How do Cell phones in elevators?
George R. Gonzalez
(the good pop machines are on floor 2, I work on 8).
The elevator's are 1970's Weastinghouse models, seem to be stainless steel
on all 4 sides, and I assume metal on top and bottom too.
Many many times I've sen people using cell phones while in the elevator.
They do seem to be communicating with someone.
How is this possible? I thought solid metal was a pretty good radio signal
stopper.
Have elevators been retrofitted with cell-phone antennas or repeaters?
Just curious.
Sofie
Because of the upper UHF frequency allocation of cell phones, the
comparatively loose "seams" on the elevator are not going to keep the signal
from getting out. If cell phones used a much lower frequency (like CB)
most elevators would be a better radio signal stopper.
--
Best Regards,
Daniel Sofie
Electronics Supply & Repair
-----------------------------------
"George R. Gonzalez" <gr...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:f8kHa.961791$OV.1068101@rwcrnsc54...
Jerry Greenberg
In the elevator, the signal strength is lowered considerably, but may
not be reduced enough to block the operation. With the digital PCS
phones, the phone will perform very well with only 10% of the full
signal strength. The cell phone repeaters are generally not more than a
few miles apart in most city areas. This also contributes for a much
greater performance in buildings, and in low reception type areas.
Analog signals would be unusable until they are at least to 30% of their
optimum signal strength. Analog signals are more susceptible to noise,
and interference. Therefore the digital type signals have a better
usability, until the signal goes below their threshold. Analog signals
will get very noisy while digital signals will cut out at a certain point.
The elevator may be all metal, but it is not completely sealed to the
degree that is less than the wavelength of the frequencies that the
phones are working at. I am sure an FM radio when tuned to local
stations would also probably work in most elevators, but the signal
strength will be lower.
If you want to have a complete seal against RF signals, a proper design
is required. Also the use of the proper types of metals must be
employed. In labs where they want to seal out RF radiation from the
outside, they have to go through extensive design techniques. It is not
a very simple, and low cost task.
--
Jerry Greenberg GLG Technologies GLG
==============================================
WebPage <http://www.zoom-one.com>
Electronics <http://www.zoom-one.com/electron.htm>
Instruments <http://www.zoom-one.com/glgtech.htm>
==============================================
Allodoxaphobia
Do not believe what the previous posters have told you.
As most self-important cell phone users only have imaginary
friends, *that* is who they are having discussions with on
the elevator.
You might want to take the stairs from now on...
Jonesy
--
| Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | OS/2
| Gunnison, Colorado | @ | Jonesy | linux __
| 7,703' -- 2,345m | config.com | DM68mn SK
ånønÿmøu§
wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:04:59 GMT, George R. Gonzalez hath writ:
>> Every day I spend an inordinate amount of time in our building's elevators
>> (the good pop machines are on floor 2, I work on 8).
>>
>> The elevator's are 1970's Weastinghouse models, seem to be stainless steel
>> on all 4 sides, and I assume metal on top and bottom too.
>>
>> Many many times I've sen people using cell phones while in the elevator.
>> They do seem to be communicating with someone.
>>
>> How is this possible? I thought solid metal was a pretty good radio signal
>> stopper.
>>
>> Have elevators been retrofitted with cell-phone antennas or repeaters?
>
>Do not believe what the previous posters have told you.
>As most self-important cell phone users only have imaginary
>friends, *that* is who they are having discussions with on
>the elevator.
>
>You might want to take the stairs from now on...
Just like that guy, walking all around saying: "Can you hear me now?
*Good!*
Asimov
--- on the topic of "Re: How do Cell phones in elevators?"
Speaking of imaginary friends, what about spooks? Let me clarify, a cell
phone is controlled by a microprocessor with an unknown firmware program
and it has a microphone. What's to stop any "agency" from having a
"backdoor" in the firmware to turn on the mic anytime and listen-in on
anyone whether they are calling or not? Has anyone heard of this?
Al> From: Allodoxaphobia <bit-b...@config.com>
Al> Subject: Re: How do Cell phones in elevators?
Al> Reply-To: Reply using the .sig address <NOSPAM_b...@config.com>
Al> Do not believe what the previous posters have told you.
Al> As most self-important cell phone users only have imaginary
Al> friends, *that* is who they are having discussions with on
Al> the elevator.
Al> You might want to take the stairs from now on...
Al> Jonesy
William R. Walsh
there's nobody on the other end. ;-)
Nah...just kidding...but sheesh, you see them everywhere!
I must be the only person left who hasn't got one of the things. Or at least
very close to...
William
K
<newsg...@idontwantjunqueemail.walshcomptech.com> wrote:
>I'm becoming convinced that people are always talking on cell phones even if
>there's nobody on the other end. ;-)
That's the way it must be, they blather on and on as if they can
actually communicate. When I use one, it cuts out so often that a
radio seems far more useful.
Sam Goldwasser
No, you're one of two. I'm the other. :)
--- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ Home Page: http://www.repairfaq.org/
Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/
+Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
| Mirror Site Info: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_mirror.html
Important: The email address in this message header may no longer work. To
contact me, please use the Feedback Form at repairfaq.org. Thanks.
Sam Goldwasser
Ian Buckner
"William R. Walsh"
<newsg...@idontwantjunqueemail.walshcomptech.com> wrote in message
news:2ewHa.19902$sm5....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
Yes, I'm afraid even I have one now, my wife and daughter decided they
wanted to be able to nag me *anywhere* :-(
Back when I attended some of the Standards meetings, I reckoned I was
the only one in the room without at least one cellphone. I remember
one of
the Nokia guys opened his briefcase and he had at least 6 phones in
there!
Regards
Ian
Jim Yanik
news:10558399...@cswreg.cos.agilent.com:
In some areas,finding a pay phone(land line) is near impossible.Especially
one that works.I got a nice refurbished Nokia CP from Trac-Fone for
$100US,included 180 minutes of talk time (local area,1/2 that for long
distance or out of area),and can recharge it by buying more airtime(prepaid
plan),the time lasts for a year(most prepaid plans time expires after a few
months). I decided that it would be nice to have for emergencies.
After 9 months,I've only used about 24 minutes of time.
--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
remove null to contact me
Keith R. Williams
Throw them down in the pit.
--
Keith
Keith R. Williams
s...@saul.cis.upenn.edu says...
> "William R. Walsh" <newsg...@idontwantjunqueemail.walshcomptech.com> writes:
>
> > I'm becoming convinced that people are always talking on cell phones even if
> > there's nobody on the other end. ;-)
> >
> > Nah...just kidding...but sheesh, you see them everywhere!
> >
> > I must be the only person left who hasn't got one of the things. Or at least
> > very close to...
>
> No, you're one of two. I'm the other. :)
Three, four, and five here. I hate telephones. Exactly why do I
want to be attached to one again?
--
Keith
Jim Yanik
news:MPG.19599f83e...@enews.newsguy.com:
Well,carrying a cellphone does not mean you have to have it turned on all
the time.You can only power it up when YOU want to make a call.They DO have
their uses.
Da Man
"Jim Yanik" <jya...@nullkua.net> wrote in message
news:Xns939DE114A3...@204.117.192.21...
Damn! Last month I used over 600 minutes (109 daytime) on my cell! Then
again, I'm young and single, so I tend to use the phone a lot more. I'm also
setting up an opening of a business, so I do a lot of talking to my business
partner.
Spehro Pefhany
<levy...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Damn! Last month I used over 600 minutes (109 daytime) on my cell! Then
>again, I'm young and single, so I tend to use the phone a lot more. I'm also
>setting up an opening of a business, so I do a lot of talking to my business
>partner.
What's the business?
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Jim Yanik
news:8J2Ia.11$ps6...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca:
Well,those who choose a pre-paid plan generally use the cellphone only for
special circumstances.
Keith R. Williams
jya...@nullkua.net says...
Having a phone at home doesn't mean I have to answer it either
(and I don't). Now, why would I want to carry a cell-phone I'm
not going to answer?
--
Keith
Spehro Pefhany
Because it could be important (and from the caller ID you may be able
to tell). Because you might run out of gas and want to call for a
ride. Because you might want to use your driving time efficiently at
times by making non-critical calls on your to-do list. Because it can
save a lot of time if you're lost finding a place you've never been
before. Because it frees you from waiting around in some cases. And
the quality is pretty good, on my little multiband digital GSM
flip-phone anyway. C. has an analog-capable phone because of the
better coverage in small Northern mill towns and inbetween, and the
quality varies a lot more. Why *not* be able to reach into your pocket
and talk to a relative, friend or business associate when you get an
idea in Rome, Paris, Los Angeles or Taipei? Or just biking down to the
local coffee shop?
OTOH, they work all too well at times. C. insisted on calling me when
I was in Southwest China last time (the damn phone worked just about
everywhere in the boondocks (near Tibet and Burma) and cities) and I
ended up with hundreds of dollars on the phone bill. 8-( The rates
were at least 10 times higher than going the other way, and the caller
ID didn't make it across the networks.
Jim Yanik
> In article <Xns939E5DFDB50...@204.117.192.21>,
> jya...@nullkua.net says...
>> Well,carrying a cellphone does not mean you have to have it turned on
>> all the time.You can only power it up when YOU want to make a
>> call.They DO have their uses.
>
> Having a phone at home doesn't mean I have to answer it either
> (and I don't). Now, why would I want to carry a cell-phone I'm
> not going to answer?
>
Perhaps if you wanted to MAKE a call,and there was no pay phone around,or
it was inoperative.Emergency use.
Chris1
>Having a phone at home doesn't mean I have to answer it either
>(and I don't). Now, why would I want to carry a cell-phone I'm
>not going to answer?
The only person who has my cell number is my wife. It's basically an
extension so she can nag me any time or place. :) It is useful during my
one hour commute. I never answer the home phone anymore. It's all
telescammers these days.
Chris
William R. Walsh
> Because it could be important (and from the caller ID you may be able
> to tell).
Don't have this and never will. I think it is assinine to put it kindly when
people simply decide who they don't want to talk to by the number that comes
up on the screen.
> Because you might run out of gas and want to call for a
> ride.
People wonder why Americans are becoming so morbidly obese? It's gotta be
the cell phones. I'm as a thin as a really thick rail, but it did more good
than harm when I had to push my loaded truck home from three blocks away in
100 degree F heat. (You wouldn't have convinced me of that then though...)
> Because you might want to use your driving time efficiently at
> times by making non-critical calls on your to-do list.
Hmmm, I think driving time is better spent driving. Not clipping your
toenails, reading the latest book, learning to juggle, repairing TV sets,
doing jigsaw puzzles, instant messaging or talking on the phone.
Seriously, drive now and talk later. I've seen how even non-critical calls
can take the drivers attention off the road for a while and even one second
can be enough for a big problem. I've had people come a little too close my
vehicle because they were talking on the phone.
> Because it can
> save a lot of time if you're lost finding a place you've never been
> before.
Turn the radio on and enjoy life while just driving around lost. Or stop,
get out, and talk to a person you meet for directions.
> Because it frees you from waiting around in some cases.
I say hurry up and wait.
> And
> the quality is pretty good, on my little multiband digital GSM
> flip-phone anyway.
Personally, I didn't mind when people with analog cellphones called me.
There was static, but it sounded pretty well like any other phone call. The
so-called digital ones are ridiculous, especially when the signal is so bad
that the transmission breaks off. I don't know what makes a digital phone
any better because analog devices can degrade much more gracefully.
My hearing is way too good, but I don't think it takes any special ears to
hear the codec on those digital phones at work. Makes all background noises
sound like burbling in water. It's too distracting and I have to ask those
people to call back from another phone.
> Why *not* be able to reach into your pocket
> and talk to a relative, friend or business associate when you get an
> idea in Rome, Paris, Los Angeles or Taipei? Or just biking down to the
> local coffee shop?
Please tell me why you cannot make a note of your idea and mention it
later--in the peace and quiet wherever you end up staying and where you
don't have to notify all of the general public in about a 1 mile radius of
your great idea.
> OTOH, they work all too well at times.
Yes, in that they work at all. ;-)
> C. insisted on calling me when
> I was in Southwest China last time (the damn phone worked just about
> everywhere in the boondocks (near Tibet and Burma) and cities) and I
> ended up with hundreds of dollars on the phone bill. 8-( The rates
> were at least 10 times higher than going the other way, and the caller
> ID didn't make it across the networks.
So why not turn the "damn phone" off?!
William
Da Man
"Spehro Pefhany" <sp...@interlog.com> wrote in message
news:pte1fvkvlroo8ible...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 19:04:36 GMT, the renowned "Da Man"
> <levy...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Damn! Last month I used over 600 minutes (109 daytime) on my cell! Then
> >again, I'm young and single, so I tend to use the phone a lot more. I'm
also
> >setting up an opening of a business, so I do a lot of talking to my
business
> >partner.
>
> What's the business?
It's planned to open in January 2004. There will be manufacturing, design,
etc. We are currently working on business plans, designs, prototypes,
gathering equipment, goverment loans and other goverment stuff. etc. It will
be solely owned by me and my business partner, both close to graduating
engineers with BSC's
I'll annouce it (and more info about it) close to the opening date.
jakdedert
"ånønÿmøu§" <res...@in.conference.com> wrote in message
news:r0ksev862tt2gk3km...@4ax.com...
<snip>
> Just like that guy, walking all around saying: "Can you hear me now?
> *Good!*
Except it's often more like: 'Can you hear me now...how about now...waitta
minit...how's this...hang on...hello...?"
"SH*T!"
jak
Spehro Pefhany
<levy...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>It's planned to open in January 2004. There will be manufacturing, design,
>etc. We are currently working on business plans, designs, prototypes,
>gathering equipment, goverment loans and other goverment stuff. etc. It will
>be solely owned by me and my business partner, both close to graduating
>engineers with BSC's
>
>I'll annouce it (and more info about it) close to the opening date.
Best of luck, look forward to updates.
Jim Yanik
wrote in news:HJpIa.35734$vq.6488@sccrnsc04:
> Hi!
>
>> Because it could be important (and from the caller ID you may be able
>> to tell).
>
> Don't have this and never will. I think it is assinine to put it
> kindly when people simply decide who they don't want to talk to by the
> number that comes up on the screen.
No different than screening email.Do you look at every email that gets sent
to you?
William R. Walsh
corrupted reply-to), and even when I do they're usually good for a laugh or
three.
To be more honest, I have yet to "plonk" anyone in my newsreader. It's only
Usenet...who cares what the trolls say?
Surprised ya, huh? :-)
William
Keith R. Williams
jya...@nullkua.net says...
Perhaps, though I only *make* a phone call once a week, if that.
I can wait until I get to a phone. The only reason I'd consider
a cell phone is that they can be cheaper than a land-line (land-
lines here are expensive). I may get a cell-phone for this
reason only.
--
Keith
Keith R. Williams
@hotmail.com says...
> In article <MPG.195ae70a1...@enews.newsguy.com>, Keith R. Williams <k...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >Having a phone at home doesn't mean I have to answer it either
> >(and I don't). Now, why would I want to carry a cell-phone I'm
> >not going to answer?
>
> The only person who has my cell number is my wife. It's basically an
> extension so she can nag me any time or place. :)
That's a good reason to have one! ;-)
> It is useful during my one hour commute.
The government will take that away from you soon.
> I never answer the home phone anymore. It's all
> telescammers these days.
Yep. The telephone has become a useless appliance/utility. I
don't see why I should carry something so useless.
--
Keith
William R. Walsh
> > times by making non-critical calls on your to-do list.
> Seriously, drive now and talk later. I've seen how even non-critical calls
> can take the drivers attention off the road for a while and even one
second
> can be enough for a big problem. I've had people come a little too close
my
> vehicle because they were talking on the phone.
My dad has a Nokia cellular phone and while he was looking for something
today, I took a look at the manual. On the very page it had a list of things
to do and not to do. First on the list was talking while driving.
William
t.hoehler
don't). Now, why would I want to carry a cell-phone I'm not going to
answer?
> > telescammers these days.
>
> Yep. The telephone has become a useless appliance/utility. I
> don't see why I should carry something so useless.
Get your state legislators to get off their collective fat a**es and enact a
telespammer stopper bill. We did this in Kentucky and, swear to heaven, they
STOPPED! No more aluminum siding sales calls at supper time, no more goofy
window salesmen yakking at you at all hours of the day. It really worked. It
flat out amazed me, because nearly all of the "useful" government stuff is
just that- stuff! But they hit this nail right on the head.
Regards,
Tom
R. Steve Walz
Law always works. People are stupid for not using it LOTS more.
Law: People who stop their cars in intersections against cross-street
right-of-way will be killed and their cars destroyed, presto, no more
idiots blocking intersections, they don't even TRY to!
Law: People who SPAM, send unwanted commercial ANYTHING, will be
killed. It would stop INSTANTLY!
Law: People who keep making packages or cans of food smaller to deceive
people
or fill them with less dry weight to cheat consumers will be tortured
to death publically! It would stop INSTANTLY!
--
-Steve Walz rst...@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
Jim Yanik
news:JDLJa.2926$Ab2.6261@sccrnsc01:
I bought one of those Tele-Zappers,and it really cut down on the number of
calls I got.I know some schmuck has a new system to defeat it,but it still
was worth it.(on sale)
I'm anxiously awaiting the Federal 'Do Not Call list'.
Jim Yanik
news:3EF798...@armory.com:
Steve,you seem pretty bloodthirsty. Time to increase the trank levels.B-)
William R. Walsh
> Law always works. People are stupid for not using it LOTS more.
Perhaps so, but getting the law in place can be a long and difficult chore.
In the worst case, someone may have to get hurt or killed before anything
happens.
> Law: People who SPAM, send unwanted commercial ANYTHING, will be
> killed. It would stop INSTANTLY!
Well, killing them is a bit extreme I think. Maybe we should all just call
these people at THEIR dinnertime and yak with them for hours while their
dinner gets cold. See how they like it.
I saw a clever stunt on a TV show once--someone was listening in on the
phone and the other party told the person they were talking to to take their
ear off of the receiver for a moment. When that happened, the person grabbed
an air horn and blew it into the phone. I gotta get one of those things!
While it is not listed, I have had telemarketers call my fax machine. They
get what they deserve when it picks up and I love listening to it.
Hello? (LOUD fax tones...) <click>
> Law: People who keep making packages or cans of food smaller to deceive
> people
> or fill them with less dry weight to cheat consumers will be tortured
> to death publically! It would stop INSTANTLY!
"There ought to be a law" about packages that require extreme measures to be
opened. Having to open a product's package by stomping on it, running over
it with your truck or blowing it up is unreasonable.
:-)
William