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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Posted to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless,comp.mobile.android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless,comp.mobile.android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 454
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless,comp.mobile.android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless,comp.mobile.android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 454
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless,comp.mobile.android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless,comp.mobile.android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 454
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless,comp.mobile.android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless,comp.mobile.android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,625
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 200
Default 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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Paging Jeff Liebermann msg Electronics Repair 2 March 28th 09 08:10 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:26 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"