Wireless Gain Antenna for Wifi Card

[Guest]

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

You have been a wealth of information. From your advice, I'm
considering the following:

1) the http://www.rangeextender.com/219pagransy.html with the "2.4GHz
19dBi Parabolic Grid with N Male Pigtail" connector.

2) The "U.FL Hirose, IPAX to N Female Bulkhd 6 in Pigtail" from
fab-corp. couldn't find this anywhere else. (I don't understand the
"Bulkhd 6" term so I have an e-mail to them asking)

3) Possibly the "LMR-400 NM/NF 50 Foot Jumper" from fab-corp as well.
I think you or someone else mentioned this coaxial for minimum loss.
The questions is that if the antenna is a 19dBi, what loss can I
expect? (assuming that it is measured on this scale). This will allow
me to mount this in my attic and keep it out of site.

Thanks again for the help!

 

[luddite]

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

dold@xrexxwirel.usenet.us.com wrote:
> Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>> However, in the case of a PCMCIA (or cardbus) radio vs a USB radio,
>> there's also a question of power. Some USB radios are seriously under
>> powered at +12dBm while some PCMCIA cards belch up to +23dBm. No USB
>> radio comes close.

> DWL-122 USB-Mini Transmitter Output Power 16dBm (40mW)
> Orinoco Classic Gold/Silver PCMCIA card Nominal Output Power 15 dBm

>> Also, the aperature area of a good size dish is quite a bit larger
>> than a typical panel antenna. That means the dish will theoretically
>> have more gain (but a narrower beam width). However, if it per chance
>> has the same gain as a panel antenna, it's likely that the beamwidth
>> of the dish will be narrower than the patch.

> For particular point to point, a fixed dish installation would be better,
> because of the narrow beam width, delivering better power to a point.

>> In other words, it's not an easy comparison. I've done better with
>> reflector backed biquad antennas and sheet copper patch antennas than
>> with opertunistic reflectors and cans. However, I haven't exerted
>> much effort trying to make reflectors work while panels and biquads
>> get my full attention.

have you seen plans for an 8 or 16 element panel antenna?
I have the materials,copper in sheet and tape form but can't find
dimensions for anything beyond one element.




> I've noticed that.
> I suppose my biggest discrepancy is in making a distinction between a
> reflector and an antenna. I consider the reflector to be part of an
> antenna assembly. There is a feed element, and a reflector. I don't see
> any radio difference between a rubber duckie antenna mounted at the proper
> place in front of a reflector and a pre-built dish that has a dipole as the
> feed element.

> As far as cans as waveguides, most of my experience is with the 90 ton
> dish on top of Mt. Umunhum. That had a 9" circular waveguide delivering
> substantial power to a reflector that was probably fifty feet away from the
> end of the waveguide.

> "At Almaden, California, testing of an AN/FPS-24 radar could only be
> conducted at times when the local television stations were not
> broadcasting."

> http://mail.the-kgb.com/dante/military/milpics7.html

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:46:26 +0000 (UTC),
> dold@XReXXWirel.usenet.us.com wrote:

>>DWL-122 USB-Mini Transmitter Output Power 16dBm (40mW)
>>Orinoco Classic Gold/Silver PCMCIA card Nominal Output Power 15 dBm

> My measurements show the DWL-122, with an SMA connector in place of
> the PIFA antenna, belches about +13dBm. My Orinioco (pre-Proxim)
> Silver card puts out +15dBm. While my absolute measurement accuracy
> is probably off, the relative numbers are quite accurate.

So, if that really is a -4dBi (although I can't remember if that was the
DWL-122, or a different one), then you are saying the Orinoco is +6dBm over
the stock DWL-122, where the manufacturer specs say differently.

In any case, it is not as large a difference as you indicated in the
earlier post, and this is just a litlle itty-bitty USB adapter.

>>For particular point to point, a fixed dish installation would be better,
>>because of the narrow beam width, delivering better power to a point.

> Differnt types of antennas with identical gains will deliver identical
> power levels "to a point" regardless of the beamwidth.

But the tighter beamwidth antennas tend to be higher gain.

> It really depends upon what you're trying to do with the antenna. If
> you're doing point to point, then a narrow beam is highly desireable.

I think I was getting two threads confused on Monday. The other thread was
trying to go point to point between two buildings.

>>"At Almaden, California, testing of an AN/FPS-24 radar could only be
>>conducted at times when the local television stations were not
>>broadcasting."
>>http://mail.the-kgb.com/dante/military/milpics7.html

> Argh. I've lived in Ben Lomond since about 1974. When I first moved
> in, I could see the big rotating dish on Umunhum out my window. Every
> time it came around, I could hear the buzz on every radio in the house
> and on some resonant wires around the house. I couldn't record
> anything without adding the buzz. Good ridance.

Think about living on the base... you subconsciously blinked every 5
seconds to avoid looking at the junk on the TV screen.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5

 

[Guest]

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

On 14 Sep 2004 18:49:07 -0700, tommynospam@yahoo.com (tommy) wrote:

>You have been a wealth of information.

So, why am I not wealthy?

>1) the http://www.rangeextender.com/219pagransy.html with the "2.4GHz
>19dBi Parabolic Grid with N Male Pigtail" connector.

I dunno if you need it to be small or portable, but if you want gain,
go for the 24dBi incantation:
http://www.rangeextender.com/224pagransy.html
for $9 more.

>2) The "U.FL Hirose, IPAX to N Female Bulkhd 6 in Pigtail" from
>fab-corp. couldn't find this anywhere else. (I don't understand the
>"Bulkhd 6" term so I have an e-mail to them asking)

Well, neither do I. I think it means an N connector meant to be
mounted on a bulkhead, also known as a panel, box, wall, case, or
thing.

Did you catch this note?

"Special note with the U.FL connector - these are NOT a duty rated
connector. Once it is connected it is strongly suggested to leave it
connected. Due to its size and design its use in a plug and unplug
situation will be very limited and will not be covered under
warranty."

>3) Possibly the "LMR-400 NM/NF 50 Foot Jumper" from fab-corp as well.

Ugh. Keep the coax cables short. Do you really need 50ft of cable?
At 7.8dB/100ft, you will lose slightly more than half your power (and
sensitivity) in that hunk of coax.

> I think you or someone else mentioned this coaxial for minimum loss.
>The questions is that if the antenna is a 19dBi, what loss can I
>expect? (assuming that it is measured on this scale). This will allow
>me to mount this in my attic and keep it out of site.

You're framing the question wrong. Coax loss has little to do with
antenna gain. They're independent, but they do add together. For
example, if you have 19dBi of antenna gain, but -5dB of assorted cable
and connector losses, you'll have +14dB of improvement, which is quite
a bit.

Do the math, er... arithmetic:
-0.66dB/ft for LMR-400 coax. 50ft will be -3.3dB
-0.5dB per connector pair. You will have 3 pairs of these for a
total connector loss of -1.5dB.
-1.0dB is my guess(tm) for the pigtail coax loss.

To give you a rough guess at the anticipated improvement, the antenna
gain of your DWL-650 is about -2dBi (yeah, that's 4dB worse than a
dipole). The transmitter probably belches +15dBm. So your current
laptop radiates:
+15dBm -2dBi = +13dBm

With the dish antenna, we have:
+15dBm -1.5dB -3.3dB +19dBi = +29.2dBm

That's an improvment of:
+13dBm - 29.2dBm = 16dB
16dB may not seem like much, but it's really 40x times your power
output. In terms of range, you double your range for every 6dB, so it
will be about 6 times the range.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Guest]

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

tommy <tommynospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 1) the http://www.rangeextender.com/219pagransy.html with the "2.4GHz
> 19dBi Parabolic Grid with N Male Pigtail" connector.

> 2) The "U.FL Hirose, IPAX to N Female Bulkhd 6 in Pigtail" from
> fab-corp. couldn't find this anywhere else. (I don't understand the
> "Bulkhd 6" term so I have an e-mail to them asking)

That would be a six inch cable, ending in a BulkHead connector, designed to
be mounted in a chassis. It would work for this application if you really
were that close to the antenna, which I doubt.

Or it would serve as a way to securely mount this "duty rated" N connector
near to the PC Card and attach the IPAX to your PC Card once. FAB warns
that that IPAX connector is not rated for repeated plug/unplug. Then you
would run a NM/NM cable to the Female N of the PMANT19PF1 instead of
getting a pigtail on the antenna.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
> dold@XReXXWirel.usenet.us.com wrote:

> I haven't done any real (or reproducible) range tests with my
> collection of adapters. However, the few that I tried show that the
> Orinico cards are among the best. Only the high power Senao cards
> seem to have better range. I attribute this to the elevated antenna
> design in the Orinoco cards (but might be wrong).

I agree that the Orinoco seems the best of the ones that I have used,
either in somewhat careful comparisons or the "can I connect from the
Starbucks Parking lot?" test. On the other hand, the mini-USB offers a
cheaper and better long range solution when coupled with a free coffee can.

>>But the tighter beamwidth antennas tend to be higher gain.

> Wrong. Beamwidth and antenna gain are NOT related. Antennas do not

Where is the 24dBi patch panel? There are 24dBi dishes readily available.
That's what I mean.

If you want a building to building connection, there is no purpose served
by an omni, regardless of gain, or a patch, or a sector. The tightest
possible bandwidth will deliver the highest power to the other antenna
because, for a given price and size, it will be the highest gain.
The antenna doesn't produce power, but there is no point in sending what
power you have to places other than the point where you want it.

Cruising fab-corp.com quickly
10 dBi Omni Directional Antenna


---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:52:32 +0000 (UTC),
dold@XReXXWirel.usenet.us.com wrote:

>> Wrong. Beamwidth and antenna gain are NOT related. Antennas do not
>
>Where is the 24dBi patch panel? There are 24dBi dishes readily available.
>That's what I mean.

Oh, that. That still has nothing to do with beamwidth. Different
technologies and construction methods have their own limitations. A
typical single patch antenna has +8dBi gain. Double the number of
antennas to add 3dB more gain. So, the number of patches required for
24dBi would be:

Gain Number
dbi of patches
8 1
11 2
14 4
17 8
20 16
23 32

Including clearance, an air dielectric 2.4GHz patch requires about
6"x6" per patch. So the 23dBi panel will be 8 square feet in area.
4x8 patches seems a good arrangement, so we get a 24" x 48" panel
antenna. Using TFE/ceramic dielectric instead of air, the antenna
will be about half this size. Here's one with two patches on
TFE/ceramic circuit board:
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com/pics/tecom/slides/tecom-505025e-1.html
The board is 4.5"x6.8".

Big patch antennas exist but are tricky to make. The big headache is
feeding the 32 patches in phase. That requires carefully controlled
cable lengths or circuit board traces. The cables are difficult and
expensive to make, while the circuit board traces require additional
board real estate.

The required power splitters are also lossy. You can build an array
of 4ea 17dBi antennas to almost get the required 23dBi gain. A simple
Wilkinson power splitter will do the combining externally. You'll
lose about 0.5dB per combiner or 1.5dB for the 3 combiners required
for a 2x2 array of common 17dBi antennas. The end result will be a
21.5dBi antenna instead of a 23dBi antenna. To make up the 1.5dB
loss, all you need to do is add two more 17dBi antennas , resulting in
an 6 antenna array. However, that would required additional lossy
power splitters, so the final power output would still be less than
23dBi. This is one reason you don't see really big high gain arrays
of panel antennas.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Guest]

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

You won't realize those 3dB steps all the way up.
Other losses start to creep in, and all the combiners aren't perfect.
Just something to be aware of.


--
KC6ETE Dave's Engineering Page, www.dvanhorn.org
Microcontroller Consultant, specializing in Atmel AVR

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 12:23:05 -0500, "Dave VanHorn"
<dvanhorn@cedar.net> wrote:

>You won't realize those 3dB steps all the way up.
>Other losses start to creep in, and all the combiners aren't perfect.
>Just something to be aware of.

Yeah, I know. I also screwed up in my numbers. It's 0.5dB loss per
port. So, a 4 panel array will have 3 Wilkinson combiners/splitters
for a total of 6 ports, each with 0.5dB loss or 3dB loss for the
entire array. To make up for the 3dB loss, just DOUBLE the size of
the array. Ugh.

Unfortunately, that's about the only way to do it with 50 ohm panels.
If on a single circuit board, the most common way is to use 4ea of 200
ohm patch antennas, and combine them in parallel for a total of 50
ohms. The traces are 200 ohms (which tend to be tiny) and they all
meet at one point. Loss is much less as there's no combiner/splitter.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Guest]

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

A friend of mine does ham radio contesting in that band.
He has a 70' tower, with the actual radio mounted up at the top of the
tower, feeding the array of yagis through matched cables and the combiner
network.

We're allowed 1500W in that band, but that would be inordinately expensive.
I think dave uses 10-20W. He goes out as far as texas, from central
indiana.
Of course that's an exceptional day, just the right conditions, and only
morse code, or sideband voice, not high bandwidth data. High bandwidth eats
range.

I would expect that if you reduce your bandwidth, you should get better
range, unless they are using the same modulation scheme, and just slowing
down the data..


--
KC6ETE Dave's Engineering Page, www.dvanhorn.org
Microcontroller Consultant, specializing in Atmel AVR

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
> dold@XReXXWirel.usenet.us.com wrote:
>>But the tighter beamwidth antennas tend to be higher gain.

> Wrong. Beamwidth and antenna gain are NOT related. Antennas do not

The high dBi antennas tend to have tight beamwidth. That's what I mean.

If you want a building to building connection, there is no purpose served
by an omni, regardless of gain, or a patch, or a sector. The tightest
possible bandwidth will deliver the highest power to the other antenna
because, for a given price and size, it will be the highest gain.
The antenna doesn't produce power, but there is no point in sending what
power you have to places other than the point where you want it.

Cruising fab-corp.com quickly
9.5 dBi 90 deg Sector Antenna $ 65.00
10 dBi Omni Directional Antenna 45 Inches Long $ 79.99
11dBi MICROCEPTOR Panel $ 57.99
15 dBi Yagi $ 58.99
24 dBi Parabolic Grid $ 59.99

(ignore this one, it doesn't fit my argument ;-)
19dBi Patch Antenna $ 47.00


Home made cans are harder to quantify because of haphazard testing
conditions, but they certainly are cheap. Around 10-16 dBi?
A "shootout" comparison:
http://www.turnpoint.net/wireless/has.html
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/1124

My own chili-can antenna on an Orinoco shows 12dB gain in signal, and a
14dB reduction in noise. Two chili cans increased the signal by 1, to
13dB, but offered another 4 dB in noise reduction.

---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5

 

[Guest]

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

>> Wrong. Beamwidth and antenna gain are NOT related. Antennas do not
>
> The high dBi antennas tend to have tight beamwidth. That's what I mean.

Antenna design is a beautiful example of the fact that engineering is the
art of compromise.

While tight beamwidth does not require high gain, high gain requires some
sort of compromise elsewhere, and the easiest place to compromise is on
beamwidth. Even omnidirectional gain antennas compress their radiation
pattern twoard the horizon, to achieve the gain.

--
KC6ETE Dave's Engineering Page, www.dvanhorn.org
Microcontroller Consultant, specializing in Atmel AVR

 

[Guest]

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

dold@xrexxwirel.usenet.us.com wrote:
> Cruising fab-corp.com quickly
> 10 dBi Omni Directional Antenna


Oops... posted that by accident while I was checking some notes.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5

 

[Guest]

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

Dave VanHorn <dvanhorn@cedar.net> wrote:
> While tight beamwidth does not require high gain, high gain requires some
> sort of compromise elsewhere, and the easiest place to compromise is on
> beamwidth.

Exactly. I think of it as a finite bunch of excited electrons bumping into
other electrons on their way "out". You can send them everywhere, or you
can focus their anxiety on a single path toward the other antenna.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5

 

[Guest]

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

> >1) the http://www.rangeextender.com/219pagransy.html with the "2.4GHz
> >19dBi Parabolic Grid with N Male Pigtail" connector.
>
> I dunno if you need it to be small or portable, but if you want gain,
> go for the 24dBi incantation:
> http://www.rangeextender.com/224pagransy.html
> for $9 more.

I'm still trying to decide on this one. Not sure yet. I guess it
would make sense for the money.

> >2) The "U.FL Hirose, IPAX to N Female Bulkhd 6 in Pigtail" from
> >fab-corp. couldn't find this anywhere else. (I don't understand the
> >"Bulkhd 6" term so I have an e-mail to them asking)
>
> Well, neither do I. I think it means an N connector meant to be
> mounted on a bulkhead, also known as a panel, box, wall, case, or
> thing.

it means it is a 6" pigtail. they also have 12". they were kind
enough to respond to my 2nd e-mail within 24 hours instead of the 3
days it took on my first.

>
> Did you catch this note?
>
> "Special note with the U.FL connector - these are NOT a duty rated
> connector. Once it is connected it is strongly suggested to leave it
> connected. Due to its size and design its use in a plug and unplug
> situation will be very limited and will not be covered under
> warranty."
>

Yup, saw this. That's why I'm looking for one about 2 inches long to
permanently afix to my DLink card.

> >3) Possibly the "LMR-400 NM/NF 50 Foot Jumper" from fab-corp as well.
>
> Ugh. Keep the coax cables short. Do you really need 50ft of cable?
> At 7.8dB/100ft, you will lose slightly more than half your power (and
> sensitivity) in that hunk of coax.

half? at -3.9db/50ft with a 19dbi antenna, would't that be -15.1db?

 

[Guest]

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

"tommy" <tommynospam@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:4f0df91b.0409141749.56d96ea6@posting.google.com...
> You have been a wealth of information. From your advice, I'm
> considering the following:
>
> 1) the http://www.rangeextender.com/219pagransy.html with the "2.4GHz
> 19dBi Parabolic Grid with N Male Pigtail" connector.
>
> 2) The "U.FL Hirose, IPAX to N Female Bulkhd 6 in Pigtail" from
> fab-corp. couldn't find this anywhere else. (I don't understand the
> "Bulkhd 6" term so I have an e-mail to them asking)
>
> 3) Possibly the "LMR-400 NM/NF 50 Foot Jumper" from fab-corp as well.
> I think you or someone else mentioned this coaxial for minimum loss.
> The questions is that if the antenna is a 19dBi, what loss can I
> expect? (assuming that it is measured on this scale). This will allow
> me to mount this in my attic and keep it out of site.

If you mount it in the attic, significant loss will occur when the signal
passes the ouside wall or the roof.
Can you position it so that it looks through a window to your neighbour?

gr, hwh

 

[Guest]

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

That was a concern to me too. I'll either settle for loss and stick
it in the attick or just mount it on the same pole as my TV antenna
(that I never use since I have DirecTV).

 

[Guest]

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

On 15 Sep 2004 20:20:21 -0700, tommynospam@yahoo.com (tommy) wrote:

>they were kind
>enough to respond to my 2nd e-mail within 24 hours instead of the 3
>days it took on my first.

Fab-Corp is in New Port Richey, on the Florida west coast, which was
suppose to be in the path of hurricane Charlie. They evacuated nearby
Tampa. A week later, Francis arrived.

>Yup, saw this. That's why I'm looking for one about 2 inches long to
>permanently afix to my DLink card.

If you don't mind permanently, then methinks butchering the card and
soldering on a pigtail would do as well. Just a thought.

>> >3) Possibly the "LMR-400 NM/NF 50 Foot Jumper" from fab-corp as well.
>>
>> Ugh. Keep the coax cables short. Do you really need 50ft of cable?
>> At 7.8dB/100ft, you will lose slightly more than half your power (and
>> sensitivity) in that hunk of coax.

>half? at -3.9db/50ft with a 19dbi antenna, would't that be -15.1db?

No. Just the coax cable. Also, I screwed up slightly with the
numbers. The loss of LMR-400 is closer to 6.6dB/100ft (not
7.8dB/100ft). 50ft of coax cable would be half of that or 3.3dB/50ft.
I got the attenuation right in the calculation examples at the bottom
of my previous posting, but screwed it up earlier in the page.

The antenna is treated seperately and as part of a system. See my
previous posting where I added it all up (near the bottom).


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831.336.2558 voice http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
# jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
# 831.421.6491 digital_pager jeffl@cruzio.com AE6KS

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
> In general yes. A properly designed antenna is much better than
> hanging a USB card in a dish or can. The problem with a dish is that
> at best, it's 50% efficient. The illumination angle of the USB radio

Here's a new wrinkle:
Hawking HWU54D Hi-Gain Wireless-G Directional USB 2.0 Network Adapter
http://www.hawkingtech.com/prodSpec.php?ProdID=208
HAI6SDP Directional 6dBi WiFi Antenna with a built in
HWU54G Wireless-G USB2.0 Network Adapter

http://www.digitallyunique.com/hwu54d.html $57.95
http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=314338&pfp=srch1

---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5

 

[Guest]

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

Well, got my stuff today (oddly enough bought the stuff from two
different places and arrived on the same day) and hooked it up. That
damn U-FL connector seems so flimsy that I'm not convinced it's making
full contact with my dlink connector. Ugh I hate that thing. Might
upgrade just to avoid having to use that.

Anyway, they had two schemes for building the antenna. Horizontal or
vertical polarization. How do I determine which one I need?

 

[Guest]

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

On 23 Sep 2004 20:44:34 -0700, tommynospam@yahoo.com (tommy) wrote:

>Well, got my stuff today (oddly enough bought the stuff from two
>different places and arrived on the same day) and hooked it up. That
>damn U-FL connector seems so flimsy that I'm not convinced it's making
>full contact with my dlink connector. Ugh I hate that thing. Might
>upgrade just to avoid having to use that.

Well, you could also butcher the existing card and attach a coax cable
and connector (pigtail) instead of using the U-FL connector.

>Anyway, they had two schemes for building the antenna. Horizontal or
>vertical polarization. How do I determine which one I need?

It all depends on what's on the other end of the link. If the access
point antenna(s) are vertical, then you use vertical. The only reason
you would use horizontal is if you were trying to avoid interference
from other nearby users that are most commonly using vertical
polarization.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Guest]

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

tommy <tommynospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Anyway, they had two schemes for building the antenna. Horizontal or
> vertical polarization. How do I determine which one I need?

Probably vertical, but it helps to match the other end. Some antennas are
quite sensitive to proper orientation. My Orinoco laptop gets noticeably
better signal if the external antenna on my WAP is horizontal. I can't
easily change the laptop, so my WAP is horizontal. My USB DWL-122 is
sensitive, but it can be oriented either way, so I match the WAP with it.

If you have control over both ends, try both. One might get less
interference from other noise sources in your area.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5