Antenna or Range Extender?

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Linksys Wireless Router 54G is is my bedroom, The PC in the livivng room
gets "low signal" at best, at times none at all. What would be more
effective:

1. Replace the antenna from the router, or
2. Install a Range extender in the living room?

There is only one choice for an antenna which is the one Linksys sell at
their site but for a range extender, there is also an Airport Express (ok
for PC?) which also works as a print server (?). Which choice should is
recommended? Newbie here.
6 answers Last reply
More about antenna range extender
  1. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    WINSLIX wrote:

    > There is only one choice for an antenna which is the one Linksys
    sell at
    > their site

    Wrong. Use something like this pigtail and the world's your oyster as
    far as antenna choices:
    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=3704&item=5722407155&rd=1
    The RP-TNC end fits the Linksys, the N-M end fits almost any standard
    2.4Ghz antenna. Look at some of the ones on eBay or at a dealer like
    http://www.fab-corp.com/(look at some of the panel antenna choices, the
    cheap ones are very good) or http://www.cantenna.com/
  2. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    In article <NvGdnXxmf6LaPsrcRVn-ug@pghconnect.com>,
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?= <abuse@your.isp.com> wrote:
    :WINSLIX wrote:

    : > There is only one choice for an antenna which is the one Linksys
    :sell at
    :> their site

    :Wrong. Use something like this pigtail and the world's your oyster as
    :far as antenna choices:

    :The RP-TNC end fits the Linksys, the N-M end fits almost any standard
    :2.4Ghz antenna.

    Has the FCC recently changed the regulations that prohibit use of
    wireless data communication systems with antennae other than those
    the system was evaluated with?
    --
    Warning: potentially contains traces of nuts.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On 27 Sep 2004 06:08:53 GMT, roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter
    Roberson) wrote:

    >Has the FCC recently changed the regulations that prohibit use of
    >wireless data communication systems with antennae other than those
    >the system was evaluated with?

    No, they just don't seem to enforce that rule. Strictly speaking, an
    intentional radiator under FCC 15.247 must be type certified as a
    system that includes all parts of the puzzle from the wall wart to the
    antenna. Even the CAT5 cables must be included in the test. Needless
    to say, the FCC has not been particularly agressive in enforceing that
    rule. When they tried to force manufacturers to use un-obtainable
    unique antenna connectors, they were "convinced" by various
    manufacturers that this would be an expensive and futile move.

    What has been enforced is excessive radiated power (EIRP). The
    maximum limit is 1 watt transmitter into an 6dBi omni antenna. This
    works out to +36dBm or 4 watts EIRP.

    The rules are somewhat different for point to point links. See:
    http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=p78hg011s9kqkgfkqodl9p45rpah24p7kf%404ax.com
    for my previous rant on the subject.

    Please note that there is a wide variety of 2.4GHz pigtails, adapters,
    amplifiers, and antennas for sale on the internet.

    I notice you're in Canada. I have no clue as to the rules or
    enforcement levels in Canada.


    --
    Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
    150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558
  4. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    thank you so much for the info. i take that antenna upgrade is more
    effective than a range extender router.


    "Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
    news:gtefl01r5g8dqgrtlsg92inj5j7o9dpoed@4ax.com...
    > On 27 Sep 2004 06:08:53 GMT, roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter
    > Roberson) wrote:
    >
    >>Has the FCC recently changed the regulations that prohibit use of
    >>wireless data communication systems with antennae other than those
    >>the system was evaluated with?
    >
    > No, they just don't seem to enforce that rule. Strictly speaking, an
    > intentional radiator under FCC 15.247 must be type certified as a
    > system that includes all parts of the puzzle from the wall wart to the
    > antenna. Even the CAT5 cables must be included in the test. Needless
    > to say, the FCC has not been particularly agressive in enforceing that
    > rule. When they tried to force manufacturers to use un-obtainable
    > unique antenna connectors, they were "convinced" by various
    > manufacturers that this would be an expensive and futile move.
    >
    > What has been enforced is excessive radiated power (EIRP). The
    > maximum limit is 1 watt transmitter into an 6dBi omni antenna. This
    > works out to +36dBm or 4 watts EIRP.
    >
    > The rules are somewhat different for point to point links. See:
    > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=p78hg011s9kqkgfkqodl9p45rpah24p7kf%404ax.com
    > for my previous rant on the subject.
    >
    > Please note that there is a wide variety of 2.4GHz pigtails, adapters,
    > amplifiers, and antennas for sale on the internet.
    >
    > I notice you're in Canada. I have no clue as to the rules or
    > enforcement levels in Canada.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
    > 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    > Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558
  5. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:56:26 GMT, "WINSLIX"
    <winslix_nyc@earthlink.net> wrote:

    >thank you so much for the info. i take that antenna upgrade is more
    >effective than a range extender router.

    Maybe. It all depends upon what you are trying to accomplish and what
    else you have to work with. Since you haven't disclosed this, I'll
    offer some general advice and the inevitable complications.

    In most cases, a better antenna will produce an immediate and obvious
    improvement while a power amp may not be quite so spectacular.

    It's all in the arithmetic. Figure on a +6dB increase in EIRP equal
    to double the range. +3dB will buy you 1.4 times the range.

    The nice thing about higher gain antennas is that the benefits appear
    in both transmit and receive. Simply adding a more powerful
    transmitter only has an effect in one direction. In order to profit
    from such an arrangement, one would need to add an amplifier at both
    ends of a link. Some cheapo amplifiers are fixed gain. That means
    that your access point and coax cable loss has to be EXACTLY what the
    manufactory specifies, or you will either end up with no tx signal, or
    overdrive which mangles the modulation. A 1 watt (+30dBm) power
    amplifier will offer about +15dB gain in the transmit direction.
    Sounds great until you consider that the best the receive amplifier
    can do is compensate for the coax loss. Unless the other end of the
    link also has a 1 watt amplifier, such an arrangement tends to be
    asymmetrical. (It's called an alligator. Big mouth, small ears).

    Some of the later access points appear to have both improved
    sensitivity and more power output. The Senao based access points are
    a good example. Compared to the generic bottom of the line access
    points and cards, the receivers are about 3dB more sensitive, while
    the transmitters belch about 8dB more power output. That's good for a
    substantial improvement in range by itself. If a better antenna is
    not in the plans, a better access point might be a better choice.

    A decent omni antenna will usually be 6dBi or 8dBi gain. That's good
    for double the range (assuming minimal coax loss). It also tends to
    be located in better and higher locations. If directional antennas
    are a possibility, the gains range from 8dBi (patch) to 24dBi (dish).
    The problem with the higher gain antennas is that they have a fairly
    narrow beam width. You can easily end up shooting over everyone's
    head, or missing a large enough target area.

    Tower or pole top amplifiers do have a purpose. They largely
    eliminate the effects of coax cable loss. I prefer mounting the
    access point on top of the tower and running it via PoE CAT5 instead
    of coax. However, if you wanna run long and cable runs, an amplifier
    is a tolerable idea. Prices are rather high for these. The only
    problem with a pole top access point is that it tends to fail in the
    middle of the night, during a storm, when I'm trying to sleep, etc...


    --
    Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
    150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558
  6. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    "WINSLIX" <winslix_nyc@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<shM5d.749$NS1.835535@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
    > Linksys Wireless Router 54G is is my bedroom, The PC in the livivng room
    > gets "low signal" at best, at times none at all. What would be more
    > effective:
    >
    > 1. Replace the antenna from the router, or
    > 2. Install a Range extender in the living room?
    >
    > There is only one choice for an antenna which is the one Linksys sell at
    > their site but for a range extender, there is also an Airport Express (ok
    > for PC?) which also works as a print server (?). Which choice should is
    > recommended? Newbie here.

    http://www.freeantennas.com

    Can't believe nobody suggested he try a reflector.
Ask a new question

Read More

Wireless Router Linksys Wireless Networking