Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Electronics Repair (sci.electronics.repair) Discussion of repairing electronic equipment. Topics include requests for assistance, where to obtain servicing information and parts, techniques for diagnosis and repair, and annecdotes about success, failures and problems. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
Posted to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless,comp.mobile.android
|
|||
|
|||
WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas
On Tue, 02 Aug 2016 11:05:44 -0400, nospam wrote:
Without a google play account, there's nothing for Google to latch on to. wrong So, without a google play account, and without a static advertising ID, what are you saying Google latches on to then? |
#42
Posted to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless,comp.mobile.android
|
|||
|
|||
WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas
In article , Aardvarks
wrote: Without a google play account, there's nothing for Google to latch on to. wrong So, without a google play account, and without a static advertising ID, what are you saying Google latches on to then? you've been told before by several people. why would yet another time make a difference? you aren't interested in answers. do you really think that google, whose revenue is almost entirely from data-mining what people do and employs some of the smartest people around, hasn't thought of that scenario? |
#43
Posted to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless,comp.mobile.android
|
|||
|
|||
WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas
On Tue, 02 Aug 2016 15:25:10 -0400, nospam wrote:
you've been told before by several people. why would yet another time make a difference? you aren't interested in answers. In other words, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I'm tired of your senseless riddles. You only know Apple marketing glossy literature. I'll ask the group that actually knows Android, to find the answer to the question: http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-android do you really think that google, whose revenue is almost entirely from data-mining what people do and employs some of the smartest people around, hasn't thought of that scenario? I only care about facts. You only read/comprehend glossy Apple marketing literature. Apple marketing plays your fears like a fiddle. I'm just looking for real facts. We're quite different that way. - You live by fear. - I live by facts. But, if there is the tiniest shred of truth, hidden deeply in your self-serving nebulous riddles, I'll ask the group that actually knows: http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-android To that end, I opened a separate thread in the android newsgroup to ask the question of how Google can possibly mine "my" data, given that I have the phone set up using basic privacy recommendations. Here is the specific question. The goal is for someone to simply answer the question. Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well set up Android phone? https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...id/WRA6ay_bwME |
#44
Posted to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless,comp.mobile.android
|
|||
|
|||
WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas
In article , Aardvarks
wrote: you've been told before by several people. why would yet another time make a difference? you aren't interested in answers. In other words, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. insults just prove my point even more. do you really think that google, whose revenue is almost entirely from data-mining what people do and employs some of the smartest people around, hasn't thought of that scenario? I only care about facts. You only read/comprehend glossy Apple marketing literature. no you don't. you only care about trolling. that's why you're avoiding answering what is a simple question and spewing the usual apple bashing nonsense. you ignore everything that doesn't fit your preconceived ideas, then snip and change the topic, which makes it *impossible* to have any type of discussion with you. To that end, I opened a separate thread in the android newsgroup to ask the question of how Google can possibly mine "my" data, given that I have the phone set up using basic privacy recommendations. you have no idea what they track so you *can't* block it all, and even if you did know, you still can't. you leak data, and it's trivial to tie it all together. |
#45
Posted to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless,comp.mobile.android
|
|||
|
|||
WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas
On Tue, 02 Aug 2016 16:32:12 -0400, nospam wrote:
I only care about facts. You only read/comprehend glossy Apple marketing literature. no you don't. you only care about trolling. We've already established you live in an environment of fear which you try to ameliorate by purchasing exactly what Apple Marketing tells you to purchase. Me? I don't live in the fear-filled environment you live in, yet, I am as privacy conscious as anyone, so I simply ameliorate the risk by judicious understanding of fact. If you have a single fact to your argument - you'll place it in the aforementioned thread - but - of course - you have no facts. Once the Google Play ID is removed (which also removed the Advertising ID at the same time, at least from the Android Settings menus), and once apps are globally denied certain information (such as location), my hypothesis is that the Android device is just as insecure from privacy breaches as the iOS device. We're different you and I. 1. You *only* see fear. 2. I only see *solutions*. 1. You only spout what Apple Marketing tells you to spout. It makes you feel better about your fear. 2. I simply report facts and I simply ask for facts. I'm not afraid of facts. that's why you're avoiding answering what is a simple question and spewing the usual apple bashing nonsense. If the answer to the question were as simple as you say, then you wouldn't need copious cryptic self-serving riddles just to save face. I'm not in the least bit worried about my decision in iOS products and Android products looking good. You bought on fear. I bought in priceerformance. We're different that way. you ignore everything that doesn't fit your preconceived ideas, then snip and change the topic, which makes it *impossible* to have any type of discussion with you. I could repeat the question a thousand times, and you'd still *never* answer it, simply because you're a fear monger and I'm simply looking for facts. To you, it makes you feel better if you spew marketing-motivated fact less FUD. To me, it makes me feel better to simply know iron cold hard facts. We're different that way. you have no idea what they track so you *can't* block it all, and even if you did know, you still can't. Again, as always, you spew forth the garbage that Apple Marketing tells you to spew forth - sans a shred of fact behind your fear-inspired thought process. I'm not *afraid* like you are. I'm simply sensible. Which is why I ask for facts. Not your Apple-marketing-inspired FUD. Remember, you buy *only* on fear. I buy *only* on facts. We're different that way. you leak data, and it's trivial to tie it all together. Again, as always, you spew forth the garbage that Apple Marketing tells you to spew forth - sans a shred of fact behind your fear-inspired thought process. If you had a single fact, you'd have stated it by now. So, in this case, we're more similar in knowledge, but different in purpose: 1. You don't know the answer but you *still* spout Apple Marketing mantra! 2. I don't know the answer, so I simply ask the question of all. You're afraid of the factual answer. I'm not. We're different that way. |
#46
Posted to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless,comp.mobile.android
|
|||
|
|||
WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas
In article , Aardvarks
wrote: I only care about facts. You only read/comprehend glossy Apple marketing literature. no you don't. you only care about trolling. We've already established you live in an environment of fear which you try to ameliorate by purchasing exactly what Apple Marketing tells you to purchase. nonsense. i purchase whatever best does what i want to do, which includes android devices (3 of them), apple devices and windows pcs (which i'm waiting on win10 anniversary update). in other words, you're full of ****. the fact that you're starting off with bashing proves you're doing nothing but trolling. as i said initially, you've been told many times how info leaks and how google can track people (most of which is obvious), but you flat out refuse to listen. you are not interested in any of it. you think you know everything and refuse to learn. |
#47
Posted to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless,comp.mobile.android
|
|||
|
|||
WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas
On Tue, 02 Aug 2016 21:43:59 -0400, nospam wrote:
you're full of ****. |
#48
Posted to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless,comp.mobile.android
|
|||
|
|||
WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone wellversed in antennas
Am 02.08.2016 um 18:40 schrieb Jeff Liebermann:
On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 09:03:08 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote: The primary directions for mobile network antennas and WiFi antennas may be different, so one would have to test them independently... True. However, unless you use an RF anechoic chamber, the influences of the room environment will have a bigger influence than the antenna patterns. In an open-field scenario (as Aardvark claims to have) that should not be a problem - while the main antenna orientation might still have an influence. Especially if by chance the main antenna direction is covered by the holding hand... Reflectors and absorbers will ruin any test, unless you're interested in performing a "real world" type of test, which is what this range test might be considered. For example: http://www.smallnetbuilder.com does their benchmarks indoors, with plenty of walls and furniture to get in the way. I think it's part of Tim Higgins house, but I'm not su http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-features/32512-does-an-ac-router-improve-n-device-performance The RF environment is far from perfect, but it's identical for each router being tested, which the point of the test: More on how they run their tests: http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-howto/32478-how-we-test-wireless-products-revison-8 http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-howto/32993-how-we-test-wireless-products-revision-9 http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-howto/32944-how-we-test-mu-mimo and even mo http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/tags/how-we-test The overall results are rather interesting (to me). Different routers, which use the same chipset and roughly the same antennas, produce substantially different performance results. I don't have time to speculate on why, but let's just say that there are is a large list of uncontrolled factors that have an effect on the measurements. Agreed. One can eliminate a fair number with a $100 million RF anechoic chamber, but that's a bit beyond my present means. Not only yours... ;-) Side-by-side (taking this literally) might be yet another influencing factor, where one device (might) severely interfere with the other. True. However, if a wireless client is associated with an access point, but not passing any traffic other than the usual beacons and broadcasts, there is very little traffic that might constitute interference. Offhand, my guess(tm) is about a 1/100 duty cycle. Were any of these packets to collide with traffic from a nearby wireless device, the error would be about 1% from the collision. I was not referring to interfering traffic from the multiple devices, but actually about RF interference which might (or might not) influence the signal strength as received by the chips inside the phone. Basically increasing 'background noise'. And this factor does not have to be symmetric, as it will depend on antenna design, circuit board design, case design (and materials), ... However, for the range test, this will have no effect because we're not trying to squeeze as many packets as possible through a pipe. We're trying to determine the range at which it is no longer possible to pass packets or where the connection becomes unstable. At worst, packet collisions will "blurr" the results somewhat. I don't consider proximity to be a problem. Proximity (of the several devices used for measurements) might be a problem. How can you rule that out? Additionally (forgot to mention that in my previous post) there shouldn't be anybody running around inside the test area (which is larger than just the direct line of sight between the device(s) and the AP), no cars should be passing in the vicinity, there should be no neighboring WiFi networks even at the horizon, ... Part of the range test is take the tablet or iphone and walk away from the wireless router, noting the range at which traffic ceases. Presumably, one would need to hold the device to do that. At the frequencies involved, placing the device on top of a cardboard box when carrying it will minimize proximity effects and antenna detuning, while still allowing one monitor the device. It's far from perfect, but methinks good enough. Agreed. I won't do the tests, for several reasons: - I don't have any Android device available, least several different ones. Borrow one or invite your friends to the test. Or, are all your friends Apple users? What a horrible thought. Yes, they are. And that's not at all a horrible thought (unless you're thinking like Aardvarks). - Where I live I can easily and at any time find several other WiFi networks. Not a problem. You're not trying to maximize throughput, just determine how far you can operate before it quits. You can do that with ping, which hogs very little bandwidth, and will not interfere with the neighbors streaming wireless connection. It's not a problem of bandwidth. But a matter of RF interference, and that might change any second, e.g. depending on the current usage of the other networks. I can control the usage of mine, but not the usage of the other ones. And as the frequency band is crowded on any channel, I don't stand a chance of finding an unused set of channels (for 2.4GHz I'd need three neighboring channels to be sufficiently safe, for 5GHz I'd have to look that figure up). - I wouldn't have enough open range (without reflections from other houses, passings cars, heck there are even electrified railroad tracks at about 500m distance). I think you'll find that at 802.11g speeds, with the wireless fixed at 54Mbits/sec, you'll get about 30 meters range. The transition between working and dead will be quite abrupt, usually within a meter or two. If you find a straight line path that's about 50 meters long, you should be ok. And that's already where I would fail. Way too bad conditions for performing such a test. It doesn't matter. We're comparing two devices, not producing an absolute measurement. Absolute measurements would be nice, so we could compare your results with mine and others, but that's not going to happen without an extremely well controlled environment. However, when comparing two devices, the conditions are identical, and therefore the comparison is quite valid. In general that's true, however how good is any result if you can't rule out at least major influencing factors (beyond the ones to be tested)? You probably spent more time finding excuses to not run the test than it would take to actually perform it. Thanks for at least thinking about the problems involved. I did not spend more than one second on any reasons why I won't execute the test, as the answer is simple: It's Aardvarks' claim, and the past 'discussions' with him here have given ample proof that he won't even accept the best founded test results. If they're not supporting his view, that is. So I resort to 'his claim - his proof'. And as he always claims that he proves everything he says (something already found to be not true time after time), I won't even start going down this path. There are some more reasons I could bring up, but I'll leave it for now. Best regards, Michael |
#49
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone wellversed in antennas
On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 12:18:04 PM UTC-4, Aardvarks wrote:
In your experience with *both* Android & iOS mobile devices, have you also found the iOS devices severely lacking in WiFi sensitivity (resulting in dropped connections when Android devices are still working fine)? This is a question borne out of experience setting up WiFi for dozens of local neighbors, some of whom use Apple ipads & iPhones, and others who use Android mobile equipment. Almost always, in my own personal experience in my own large home with multiple iPads and Android phones, and in the large homes of my neighbors, the Apple iPads and iPhones almost always have *far worse* WiFi reception than do the Android phones. Has this been your experience also? If so, why do you think this is the case? ------------------------------------------- NOTE: Jeff is honest to a fault, so, his opinion matters greatly. That has not been my experience at all. At our summer house, where the nearest WiFi is more than 100 yards away, my wife's iPhone gets it routinely, my Android and Samsung tablet acknowledge that it is there, but cannot get enough signal to connect. At home, within a very few yards of the WiFi, both are just fine. Now, what is interesting is that if we have many devices connected - as in when the kids and grandkids are in the house and all using the same WiFi, the iPhones will sometimes be knocked off and the android/Samsung tablets survive. Go figure. I don't think this has much to do with antennas nor with any other specifically physical manifestation. I think it has more to do with signal sensitivity and internal signal handling. At 900 MHz, there will be *some* orientation issues, of course, so the phone position will have *some* effect on reception. We found that when we oriented the antenna at our repeater (we have a large footprint house) to a specifically vertical position and matched that to the main transmitter, things did get better. The bottom line is that our reception is situational. The Apple products do much better with a really weak signal - if demand is uncrowded. They do not do so well when there is a great deal of demand on a single source even if the signal is "stronger". Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#50
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone wellversed in antennas
A primitive approach for Apple. Cost of a circuit adding Q with rising traffic is ? prohibitive. try sized metal plates in the hallways for physically dircting traffic rf ? is that available at the frequency level ? |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Paging Jeff Liebermann | Electronics Repair |