On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:05:01 GMT, wrote in
:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:45:02 GMT, wrote in
Cell phones already use frequencies in the 3 GHz region.

False.

1.9 GHz is in the -region- of 3 GHz.

False.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium wrote:
On Jul 16, 6:07 pm, "NotMe" wrote:

The only FM on standard TV is the audio. Video is vestigial sideband AM.

I want it to be the opposite.

I want you to go away until you at least have a high school education
in science and techology and learn how to use Google.

I don't think either is going to happen.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:05:01 GMT, wrote in
:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:45:02 GMT, wrote in
Cell phones already use frequencies in the 3 GHz region.

False.

1.9 GHz is in the -region- of 3 GHz.

False.

It certainly is within about 20%.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:55:01 GMT, wrote in
:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:05:01 GMT, wrote in
:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:45:02 GMT, wrote in
Cell phones already use frequencies in the 3 GHz region.

False.

1.9 GHz is in the -region- of 3 GHz.

False.

It certainly is within about 20%.

No radio engineer would agree.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:45:00 GMT, wrote in
:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium wrote:
On Jul 16, 6:07 pm, "NotMe" wrote:

The only FM on standard TV is the audio. Video is vestigial sideband AM.

I want it to be the opposite.

I want you to go away until you at least have a high school education
in science and techology and learn how to use Google.

I don't think either is going to happen.

Probably not, but that's Usenet.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ

Warren Oates hath wroth:

In article ,
Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I'll pretend not to mention commercial antennas that are sold without
any useful specifications, patterns, or simulations. That's one
reason I've often considered going into the antenna business. The
more they resemble a gold plated metallic scrap heap, the better they
sell. Few customers can see how they operate. Product comparisons
are difficult or impossible. Magic is everywhere. Yeah, the antenna
biz looks good.

I remember seeing one of those "rabbit ears" tv antennas, unpowered,
shaped like a little satellite dish that you could rotate, selling for
like 14.99 or something and on the box it said "Uses RF Technology!!"

I think that was the rabbit ears with the gold plated 6" dia dish
antenna in the middle.
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2455309
Yep... same junk but without the gold plating.

It was true, though, I guess.

You missed all the fun in the late 50's. That's what got me
interested in radio/RF/wireless/whatever. There was this character
named Charles Torrelli, that advertised in Popular Electronics selling
a "Turn your house wiring into a giant 1,000 ft TV antenna". It
consisted of a Bakelite box with a "capacitator" inside. One end went
to the AC power line, the other end to the twin lead input on the TV.
Since there was no transformer in the box, and a good chance the at
the TV was of the AC-DC variety, there was about a 10% chance that you
could get fried connecting the device.

Needless to say, house wiring does not make a great VHF antenna, but
that didn't stop Torrelli. It also inspired me to learn a bit more
about the technology as all the experts were telling me that it can't
work, but none supplied any reasons that made sense.

Further investigation on my part resulted in the a minor
electrocution, which provided additional inspiration and motivation. I
instantly concluded that anything that powerful must also be
interesting and possibly useful, so I elected to study electricity.
Additional inspiration was later provided by the launching of Sputnik,
which converted anyone that could spell "engineering" into some kind
of freedom fighter.

I once modeled a Radio Shock TV yagi antenna. On some channels, it
had more gain in the backwards direction than forward. A simple bow
tie and reflector antenna would have worked much better, except that
RS doesn't sell them any more. Also, TV antennas are not rated in dBi
gain. They use "miles" instead.




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

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:55:01 GMT, wrote in
:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:05:01 GMT, wrote in
:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:45:02 GMT, wrote in
Cell phones already use frequencies in the 3 GHz region.

False.

1.9 GHz is in the -region- of 3 GHz.

False.

It certainly is within about 20%.

No radio engineer would agree.

That should have been about 30%, but in any case, I am an engineer
and there isn't a whole hell of a lot of anything different between
1.9 GHz and 3 GHz.

What? Some trivial differences in path losses? Antennas a bit different
in size by what, 4 mm unless I slipped a decimal point in my head?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

hath wroth:

John Navas wrote:
No radio engineer would agree.

I are an radio/RF/wireless/communications/whatever engineer and I
agree with John Navas that cellular is nowhere near 3GHz.

That should have been about 30%, but in any case, I am an engineer
and there isn't a whole hell of a lot of anything different between
1.9 GHz and 3 GHz.

Baloney. See:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/spectrum/table/fcctable.pdf
Zoom in to the area between 1.9GHz and 3.0GHz. There's a huge amount
of point to point, wi-fi, WiMax, satellite, XM/Serius, radar,
military, etc, stuff in that area. That's also where Sprint and
others have recently purchased bandwidth for advanced data services.

What? Some trivial differences in path losses? Antennas a bit different
in size by what, 4 mm unless I slipped a decimal point in my head?

There's no disgrace in admiting that you've made a misake. There's
plenty in trying to bluster your way out of admitting it followed by
trying to trivialize your mistake.

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

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Jeff Liebermann wrote:
hath wroth:

John Navas wrote:
No radio engineer would agree.

I are an radio/RF/wireless/communications/whatever engineer and I
agree with John Navas that cellular is nowhere near 3GHz.

That should have been about 30%, but in any case, I am an engineer
and there isn't a whole hell of a lot of anything different between
1.9 GHz and 3 GHz.

Baloney. See:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/spectrum/table/fcctable.pdf
Zoom in to the area between 1.9GHz and 3.0GHz. There's a huge amount
of point to point, wi-fi, WiMax, satellite, XM/Serius, radar,
military, etc, stuff in that area. That's also where Sprint and
others have recently purchased bandwidth for advanced data services.

What? Some trivial differences in path losses? Antennas a bit different
in size by what, 4 mm unless I slipped a decimal point in my head?

There's no disgrace in admiting that you've made a misake. There's
plenty in trying to bluster your way out of admitting it followed by
trying to trivialize your mistake.

I agree there is a lot of stuff allocated between 1.9 GHz and 3 GHz,
but FCC regulations wasn't the point.

Lemme try again.

Put up two transmitters with everything identical in terms of lambda,
one on 1.9 GHz, one on 3 GHz.

Run around all you want with a field strength meter.

There isn't going to be spit worth of difference.

Antenna sizes? A matter of millimeters.

Equipment construction techniques, part availability, etc? Negligable
differences.

There isn't much difference between 2 GHz radio and 3 GHz radio.

Do the above with 800 MHz and 3 GHz. Now you start seeing some
differences.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In article ,
Jeff Liebermann wrote:


I think that was the rabbit ears with the gold plated 6" dia dish
antenna in the middle.
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2455309
Yep... same junk but without the gold plating.

It looked like that one, if wasn't amplified though.
--
W. Oates