review/2 has some
information

Jim. Thanks for the above links. The Youtube vid was most interesting.
I certainly wasn't aware of the gaps in the metal banding nor of the SAR
requirements.

73s
--
Best Regards:
Baron.

On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 13:51:46 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote:

Not any more.. recent phones (last several years) put the antenna at the
bottom to reduce the SAR number, since the top of the phone is next to
your head, and the bottom isn't. There's a really good explanation from
a guy who does, oddly, wireless device antenna design consulting..
http://www.antennasys.com/
specifically
http://www.antennasys.com/antennasys...-antennas.html

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3794/t...one-4-review/2 has some
information

Here's my wild guess as to what's happening, borrowed from my posting
in ba.internet and alt.cellular.attws. Apple announced that there's
going to be a press conference on Friday, where they'll announce
something. Note that I goofed on the location of the wi-fi/BT
antenna, but I'll leave the mistake here for now.


On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 13:05:27 -0700, AES wrote:

Is your assessment here that placing RF-lossy human flesh (with a high
water content) close enough to the phone antenna loads down (or maybe
just detunes?) the RF circuitry of the transmitter final stage to a
point that the active transmitter circuitry in the phone no longer
oscillates effectively? -- but just putting a dry and non-lossy
dielectric there doesn't, and also moving the flesh even a short
distance away reduces its loading on the circuitry enough that the
active circuitry still works OK?

Nope. My wild guess(tm), based upon what little I can extract from
the FCC ID page and from the iFixit autopsy, is that something drastic
is happening in receive. The -30dB (that's 1000 times drop) in signal
appears in receive, when you're NOT making a call and the xmitter is
inactive. Well, the xmitter is sending keep alive bursts every few
minutes, but nothing more. Methinks it's a receive problem, not xmit.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the receiver front end
(probably a GASFET or HEMT) might be a bit regenerative (border line
oscillatory). This gives it lots of gain, but only if nothing else
changes. In effect, the antenna becomes part of an oscillator
circuit, where the oscillatory conditions are partly provided by the
antenna Q (i.e. antenna efficiency).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_circuit

Touch the antenna, and you reduce the antenna Q. The front end stops
acting regenerative (barely oscillating), and the sensitivity drops
like a rock. It's the only explanation I can conjure the will cause a
-30dB drop in received signal. It's been demonstrated (by me and
others) that strangling the antenna of other cell phones drops the rx
signal up to -10dBm (10 times drop). That's what I would normally
expect to see from touching a cell phone antenna. However, the -30dB
drop of the iPhone 4 requires some extra circuit design screwups.
Unfortunately, detecting the regeneration is going to require internal
probes, test fixturing, and plenty of expensive test equipment.

There's another related possibility. Most of the finger tests have
been with the finger bridging the gap. That means they're touching
BOTH the cellular and wi-fi/BT antennas. It's obviously the hot end
of the cellular antenna, but I can't tell if it's the hot end or
ground end of the wi-fi/BT antenna. If the hot end, another
possibility it that coupling to the 2nd antenna causes this antenna to
radiate into the case, thus causing the cellular front end to
oscillate. If the oscillations are bad enough, the signal level will
be high enough to induce blocking (overload) in the cellular front
end. This can be easily detected with a spectrum analyzer probe in
the vicinity. If touching/bridging the antennas causes a new signal
to appear on the SA, that's the problem.

It would be very interesting to know if touching ONLY the cellular
part of the antenna (the part that goes up the side of the phone), and
not the wi-fi/BT antenna (bottom of phone), causes the same drop in
signal. It would also be interesting to test the wi-fi signal
strength to see if it's effected by touching its antenna.

I have a few other guesses, but these are the best I can currently
conjure at this time.

[I'm an EE, but with no RF circuitry experience, much less any cellphone
experience. So, I can understand this happening with an active
transmitting circuit -- though I have somewhat more trouble seeing how
it would interfere in such a sensitive way with a passive receiving
antenna.]

Think regeneration and borderline oscillation.

The bad news is that if Apple stabilizes the rx front end, and
eliminates the oscillation or regeneration, my guess(tm) is that the
resultant phone is going to have a serious rx sensitivity problem. If
you look at the cellular antenna in the iPhone 3G and other internal
antenna cell phones, they're not very simple looking devices. Lots of
strange lumps, traces, pads, and oddities, all designed to optimize
performance in the 800/900 and 1800/1900 MHz bands. Getting them to
look like 50 ohms for minimum VSWR is also important. Lots of
articles in the IEEE Antenna and Prop proceedings on the topic of
cramming a dual band antenna in the smallest possible package.

On the other foot, the iPhone 4 antenna is crude. As far as I can
tell from here, it's a crude monopole (single wire) antenna. There's
no matching circuit for VSWR reduction, and no attempt to optimize
performance in the desired bands. I might have missed something in
the dissection, but all I can see is an end fed monopole, without a
counterpoise or underlying ground. Such an antenna is going to have
resonances at odd frequencies, and miserable antenna efficiency.

Disclaimer: I haven't found anyone willing to let me tear into their
iPhone 4 yet, so all the above is guesswork.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558