Related
Sony Ericsson's Xperia Active looks like a contender to the Defy. With a wet finger tracking and a lanyard connector it does have a number of advantages. Low screen resolution of 320x480 is below par and points to a phone that goes for the traditional ruggedised market. Could not find any info on the processor or such and the sony site points to quite some bloatware
http://www.sonyericsson.com/cws/products/mobilephones/overview/xperia-active?cc=gb&lc=en
I dont believe that wet finger tracking is any better than the defys tracking until im proofed otherwise.
I think PR made that up.
There are only two advantages: Its smaller. And it has a lanyard loop.
The display is crap and te rest is the same. Oh, and its a lot thicker.
I dont think its a real competition as the display is the limit.
http://pdadb.net/index.php?m=pdacomparer&id1=2965&id2=2573
nah.. i would still go for defy...dude it is just 3 inch!! low resolution..SE r well known for their over priced fone..xperia active is damn thick also..rest all specs r almost same..
shorty66 said:
I dont believe that wet finger tracking is any better than the defys tracking until im proofed otherwise.
I think PR made that up.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Most certainly plausable.
shorty66 said:
There are only two advantages: Its smaller. And it has a lanyard loop.
The display is crap and te rest is the same. Oh, and its a lot thicker.
I dont think its a real competition as the display is the limit.
http://pdadb.net/index.php?m=pdacomparer&id1=2965&id2=2573
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup, the screen is most certainly crap. Looks like the res that belongs on a rugged phone. Somehow the companies think that bricklayers prefer low res phones. :S The battery (1200mAh) in combination with a 1GHz processor is also a joke
Gotta say, the more you read the blurb, the more you get that "my first sony" feel with this product...
Introductory:
Hello all, cell phones produce radiation just in case you did not know. These radiation levels are measured in a value called SAR(Specific Absorbtion Rate) and it literally is the measurement of just the bottom line of what the human body absorbs, rather than just the amount that it radiating(ha, get it?) around the device. Radiation is bad in the human body where it is directly related to certain issues, including directly reducing bone density in the body. I am posting this as an accurate informational thread where you can draw your own conclusions based off of facts.
SAR Levels:
SAR, which stands for Specific Absorbtion Rate, levels fluctuate depending on numerous factors, in which we must go over in order to accurately understand. The key thing to understand is that the further the device is from your body, the levels begin to diminish by the milimeter(mm).
For a phone to receive an FCC certification, the device cannot have a SAR level of more than 1.6 watts per kilogram in the US, and 2.0 in Europe.
Galaxy Note Series Tests by Samsung:
Let's take a look at the Note series in order to keep this sequential and easier to remember from a timeline fashion of perspective. The Galaxy Note 1 was released first(obviously) and is the model number SGH-I717 for reference. Taken from Samsung's website directly, here are the Note 1 results, including the way that they perform their own measurements:
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
You can see in this writing the methods that are used for testing, and that the body specific SAR tests have the device at 1.0 centimeters(CM), equivalent to 10 millimeters(mm) away. Keep this in mind and we'll touch up on this later.
And here are the Note 2 specific values:
And here are the Note 3 specific values:
So as you can see the comparisons above, the Note 3 effectively produces 153% more Head SAR than the Note 2, and 196% more Head SAR than the Note 1!
I would calculate the Body SAR differences but we have a big problem with Samsung's specific tests...they test these values with the device 1.0 CM(or 10mm) away from the body. This Body SAR calculation is useless to you if your phone presses against your body at 0 mm away!
Let's think...why would Samsung measure in this fashion at 1.0 CM away? Well the Note 3 produces 1.28 Body SAR at 1.0 cm away, so the big question is what would it produce at 0 mm away/ AKA in your pants pocket? Maybe it would exceed the FCC limitation of 1.6?
CNET Testing:
Now let's take a look at a recent test performed by CNET on 1/16/14 to see what they have found in differences in the Note series in particular:
The above is literally all of the information they posted where it is tough to tell how the test was performed and/or what body part it was performed against. By comparing the numbers, it seems as though they tested the head only since it matches the Head SAR values by Samsung.
But there is only but one main discrepency...the Note 3 reads 0.63 SAR value by Samsung, while CNET tested it at 0.9 SAR. Which one holds true?
Device Model Top Charts:
As you can see in the following results, our devices do not hold the highest SAR values compared to the worst out there *ehem* Motorola!
And here are the lowest SAR values amonst all devices. Keep in mind how the Note 2 is 4th lowest.
Theorycrafting:
I researched more into studies being performed per the distance of an object from humans and have found some interesting results.
Here is a model of the human head for reference, spefical model for SAR testing:
And here is are one test's results from testing the SAR levels after altering different distances:
This is just me tipping the iceberg to not go on and on.
Shifting gears toward current events, check out 2/14/14's event of the Army buying 7,000 Note 2's for its troops HERE
The reason why I feel that this is relevant is that they definitely would not want to have their troops being exposed to radiation levels higher than other devices. What makes more sense though is that they tested it for quite some time before it was rolled out, but who knows?
General Radiation Reduction Techniques:
-Consider a cell phone radiation reduction case, Google Pong research to get started since I'm probably not allowed to post links
-Consider buying a device with low SAR levels
-Keep the device out of your pocket or anywhere where it is directly against your skin. Even a hip holster might help keep it a few cm away, or carry it in a purse/backpack.
-Use speakerphone as often as possible to keep the device far from your head.
-Devices use the most radiation when beggining and ending calls. Pull the phone away from your head, even if just a few centimeters, when beginning and ending calls.
-Devices also use high radiation when "hunting for a signal". This occurs when your device has no signal, and needs to omit more power consistently to find one. So keep it away at these times.
-Bluetooth uses less radiation, but overall can be more damage from keeping it on your head for long periods of time. LOSE THE BLUETOOTH!
-Text instead of calling whenever it is applicable/feasible
-Don't sleep with the device near your head....think about it, 6+ hours of it so close to your head...
-Last things I wanted to mention are beefing up on certain things you eat.
a.) Eat seaweed, it's very powerful against radiation
b.) Look for natural supplements that particularly repair already damaged cells in your body from radiation. They are alpha lipoic acid and vitamins C and E...BUT ONLY IF YOU DON'T GET THESE THROUGH NATURAL DIET!
Conclusion:
Considering all of the above along with knowing that we are the guinea pigs for long term cell phone radiation, I strongly feel that it's best to consider SAR levels when purchasing a device. The SAR levels are obviously increasing with each new model being released and should be monitored closely.
It seems to show as being a factor toward brain tumors and bone density loss in only 1 of 2 legs in people(where they always kept their cell phone in the same pocket). I did not go much into detail here about these particular researches/tests, but I would recommend to now start looking into the tests performed for "decade-long cell phone radiation exposures". Imagine us after 50 years of exposure, and please feel free to comment here.
Your voice and opinions matter in this world, and you should speak up since you have a right to your own opinions, and I will respect it no matter what. While I don't really know the true effects of the radiation, my opinion is that I'm open minded so I'll keep the cell away from my body to be safe. I will post this across multiple forums that it belongs in and moderators, please let me know if I happen to post this in a forbidden section. Don't censor truth, and let the thread live.
Thank you for your time reading all of this and I hope it helps. If so, please rate the thread 5 stars and hit Thanks solely to promote the spreading of the word.
Thanks for the useful information. I've never took into consideration how much radiation phones produces and how they effect us.
Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk
Larry Page said:
Thanks for the useful information. I've never took into consideration how much radiation phones produces and how they effect us.
Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're welcome! I try to think like a skeptic at first when i trip across these types of things in life, but this subject seems to hold some water after looking into it a lot.
Have there been any studies showing anything other than anecdotal evidence that this matters? I've seen the anecdotal results before. I'm definitely not trying to blow off your post, as it is well written and provides good information about our phones.
It just doesn't strike me as being any different from the people that claim to get WiFi sickness. They ignore the fact that at any time they are bombarded with WiFi, bluetooth, and plenty of 2.4GHz radio waves, it's only when they see a router or a wifi sticker that they become ill.
Thanks for the information, either way.
While I appreciate your your inquiry into the relationship between radiation and the human body, we must bear in mind the limitations of SAR with respect to human toxicity; SAR is but one consideration among many that researchers use to evaluate the effects of "cell phone radiation."
Also, please remember that everything on Earth "emits" radiation, including us humans. (Which, of course complicates the application of the SAR model in the described context.) Furthermore, we encounter far more radiation through radon gas than we ever will with cell phones, even in the most extreme conditions.
Needless to say, this topic is complex and I'm not sure that a forum like this offers the best platform for a subject of this nature. In any case, I think you should consider qualifying your claims. Moreover, your conclusion, as I've come to understand it, is not supported by the evidence you provided. SAR is not an all-encompassing model (and it's not supposed to be) and should not be the sole consideration of relative cell phone radiation poisoning.
Sent from my SM-N900T using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
rhetorician said:
While I appreciate your your inquiry into the relationship between radiation and the human body, we must bear in mind the limitations of SAR with respect to human toxicity; SAR is but one consideration among many that researchers use to evaluate the effects of "cell phone radiation."
Also, please remember that everything on Earth "emits" radiation, including us humans. (Which, of course complicates the application of the SAR model in the described context.) Furthermore, we encounter far more radiation through radon gas than we ever will with cell phones, even in the most extreme conditions.
Needless to say, this topic is complex and I'm not sure that a forum like this offers the best platform for a subject of this nature. In any case, I think you should consider qualifying your claims. Moreover, your conclusion, as I've come to understand it, is not supported by the evidence you provided. SAR is not an all-encompassing model (and it's not supposed to be) and should not be the sole consideration of relative cell phone radiation poisoning.
Sent from my SM-N900T using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My guess is it will be more likely I suffer from someone texting or talking on their phone while driving then phone radiation, However, I'd be interested in why the FCC thinks 1.6W/Kg should not be exceeded and start the discussion from there.
Everything out there is going to kill you one way or another. I really refuse to worry much about the "small stuff" at this point in my life. I run a far greater risk on the highway, or even from the wife killing me because I spend too much time on my devices and forums..........
I'll leave my TLD badge clipped to my phone for a quarter and see if I get too much exposure. My luck, I would, and guys in white coats would come and drill into my hip for a bone sample!
scribbled with my Note 3.
I always play it safe, if on a long telephone conversation I use headphones. Been doing this for 20 years.
Limeybastard said:
I always play it safe, if on a long telephone conversation I use headphones. Been doing this for 20 years.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This, or speakerphone. I voted no because of these reasons. I hardly ever have the phone to my ear for more than 5-10 min at a time ever. I think over the last year it was against my ear about an hour total for the entire year.
my magic solution headphone with voice talk
i listen most of the time or i put my phone on speaker but most of the time i have my head phones
---------- Post added at 08:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:18 PM ----------
the thing is with these cpu radion is going to get more and more up
Interesting, I'm curious if the NFC was enabled on the note 3 during testing, and if so does that have a noticeable effect on radiation levels?
Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk
It is sad that reviewers never talk about one important thing about new devices. And this is radiation level. Galaxy Note7 has very high radiation compared to other Galaxy smartphones. It has radiation 1,28 W/kg (body) in Europe (in USA it should have even higher), which is very high compared to Galaxy S7 edge which have 0,51 W/kg (body). I think limit in Europe is 1,5 or 2,0 W/kg.
And reviewers also don't talk about one other BIG problem with Samsungs smartphones. And this is uneven color temperature on the screen. If you turn on 5 same Galaxy smartphones and put on their screens white color you will see that some of them will not have even white. Some will have in some parts of the screen white more greenish or grayish or pinkish. Specialy Galaxy S6 have this problem and S7 edge too. This definitely ruin good feeling of using smartphone. It is really weird that nobody reviewer talk about that. I don't know if Note7 still have this problem. I would be surprised if don't have it.
Thanks for the reminder. We are so addicted to our mobile devices that it's easy to forget the sad reality that our toys are killing us. The widespread addiction ensures that the powerful invisible hand continues to obstruct our vision from seeing the truth. The truth is, cell phone technology should be outlawed until we can find a way to transmit data without radiation.
It does concern me... Blackberries were always the worst.
USA Model (AT&T), other's probably the same (SM-N930T):
Head : 0.65 W/Kg
Body-worn accessory : 0.58 W/Kg
Product specific(wireless router) : 1.02 W/Kg
Simultaneous transmission : 1.59 W/Kg
International Dual SIM (SM-N930FD):
Head SAR : 0.249 W/Kg
Body SAR : 1.28 W/Kg
So could be a difference between Exynos and Snapdragon
ye that white problem is not cool... I will for sure be returning the phone if this happens to me... dunno how hard it will be to prove them that the screen is f up.
peterbu said:
It is sad that reviewers never talk about one important thing about new devices. And this is radiation level. Galaxy Note7 has very high radiation compared to other Galaxy smartphones. It has radiation 1,28 W/kg (body) in Europe (in USA it should have even higher), which is very high compared to Galaxy S7 edge which have 0,51 W/kg (body). I think limit in Europe is 1,5 or 2,0 W/kg.
And reviewers also don't talk about one other BIG problem with Samsungs smartphones. And this is uneven color temperature on the screen. If you turn on 5 same Galaxy smartphones and put on their screens white color you will see that some of them will not have even white. Some will have in some parts of the screen white more greenish or grayish or pinkish. Specialy Galaxy S6 have this problem and S7 edge too. This definitely ruin good feeling of using smartphone. It is really weird that nobody reviewer talk about that. I don't know if Note7 still have this problem. I would be surprised if don't have it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This issue with the screen started since the s2. Not only in whites but also certain shades of greys will have s reddish/yellowish tints on them.
Uh....what is w/kg ? That seems like a heat measurement. Googled it, and it is. RF doesn't harm a body outside of heating it or shocking it, and both need extreme amounts. Any other danger caused by RF, which means radio frequency by the way, are not supported by any science.
Radiation is a misleading term, and you should really educate yourself on it. There are no radioisotopes in a cell phone, so no harmful radiation. The RF limit in the US is 1.6 w and in the EU it's 2.0.
votum said:
Uh....what is w/kg ? That seems like a heat measurement. Googled it, and it is. RF doesn't harm a body outside of heating it or shocking it, and both need extreme amounts. Any other danger caused by RF, which means radio frequency by the way, are not supported by any science.
Radiation is a misleading term, and you should really educate yourself on it. There are no radioisotopes in a cell phone, so no harmful radiation. The RF limit in the US is 1.6 w and in the EU it's 2.0.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well no one talked about radioisotopes, radiation is a general term for waves of different frequency. You do go outside and the sun might shine on you, do you? UV radiation also does not bombard you with radioisotopes, however you do get confronted with them everywere but of a different source.
Extreme amounts are required to show an effect in a short time during studies. However the issue with phones is that you use them every day with little exposure. This can have a long term effect that is difficult to study and the stuff is not around long enough.
The younger generation will be exposed to those phone radiation for 60-80 years of their life, no one could do studies for that long so far...
pilzj said:
Well no one talked about radioisotopes, radiation is a general term for waves of different frequency. You do go outside and the sun might shine on you, do you? UV radiation also does not bombard you with radioisotopes, however you do get confronted with them everywere but of a different source.
Extreme amounts are required to show an effect in a short time during studies. However the issue with phones is that you use them every day with little exposure. This can have a long term effect that is difficult to study and the stuff is not around long enough.
The younger generation will be exposed to those phone radiation for 60-80 years of their life, no one could do studies for that long so far...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Kilowatts will burn you. Watts won't do anything.
As for the color temperature, reviewers test ONE phone, and it's usually one they've been given from the manufacturer. Kind of hard for them to determine that various units might differ on color temperature with a sample size of one.
Sent from my SM-N930W8 using Tapatalk
pilzj said:
Well no one talked about radioisotopes, radiation is a general term for waves of different frequency. You do go outside and the sun might shine on you, do you? UV radiation also does not bombard you with radioisotopes, however you do get confronted with them everywere but of a different source.
Extreme amounts are required to show an effect in a short time during studies. However the issue with phones is that you use them every day with little exposure. This can have a long term effect that is difficult to study and the stuff is not around long enough.
The younger generation will be exposed to those phone radiation for 60-80 years of their life, no one could do studies for that long so far...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Problem with using the term radiation in general like that is the guy is implying it is harmful radiation. Radiated heat, light, and other waves aren't going to hurt you.
votum said:
Problem with using the term radiation in general like that is the guy is implying it is harmful radiation. Radiated heat, light, and other waves aren't going to hurt you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well I'm not sure where you live, but I do have a radiator in every room at home. This one does make sure I do not freeze to death in winter. It is called radiator and there is no intention of harming me as long as I don't hit a toe against it. Maybe this is "general" for you, maybe even for your surrounding. But radiation is not a term associated with harmfulness.
But on another topic, it is probably more harmful to convince yourself that stuff is not harmful instead of being a little cautious.
pilzj said:
Well I'm not sure where you live, but I do have a radiator in every room at home. This one does make sure I do not freeze to death in winter. It is called radiator and there is no intention of harming me as long as I don't hit a toe against it. Maybe this is "general" for you, maybe even for your surrounding. But radiation is not a term associated with harmfulness.
But on another topic, it is probably more harmful to convince yourself that stuff is not harmful instead of being a little cautious.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sure. Life IS dangerous. its a question of perspective though. The sun is far more dangerous than most people realise. I would think exposure for very long term use of our mobiles may well have some health effect but so does our diet like eating eggs and bacon plus life is dangerous.
You of course realise we are exposed to RF all day ever day more or less world wide?
Ryland
Ryland Johnson said:
pilzj said:
Well I'm not sure where you live, but I do have a radiator in every room at home. This one does make sure I do not freeze to death in winter. It is called radiator and there is no intention of harming me as long as I don't hit a toe against it. Maybe this is "general" for you, maybe even for your surrounding. But radiation is not a term associated with harmfulness.
But on another topic, it is probably more harmful to convince yourself that stuff is not harmful instead of being a little cautious.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sure. Life IS dangerous. its a question of perspective though. The sun is far more dangerous than most people realise. I would think exposure for very long term use of our mobiles may well have some health effect but so does our diet like eating eggs and bacon plus life is dangerous.
You of course realise we are exposed to RF all day ever day more or less world wide?
Ryland
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't worry... we're all addicted. Admitting you have a problem is the first step.
Bruce lee roy said:
Don't worry... we're all addicted. Admitting you have a problem is the first step.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have a waiting list for my problems!
Ryland:highfive:
peterbu said:
It is sad that reviewers never talk about one important thing about new devices. And this is radiation level. Galaxy Note7 has very high radiation compared to other Galaxy smartphones. It has radiation 1,28 W/kg (body) in Europe (in USA it should have even higher), which is very high compared to Galaxy S7 edge which have 0,51 W/kg (body). I think limit in Europe is 1,5 or 2,0 W/kg.
And reviewers also don't talk about one other BIG problem with Samsungs smartphones. And this is uneven color temperature on the screen. If you turn on 5 same Galaxy smartphones and put on their screens white color you will see that some of them will not have even white. Some will have in some parts of the screen white more greenish or grayish or pinkish. Specialy Galaxy S6 have this problem and S7 edge too. This definitely ruin good feeling of using smartphone. It is really weird that nobody reviewer talk about that. I don't know if Note7 still have this problem. I would be surprised if don't have it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I thought you were talking about one problem. That's two
What votum's saying is unless something creates energy at high enough frequencys so that it can knock off electrons and create ions, it wont cause "ionizing" damage. The things that people most refer radiation with is things like uv from the sun, nuclear, x rays etc. But you can have radiation at lower frequencys that do not ionize and so cause no damage (non ionizing). Such things like microwaves (no not food ovens), radio waves, infra red, sound for god sake. Anything that is below the frequencys that cause ionization. These things do and are radiation, but radiation is not exclusive for ionizing radiation so does not mean its cancer causing voodoo.
Cell phones are non ionizing radiation, they do not emit energys high enough to cause damage. Its not possible in theory nor has it been proven.
The radation levels stated are related to whats commonly called the specific absorption rate, SAR for short. This measures energy in the form of microwaves. Microwaves are known to be able to move electrons and create heat, used as such in food ovens. So its quite logical for there to be a close eye in things that emit microwaves so that we dont accidentally hurt ourselves. Not by radiation that causes things like cancer, but less common and rare ones. But the SAR levels in phones is no way high enough to be concerned about, nor will it cause cancer.
DANOFDANGER said:
What votum's saying is unless something creates energy at high enough frequencys so that it can knock off electrons and create ions, it wont cause "ionizing" damage. The things that people most refer radiation with is things like uv from the sun, nuclear, x rays etc. But you can have radiation at lower frequencys that do not ionize and so cause no damage (non ionizing). Such things like microwaves (no not food ovens), radio waves, infra red, sound for god sake. Anything that is below the frequencys that cause ionization. These things do and are radiation, but radiation is not exclusive for ionizing radiation so does not mean its cancer causing voodoo.
Cell phones are non ionizing radiation, they do not emit energys high enough to cause damage. Its not possible in theory nor has it been proven.
The radation levels stated are related to whats commonly called the specific absorption rate, SAR for short. This measures energy in the form of microwaves. Microwaves are known to be able to move electrons and create heat, used as such in food ovens. So its quite logical for there to be a close eye in things that emit microwaves so that we dont accidentally hurt ourselves. Not by radiation that causes things like cancer, but less common and rare ones. But the SAR levels in phones is no way high enough to be concerned about, nor will it cause cancer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
According to a recent study outlined in Scientific American, the experts conclude that they disagree with everything you just said. One expert even went so far as to say "It actually has me concerned, and I am an expert."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...e-radiation-study-reignites-cancer-questions/
Well science has been built on the foundation of theorys like this, if it was wrong. We would all hear about it. As far as studys go, its not proven until its validified by more than one party. And must be repeatable, if it fails once. The whole theory collapses.
But i am not here to argue, if you want to know for sure. Just read a book on physics or science. You will just know in theory whats possible and whats not, regardless of whats thrown out there.
Peace.
Better move to Antarctica and not use electricity. You're surrounded by rf radiation from the power lines, radio AM/FM, TV signals, god knows what else. Of course, if you go there, you're going to need thermal radiation or you're going to freeze to death and/or eat lots of cold food.
As a ham radio operator, I'm exposed to significantly more RF in a day than you will get from your phone in 3 years.
And to the person who said kW will burn and not W. I will beg to prove you incorrect. I brushed against a dipole antenna while someone transmitted a continuous load 100W and have a scar to show for it.
Honestly you have far greater things to worry about during your time on this planet.
I work in the nuclear field, and in the US, we don't use radiation to describe heat or light. Radiation is a scary word and is only referred to in a general sense to ionizing radiation. Yeah, a sunburn is caused by radiation, but we don't describe it as such. If you say radiation in America people instantly think of the kind of radiation given by radioisotopes, the harmful kind...ie a, b, g. I wish that it wasn't the case, because it is misguided, but honestly the only reason a media outlet would use the term radiation is to get coverage, not because it is scientifically accurate. Most people aren't scientists, which is why I made my original statement. Saying a phone gives off radiation is a fear mongering clickbaity thing to do, because everything gives off radiation, but almost none of it is harmful.
In the US we just don't use the word radiation outside of scientific study unless you are referring to something harmful typically. No one walks around saying, "man that radiant heat feels good."
---------- Post added at 07:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:21 AM ----------
Also I want to point out that the scientists who co ducted the study can't even say for sure there is a link due to issues like male rats living longer when exposed to RF. I also want to point out another flaw, and that is 3/4 of their test groups were far above the legal limits of w/kg exposure. The study also didn't get published, which means it was flawed. The bottom line is saying cell phone radiation is harmful is crazy talk, because guess what? You are being bathed in RF all day regardless of whether you have a phone or not. Just likenon smokers in big cities have the same rate of lung cancer as heavy smokers.
Show me a study with cell radiation measured in Sieverts and I'll pay attention
I noticed this when playing certain heavily graphical games under max graphics settings. It's distractingly uncomfortable. I then ran benchmark tests. This is the hottest running phone I've ever used! Few users notice this issue cause few users use the phone for anything other than youtube, chrome, and casual games like skyforce and dead trigger.
I think I know why. The OnePlus company was very upset when people noticed their OnePlus 2 exhibited the biggest amount of thermal throttling among its peers, so with their new OnePlus 3 they simply disabled thermal throttling and let the phone sustain the same performance over time at the expense of massive heat output. The skin temperature on the metal surface of the phone, especially at the top where the chipset is located, gets just shy of 50 C which is what causes first degree burns. Sometimes it can reach that temp and surpass it.
I saw disassembly videos of this phone and there's no design and engineering thought put into thermal dissipation, they just slapped the motherboard at the top and the battery at the bottom. Contrast this with other phones like HTC where they give thermal dissipation careful consideration by putting the motherboard in the middle, then attatching a copper layer on top of it to radiate the heat outward to the edges. Even the ZTE Axon 7 has some kind of heat pipe going through it though I don't know how effective it is.
This kinda makes sense. I've been following OnePlus 3 devs on reddit and they never once gloated about their phone's sustained performance. This is because they know the only reason it didn't throttle was cause they just let it burn your hand.
I'm truly disappointed. The only phone to date that I've seen has excellent thermal dissipation and sustained performance was the HTC One M8. It was truly the best phone ever designed for gaming. Not to mention its immersive dual front facing stereo speakers. It seems we'll never have another phone like that again.
Pong Lenis said:
I noticed this when playing certain heavily graphical games under max graphics settings. It's distractingly uncomfortable. I then ran benchmark tests. This is the hottest running phone I've ever used! Few users notice this issue cause few users use the phone for anything other than youtube, chrome, and casual games like skyforce and dead trigger.
I think I know why. The OnePlus company was very upset when people noticed their OnePlus 2 exhibited the biggest amount of thermal throttling among its peers, so with their new OnePlus 3 they simply disabled thermal throttling and let the phone sustain the same performance over time at the expense of massive heat output. The skin temperature on the metal surface of the phone, especially at the top where the chipset is located, gets just shy of 50 C which is what causes first degree burns. Sometimes it can reach that temp and surpass it.
I saw disassembly videos of this phone and there's no design and engineering thought put into thermal dissipation, they just slapped the motherboard at the top and the battery at the bottom. Contrast this with other phones like HTC where they give thermal dissipation careful consideration by putting the motherboard in the middle, then attatching a copper layer on top of it to radiate the heat outward to the edges. Even the ZTE Axon 7 has some kind of heat pipe going through it though I don't know how effective it is.
This kinda makes sense. I've been following OnePlus 3 devs on reddit and they never once gloated about their phone's sustained performance. This is because they know the only reason it didn't throttle was cause they just let it burn your hand.
I'm truly disappointed. The only phone to date that I've seen has excellent thermal dissipation and sustained performance was the HTC One M8. It was truly the best phone ever designed for gaming. Not to mention its immersive dual front facing stereo speakers. It seems we'll never have another phone like that again.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
One, things depend on temperature of surrounding so if ambient temperature are low then no problems and second I know this they didn't disable thermal throttling they just raised the temperature at which it starts.
As a personal opinion my op3 never got hot(not above 40) even after extended periods of gaming (3-4 hours straight).I have other devices that can easily hit 70 but they don't fell hot due to plastic body and this phone has metal that's why it will be more hotter feeling.Have a good day or night
Sorry for my bad english
Dupleshwar said:
One, things depend on temperature of surrounding so if ambient temperature are low then no problems and second I know this they didn't disable thermal throttling they just raised the temperature at which it starts.
As a personal opinion my op3 never got hot(not above 40) even after extended periods of gaming (3-4 hours straight).I have other devices that can easily hit 70 but they don't fell hot due to plastic body and this phone has metal that's why it will be more hotter feeling.Have a good day or night
Sorry for my bad english
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's ok you're English being good
So ambient temperature here is 17 C, very cold. I also viewed youtube comparison videos from user YourTechGuide who checks the temps during benchmarks, his results were always the same: OnePlus 3 was always around 10 C degrees hotter than any phone he was comparing it with.
Also one last thing, OnePlus 3 metal surface temps is the one that reaches 50C, its internal temp (the one read by CPU-z) can surpass 70C and 80C.
@Pong Lenis
Which firmware are you currently using?
Even while charging and playing games the phone only gets slightly warm. It performs much better than any other phone I had before.
Nothing to worry about, this phone is realitive cool, keep in mind our GPU could power a Xbox 360. Expect a little heat.
Pong Lenis said:
It's ok you're English being good
So ambient temperature here is 17 C, very cold. I also viewed youtube comparison videos from user YourTechGuide who checks the temps during benchmarks, his results were always the same: OnePlus 3 was always around 10 C degrees hotter than any phone he was comparing it with.
Also one last thing, OnePlus 3 metal surface temps is the one that reaches 50C, its internal temp (the one read by CPU-z) can surpass 70C and 80C.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Strange never heating issues here but one thing who will anyone run back to back benchmarks what I am saying the test is not very realistic we don't push our devices that much for that much peroids(I also saw the video of back to back an tutu benchmarks on op3) the test is very unrealistic I think.
One more thing I could be wrong also and if someone can correct me with a reason they are welcome:laugh:
Will the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 5 look like Fold 4?
I suspect it will be full of spam to counter the crunching noise when unfolding. Otherwise, yes. :-D
I suspect it will just as reliable as all the other Folds... self cracking not self healing.
blackhawk said:
I suspect it will just as reliable as all the other Folds... self cracking not self healing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
???
Antyhaker said:
???
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That and rather than invest money into devices most their customers wanted Samsung tried to create a demand for this self destroying display technology.
Samsung has lost millions so far on their Fold folly while neglecting other flagship products. For the last 3 years Samsung has been a disappointment and continue to be one. Last phenomenal flagship they produced was the N10+. The Folds will continue to fail where they fold... just a matter of when. Samsung knows this, you should too.
That's my take. No sale Sammy.
blackhawk said:
That and rather than invest money into devices most their customers wanted Samsung tried to create a demand for this self destroying display
Samsung has lost millions so far on their Fold folly while neglecting other flagship products. For the last 3 years Samsung has been a disappointment and continue to be one. Last phenomenal flagship they produced was the N10+. The Folds will continue to fail where they fold... just a matter of when. Samsung knows this, you should too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Customers or rather you want something else? It's a big different.
Antyhaker said:
Customers or rather you want something else? It's a big different.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sales volume or lack of tell the truth.
The S22U also fail to sell as Samsung expected.
Neither flagship lines have much bang for the buck now, and no expandable storage. meh.
I also have grave doubts about the Folds durability. The outer protector is especially prone to failure especially in the cold. The bend radius is too acute for existing clear plastics, adhesives to accommodate the repeated cycles of use. I suspect display failures are also common especially as the phone ages. The "black line of death" failure mode has already observed.
This 3 yo N10+ that's heavily used has had one repair, a battery replacement. The display is still perfect and partly because it's well protected in a good case it still looks and feels like it's new. It has well over 8k hours on it. Moreover it's a 1.5tb dual drive handheld that gets over 12 hours SOT with a new battery. Even now as it nears battery replacement time it still gets 8-10 hours SOT. A lot of bang for the buck.
blackhawk said:
Sales volume or lack of tell the truth.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
<3
Antyhaker said:
<3
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That twisted my head and I wrote it
it is funny that people here actually believe that the Fold 4 is not an excellent device.
i paid 1100 euros (512GB version) for mine and is the best choice I could make as a phone/tablet for my kind of usage.
the camera sucks to my taste. it is a 2022 device that is just "acceptable" for me. but anything else except the camera..... rocks.
TeDeV said:
it is funny that people here actually believe that the Fold 4 is not an excellent device.
i paid 1100 euros (512GB version) for mine and is the best choice I could make as a phone/tablet for my kind of usage.
the camera sucks to my taste. it is a 2022 device that is just "acceptable" for me. but anything else except the camera..... rocks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't know if Fold 4 is the best / excellent device, but definitely it's a very good choice in this price.
Antyhaker said:
I don't know if Fold 4 is the best / excellent device, but definitely it's a very good choice in this price.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
At this point Samsung doesn't give you any flagship devices that are an excellent choice. You sacrifice up to 1 tb expandable storage on all of them as well as the very desirable attributes a dual drive device brings to the table. SOT sucks even with the huge batteries.
The biggest disadvantage of all the Fold series devices is longevity. The display is it's Achilles heel and time consuming to repair.
The root problem is the acute bend radii and the mechanical stress of constant bending. There are no current clear plastics or adhesive systems that will not fail eventually under these conditions. Samsung knows this; they are only too happy to sell you a new flagship every year or two. Engineered obsolescence.
blackhawk said:
At this point Samsung doesn't give you any flagship devices that are an excellent choice. You sacrifice up to 1 tb expandable storage on all of them as well as the very desirable attributes a dual drive device brings to the table. SOT sucks even with the huge batteries.
The biggest disadvantage of all the Fold series devices is longevity. The display is it's Achilles heel and time consuming to repair.
The root problem is the acute bend radii and the mechanical stress of constant bending. There are no current clear plastics or adhesive systems that will not fail eventually under these conditions. Samsung knows this; they are only too happy to sell you a new flagship every year or two. Engineered obsolescence.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1. None of the manufacturers.
2. Every manufacturer do it - Apple isn't an exception.
Antyhaker said:
1. None of the manufacturers.
2. Every manufacturer do it - Apple isn't an exception.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I assume you're talking about what?
Not too long ago Samsung used to openingly advertise how it was better than iPhone with the 3.5mm jack and expandable storage.
Recently now that Google Adroid adopted cpu cycle sucking scoped storage Samsung flagship phones might as well be an iPhone
blackhawk said:
At this point Samsung doesn't give you any flagship devices that are an excellent choice. You sacrifice up to 1 tb expandable storage on all of them as well as the very desirable attributes a dual drive device brings to the table. SOT sucks even with the huge batteries.
The biggest disadvantage of all the Fold series devices is longevity. The display is it's Achilles heel and time consuming to repair.
The root problem is the acute bend radii and the mechanical stress of constant bending. There are no current clear plastics or adhesive systems that will not fail eventually under these conditions. Samsung knows this; they are only too happy to sell you a new flagship every year or two. Engineered obsolescence.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No problem for me as I purchase at least 2 devices a year, sometimes 3.
Another leak
ggrant3876 said:
No problem for me as I purchase at least 2 devices a year, sometimes 3.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Seriously? That seems really wasteful, but maybe I'm missing the use case. What are you doing that requires a new phone every 4-6 months?
Slappy_G said:
Seriously? That seems really wasteful, but maybe I'm missing the use case. What are you doing that requires a new phone every 4-6 months?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have disposable income and I'm a tech junky! Sometimes I trade the old one in but always have a couple of flagship phones to swap out.
Slappy_G said:
Seriously? That seems really wasteful, but maybe I'm missing the use case. What are you doing that requires a new phone every 4-6 months?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He can and wants it. Just it.
Droidandr said:
Will the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 5 look like Fold 4?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No. The Fold 5 is going to fold diagonally so it will be in the shape of a triangle when folded. It's model number has been leaked and it ends with -DS which means this will use the Deli Sandwich form factor.
I was thinking of waiting for it, but ended up getting a good deal on a Z Fold 4, so I'll go to the Fold 5-DS in the future.