Beamforming: The Best WiFi You’ve Never Seen

Status
Not open for further replies.

bucifer

Distinguished
May 5, 2009
32
0
18,530
0
This article started up pretty good with lots of technical data and the beamforming technology in theory but after that the goodness stopped.

1.You cannot compare two products by testing them with a in-house developed software. It's like testing ATI vs nVIDIA with nvidia made benchmark.
2.If you do something get it done, don't just go with half measures. I don't care if you didn't have time. You should have planned this from the beginning. The tests are incomplete, and the article is filled with crap of Rukus and Cisco.
 
G

Guest

Guest
@Mr_Man: With a name like yours, I'd think that you'd sympathize with Chris a bit more :p Unless (Mr_Man == I likes men) :D
 

Pei-chen

Distinguished
Jul 3, 2007
1,254
0
19,280
0
Both Tyra and Heidi have personal issues and would be pretty difficult friend/mate.

The network idea sounds better. I couldn’t get my 10 feet g network to transmit a tenth as much as my wired network without it dropping.
 

zak_mckraken

Distinguished
Jan 16, 2004
1,592
0
19,780
0
There's one question that I think was not covered by the article. Can a beamformaing AP can sustain the above numbers on two different clients? Let's say we take the UDP test at 5 GHz. The result shows 7.3 Mb/s. If we had two clients at opposite sides of the AP doing the same test, would we have 7.3 Mb/s for each test or would the bandwidth be sliced in 2?

The numbers so far are astonishing, but are they realistic in a multi-client environnement? That's something I'd like to know!
 

ebattleon

Distinguished
Sep 19, 2007
43
0
18,530
0
You can of course get the same effect by having better antenna on both ends of the network. This would increase gain which would improve signal to noise ratio, which would improve data flow speeds. You would also get the same effect by boost in the power but that could get you in trouble with the law.

 
G

Guest

Guest
I'm not an expert on beamforming, but I'm surprised that it is useful at these frequencies. After all, the wavelength at 2.4 GHz is ~12 cm (~5 inches). That means that the pockets of constructive interference (the beam) are very small. Moving the receiver a few inches should make a big difference.

Are you sure the differences you are seeing aren't simply due to higher power output? Couldn't the same improvements be obtained with a directional antenna like a Yagi?
 

Rancifer7

Distinguished
Nov 11, 2008
58
0
18,630
0
So far quite an interesting technology. Its nice to know that at someone in the wireless world is striving to make something innovative!

When all the major players sell items that look almost the same, act similarly, and perform almost the same, there is something wrong with the industry.
 

chaohsiangchen

Distinguished
Jul 28, 2008
479
0
18,780
0
Beam forming technology have been for a long time, but they are mostly used in military equipments. Phased Array radars, Synthetic Aperture Radar, Inverse Synthetic Aperture Radar, Plane Array Antenna and antenna for data link. Most consumer products still use Yagi or disk antenna. Cost is a major issue in the application. Military don't care that much about the cost.
 

scotty123

Distinguished
Jul 20, 2009
1
0
18,510
0
sounds nice - but i won't get excited until it's available at Best Buy!

One niggling concern, I felt reasonably safe with the unfocused cloud of RF surrounding me wherever I go, but I am not so sure about the tightly focused beam that the Ruckus provides. What happens to the poor joe who sits directly in the path of such a beam for 8 hours a day?
 

williamvw

Distinguished
Moderator
Feb 4, 2009
144
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]Mr_Man[/nom]In defense of your wife, you didn't HAVE to use that particular channel to view all the "detail".[/citation]
LOL! True enough. It honestly was a reference file I had on hand for such testing situations. Angelini obviously showed a bit more wisdom in his choice of in-house test content.
 

williamvw

Distinguished
Moderator
Feb 4, 2009
144
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]scotty123[/nom]sounds nice - but i won't get excited until it's available at Best Buy! One niggling concern, I felt reasonably safe with the unfocused cloud of RF surrounding me wherever I go, but I am not so sure about the tightly focused beam that the Ruckus provides. What happens to the poor joe who sits directly in the path of such a beam for 8 hours a day?[/citation]
My absolutely unqualified opinion is "probably nothing." While the conditions are somewhat different, you might want to read a Tech Myths column segment I did over on Tom's Guide that touches on this issue. http://www.tomsguide.com/us/decibels-noise-canceling,review-1338-10.html
 

williamvw

Distinguished
Moderator
Feb 4, 2009
144
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]zak_mckraken[/nom]There's one question that I think was not covered by the article. Can a beamformaing AP can sustain the above numbers on two different clients? Let's say we take the UDP test at 5 GHz. The result shows 7.3 Mb/s. If we had two clients at opposite sides of the AP doing the same test, would we have 7.3 Mb/s for each test or would the bandwidth be sliced in 2?The numbers so far are astonishing, but are they realistic in a multi-client environnement? That's something I'd like to know![/citation]
Excellent question, and one I hope to dive into in a later article. For now, I can only give you the anecdote on my opening page, running the same HD stream to two clients. Ruckus states that BeamFlex can sustain a 50 Mbps minimum per access point. Do the math on your client streams accordingly, I suppose.
 

bounty

Distinguished
Mar 23, 2006
389
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]williamvw[/nom]LOL! True enough. It honestly was a reference file I had on hand for such testing situations. Angelini obviously showed a bit more wisdom in his choice of in-house test content.[/citation]

Honestly honey, it's just a reference file, I swear it's not porn. I challenge you to find HD streaming content from the internet that highlights the subtle nuance of flesh tones.
 

williamvw

Distinguished
Moderator
Feb 4, 2009
144
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]bounty[/nom]Honestly honey, it's just a reference file, I swear it's not porn. I challenge you to find HD streaming content from the internet that highlights the subtle nuance of flesh tones.[/citation]
Hey, the VS catalog mails to her, not me. I was merely trying to be a good husband and participate in her interests. ;-) ANYWAY. Back to beamforming, shall we?
 

steiner666

Distinguished
Jul 30, 2008
369
0
18,780
0
bah, i'd take cat5e/6 and maybe a few repeaters any day over wireless headaches... and we'll probably find out later on that the headaches are cause by the tumors growing in our brains from this lol..
 

fatedtodie

Distinguished
Feb 5, 2007
77
0
18,630
0
It is funny that while they are working on making draft n (yup still draft for a short while longer) better, the standards organization is working on the next step to be going towards draft... Dealing with 802.11n will be useful right up until they obsolete it sometime next year.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS