| Author |
SONY XPERIA Rumors 2014 |
ascariss
Joined: Apr 06, 2013
Posts: > 500
PM, WWW
|
On 2014-01-17 19:41:57, Wintermute wrote:
On 2014-01-17 18:58:55, ascariss wrote:
Please no carbon fibre, it screws with wireless signals, especially wifi, just ask any vaio pro13 owner, it does not bode well for reception. I'd also prefer a metal and not glass since glass can pick up too many fingerprints and can break where as a nice mat metal is stronger and leaves less fingerprints.
No, no, no! That's backwards. Carbon fiber is (mostly) an electrical insulator. It DOES NOT conduct electricity, but metal does. It is metal that interferes with cell signals. The carbon fiber phone will have much better signal, all else being equal.
I really hope Sony does not downgrade to aluminum or any metal. Poorer reception, doesn't look as good IMO, kills the ultra-premium vibe of the phones. Also, aluminum scratches much easier than the glass Sony uses.
Sorry I don't believe this, I own a vaio pro 13 and the wifi reception is piss poor on it, apart from a shitty wlan card, the antennas in the screen are covered by the carbon fibre, as is the rest of it in the body. I lose wifi signal really fast with my pro 13, whereas my galaxy S2 which is now I think 3 years old? has much better reception than my vaio.
CF seems to absorb the signal and not block it, so this is why the reception is altered.
[ This Message was edited by: ascariss on 2014-01-17 19:16 ] | |
|
Wintermute
Joined: Jan 11, 2014
Posts: 86
PM |
On 2014-01-17 20:06:53, ascariss wrote:Sorry I call BS on this, I own a vaio pro 13 and the wifi reception is piss poor on it, apart from a shitty wlan card, the antennas in the screen are covered by the carbon fibre, as is the rest of it in the body. I lose wifi signal really fast with my pro 13, whereas my galaxy S2 which is now I think 3 years old? has much better reception than my vaio.
CF seems to absorb the signal and not block it, so this is why the reception is altered.
[ This Message was edited by: ascariss on 2014-01-17 19:07 ]
Honey, you can "call BS" on it all you want. You're arguing against physics, and OLD physics at that. I'm sorry, I'm telling you, as a guy with an engineering physics BS, you're just wrong. Carbon fiber, depending on its exact configuration, either doesn't conduct electricity, or only conducts it along tangential directions. Metal, on the other hand, is a conductor by definition.
I don't want to get into the philosophical reasons why inductive reasoning like you're doing is generally invalid, but suffice it to say you can't take one product and then draw conclusions about different classes of materials. There are many things that could be responsible for your Vaio's poor reception, and you can't just arbitrarily pick one thing and blame it all on that.
Look up "Faraday cage" on Wikipedia if you still don't believe me.
[ This Message was edited by: Wintermute on 2014-01-17 19:22 ] |
sami92a
Joined: Dec 11, 2012
Posts: 423
From: Sweden
PM |
it looks like some kind of metal too me! |
itsjustJOH
Joined: Jul 23, 2012
Posts: > 500
PM |
On 2014-01-17 20:06:53, ascariss wrote:
CF seems to absorb the signal and not block it, so this is why the reception is altered.
Carbon would absorb only a very, very small amount of the RF signal's power or probably not at all, so very little attenuation there. Metal, like aluminum, would also absorb very little (probably a bit more than carbon) of the signal BUT it is highly reflective since it is a very good conductor and that would heavily attenuate the signal.
[ This Message was edited by: itsjustJOH on 2014-01-17 19:33 ] |
ascariss
Joined: Apr 06, 2013
Posts: > 500
PM, WWW
|
Removing the Wifi antenna from pro 13 and exposing it drastically improves the wifi reception on the device, so there's that.
|
Wintermute
Joined: Jan 11, 2014
Posts: 86
PM |
By the way, look what just came in the mail!
 |
itsjustJOH
Joined: Jul 23, 2012
Posts: > 500
PM |
On 2014-01-17 20:35:37, ascariss wrote:
Removing the Wifi antenna from pro 13 and exposing it drastically improves the wifi reception on the device, so there's that.
Of course it would, then there's probably something blocking (reflecting, actually) the signal from the inside.
|
Wintermute
Joined: Jan 11, 2014
Posts: 86
PM |
On 2014-01-17 20:32:13, itsjustJOH wrote:
On 2014-01-17 20:06:53, ascariss wrote:
CF seems to absorb the signal and not block it, so this is why the reception is altered.
Carbon would absorb only a very, very small amount of the RF signal's power or probably not at all, so very little attenuation there. Metal, like aluminum, would also absorb very little (probably a bit more than carbon) of the signal BUT it is highly reflective since it is a very good conductor and that would heavily attenuate the signal.
[ This Message was edited by: itsjustJOH on 2014-01-17 19:33 ]
Not to get all pedantic, but conductors don't "reflect" electromagnetic waves. The electrons, which by definition are free to move in a conductor, are moved by the EM wave into a configuration that cancels out the EM wave. This is why conductors shield EM against EM radiation. |
MNX1024
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
Posts: 413
PM |
@Wintermute
You'll love your MDR-1R. By far one of my favorite headphones out there! |
itsjustJOH
Joined: Jul 23, 2012
Posts: > 500
PM |
On 2014-01-17 20:41:53, Wintermute wrote:
Not to get all pedantic, but conductors don't "reflect" electromagnetic waves. The electrons, which by definition are free to move in a conductor, are moved by the EM wave into a configuration that cancels out the EM wave. This is why conductors shield EM against EM radiation.
Err, my physics knowledge is not that deep, so at my level (probably way too shallow than yours) I think of it as being "reflected". 
|
Ricky D
Joined: Feb 05, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: UK (living in Beijing)
PM, WWW
|
Having a glass front doesn't make having an metal back a 'minor' interference issue. Asus changed the design of their early transformer tablets extremely quickly when they realised that the all alu back killed reception. It's also the reason that iPads (and other tabs and phones) have a plastic strip area on their backs.
Having a metal back to your phone makes the signals unidirectional instead of omnidirectional, meaning you have to face the right way so your phone can 'see' the closest signal tower. Certainly not 'minor'. Unless one also counts iPhone 4's grip of death minor.
I have a dig bick
You read that wrong |
Wintermute
Joined: Jan 11, 2014
Posts: 86
PM |
On 2014-01-17 20:45:51, MNX1024 wrote:
@Wintermute
You'll love your MDR-1R. By far one of my favorite headphones out there!
This will be my last post about them, so as not to get off-topic, but after listening to them for about an hour, I can say OH MY GOD. This is my first proper pair of over-the-head headphones, so I don't have a baseline (I have extensively used some XBA-BT75 'buds, though, which I think sound fantastic), but I am extremely impressed with these. I expected them to sound good, but didn't really think it was possible for them to sound this much better than what I'm used to with the same source material. The most surprising aspect to me is how insanely detailed the low-end is. Previously, I thought the XBA-BT75s sounded good (and they do), but now it's like everything else sounds compressed and muddy at the bottom. Incredible low-end clarity, and a good flat response everywhere else. I don't want to take these off. |
Ricky D
Joined: Feb 05, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: UK (living in Beijing)
PM, WWW
|
re: carbon fibre: shield or not
This study suggests carbon fibre is a great shield of electromagnetic waves. With effectiveness well over 60% (comparable to aluminium) depending the frequency of the given wave. It also contains all the base theory and formulae for predicting shielding effectiveness in this scenario.
Interesting read.
I have a dig bick
You read that wrong |
Wintermute
Joined: Jan 11, 2014
Posts: 86
PM |
On 2014-01-17 21:16:42, Ricky D wrote:
Having a glass front doesn't make having an metal back a 'minor' interference issue. Asus changed the design of their early transformer tablets extremely quickly when they realised that the all alu back killed reception. It's also the reason that iPads (and other tabs and phones) have a plastic strip area on their backs.
Having a metal back to your phone makes the signals unidirectional instead of omnidirectional, meaning you have to face the right way so your phone can 'see' the closest signal tower. Certainly not 'minor'. Unless one also counts iPhone 4's grip of death minor.
That's what I meant when I said that I'm sure designers have "tricks" they can use (like the aforementioned glass panels on the iPhone 5S or the strips on the HTC One, iPad, etc. that you mentioned) to improve the signal. It's possible to make an aluminum device with good reception, but why bother when the reception will never be as good as a glass/plastic phone and there are (IMO) no other benefits. I don't see aluminum as a premium material. I personally send about 5 cans' worth of aluminum to the landfill every single day. How premium could it be? |
amirprog
Joined: Aug 22, 2013
Posts: > 500
From: Israel
PM |
@all
reading all the metal reception thing, suddenly a glass back seem very attractive aside of its looks! i guess sapphire is the next big step in smartphone materiel. too bad it's still too expensive to cover a whole phone.
[ This Message was edited by: amirprog on 2014-01-17 20:34 ] | |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2014-01-17 20:06
