My buddy lives near a state forest. He uses VZW and there is usable
signal if you stand on one corner of the deck and never move. A tower
permit (for a monopole) was issued for a location about 2 miles from
him. Unfortunately there is a development not far from there where the
smallest "house" is 7,000 square feet and every driveway has multiple
fluffed up trucks parked in it. So even though they cut the forest down
to build their big piggy "houses" they don't think it is appropriate to
have a tower located anywhere near them so they have the permit tied up
in court for over two years.
My buddy lives in a rustic home that is ~ 1,200 square feet. The
repeaters I have previously seen were better suited for commercial use.
I was searching and noticed some vendors have packages that would be
much more suitable for a house because the "base" unit does all of the
work and could be placed on a table or counter. It has the amplifiers,
power supply and an antenna. You just need to run a cable to an outside
antenna.
I was wondering if anyone had experience with them.
"George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:t8qdnRcGDviBdUbanZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> My buddy lives near a state forest. He uses VZW and there is usable signal
> if you stand on one corner of the deck and never move. A tower permit (for
> a monopole) was issued for a location about 2 miles from him.
> Unfortunately there is a development not far from there where the smallest
> "house" is 7,000 square feet and every driveway has multiple fluffed up
> trucks parked in it. So even though they cut the forest down to build
> their big piggy "houses" they don't think it is appropriate to have a
> tower located anywhere near them so they have the permit tied up in court
> for over two years.
>
> My buddy lives in a rustic home that is ~ 1,200 square feet. The repeaters
> I have previously seen were better suited for commercial use.
>
> I was searching and noticed some vendors have packages that would be much
> more suitable for a house because the "base" unit does all of the work and
> could be placed on a table or counter. It has the amplifiers, power supply
> and an antenna. You just need to run a cable to an outside antenna.
>
> I was wondering if anyone had experience with them.
>
> Here is an example:
>
> http://www.repeaterstore.com/product...dual-band.html
From your link: "Approximate coverage are is 2,500 sq ft."
The key thing about repeaters is the power of the amplifyer. The more the
power, the more sq ft it will accomodates. HOWEVER... often no one really
cares that much about "sq ft". What is left unsaid is that the power of the
amplifyer directly correlates to the DISTANCE FROM THE INSIDE ANTENNA where
your phone will work. That is probably the most important stat. Also,
whatever the "stats", cut them at least in half (or worse) to get the
real-world spec.
Having said that... for only $50 more, you can get one that doubles this "sq
ft" spec., and therefore the distance from the antenna inside where it will
work.
Frankster wrote:
>
> "George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:t8qdnRcGDviBdUbanZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>> My buddy lives near a state forest. He uses VZW and there is usable
>> signal if you stand on one corner of the deck and never move. A tower
>> permit (for a monopole) was issued for a location about 2 miles from
>> him. Unfortunately there is a development not far from there where the
>> smallest "house" is 7,000 square feet and every driveway has multiple
>> fluffed up trucks parked in it. So even though they cut the forest
>> down to build their big piggy "houses" they don't think it is
>> appropriate to have a tower located anywhere near them so they have
>> the permit tied up in court for over two years.
>>
>> My buddy lives in a rustic home that is ~ 1,200 square feet. The
>> repeaters I have previously seen were better suited for commercial use.
>>
>> I was searching and noticed some vendors have packages that would be
>> much more suitable for a house because the "base" unit does all of the
>> work and could be placed on a table or counter. It has the amplifiers,
>> power supply and an antenna. You just need to run a cable to an
>> outside antenna.
>>
>> I was wondering if anyone had experience with them.
>>
>> Here is an example:
>>
>> http://www.repeaterstore.com/product...dual-band.html
>>
>
> From your link: "Approximate coverage are is 2,500 sq ft."
>
> The key thing about repeaters is the power of the amplifyer. The more
> the power, the more sq ft it will accomodates. HOWEVER... often no one
> really cares that much about "sq ft". What is left unsaid is that the
> power of the amplifyer directly correlates to the DISTANCE FROM THE
> INSIDE ANTENNA where your phone will work. That is probably the most
> important stat. Also, whatever the "stats", cut them at least in half
> (or worse) to get the real-world spec.
>
> Having said that... for only $50 more, you can get one that doubles this
> "sq ft" spec., and therefore the distance from the antenna inside where
> it will work.
>
> I use this one, for $399.00:
> http://www.gpsandmarineworld.com/dig...da4000sbr.html
>
> It works geate for me.
>
> -Frank
I agree with your opinion. This is clearly consumer stuff where you have
to wade through the marketing hype to figure out what it really does.
I have looked at units similar to your link and noted the spacing
requirements between the amplifier and antennas and the need for an
intermediate location for the amp. The nice part about the one I was
looking at is that it would work really well for my buddy's house.
I see that Wilson has a new similar product and carefully avoids
describing what coverage might be expected:
"George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:HI2dnXoKkaW3m0HanZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Frankster wrote:
>>
>> "George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:t8qdnRcGDviBdUbanZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>> My buddy lives near a state forest. He uses VZW and there is usable
>>> signal if you stand on one corner of the deck and never move. A tower
>>> permit (for a monopole) was issued for a location about 2 miles from
>>> him. Unfortunately there is a development not far from there where the
>>> smallest "house" is 7,000 square feet and every driveway has multiple
>>> fluffed up trucks parked in it. So even though they cut the forest down
>>> to build their big piggy "houses" they don't think it is appropriate to
>>> have a tower located anywhere near them so they have the permit tied up
>>> in court for over two years.
>>>
>>> My buddy lives in a rustic home that is ~ 1,200 square feet. The
>>> repeaters I have previously seen were better suited for commercial use.
>>>
>>> I was searching and noticed some vendors have packages that would be
>>> much more suitable for a house because the "base" unit does all of the
>>> work and could be placed on a table or counter. It has the amplifiers,
>>> power supply and an antenna. You just need to run a cable to an outside
>>> antenna.
>>>
>>> I was wondering if anyone had experience with them.
>>>
>>> Here is an example:
>>>
>>> http://www.repeaterstore.com/product...dual-band.html
>>
>> From your link: "Approximate coverage are is 2,500 sq ft."
>>
>> The key thing about repeaters is the power of the amplifyer. The more the
>> power, the more sq ft it will accomodates. HOWEVER... often no one really
>> cares that much about "sq ft". What is left unsaid is that the power of
>> the amplifyer directly correlates to the DISTANCE FROM THE INSIDE ANTENNA
>> where your phone will work. That is probably the most important stat.
>> Also, whatever the "stats", cut them at least in half (or worse) to get
>> the real-world spec.
>>
>> Having said that... for only $50 more, you can get one that doubles this
>> "sq ft" spec., and therefore the distance from the antenna inside where
>> it will work.
>>
>> I use this one, for $399.00:
>> http://www.gpsandmarineworld.com/dig...da4000sbr.html
>>
>> It works geate for me.
>>
>> -Frank
>
> I agree with your opinion. This is clearly consumer stuff where you have
> to wade through the marketing hype to figure out what it really does.
>
> I have looked at units similar to your link and noted the spacing
> requirements between the amplifier and antennas and the need for an
> intermediate location for the amp. The nice part about the one I was
> looking at is that it would work really well for my buddy's house.
>
> I see that Wilson has a new similar product and carefully avoids
> describing what coverage might be expected:
>
> http://www.wilsonelectronics.com/801247.php
There is no separation distance requirement between the amplifier and either
antenna, ever. The separation requirement is always between the inside and
outside antenna. The amplifier itself does not play into this distance. If
you wanted to, you could mount the inside antenna right next to the
amplifier, even though some do come with a 6ft cord attached.
Also, I noticed with the Wilson repeater, the minimum separation distance is
20 feet between antennas (see installation guide). With the unit I am using
it is 40 ft. The antenna minimum separation distance is directly related to
the power of the amp. The more powerful the amp, the greater the minimum
separation between the two antennas (to avoid amplifier oscillation caused
by interference of the antenna's signals with each other). My amp has 60dB
gain and requires 40ft separation between antennas. The Wilson unit has 50dB
gain and requires only 20ft. Just for reference, EACH 3dB equates to TWICE
THE POWER. So... a 60dB gain amp has considerably more power output than a
50dB amp (53dB is TWICE the power of 50dB, 56dB is TWICE the power of 53dB,
etc.). This is where the working distance from the inside antenna plays into
the equation. The more powerful, the greater distance away from the inside
antenna it will work.
"George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:HI2dnXoKkaW3m0HanZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Frankster wrote:
>>
>> "George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:t8qdnRcGDviBdUbanZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>> My buddy lives near a state forest. He uses VZW and there is usable
>>> signal if you stand on one corner of the deck and never move. A tower
>>> permit (for a monopole) was issued for a location about 2 miles from
>>> him. Unfortunately there is a development not far from there where the
>>> smallest "house" is 7,000 square feet and every driveway has multiple
>>> fluffed up trucks parked in it. So even though they cut the forest down
>>> to build their big piggy "houses" they don't think it is appropriate to
>>> have a tower located anywhere near them so they have the permit tied up
>>> in court for over two years.
>>>
>>> My buddy lives in a rustic home that is ~ 1,200 square feet. The
>>> repeaters I have previously seen were better suited for commercial use.
>>>
>>> I was searching and noticed some vendors have packages that would be
>>> much more suitable for a house because the "base" unit does all of the
>>> work and could be placed on a table or counter. It has the amplifiers,
>>> power supply and an antenna. You just need to run a cable to an outside
>>> antenna.
>>>
>>> I was wondering if anyone had experience with them.
>>>
>>> Here is an example:
>>>
>>> http://www.repeaterstore.com/product...dual-band.html
>>
>> From your link: "Approximate coverage are is 2,500 sq ft."
>>
>> The key thing about repeaters is the power of the amplifyer. The more the
>> power, the more sq ft it will accomodates. HOWEVER... often no one really
>> cares that much about "sq ft". What is left unsaid is that the power of
>> the amplifyer directly correlates to the DISTANCE FROM THE INSIDE ANTENNA
>> where your phone will work. That is probably the most important stat.
>> Also, whatever the "stats", cut them at least in half (or worse) to get
>> the real-world spec.
>>
>> Having said that... for only $50 more, you can get one that doubles this
>> "sq ft" spec., and therefore the distance from the antenna inside where
>> it will work.
>>
>> I use this one, for $399.00:
>> http://www.gpsandmarineworld.com/dig...da4000sbr.html
>>
>> It works geate for me.
>>
>> -Frank
>
> I agree with your opinion. This is clearly consumer stuff where you have
> to wade through the marketing hype to figure out what it really does.
>
> I have looked at units similar to your link and noted the spacing
> requirements between the amplifier and antennas and the need for an
> intermediate location for the amp. The nice part about the one I was
> looking at is that it would work really well for my buddy's house.
>
> I see that Wilson has a new similar product and carefully avoids
> describing what coverage might be expected:
>
> http://www.wilsonelectronics.com/801247.php
Oh... also, to clarify... the minimum separation between antennas is also
influenced by factors other than simple distance measurement. For instance,
VERTICAL separation is much better than simple HORIZONTAL separation. Walls
and woodwork between antennas also help. It has everything to do with not
letting the signal beams interfere with each other. The minimum separation
specs given are always more of a guide. But, usually, you need at least that
much (as shown in the specs).
"Frankster" <Frank@SPAM2TRASH.com> wrote in message news:c7-dnfm0zr2pjUHanZ2dnUVZ_vWtnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>
>
> ........ Just for reference, EACH 3dB equates to TWICE
> THE POWER. So... a 60dB gain amp has considerably more power output than a
> 50dB amp (53dB is TWICE the power of 50dB, 56dB is TWICE the power of 53dB,
> etc.).
>
> -Frank
>
A complicated way to say 10dB is ten times the power.
That's exact by definition, of course. 2x power is only *approximately* 3.01 dB.
Frankster wrote:
>
> "George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:t8qdnRcGDviBdUbanZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>> My buddy lives near a state forest. He uses VZW and there is usable
>> signal if you stand on one corner of the deck and never move. A tower
>> permit (for a monopole) was issued for a location about 2 miles from
>> him. Unfortunately there is a development not far from there where the
>> smallest "house" is 7,000 square feet and every driveway has multiple
>> fluffed up trucks parked in it. So even though they cut the forest
>> down to build their big piggy "houses" they don't think it is
>> appropriate to have a tower located anywhere near them so they have
>> the permit tied up in court for over two years.
>>
>> My buddy lives in a rustic home that is ~ 1,200 square feet. The
>> repeaters I have previously seen were better suited for commercial use.
>>
>> I was searching and noticed some vendors have packages that would be
>> much more suitable for a house because the "base" unit does all of the
>> work and could be placed on a table or counter. It has the amplifiers,
>> power supply and an antenna. You just need to run a cable to an
>> outside antenna.
>>
>> I was wondering if anyone had experience with them.
>>
>> Here is an example:
>>
>> http://www.repeaterstore.com/product...dual-band.html
>>
>
>
> From your link: "Approximate coverage are is 2,500 sq ft."
>
> The key thing about repeaters is the power of the amplifyer. The more
> the power, the more sq ft it will accomodates. HOWEVER... often no one
> really cares that much about "sq ft". What is left unsaid is that the
> power of the amplifyer directly correlates to the DISTANCE FROM THE
> INSIDE ANTENNA where your phone will work. That is probably the most
> important stat. Also, whatever the "stats", cut them at least in half
> (or worse) to get the real-world spec.
>
> Having said that... for only $50 more, you can get one that doubles this
> "sq ft" spec., and therefore the distance from the antenna inside where
> it will work.
>
> I use this one, for $399.00:
> http://www.gpsandmarineworld.com/dig...da4000sbr.html
>
> It works geate for me.
>
> -Frank
Do the math! A=pi*r^2 Doubling the area gives you only 1.4 times the
range!
"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:47DC2018.6010400@comcast.net...
> Frankster wrote:
>>
>> "George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:t8qdnRcGDviBdUbanZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>
>>> My buddy lives near a state forest. He uses VZW and there is usable
>>> signal if you stand on one corner of the deck and never move. A tower
>>> permit (for a monopole) was issued for a location about 2 miles from
>>> him. Unfortunately there is a development not far from there where the
>>> smallest "house" is 7,000 square feet and every driveway has multiple
>>> fluffed up trucks parked in it. So even though they cut the forest down
>>> to build their big piggy "houses" they don't think it is appropriate to
>>> have a tower located anywhere near them so they have the permit tied up
>>> in court for over two years.
>>>
>>> My buddy lives in a rustic home that is ~ 1,200 square feet. The
>>> repeaters I have previously seen were better suited for commercial use.
>>>
>>> I was searching and noticed some vendors have packages that would be
>>> much more suitable for a house because the "base" unit does all of the
>>> work and could be placed on a table or counter. It has the amplifiers,
>>> power supply and an antenna. You just need to run a cable to an outside
>>> antenna.
>>>
>>> I was wondering if anyone had experience with them.
>>>
>>> Here is an example:
>>>
>>> http://www.repeaterstore.com/product...dual-band.html
>>
>>
>> From your link: "Approximate coverage are is 2,500 sq ft."
>>
>> The key thing about repeaters is the power of the amplifyer. The more the
>> power, the more sq ft it will accomodates. HOWEVER... often no one really
>> cares that much about "sq ft". What is left unsaid is that the power of
>> the amplifyer directly correlates to the DISTANCE FROM THE INSIDE ANTENNA
>> where your phone will work. That is probably the most important stat.
>> Also, whatever the "stats", cut them at least in half (or worse) to get
>> the real-world spec.
>>
>> Having said that... for only $50 more, you can get one that doubles this
>> "sq ft" spec., and therefore the distance from the antenna inside where
>> it will work.
>>
>> I use this one, for $399.00:
>> http://www.gpsandmarineworld.com/dig...da4000sbr.html
>>
>> It works geate for me.
>>
>> -Frank
>
> Do the math! A=pi*r^2 Doubling the area gives you only 1.4 times the
> range!
>
Who said that the change in the area covered (according to spec - laugh) is
directly proportional to the range from the inside antenna? Not me. Maybe it
is, not sure actually. There are a lot of installation factors that would
influence that though.
Anyway.... there are RF groups for the details (I guess). I only wanted to
get into this enough to get the basic point across about how the cost,
power, antenna separation distance, and distance from the inside antenna
were related. I wasn't trying to teach an RF course. (I used to do that....
hehe... but it's been too long, and I'm too old).
Frankster wrote:
>
> "George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:HI2dnXoKkaW3m0HanZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>> Frankster wrote:
>>>
>>> "George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:t8qdnRcGDviBdUbanZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>>> My buddy lives near a state forest. He uses VZW and there is usable
>>>> signal if you stand on one corner of the deck and never move. A
>>>> tower permit (for a monopole) was issued for a location about 2
>>>> miles from him. Unfortunately there is a development not far from
>>>> there where the smallest "house" is 7,000 square feet and every
>>>> driveway has multiple fluffed up trucks parked in it. So even though
>>>> they cut the forest down to build their big piggy "houses" they
>>>> don't think it is appropriate to have a tower located anywhere near
>>>> them so they have the permit tied up in court for over two years.
>>>>
>>>> My buddy lives in a rustic home that is ~ 1,200 square feet. The
>>>> repeaters I have previously seen were better suited for commercial use.
>>>>
>>>> I was searching and noticed some vendors have packages that would be
>>>> much more suitable for a house because the "base" unit does all of
>>>> the work and could be placed on a table or counter. It has the
>>>> amplifiers, power supply and an antenna. You just need to run a
>>>> cable to an outside antenna.
>>>>
>>>> I was wondering if anyone had experience with them.
>>>>
>>>> Here is an example:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.repeaterstore.com/product...dual-band.html
>>>>
>>>
>>> From your link: "Approximate coverage are is 2,500 sq ft."
>>>
>>> The key thing about repeaters is the power of the amplifyer. The more
>>> the power, the more sq ft it will accomodates. HOWEVER... often no
>>> one really cares that much about "sq ft". What is left unsaid is that
>>> the power of the amplifyer directly correlates to the DISTANCE FROM
>>> THE INSIDE ANTENNA where your phone will work. That is probably the
>>> most important stat. Also, whatever the "stats", cut them at least in
>>> half (or worse) to get the real-world spec.
>>>
>>> Having said that... for only $50 more, you can get one that doubles
>>> this "sq ft" spec., and therefore the distance from the antenna
>>> inside where it will work.
>>>
>>> I use this one, for $399.00:
>>> http://www.gpsandmarineworld.com/dig...da4000sbr.html
>>>
>>> It works geate for me.
>>>
>>> -Frank
>>
>> I agree with your opinion. This is clearly consumer stuff where you
>> have to wade through the marketing hype to figure out what it really
>> does.
>>
>> I have looked at units similar to your link and noted the spacing
>> requirements between the amplifier and antennas and the need for an
>> intermediate location for the amp. The nice part about the one I was
>> looking at is that it would work really well for my buddy's house.
>>
>> I see that Wilson has a new similar product and carefully avoids
>> describing what coverage might be expected:
>>
>> http://www.wilsonelectronics.com/801247.php
>
> There is no separation distance requirement between the amplifier and
> either antenna, ever. The separation requirement is always between the
> inside and outside antenna. The amplifier itself does not play into this
> distance. If you wanted to, you could mount the inside antenna right
> next to the amplifier, even though some do come with a 6ft cord attached.
The couple I had looked at previously had specific requirements that the
antennas had to be separated from each other and the amp. It doesn't
make a lot of intuitive sense but that was what the appnote showed.
>
> Also, I noticed with the Wilson repeater, the minimum separation
> distance is 20 feet between antennas (see installation guide). With the
> unit I am using it is 40 ft. The antenna minimum separation distance is
> directly related to the power of the amp. The more powerful the amp, the
> greater the minimum separation between the two antennas (to avoid
> amplifier oscillation caused by interference of the antenna's signals
> with each other). My amp has 60dB gain and requires 40ft separation
> between antennas. The Wilson unit has 50dB gain and requires only 20ft.
> Just for reference, EACH 3dB equates to TWICE THE POWER. So... a 60dB
> gain amp has considerably more power output than a 50dB amp (53dB is
> TWICE the power of 50dB, 56dB is TWICE the power of 53dB, etc.). This is
> where the working distance from the inside antenna plays into the
> equation. The more powerful, the greater distance away from the inside
> antenna it will work.
>
> -Frank
I understand logarithmic ratios. My buddy's house is small and the only
location for an antenna due to cabling is one corner. The large antenna
separation of the higher gain units would be hard to achieve.
Just thinking outloud the best result might be to use a 120 deg panel on
the inside corner of the house. It would be aimed away from the outside
antenna which should improve things and would provide gain. That is
assuming I can find a panel something that looks decent and isn't spendy.
"George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:Yq2dnWHQ2-t8iEDanZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Frankster wrote:
>>
>> "George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:HI2dnXoKkaW3m0HanZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>> Frankster wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:t8qdnRcGDviBdUbanZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>>>> My buddy lives near a state forest. He uses VZW and there is usable
>>>>> signal if you stand on one corner of the deck and never move. A tower
>>>>> permit (for a monopole) was issued for a location about 2 miles from
>>>>> him. Unfortunately there is a development not far from there where the
>>>>> smallest "house" is 7,000 square feet and every driveway has multiple
>>>>> fluffed up trucks parked in it. So even though they cut the forest
>>>>> down to build their big piggy "houses" they don't think it is
>>>>> appropriate to have a tower located anywhere near them so they have
>>>>> the permit tied up in court for over two years.
>>>>>
>>>>> My buddy lives in a rustic home that is ~ 1,200 square feet. The
>>>>> repeaters I have previously seen were better suited for commercial
>>>>> use.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was searching and noticed some vendors have packages that would be
>>>>> much more suitable for a house because the "base" unit does all of the
>>>>> work and could be placed on a table or counter. It has the amplifiers,
>>>>> power supply and an antenna. You just need to run a cable to an
>>>>> outside antenna.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was wondering if anyone had experience with them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is an example:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.repeaterstore.com/product...dual-band.html
>>>>
>>>> From your link: "Approximate coverage are is 2,500 sq ft."
>>>>
>>>> The key thing about repeaters is the power of the amplifyer. The more
>>>> the power, the more sq ft it will accomodates. HOWEVER... often no one
>>>> really cares that much about "sq ft". What is left unsaid is that the
>>>> power of the amplifyer directly correlates to the DISTANCE FROM THE
>>>> INSIDE ANTENNA where your phone will work. That is probably the most
>>>> important stat. Also, whatever the "stats", cut them at least in half
>>>> (or worse) to get the real-world spec.
>>>>
>>>> Having said that... for only $50 more, you can get one that doubles
>>>> this "sq ft" spec., and therefore the distance from the antenna inside
>>>> where it will work.
>>>>
>>>> I use this one, for $399.00:
>>>> http://www.gpsandmarineworld.com/dig...da4000sbr.html
>>>>
>>>> It works geate for me.
>>>>
>>>> -Frank
>>>
>>> I agree with your opinion. This is clearly consumer stuff where you have
>>> to wade through the marketing hype to figure out what it really does.
>>>
>>> I have looked at units similar to your link and noted the spacing
>>> requirements between the amplifier and antennas and the need for an
>>> intermediate location for the amp. The nice part about the one I was
>>> looking at is that it would work really well for my buddy's house.
>>>
>>> I see that Wilson has a new similar product and carefully avoids
>>> describing what coverage might be expected:
>>>
>>> http://www.wilsonelectronics.com/801247.php
>>
>> There is no separation distance requirement between the amplifier and
>> either antenna, ever. The separation requirement is always between the
>> inside and outside antenna. The amplifier itself does not play into this
>> distance. If you wanted to, you could mount the inside antenna right next
>> to the amplifier, even though some do come with a 6ft cord attached.
>
>
> The couple I had looked at previously had specific requirements that the
> antennas had to be separated from each other and the amp. It doesn't make
> a lot of intuitive sense but that was what the appnote showed.
>
>
>>
>> Also, I noticed with the Wilson repeater, the minimum separation distance
>> is 20 feet between antennas (see installation guide). With the unit I am
>> using it is 40 ft. The antenna minimum separation distance is directly
>> related to the power of the amp. The more powerful the amp, the greater
>> the minimum separation between the two antennas (to avoid amplifier
>> oscillation caused by interference of the antenna's signals with each
>> other). My amp has 60dB gain and requires 40ft separation between
>> antennas. The Wilson unit has 50dB gain and requires only 20ft. Just for
>> reference, EACH 3dB equates to TWICE THE POWER. So... a 60dB gain amp has
>> considerably more power output than a 50dB amp (53dB is TWICE the power
>> of 50dB, 56dB is TWICE the power of 53dB, etc.). This is where the
>> working distance from the inside antenna plays into the equation. The
>> more powerful, the greater distance away from the inside antenna it will
>> work.
>>
>> -Frank
>
> I understand logarithmic ratios. My buddy's house is small and the only
> location for an antenna due to cabling is one corner. The large antenna
> separation of the higher gain units would be hard to achieve.
>
> Just thinking outloud the best result might be to use a 120 deg panel on
> the inside corner of the house. It would be aimed away from the outside
> antenna which should improve things and would provide gain. That is
> assuming I can find a panel something that looks decent and isn't spendy.
Yeah, the only realistic way to achieve 40 feet is with a mast. I bought a
chain link fence pole long top rail and use it as a mast. That was the
cheapest solution I found. Purpose designed "masts" usually cost a lot more.
I think the fence rail was about $9.00. And the guy wires another $10 or so.
I mounted it on top of my house. The mast base mounting point on the roof is
about 20 feet higher than the inside antenna already. For your friends
situation, it is entirely likely that the unit you found is the best
solution. Just depends on the requirements.
>
> I understand logarithmic ratios. My buddy's house is small and the
> only location for an antenna due to cabling is one corner. The large
> antenna separation of the higher gain units would be hard to achieve.
>
> Just thinking outloud the best result might be to use a 120 deg panel
> on the inside corner of the house. It would be aimed away from the
> outside antenna which should improve things and would provide gain.
> That is assuming I can find a panel something that looks decent and
> isn't spendy.
Just out of curiosity, where is he located at? I had a metal snow roof in
Northern Idaho that blocked a signal 100%, and there was no problem having
the antennas near each other since they were blocked by the metal roof..
(outside yagi directional was on the TV antenna pole aimed at a cell tower
21 miles away, and the inside about 10 feet away (cable came in via the
stove vent), but blocked by the metal roof, and the BDA and inside antenna
was just inside below it on the kitchen ceiling)....
I Used one from http://www.cellantenna.com/ (click on cellular building and home repeaters),
even if you don't buy from them, may be worth going there to at least read
the tech papers and see what's available)
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 12:06:43 -0600, Frankster wrote:
> The more powerful the amp, the greater the minimum
> separation between the two antennas (to avoid amplifier oscillation caused
> by interference of the antenna's signals with each other).
Actually, it's to avoid desensing caused by the powerful transmitter signal
overriding the weak receiver signal.
Commercial and ham repeaters generally use one antenna fed through a device
called a duplexer, which is a tuned filter system to decrease any
transmitter signal present at the receiver's input.
"CellGuy" <cellguy@seemessagebody.com> wrote in message
news:wgztixct7wuw.sxbahjqgk0g3$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 12:06:43 -0600, Frankster wrote:
>
>> The more powerful the amp, the greater the minimum
>> separation between the two antennas (to avoid amplifier oscillation
>> caused
>> by interference of the antenna's signals with each other).
>
> Actually, it's to avoid desensing caused by the powerful transmitter
> signal
> overriding the weak receiver signal.
>
> Commercial and ham repeaters generally use one antenna fed through a
> device
> called a duplexer, which is a tuned filter system to decrease any
> transmitter signal present at the receiver's input.
On 2008-03-17, CellGuy <cellguy@seemessagebody.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 12:06:43 -0600, Frankster wrote:
>
>> The more powerful the amp, the greater the minimum
>> separation between the two antennas (to avoid amplifier oscillation caused
>> by interference of the antenna's signals with each other).
>
> Actually, it's to avoid desensing caused by the powerful transmitter signal
> overriding the weak receiver signal.
>
> Commercial and ham repeaters generally use one antenna fed through a device
> called a duplexer, which is a tuned filter system to decrease any
> transmitter signal present at the receiver's input.
Yes, though that works because commercial and ham repeaters transmit
a different frequency than they receive. Cell phone repeaters also
transmit and receive on separate frequencies with each antenna, and
use duplexers to keep these apart, but have the additional problem that
the transmit frequency on one antenna is identical to the receive
frequency on the other. The only way to make the latter work is to
keep the antennas far enough apart, with enough walls and other attenuators
between them, that they don't hear each other much.
cellular repeaters 
Linear Mode
