Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

CES 2015: Reach79's iPhone 6 Case Claims to Double Signal Strength and Improve Battery Life

Rychiar said:
military grade drop protection except for the wide open bottom!. more case makers need to start designing cases like the elago glide which has a proper old school dock size opening yet still protects the edge:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Exactly the same reason I didn't buy the Apple 6 'leather' case - no protection at the bottom.
 
flyinmac said:
So obviously placing things somewhere in proximity will help.
Click to expand...

You are observing reflections, not any kind of amplification.

VHF, UHF, and low microwave signals (which include the cell bands) have a relatively short wavelength. So, it doesn't require a large reflector to "bounce" these signals, and everyday objects can reflect them.

But, a reflector also casts a shadow. And that's why this product is dubious: even if it were to somehow boost apparent signal strength with a reflection, turning it 180 degrees would reduce the signal. Unless you know the origin of the signal, you are just as likely to be "holding it wrong".
 
Last edited:
arn said:
I've seen a couple of informal tests (no numbers) that claim it did help. I'm sure we'll get more scientific results soon.

http://blog.gsmarena.com/reach79-rugged-iphone-6-case-boosts-signal-strength/


http://heavy.com/tech/2015/01/ces-2015-top-best-new-iphone-6-cases/


You're welcome to post to this thread about the product - either positive or negative, whether you believe it or not. But if you want to talk about site policies, or unsubstantiated claims about the site being paid off, this is not the thread for it.

arn
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that signal strength on cell phones was limited to protect our fragile human bodies from cancer radiation. Sounds like this case might be a health hazard of some sort if it acts like a booster antenna.
 
Hmm, could Lightning instead include support for antenna input so we could connect our iPhones to external antennas like car antennas? I'm not very knowledgeable about EMR, but this gold rectangle on the back sounds dubious.
 
Last edited:
Brandhouse said:
Exactly the same reason I didn't buy the Apple 6 'leather' case - no protection at the bottom.
Click to expand...

I have six with a leather case, and since it wraps around the corners, it protects the phone at every angle of the drop. Probably not quite as good coverage as the top, but it is still good coverage that covers the bottom no matter the angle of fall into a flat surface. If the surfaces aren't flat, the bottom might have been much more of an issue
 
grjj said:
You can NOT increase signal strength passively. You may be able to focus signal from a larger area to a smaller area but the shapes required are not present in this product.
Click to expand...
So you're saying that you CAN increase signal strength passively, just not in this way, right? If you've got the right shape and size of antenna, you should be able to. At least I've always seen it work with my TV, radio, and wifi station.
 
This is not scientifically possible, and it is irresponsible for this site to engage in such credulous reporting about what cannot be anything but a scam, arn's friends' anecdotes notwithstanding. For shame.
 
ptb42 said:
You are observing reflections, not any kind of amplification.

VHF, UHF, and low microwave signals (which include the cell bands) have a relatively short wavelength. So, it doesn't require a large reflector to "bounce" these signals, and everyday objects can reflect them.

But, a reflector also casts a shadow. And that's why this product is dubious: even if it were to somehow boost apparent signal strength with a reflection, turning it 180 degrees would reduce the signal. Unless you know the origin of the signal, you are just as likely to be "holding it wrong".
Click to expand...

If your theory was correct, then the cell phones which only received signals after installing the stickers would have dropped their connection when I walked around.

But, after installing the stickers, my cell phones never dropped a call again. Compared to never being able to have a conversation prior to installing the stickers.

As someone who rarely sits still, especially when talking on the phone, I can assure you that changing the direction or angle of the phone had no negative effects after installing the stickers in the phone's battery compartment.

----------
ghettochris said:
I was under the impression that signal strength on cell phones was limited to protect our fragile human bodies from cancer radiation. Sounds like this case might be a health hazard of some sort if it acts like a booster antenna.
Click to expand...

Transmitter emissions are not magnified by simply providing a better antenna.

The built-in circuitry does not suddenly increase from 4 watts of power to 20 watts (example numbers only, as I am more familiar with CB radio transmitters).
 
AlecZ said:
So you're saying that you CAN increase signal strength passively, just not in this way, right? If you've got the right shape and size of antenna, you should be able to. At least I've always seen it work with my TV, radio, and wifi station.
Click to expand...

You can increase the gain based on the size and shape of the antenna for a specific wavelength. However as you increase gain you increase directivity. I've used highly directional antennas to ping the ISS. While it might be possible for this device to work as intended it would only be relative to the position and direction of the transceiver on the opposite end (cell tower). Adding some gold does not somehow magically create power but theoretically you could focus the signal in a pattern such that there appears to be more power coming from the antenna in the required direction.

The higher the gain of an antenna the smaller the effective angle of use (directivity). Without increasing the transceiver power you've got to rob peter to pay paul so to speak. I just don't see how that could work with the direction of the antenna constantly changing as would be likely with a person talking on a cell phone.

http://www.antenna-theory.com/basics/gain.php

I am a HAM (KD0ETH) and could go into more detail but I'm tired and lazy. The claims of this device are theoretically possible, but dubious. At best it would only help in a certain location and position relative to the tower which with a cell phone would be nigh impossible, and in the wrong position would net you an signal loss. I don't doubt that in non real world testing it would be relatively simple for them to test the device in the necessary position to eek out some sort of gain.
 
Last edited:
Snake oil. IMO should have waited for proper results or put it in the "more macrumors stories" sidebar.
 
This product is total hogwash. It is advertising that it violates the conservation of energy. Also, the performance gain that they are claiming is only 2.04 dB or so, not stellar by any means. Plenty of other conditions as well as variability from iPhone to iPhone are going to swamp out any performance gains claimed by this product.

And finally, how did they get a patent for this? Identify the federal patent examiner and fire him/her!
 
arn said:
I've seen a couple of informal tests (no numbers) that claim it did help. I'm sure we'll get more scientific results soon.

http://blog.gsmarena.com/reach79-rugged-iphone-6-case-boosts-signal-strength/


http://heavy.com/tech/2015/01/ces-2015-top-best-new-iphone-6-cases/


You're welcome to post to this thread about the product - either positive or negative, whether you believe it or not. But if you want to talk about site policies, or unsubstantiated claims about the site being paid off, this is not the thread for it.

arn
Click to expand...

Yeah, those little slip-in antennas posted above used to have reviews like this, too.
 
Rychiar said:
military grade drop protection except for the wide open bottom!. more case makers need to start designing cases like the elago glide which has a proper old school dock size opening yet still protects the edge:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Military grade just means lowest bidder sadly. At least in the US it does.
 
JCrz said:
They should instead advertise that it'll strengthen an iPhone 6 so it won't bend so easily. It's probably just as believable as saying it'll give better signal strength.
Click to expand...

Well it's a case, so it will achieve that, just as any case would, some more than others.
 
ghettochris said:
I have six with a leather case, and since it wraps around the corners, it protects the phone at every angle of the drop. Probably not quite as good coverage as the top, but it is still good coverage that covers the bottom no matter the angle of fall into a flat surface. If the surfaces aren't flat, the bottom might have been much more of an issue
Click to expand...

Not every surface you walk over is flat or has no objects on it, to make the case as Apple have done is a grave oversight IMHO. I was very surprised to see the case they'd developed, so I went a few shops down from the Apple store and picked up a much better case for less.
 
jw2002 said:
This product is total hogwash. It is advertising that it violates the conservation of energy.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. That you can get gain out of a passive antenna has been known for many, many decades. It violates no physical law.

See kaltsasa's posting.

I know that on-roof TV antennas are very old and 20th century, but they (and others) amplify signals coming in, and could amplify signals going out.

The question here is exactly as kaltsasa has put it: you trade gain for directionality. In some cases, that's going to work great. In others, not so much. I put a "yagi" antenna on a cellular modem, for a friend, and brought in an excellent signal in a marginal area, just by pointing it at the tower. But it was useless for anything else, because the antenna was so highly directional.

kaltsasa: ex-KH6CMN here.
 
thelatinist said:
This is not scientifically possible, and it is irresponsible for this site to engage in such credulous reporting about what cannot be anything but a scam, arn's friends' anecdotes notwithstanding. For shame.
Click to expand...

So the company which independently verified these claims knows less about what is "scientifically possible" than you?

And no, CETECOM will not jeopardize their reputation to make some money and claim that something works if it doesn't. If they did, they'd be out of business tomorrow. I've worked with CETECOM, because I work in mobile phone development (unlike all the "experts" here who claim this can't work), and CETECOM doesn't sell positive results. So if you believe that this doesn't work, your first big task is to explain how CETECOM verified these claims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back