Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#16
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 00:37:22 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote: On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 23:02:21 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote: 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. I goofed slightly. The Anandtech article shows -24dB maximum signal loss. Regenerative designs inhabit the naked edge of amplification/oscillation. Not designs. I don't think it was intentional. Someone else mentioned that Apple was so much into security on the iPhone 4, that prototypes were tested in a similar case made to look like an iPhone 3G. That implies that there was little field testing in the new case. You've already said as much. It has to be, thus, a design feature and not a hack. I beg to differ. Nobody wants oscillatory effects in the front end of their receiver. They're unstable, vary with temperature, are difficult to control in manufacturing, and will probably make the device fail Part 15 incidental radiation test. Designing a front end that's unconditionally stable with any antenna load does not yield the optimum sensitivity. If you want the best performance, amps that are unstable at specific loads will give better NF and gain. Otherwise every third one is going to break into oscillation and the FCC (or test lab) would have certainly picked up on that. Maybe. However, one would think that someone would have done a field test with the final iPhone 4 and noticed that touching the antenna gap produced a major signal drop. Also, FCC test are not preformed with human hands wrapped around the phone due to the limited supply of dismembered hands suitable for testing. Further, if it is designed in, you can observe that in the design. Special testing methods are too elaborate to explain this. Regen is not a design feature left to the vagaries of production variation in parasitic coupling. That might partly explain why some users claim that there's no call drop effect when they touch the antenna gap. Of course, users in strong signal areas are not going to see a dropout, while weak signal areas are going to be much worse. Incidentally, when Consumer Reports ran a test with the rubber ring thing, they slipped and didn't have the technician stand in front of the test equipment this time. http://blogs.consumerreports.org/electronics/2010/07/apple-iphone4-iphone-4-bumper-case-fixes-antenna-issue-problem-signal-loss-tested-verified-consumer-reports-labs-quick-fix.html http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/iPhone4-cmu200.jpg (normal) http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/iPhone4-cmu200-hand.jpg (with hand) It's a Rhodes and Schwarz CMU200. http://www2.rohde-schwarz.com/product/CMU200.html I'm not familiar with the operation. The "Reported Power" appears to be the signal generator output power (because it doesn't change when the antenna is touched). However, I can't devine what the "Avg" or "Peak Burst Power" means. Also, note that the difference in (something) between the first photo (+16.4dBm) and the hand on antenna measurement (-11.7dB) indicates a -28dB drop in signal level. Ouch. If I'm wrong and Apple does use parasitics to encourage regenerative feedback, then they may introduce a lanyard for hanging the phone around the neck and call it the lavaliere option. No doubt they will sell plenty of mirrors to see it, and someone will come out with an image reversal app. Can a stylus be far behind? Whoops! It will have to be chopstick for squeezing and expanding images. We'll find out after the press conference on Friday. My suggestion was to ship a rubber glove with the phone. I also suggested gluing a plastic thumb tack to warn against holding it improperly. Also, a low signal warning tone. Others have suggested tape, rubber prophylactic bump guards, duct tape, warning labels, rebates, bribes, and external antennas: http://gizmodo.com/5581253/there-fixed Unfortunately, that will require running the FCC type certification tests again. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Tube testers | Boatanchors | |||
Fatal Flaw in Eton E1XM | Shortwave | |||
Fatal Flaw in Eton E1XM | Shortwave | |||
DRM (drm.org) design flaw : it does not support an NTP time service, only a very crude Julian Date + GMT descriptor. Support for NTP needs to be added immediatly while DRM is still being designed! | Shortwave | |||
Tube Testers??? | Boatanchors |