soldering AAA batteries

[Harry Bloomfield]

And yes the phones do change frequency, rather like a trunked radio system where the phone sits on a control channel then when making or receiving a call handshaking will negotiate a free or otherwise available channel.

As I understood it, multiple calls can actually share the same channel, at the same time, using store and reassemble the calls.

 

[SUNRAY]

As I understood it, multiple calls can actually share the same channel, at the same time, using store and reassemble the calls.

Yes

...free or otherwise available channel...

Perhaps better description would be time slot.

 

[morqthana]

During the house arrests of the sprig of 2020 was the same time that the 5G satalights where being switched on. It was noted that the change of frequency in the ionosphere was making people sick! it was also noted that 5G was 60ghz, the same frequency as the oxygen molecule in the blood renderig them usuless and hence causing respretra breathing problems

Please go away.

 

[robinbanks]

something obviously totally inappropriate for mobile phone communications

5G employs techniques to make the antenna to device part of the link more like a directional affair, to increase capacity and performance

As I understood it, multiple calls can actually share the same channel, at the same time, using store and reassemble the calls.

Thats time division multiplexing. The GSM system has also always done frequency division multiplexing (multiple frequency slots within the band)

Americans used to use a different system, code division multiplexing (termed CDMA) , much better suited to their terrain (huge distances and not many subscribers) than GSM - it meant they could run higher powers to cover the huge distances and adjacent towers could use the same frequencies. CDMA systems use encryption codes to tell subscribing devices apart rather than time slots or frequency slots. They also have the interesting property that the geographical area covered by a tower is related to the number of active comm links the tower has going on with the devices it serves; the more devices, the smaller the area. When on the periphery of the range, multiple other calls starting can cause the range of the tower to shrink, disconnecting the ones furthest out as more comms nearer the tower establish

Fascinating stuff

 

[JohnW2]

Simplest is to use a wider band width, ie use several adjacent channels.

If I understand what you're saying, I'm not sure I would call that "wider bandwidth". Are you just talking about multiple parallel communication paths?

 

[SUNRAY]

If I understand what you're saying, I'm not sure I would call that "wider bandwidth". Are you just talking about multiple parallel communication paths?

Yes if it's fully digital but still easier to use adjacent time slots.

If it's analogue then a 200KHz channel can carry more information than a 2.5KHz channel

 

[JohnW2]

5G employs techniques to make the antenna to device part of the link more like a directional affair, to increase capacity and performance

How on earth does it do that? On the face of it, that would require reconfiguration of a complex antenna system (at the 'mast') for each and every connected phone (and obviously with only one configuration possible at any given point in time).

 

[SUNRAY]

How on earth does it do that? On the face of it, that would require reconfiguration of a complex antenna system (at the 'mast') for each and every connected phone (and obviously with only one configuration possible at any given point in time).

I haven't seen inside a phone aerial in the last 30 years but those were vertically stacked horizontal dipoles Think of a log periodic type of contruction but all elements the same electrical size (? vertically bayed ?) and would be impossible to trim in use. More likely to reroute to an adjacent unit IMO.

 

[robinbanks]

How on earth does it do that?

Beamforming

On the face of it, that would require

Don’t assume based on what you understand/can conceive right now, perform research to increase what you understand/can conceive

for each and every connected phone

You’ve already gone off track

 

[JohnW2]

Beamforming

That seems to be just a bit of terminology which, in context, is synonymous with what I referred to as "reconfiguration".

Don’t assume based on what you understand/can conceive right now ....

I'm assuming nothing. I was (as correctly quoted by you) asking a question about something I don't understand.

.... perform research to increase what you understand/can conceive

Does it not occur to you that my asking the question is my first attempt ('research') to "increase what I understand/can conceive"?

How about some constructive input from you? It was you who told me of 'techniques to make the antenna to device part of the link more like a directional affair', so, given that I don't understand how this would/could be achieved, it seems perfectly reasonable that my first step in attempting to increase my understanding should be to ask you, doesn't it?

You’ve already gone off track

I'm not sure in what sense. Is it not obvious ('physics', if you wish) that, at any point in time, optimisation of the gain of antenna (by making the antenna more 'directional') in the direction of one particular phone will necessarily decrease the gain in relation to phones in many (probably most) other directions with which it may need to communicate?

 

[muckington]

View attachment 413765


Changed by addition, sure. 5G uses additional frequencies that 2G doesn’t, but I really want to get away from associating the two. Successive generations achieve better performance not primarily by using other frequencies..

You can’t escape the physics of the universe, that low frequencies travel far but don’t pack as much info and high ones vice versa on both factors. Classically I always felt it was a bit of a con, for Orange/T to sing about how many more masts they had than Voda/O2 - Orange masts were greater in number because they had to be; the 1800MHz signals don’t propagate as far so more masts are needed for coverage

We seam to be missing 5G on this! to my understanding that satelights (and not the transmittors) are of 60GHz, where the satelight range hear only goes to 40GHz. is this an old diagram?

 

[muckington]

View attachment 413765

diagram went missig!

 

[muckington]

Please go away.

Stop the boats!

 

[robinbanks]

That seems to be just a bit of terminology which, in context, is synonymous with what I referred to as "reconfiguration".

It’s a name for a specific technique; you can refer to anything using whatever terms you like, but if you want to have a productive conversation with someone you should really use the same terms. If there is a standard term in use already, it’s a long uphill battle to get everyone to remember “when John says chalk, he actually means cheese”. Less friction for you to just use the same term as everyone else, gall you as it may to say “cheese”

I'm assuming nothing

Most of your post is assumption. If you’d stopped at “how does it do that?” without the incredulity enhancing “Earth” addition, there wouldn’t have been any assumption

Does it not occur to you

The only things that can occur to me are a direct result of how you present yourself

Is it not obvious ('physics', if you wish) that, at any point in time, optimisation of the gain of antenna (by making the antenna more 'directional') in the direction of one particular phone will necessarily decrease the gain in relation to phones in many (probably most) other directions with which it may need to communicate?

You have a very odd way of engaging with people when you want their help or effort.

This entire “the thing is outside the realm of my understanding, so I’m going to attack the person telling me the info, and infer what they say is unlikely or wrong” isn’t something I personally respond well to

You can read up on beamforming yourself if you wish; I understand how it works, and as your understanding improves you’ll see the gaps in your assumptions. The primary ones appear to be a lack of appreciation for just how many antennae comprise a beamforming solution, their simultaneous activation, and overlooking the time and frequency multiplexing already discussed

 

[JohnW2]

It’s a name for a specific technique; you can refer to anything using whatever terms you like, but if you want to have a productive conversation with someone you should really use the same terms. If there is a standard term in use already, it’s a long uphill battle to get everyone to remember “when John says chalk, he actually means cheese”. Less friction for you to just use the same term as everyone else, gall you as it may to say “cheese”

Why do you persist in this non-constructive quibbling and criticism, seemingly very commonly directed only at myself?

Yes, as will be apparent, I was not familiar with the term "beamforming", but I was well aware of the technique and used everyday language which surely made it clear what I was talking about, didn't I? You have to realise that the subject we are discussing is far divorced from any in which I have been formally educated, trained or professionally qualified, and it does not seem particularly reasonable to expect me to be aware of the terminology of any discipline being discussed.

Goodness, a fairly high proportion of the everyday traffic in this forum involves non-electricians who are not familiar with correct/formal electrical terminology, but most of us nevertheless understand what they are saying/asking. Some of us may 'put them right' about the correct technical terminology but we don't (I hope!) make a big issue of their lack of knowledge of the 'correct terminology'.

Most of your post is assumption. ....

That seems to be your 'assumption'.

If you’d stopped at “how does it do that?” without the incredulity enhancing “Earth” addition, there wouldn’t have been any assumption

It's just 'shorthand'. As far as I am concerned, the difference between "how does it do that?" and "how on earth does it do that?" is, as you imply, the fact that (as you sort-of suggest) the latter, whilst still being 'the question', also underlines (in less words) the fact that I currently find it hard to understand how it could be the case.

"Incredulity" is far too strong a word - like most people, I am constantly coming across things which I "find hard (sometimes 'almost impossible') to believe" until my knowledge/understanding increases (i.e.until I 'see the light'). One is never too old to learn!

The only things that can occur to me are a direct result of how you present yourself ....

One might have thought that when someone asks you a question, it might occur to you that what they are hoping for is an answer, not a criticism of how the question has been asked.

You have a very odd way of engaging with people when you want their help or effort. ....

You clearly have that view. However, all I've been doing is asking questions and then indicating when/why I find answers 'difficult to understand or believe' (thereby effectively requesting further answers 'to help me learn'). Most people don't seem to have the same difficulty in communicating with me.

This entire “the thing is outside the realm of my understanding, so I’m going to attack the person telling me the info ....

This seems to be verging on paranoia or, at least, over-sensitivity. In what sense have I 'attacked' you?

In contrast, I imagine that some might well feel that you are ('unnecessarily') 'attacking' me!

I would like to think that I am not particularly unintelligent, so a current lack of knowledge/understanding does not translate to 'an inability to understand', once I have been helped to become aware of 'the answers'.

..... and infer what they say is unlikely or wrong” isn’t something I personally respond well to ...

I have never said, or even inferred that you are 'wrong', since I would never make such an assertion, at least in a field in which I did not have 'expert knowledge'.

As for 'unlikely', you do not seem to have the same understanding of intellectual discussion/debate as I do. A substantial part of my entire professional life has involved 'raising issues' in relation to things that have been said/written, when, in terms of my current state of knowledge, I find it difficult to understand/believe what has been said/written, see potential flaws in it or even find that (again, in terms of current knowledge) it seems 'to not make sense'. One then expects further responses to 'help one understand' OR, if they accept my viewpoint, a change in position of 'the other side'. Indicating things that "I don't currently understand" or which "seem unlikley" is part of the process which 'educates' me! Again, one is never too old to learn!

However, when I raise an issue about something which, at the time, seems 'unlikely' to me, that in no way implies that I think it is 'wrong' - but, rather, that I believe that discussion is required before the true situation becomes clear to me.

You can read up on beamforming yourself if you wish; I understand how it works, and as your understanding improves you’ll see the gaps in your assumptions. The primary ones appear to be a lack of appreciation for just how many antennae comprise a beamforming solution, their simultaneous activation, ...

I do understand a fair bit about it, particularly in the context of 'phased arrays', other than having been unfamiliar with the actual word.

... and overlooking the time and frequency multiplexing already discussed

For what it's worth, I also do understand time multiplexing and (at least 'in general') 'frequency multiplexing'.

This entire post of yours is non-constructive and in no well helpful to me in increasing my knowledge/understanding of the matters we are discussing.

I will continue to respond to on-topic posts in this thread from others, particularly if they help to increase my understanding.