| Stijn De Jong <stijndekonlng@nlnet.nl>: Feb 18 02:12AM On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:44:12 -0500, nospam wrote: >> OMG. No way. Verizon is far superior in Silicon Valley and the Bay Area. > they're all about the same. I've had all three, although not concurrently. I go camping a lot, and skiing, where I'm with a bunch of guys, all of whom are on the various carriers. Over the years, it's been getting better and better on all the carriers, but sometimes Verizon is the lousy one, sometimes AT&T, and sometimes T-Mobile. As nospam said, they're all about the same. And I've had Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile (in that order) in the same location. However, the only true test would be to have all three similar phones in your hands at the same time for the tests, which nobody is gonna do. So everyone is just guessing with bad data (sort of like how climate change debates go). |
| Stijn De Jong <stijndekonlng@nlnet.nl>: Feb 18 02:21AM On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 21:06:50 -0500, nospam wrote: > no carrier covers *everywhere*. > if where *you* go lacks t-mobile, then get another carrier. for others, > t-mobile works just fine, even in out of the way areas. For once, nospam and I agree in principle and in practice. |
| Stijn De Jong <stijndekonlng@nlnet.nl>: Feb 18 02:21AM On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 18:00:11 -0800, sms wrote: > Those maps don't really show the coverage holes, nor are they > up-to-date. I.e. Verizon just put in a tower right next to Cupertino > City Hall (a fake tree) that has improved coverage. I completly understand that the data I showed (which implied that the coverage was about the same) could be bad data. But you have to realize I've heard a lot of bs on the net where people who have one brand think it's better than the other two brands (of anything), even though they, themselves, have never even tested brand B or C. (It just happened on the digital photo group, for example, where people said "preview" was better at X than Paint.NET and then we find out that all those people who said that had NEVER even used Paint.NET once in their entire lives). My point is that anyone who claims that cellular data sucks for one carrier than the other generally has lousy data points since almost nobody (not even me) carries three similar phones with them everywhere they go. So if the OpenSignal coverage maps suck, the question simply becomes where can we get good trustworthy coverage data for any particular USA area? > But the issue is not in urban and suburban areas, it's outside of those > areas. Vast areas of California with no T-Mobile coverage at all, and a > lot of those places are places that we like to go. This may or may not be true. My experience is with Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile, but while I have had all three (and while I find them about the same in coverage where I live), I had them sequentially, so the only real comparison was the last day with the prior carrier and the first day with the next (which isn't all that scientific). What we really need is a *reliable* trustworthy coverage map. Does that exist? Where can we find it? |
| "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@invalid.es>: Feb 18 03:23AM +0100 On 2017-02-18 02:37, Lewis wrote: >> There is no way the phone can determine the location of the tower from >> the signal, > Sure they can. The signal include Latitude and Longitude for the tower. That's not the signal. That's decoding the data on it, and reading it. Then finding via GPS the exact location of the terminal, then calculating the direction of the tower. -- Cheers, Carlos E.R. |
| nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>: Feb 17 09:36PM -0500 In article <o88ahl$99g$2@gioia.aioe.org>, Stijn De Jong > Over the years, it's been getting better and better on all the carriers, > but sometimes Verizon is the lousy one, sometimes AT&T, and sometimes > T-Mobile. you left out sprint. > location. > However, the only true test would be to have all three similar phones in > your hands at the same time for the tests, which nobody is gonna do. some do. > So everyone is just guessing with bad data (sort of like how climate change > debates go). mostly. |
| Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Feb 17 06:43PM -0800 On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 01:37:03 -0000 (UTC), Lewis >> There is no way the phone can determine the location of the tower from >> the signal, >Sure they can. The signal include Latitude and Longitude for the tower. My GSM phones show a valid lat-long. My CDMA phones show no data. This is with multiple phones on AT&T (GSM), T-Mobile (GSM), Verizon (CDMA) and Sprint (CDMA) in the Monterey Bay area of California. Your experience may be different in other parts of the country or with other system operators. Finding CDMA towers has been somewhat of a challenge. I tried to map local sites in the late 1990's and gave up in about 2003 (for medical reasons): <http://802.11junk.com/cellular/> Yeah, I know it's old, awful, ugly, incomplete, and inaccurate, but it was acceptable for something built 15 years ago using just a text editor. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
| nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>: Feb 17 09:58PM -0500 In article <tjcfacpudfdh1vf3slsh84c254ghif55mb@4ax.com>, Jeff > (CDMA) and Sprint (CDMA) in the Monterey Bay area of California. Your > experience may be different in other parts of the country or with > other system operators. sprint towers include lat/long everywhere i've tried. not all phones will show it, however. |
| tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>: Feb 17 11:36PM -0500 On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 00:58:44 +0000 (UTC), Stijn De Jong wrote: > I don't know if a phone can connect to two towers at once > though. > Can it? A dual SIM phone, with both SIMs active, and using different carriers, not only *can*, it *must* :-) . 'Zat help? Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP. |
| Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>: Feb 17 08:36PM -0800 > I recall driving to Yosemite in the winter one year. It was snowing. We > arrived at the place we were staying and they hadn't left the key out > for us. I called the caretaker who brought over the key. Was this at Fish Camp, and I guess at some place other than Tenaya Lodge or the Narrow Gauge Inn? No big deal. But in this area there is only Verizon coverage (native Sprint customers can roam though). There is no AT&T coverage and no T-Mobile coverage. A pay phone was probably a 30 minute drive away. This was not out in the middle of nowhere, it was in a residential development just off one of the main park roads. Usually if I take the Southern route (41) to Yosemite I will spend one night at either Tenaya Lodge or the Narrow Gauge Inn, both technically in Fish Camp on hwy 41. I get good Verizon coverage there and both have free in-house WiFi. In Yosemite, depending on my actual plan and time of the year I spend one or two nights at the Yosemite Valley Lodge, which also has free in-house WiFi and Verizon coverage. -- Regards, Savageduck |
| Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>: Feb 17 09:05PM -0800 > "preview" was better at X than Paint.NET and then we find out that all > those people who said that had NEVER even used Paint.NET once in their > entire lives). Boy! You misrepresent the content of a thread and what folks actually wrote too much. Did you actually think that I wouldn't challenge what you wrote above? As I said in rec.photo.digital, I never used the words "better" or "best" with regard to Preview. I did say that it met my needs for simple annotation work, including what you claimed was tough to achieve, "curved arrows". I even provided examples. I didn't say that I had never used Paint.Net, but since I don't use a Windows machine I guess you could imply that. Other than that implication the paragraph above is a twisted rendition of the truth. Perhaps, a part of your alternate reality. -- Regards, Savageduck |
| nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>: Feb 18 07:59AM -0500 In article <ejhv69c7avlw$.1rhuccx6q8qpi.dlg@40tude.net>, tlvp > > Can it? > A dual SIM phone, with both SIMs active, and using different carriers, not > only *can*, it *must* :-) . 'Zat help? Cheers, -- tlvp this isn't about dual sim phones. |
| Mikko OH2HVJ <mikko.syrjalahti@nospam.fi>: Feb 18 04:08PM +0200 > FDM, full duplex vs half duplex, odd splits. Then, there are > sub-bands for each vendor. Notice the number of question marks in > above tables. You could use GPS coordinates or just scan all the frequencies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTE_frequency_bands LTE is a pain, we're just moving from a global 3G/UMTS product to LTE. This means a different antenna design, LTE module version and whatever for each region and even operator specific ones :-( -- mikko |
| Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>: Feb 18 02:20PM > say LTE. > Here is a photo of one type in my house, called "CellSpot" and "LTE": > http://i.cubeupload.com/uNXXgZ.jpg that's the only LTE CellSpot I've seen. It has blinkenlights. > Here is a photo of another type alongside it, also called "CellSpot" and > "LTE": > https://u.cubeupload.com/WoN2gQ.jpg Those are 4G LTE signal boosters which I've never seen before. They were not on offer from T-Mobile when I asked about a CellSpot for my home. >> go into the garage it's about -60dB-65dB, IIRC. > That's absolutely astoundingly high cellular signal strength (RSSI). > All the articles put the range at -50 to -110 or -120dBm. -50 is the maximum possible, and below -120 there is no signal. > Are you getting that from your T-Mobile micro tower? > How do you know? (Because that's the entire reason for this thread.) my iPhone displays the dB in the upper left corner. I's at -78 again. -- I mistook thee for thy better Hamlet Act III scene 4 |
| Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>: Feb 18 02:22PM > That's not the signal. > That's decoding the data on it, and reading it. Then finding via GPS the > exact location of the terminal, then calculating the direction of the tower. No no, orange juice isn't from oranges! First you have to peel the orange, and then you have to squeeze it. It's not part of the orange! Whatever. -- I'll have what the gentleman on the floor is having. |
| oldschool@tubes.com: Feb 18 05:43AM -0600 I have been looking at the caps in my Eico 320 signal generator. I know I need to recap it, but the thought of removing all these old paper/wax caps that say "Made in the USA" and tossing them in the trash is going to be very painful. Especially when I know all the new ones will be made in China, coated with some lifeless plastic, totally lacking any charm. And they are all brand name Aerovox, except one called Tiger, (Those are rare). And the electrolytic is a Cornell Dubilier. Great American names from the good old days, and I hate tossing history in the trash.... (not to mention that the wax ones are clean and still look brand new). But I know that once I put the case back on the chassis, I wont see the ugly words "made in China" on them..... Ah Hell, I'll replace them, but I know they wont go in the trash. Maybe there is some form of art that can be made from them.... |
| Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com>: Feb 18 04:06AM -0800 > I need to recap it, but the thought of removing all these old paper/wax > caps that say "Made in the USA" and tossing them in the trash is going > to be very painful. ** It ought to be a joy, as the piles of crap are totally fucked. > Especially when I know all the new ones will be made > in China, coated with some lifeless plastic, totally lacking > any charm. ** ROTFL - is this pathetic old fool for real ? > rare). And the electrolytic is a Cornell Dubilier. Great American names > from the good old days, and I hate tossing history in the trash.... (not > to mention that the wax ones are clean and still look brand new). ** Hey why not stick them on Ebay - and have some ever dumber fool than you by them. > But I know that once I put the case back on the chassis, I wont see the > ugly words "made in China" on them..... ** FFS, you boring, pain in the arse old fart - caps never have those words printed on them. > Ah Hell, I'll replace them, but I know they wont go in the trash. Maybe > there is some form of art that can be made from them.... ** You ought to cremate them - and offer the smoke up to the gods. FFS: what a fucking idiot. .... Phil |
| oldschool@tubes.com: Feb 17 08:37PM -0600 I picked up an old tube type Eico 320 Signal Generator. I'm tracing it and checking stuff. There was a disconnected paper (.5mf 450V) capacitor. The tube filaments and pilot light work. There is B+ voltage, The voltage from the 6X5 tube at the filter cap, is around 140VDC. (That seems low). The AC volts on the transformer secondary is about 450V (or 225V each side of the center tap). There is a 2watt 5000 ohm resistor which comes from the power supply, which feels warm, so apparently there is a voltage draw. Anyhow, I have found three schematics in PDF format, an one as a .GIF. They are probably all from the same source, and are very hard to read. The parts symbols are ok, but where it says the cap and resistor numbers (such as is that C8, C6 or C3), I can not make out the numbers. They are blurry. I've tried several pairs of reading glasses, enlarge and shrunk the diagrams on my screen, and they are just plain poorly scanned. Does anyone have a decent schematic? And one that shows the voltages at the tube contacts would greatly help too. I intend to recap this thing, but first I need a useable schematic. Thanks |
| Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com>: Feb 17 07:24PM -0800 > Does anyone have a decent schematic? And one that shows the voltages at > the tube contacts would greatly help too. > I intend to recap this thing, but first I need a useable schematic. ** This is probably the same one: https://elektrotanya.com/PREVIEWS/38933510/23432455/eico/eico_320_150k-34mhz_am_signalgenerator_1956_sch.pdf_1.png The filter electro is 16uF. R8 connects to the 6X5 cathode. 140V on the first electros is about right, due to the large value feed resistor. Lines that cross with no loop ARE connected. .... Phil |
| Tom Biasi <tombiasi@optonline.net>: Feb 17 10:48PM -0500 > the tube contacts would greatly help too. > I intend to recap this thing, but first I need a useable schematic. > Thanks BAMA has it in djvu format. |
| oldschool@tubes.com: Feb 17 11:23PM -0600 On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 22:48:58 -0500, Tom Biasi <tombiasi@optonline.net> wrote: >> I intend to recap this thing, but first I need a useable schematic. >> Thanks >BAMA has it in djvu format. Thanks, but I dont have any software that will read that format. |
| "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net>: Feb 18 05:12AM -0500 > Does anyone have a decent schematic? And one that shows the voltages at > the tube contacts would greatly help too. > I intend to recap this thing, but first I need a useable schematic. Are you looking at it in your browser, or a PDF reader? A lot of PDF files look like crap in a browser, but they are fine in a real PDF program. -- Never piss off an Engineer! They don't get mad. They don't get even. They go for over unity! ;-) |
| "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net>: Feb 18 05:14AM -0500 >>> Thanks >> BAMA has it in djvu format. > Thanks, but I dont have any software that will read that format. http://djvu.org/ -- Never piss off an Engineer! They don't get mad. They don't get even. They go for over unity! ;-) |
| Foxs Mercantile <jdangus@att.net>: Feb 18 04:17AM -0600 > Anyhow, I have found three schematics in PDF format, an one > as a .GIF. They are probably all from the same source, and > are very hard to read. This is the internet where "information yearns to be free." This means one person will publish something, and everyone else will copy it and claim it as their own. This _may_ be a clean scanned copy. Or it may just be the same copy of a copy of a copy. <http://www.ebay.com/itm/191566666220> -- Jeff-1.0 wa6fwi http://www.foxsmercantile.com |
| oldschool@tubes.com: Feb 18 05:03AM -0600 On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 05:12:23 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell" >> I intend to recap this thing, but first I need a useable schematic. > Are you looking at it in your browser, or a PDF reader? A lot of PDF >files look like crap in a browser, but they are fine in a real PDF program. PDF - XChange Viewer. Version 2.5. Works in Windows 98se, which is the OS I use. I have other schematics, even some for other Eico stuff. Those are in PDF and can be read. This one for the 320, was written to small to start with and the scan is lousy too. I downloaded a few more PDF versions sonce my post. They are all identical, just have different file names. The GIF version is also lousy and looks the same as the PDF. By the way, I downloaded that DJVU reader. I wont install in Win98se. Considering the file size, I'd think the DJVU files are worse quality anyhow. There has to be a lot of loss of detail to compress a file that small. Using Paint Shop Pro, I tried some filters and made size changes to the GIF version. I saved it as a high quality BMP, but with no luck. I guess a person cant fix what was lousy quality to begin with. At this point, all I can do is spend hours trying to determine which parts are which, and modifying the schematic in my paint software with BIGGER numbers. That still wont tell me the correct voltages though. I was evn willing to pay for a Sams Photofact, but it looks like they dont have this one. |
| oldschool@tubes.com: Feb 18 05:16AM -0600 On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 04:17:12 -0600, Foxs Mercantile <jdangus@att.net> wrote: >This _may_ be a clean scanned copy. Or it may just be the >same copy of a copy of a copy. ><http://www.ebay.com/itm/191566666220> This URL looks promising.... |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No Response to "Digest for sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 3 topics"
Post a Comment