Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Antenna or Range Extender?

Last response: in Wireless Networking
Share
Anonymous
September 27, 2004 8:02:32 AM

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.

More about : antenna range extender

September 27, 2004 8:02:33 AM

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=...
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/
Anonymous
September 27, 2004 10:08:53 AM

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.
Related resources
Anonymous
September 27, 2004 10:08:54 AM

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=p78hg011s9kqkgfkqo...
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
Anonymous
September 27, 2004 7:56:26 PM

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=p78hg011s9kqkgfkqo...
> 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
Anonymous
September 27, 2004 7:56:27 PM

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
Anonymous
October 2, 2004 6:27:48 PM

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.
!