3 ms·

In the first document you linked here's an excerpt: "Wireless carriers have taken the reduce and reuse approach a step further with the use of directional ante

In the first document you linked here's an excerpt: "Wireless carriers have taken the reduce and reuse approach a step further with the use of directional antennas, illustrated in Figure 5. Rather than using a single omni-directional antenna that covers a circular radius around a tower, carriers introduced directional antennas, to further segment cell sizes and enable the reuse of additional frequencies. For example, placing three antennas operating in separate frequencies on a tower allows sectors to be created within a cell, essentially tripling capacity per cell." And a clip from a wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_network#Directional_antennas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_network#Directional_an...): "Cell towers frequently use a directional signal to improve reception in higher traffic areas. In the United States, the FCC limits omni-directional cell tower signals to 100 watts of power. If the tower has directional antennas, the FCC allows the cell operator to broadcast up to 500 watts of effective radiated power (ERP).[7]" Furthermore here is a diagram of how this is done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CellTowersAtCorners.gif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CellTowersAtCorners.gif The picture that you linked to on the wikimedia site shows what are clearly referred to by another wikipedia page as "sector antennas". See for yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sector_antenna http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sector_antenna Here's what a single one looks like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sector_antenna2.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sector_antenna2.png And here's what many of them at the top of a tower look like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Transmitting_tower_top_us.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Transmitting_tower_top_us.... Compare those with the picture that you linked which you claim is of simple dipoles. I see very little difference between the two. Which is more likely? That they're making dipoles which just happen to look exactly like sector antennas AND that they're putting up well more than they need to (since dipoles are omni they'd only need one) or they're actually sector antennas? Finally if you're going to invoke the "I was doing this before you were born" I'm more than happy to quit now. I had this foolish idea that you (as most people on HN do) wanted to understand the world as it really is. I see now that I was mistaken, you simply want to be right. That's fine, I can't fault you for it. It's human nature. But please take that kind of corrosive attitude elsewhere. The reason this community is so great is that people here listen to data or evidence. Please don't dilute those values for the sake of "winning" a stupid internet argument.

lutusp 13y ago
> Finally if you're going to invoke the "I was doing this before you were born" I'm more than happy to quit now. I had this foolish idea that you (as most people on HN do) wanted to understand the world as it really is. I understand these issues perfectly well, and you are trolling. I proved my case, or weren't you paying attention? The conversation is about an unconventional scheme that relies on a conventional cellular system. As I said before, go argue with someone else until your earlobes dry.
- msandford 13y ago
  > 2. Cell tower antennas are simple dipoles, not directional antennas. > Cell tower antennas are vertically polarized dipoles > The fact that the vast majority of cell tower antennas are simple dipoles -- it's the basis of the system You stated three times that cell tower antennas are simple dipoles. That's the problem. They're not simple dipoles. 20 or 30 years ago they absolutely were. Then a lot of users joined the system and the carriers all rolled out directional antennas in all but the most rural of places. I'm trying to make sure that you understand that this is the point I'm arguing. I fully agree that a 1/4 wave dipole is an omni. I fully agree that pCell probably uses omnis (at least initially). I fully agree that many years ago the cellular system used omnis. Where I don't agree is the idea that the current cellular system uses omnis. By and large, anywhere suburban or urban, and even many rural base stations all use directional antennas. I've provided tons of links showing that the carriers use directional antennas to further break up the large cells that existed when they put all the towers up (and used omnis) into smaller cells today which can support more users. > I proved my case, or weren't you paying attention? Just asserting that some statement is true doesn't make it so. I've provided plenty of evidence that carriers today use multiple directional antennas to service extra customers from their existing towers. "Directional antenna" doesn't necessarily mean a 5 degree beam width, an antenna can have a 30 or 60 or 90 or 180 degree beam width and still be directional. The towers used to be in the middle of the hexagonal cells, now they're at the place where three hexagons meet. Here is a patent by Nortel for a six-sector system in 2004. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6745051.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6745051.html You'll notice the familiar triangle shape holding the antennas and that there are a total of 12 antennas. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6745051-0-large.jpg http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6745051-0-large.jpg What does that look an awful lot like? To me it looks exactly like the middle antenna array in this picture: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Cell_Phone_Tower.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Cell_Phon... I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.

lutusp 13y ago

> Finally if you're going to invoke the "I was doing this before you were born" I'm more than happy to quit now. I had this foolish idea that you (as most people on HN do) wanted to understand the world as it really is. I understand these issues perfectly well, and you are trolling. I proved my case, or weren't you paying attention? The conversation is about an unconventional scheme that relies on a conventional cellular system. As I said before, go argue with someone else until your earlobes dry.

msandford 13y ago
> 2. Cell tower antennas are simple dipoles, not directional antennas. > Cell tower antennas are vertically polarized dipoles > The fact that the vast majority of cell tower antennas are simple dipoles -- it's the basis of the system You stated three times that cell tower antennas are simple dipoles. That's the problem. They're not simple dipoles. 20 or 30 years ago they absolutely were. Then a lot of users joined the system and the carriers all rolled out directional antennas in all but the most rural of places. I'm trying to make sure that you understand that this is the point I'm arguing. I fully agree that a 1/4 wave dipole is an omni. I fully agree that pCell probably uses omnis (at least initially). I fully agree that many years ago the cellular system used omnis. Where I don't agree is the idea that the current cellular system uses omnis. By and large, anywhere suburban or urban, and even many rural base stations all use directional antennas. I've provided tons of links showing that the carriers use directional antennas to further break up the large cells that existed when they put all the towers up (and used omnis) into smaller cells today which can support more users. > I proved my case, or weren't you paying attention? Just asserting that some statement is true doesn't make it so. I've provided plenty of evidence that carriers today use multiple directional antennas to service extra customers from their existing towers. "Directional antenna" doesn't necessarily mean a 5 degree beam width, an antenna can have a 30 or 60 or 90 or 180 degree beam width and still be directional. The towers used to be in the middle of the hexagonal cells, now they're at the place where three hexagons meet. Here is a patent by Nortel for a six-sector system in 2004. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6745051.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6745051.html You'll notice the familiar triangle shape holding the antennas and that there are a total of 12 antennas. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6745051-0-large.jpg http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6745051-0-large.jpg What does that look an awful lot like? To me it looks exactly like the middle antenna array in this picture: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Cell_Phone_Tower.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Cell_Phon... I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.