Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (21489)	1/18/1999 12:48:00 AM
From: stealthy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

All: Note brief discussion of the PDQ on page 138 of the Feb Issue of Red Herring; (scanned it briefly on newstand, don't have electronic version;) Article compares its size, cost, internet surfing capability against couple of others including, pending 3COM VII version; Bottom line seems to be approximately as follows: - Estimated PDQ cost : ~ $ 400 - Estimated cost nearest competitor: ~ $ 800 - PDQ bulky in size/weight - PDQ has more capable Browser When someone gets copy of the electronic version, please post the precise info.; Thanks, Stealthy

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (21489)	1/18/1999 1:59:00 AM
From: SKIP PAUL	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

From ATI's 10K on QCOM shares owned: INVESTMENT IN QUALCOMM The Company owns 400,000 shares of common stock of QUALCOMM, a publicly held developer of digital mobile communications technology. The Company also holds warrants to purchase approximately 780,000 additional shares of QUALCOMM common stock at an exercise price of $5.50 per share, expiring in November 1998.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (21489)	1/18/1999 10:28:00 AM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Maurice - How about aerial length? Won't that be a problem with 820 MHz needing a long aerial and 4 GHz a short one? You are correct that the expected frequency does affect the efficiency of an antenna, but thankfully it isn't as simple as a 4GHz antenna must be shorter than a 820 MHz one. If that were the case it would be somewhat impractical to be carrying around an AM radio (at 1 MHz or a wavelength of 300m) in my pocket. And you'd always be losing those 30GHz antennae. For a simple dipole antenna (in non-engineering speak, a straight wire) it is just important that the resonance not cancel itself. So from the mobile standpoint there are two different answers: 1) As long as you are frequency agile over only a small portion of your base frequency (e.g. 100MHz at 2.0GHz), it is probably not too important exactly how long your antenna is. 2) I suspect that a truly frequency agile mobile system will need two different antennae, but beyond that I can't say much since antenna theory is a black art with which I am only partially familiar. Surprisingly, it is the basestations which will likely have a bigger issue, and that is probably why Walt brought up smart antennae. With a dipole being at a little bit of the wrong frequency will make the antenna a little inefficient, but in a directional antenna it will screw up the beamshape such that, for instance, the sectors in a basestation no longer overlap. Somewhat annoying for the user, but smart phased array antennae should help in this arena. Hope this helps. Clark