>
> As I mentioned, recently a Verizon rep recommended I get a 3 watt
> attache phone.
>
There is no such phone. The digital bagphone monsters have the same
exact phone board in them as the handheld V3. I bought one,
discovered the lie and returned it the next day.
On Jun 21, 6:56 am, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
> Redigoogle <redicl...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:7a14cba0-beaf-436b-
> bf39-2ec453ec0...@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > As I mentioned, recently a Verizon rep recommended I get a 3 watt
> > attache phone.
>
> There is no such phone. The digital bagphone monsters have the same
> exact phone board in them as the handheld V3. I bought one,
> discovered the lie and returned it the next day.
How did you discover it?
What is the wattage of a handheld V3?
>
> How did you discover it?
> What is the wattage of a handheld V3?
>
> Thanks
>
>
I noticed how long the little battery lasted, compared to the daily
charging routines of my bagphones. Then, I called a ham radio op
I've known for 25 years who is a wheel at Motorola and asked him.
Different carriers set different power limits in their system
software depending on which mode and band you're using. But, the
actual difference between 150 and 200 mw isn't significant. Double
the power is only 3db....hard to measure in the noise.
Max power is hardly ever transmitted. Multiuser systems, like
Sellular, depend on relatively level signals at the receiver, so, the
system adjusts your transmitter on the fly to level you with other
users. On cell fringes, more urgent matters like multipath
interference cause you to crash....
Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in
news:slrng5qbt6.q0v.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net:
>
> Probably 0.6 watts like most phones...
>
>
We haven't had that much power luxury since the very first Motorola
725 CDMA/AMPS flipphones. Power level limits now are in the 120 to
180 mw range to much more inefficient antennas hidden inside the case
to impress the kiddies.
600 mw would eat the tiny batteries in an hour....
On Jun 21, 5:36 pm, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
> Steve Sobol <sjso...@JustThe.net> wrote innews:slrng5qbt6.q0v.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net :
> > Probably 0.6 watts like most phones...
>
> We haven't had that much power luxury since the very first Motorola
> 725 CDMA/AMPS flipphones. Power level limits now are in the 120 to
> 180 mw range to much more inefficient antennas hidden inside the case
> to impress the kiddies.
>
> 600 mw would eat the tiny batteries in an hour....
That's interesting.
So, why (or how) do users of higher end Verizon phones reports better
reception.
There is certainly more than subjective difference.
Three years ago, I noticed a difference between my vx4500 and whatever
phone was down the scale VX3200 or something.
On Jun 21, 5:36 pm, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
> Steve Sobol <sjso...@JustThe.net> wrote innews:slrng5qbt6.q0v.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net :
> > Probably 0.6 watts like most phones...
>
> We haven't had that much power luxury since the very first Motorola
> 725 CDMA/AMPS flipphones. Power level limits now are in the 120 to
> 180 mw range to much more inefficient antennas hidden inside the case
> to impress the kiddies.
>
> 600 mw would eat the tiny batteries in an hour....
That's interesting.
So, why (or how) do users of higher end Verizon phones reports better
reception.
There is certainly more than subjective difference.
Three years ago, I noticed a difference between my vx4500 and whatever
phone was down the scale VX3200 or something.
Redigoogle wrote:
> On Jun 21, 5:36 pm, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
>> Steve Sobol <sjso...@JustThe.net> wrote innews:slrng5qbt6.q0v.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net :
>
>>> Probably 0.6 watts like most phones...
>> We haven't had that much power luxury since the very first Motorola
>> 725 CDMA/AMPS flipphones. Power level limits now are in the 120 to
>> 180 mw range to much more inefficient antennas hidden inside the case
>> to impress the kiddies.
>>
>> 600 mw would eat the tiny batteries in an hour....
>
> That's interesting.
> So, why (or how) do users of higher end Verizon phones reports better
> reception.
> There is certainly more than subjective difference.
> Three years ago, I noticed a difference between my vx4500 and whatever
> phone was down the scale VX3200 or something.
I may be missing something but what does the transmit power of a cell
phone have to do with the quality of reception on that cell phone? If I
have more power, I may not need to be close to a tower to place a call
but it's not going to affect my reception. Now if YOU call ME, and you
have more power, I may get better reception or maybe not. I'm not
listening to your signal directly, it has to be relayed through at least
one tower.
The sensitivity and selectivity of a receiver can make a big difference
in the quality of the received speech. I suspect that the answer is
that better phones have better receivers.
On Jun 22, 9:35 am, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilber...@comcast.net>
wrote:
what does the transmit power of a cell
> phone have to do with the quality of reception on that cell phone?
>
> The sensitivity and selectivity of a receiver can make a big difference
> in the quality of the received speech. I suspect that the answer is
> that better phones have better receivers.
I see your point, and realize that I'm confusing the two issues
presuming that more power effected both directions of communication.
Still power must be somewhat an issue in reception,
since whatever signal is available must certainly be amplified to
audible levels.
Maybe its more a function of antenna size/quality?
I don't know.
Comments appreciated.
Redigoogle wrote:
> On Jun 22, 9:35 am, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilber...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> what does the transmit power of a cell
>> phone have to do with the quality of reception on that cell phone?
>>
>> The sensitivity and selectivity of a receiver can make a big difference
>> in the quality of the received speech. I suspect that the answer is
>> that better phones have better receivers.
>
> I see your point, and realize that I'm confusing the two issues
> presuming that more power effected both directions of communication.
> Still power must be somewhat an issue in reception,
> since whatever signal is available must certainly be amplified to
> audible levels.
> Maybe its more a function of antenna size/quality?
> I don't know.
> Comments appreciated.
>
A better antenna can make a huge difference. The sticking point is that
many cell phones have no provision for an external antenna. The
instruction book for my RAZR V3m does not mention the antenna at all.
Whatever it has, it seems to be entirely internal.
There are gadgets called "repeaters" that will increase your range.
I've never seen one nor, knowingly, used one. Some are intended for use
in vehicles, others are intended to be installed in, or on top of,
buildings.
Change in service quality.
Linear Mode
