Originally Posted by tbsteph
"Wow. I'm speechless at Wu's explanation and understanding of RF engineering.
I don't dabble in nuclear engineering, so why is he dabbling in RF engineering when it is painfully obvious that he doesn't have a clue?"
And, in your expert opinion, what exactly did Shaw Woo report that is incorrect? Seems to me he was reporting what persons familiar with the situation stated. He made no claim to an expertise in RF engineering.
Analysts should stick to analyzing stock valuation, financials, and supply chain issues. Engineering should be deferred to engineering subject matter experts, who are then quoted or attributed.
Wu: "While all metals conduct electricity and radio waves to a degree, there are different grades of conductivity,"
Science: Aluminum and air have the same RF permeability, unlike steel or other ferrous materials which have a substantially higher permeability and can be used for everything from antennae to RF shielding. Wu's assessment, while philosophically accurate, is technically misleading.
Wu: "On the software side, Apple is also allegedly working on better antenna algorithms... Sources indicated to Wu that Apple is "furiously working" to improve them and account for different human body shapes and water levels. Those sources also said that the math is "complex but not insurmountable," and "may take some time to write."
Science: The math is complex but not insurmountable? RF engineering is one of the oldest and most well-established branches of electrical engineering. The math is exceptionally well understood, well documented, and is not *THAT* difficult. I studied RF engineering as an undergrad, and this is not as big a deal as Wu is insinuating.
Wu: "We don't claim to be material science or antenna engineering experts, but from our conversations with sources familiar with the situation, these fixes will make iPhone 4 less prone to interference, and hopefully put an end to the bad rap AAPL has been taking,"
Science: The solution is simple: prevent conductive materials (such as skin or conductive metals) from touching and detuning the antenna. Any time a conductive object touches the antenna, it detunes the antenna by changing the antenna's impedance and resonant frequency, resulting in the amplifier having to work harder to send, or the receiver having to overcome a higher SNR. Wonder why the bumper, scotch tape, or non-aluminized duct tape work so well?
I stand by my point. Wu should be focused on analyzing the financials and supply chain issues, and should defer technical dissertations to engineering experts for explanation.