🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 05:18:14 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 13/07/10 10:54 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 16:17:34 -0700, SMS<scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The real workaround in this case is to use a case to insulate the
>>> antenna from the skin. Apple would gain immense good publicity if they
>>> acknowledged the problem and simply gave a case away free with each
>>> iPhone4. Then they can take their time to come up with a permanent fix
>>> on future production or future models. If they don't do anything it'll
>>> be _really_ interesting to see the iPhone 5 and if they continue with
>>> exposed metal antenna band or not.
>>
>> Yep.  Just one catch.  Any changes that affect the iPhone 4 RF
>> characteristics or antenna configuration will require FCC
>> re-certification.  That's not quick, easy, or cheap.
>
>Good point. Part 15 too. But I think they could do the re-testing very 
>quickly using their contract labs, and then the only hold-up is getting 
>the FCC to sign off on the changes.

About 3 months for minor mods seems to be my average.  However, I do
know that some such changes are done literally overnight.  High
profile issues like this will be approved much quicker.

>On Part 15, you can get away with minor changes pretty easily if you can 
>show that they will have no effect on EMI. I've taken many products 
>through part 15 certification. It's no fun, but the FCC is not 
>unreasonable, and readily accepts changes from reputable testing labs.

I think the real problem will be SAR (specific absorption rate), not
incidental radiation.  The last thing that anyone wants is an
allegedly "unsafe" cell phone.  However, there are benefits, such as:
Cell phone exposure prevents Alzheimers.
<http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-01/uosf-cpe010510.php>

>Interesting that the testing for phones does not seem to ever involve 
>the phone being held, though this is the first cell phone that ever was 
>designed with the expectation that the user would be touching the 
>antenna during use and no one at the FCC ever thought such a thing would 
>happen so they never thought to ever require that sort of test.

True.  The supply of dismembered hands and arms is rather limited for
such tests.  Volunteers for the test are also somewhat limited.  Note
that Part 15 specs are at least 10dB (10 times) more restrictive than
really necessary.  That's to accommodate the inevitable variations in
manufacturing and user modifications.

Meanwhile... perhaps Apple should supply a stick on signal booster to
fix the problem?
<http://www.andybrain.com/extras/cellphone-antenna-booster-sticker-review-and-test.htm>
Just plaster it on the back of the phone and your iphone 4 signal will
magically improve.

-- 
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