Help with Boosting wireless router signal

I have a Netgear DG834gtUK router. some areas of the house suffers from
very low or no signal. Is there any easy way to rdctify this situation. 4
wireless laptops connects to router via PCMCIA wireless adapters Some
802.11b and some 802.11g.


Help would be much appreciated.

Thanks

Roy

What is the house made of?


Roy Amin wrote:
> I have a Netgear DG834gtUK router. some areas of the house suffers from
> very low or no signal. Is there any easy way to rdctify this situation. 4
> wireless laptops connects to router via PCMCIA wireless adapters Some
> 802.11b and some 802.11g.
>
>
> Help would be much appreciated.
>
> Thanks
>
> Roy

In alt.internet.wireless Roy Amin <rohitamin@lycos.co.uk> wrote:
> I have a Netgear DG834gtUK router. some areas of the house suffers from
> very low or no signal. Is there any easy way to rdctify this situation. 4
> wireless laptops connects to router via PCMCIA wireless adapters Some
> 802.11b and some 802.11g.

"No signal" is hard to measure or improve. I have no signal from my home
wireless when I am at work. That would be hard to boost enough to make it
work.

"low signal" can be improved quite nicely for free.

http://www.freeantennas.com EZ-12, printed on photo paper for thick stock,
with aluminum foil glued to the sail, provides a substantial boost in
signal. http://www.rahul.net/dold/clarence/EZ12-windsurfer.jpg
http://www.rahul.net/dold/clarence/w...fer-dining.JPG The signal with
the reflector is not only 13dB stronger, it's more stable.

I use a glue stick to glue the foil to the paper before I cut out the
template. When you cut out the "windsurfer" part, leave the tabs sticking
out farther than the drawing shows. I spend more time trying to tape the
little tabs in place than anything else.

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

"Justin" <Acurajustin1978@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128717402.332871.283540@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
> What is the house made of?
>

The router is in my garage (16'x16') which has been converted to my study.

I just realsised that when the conversion was carried out, I chose the best
insulation product for the walls ceiling and floor (Polyurathane foam,
Aluminium foil backing).

Nice and warm but I assume it is not much good for the signal to travel
through!!!

Rohit



>
> Roy Amin wrote:
>> I have a Netgear DG834gtUK router. some areas of the house suffers from
>> very low or no signal. Is there any easy way to rdctify this situation.
>> 4
>> wireless laptops connects to router via PCMCIA wireless adapters Some
>> 802.11b and some 802.11g.
>>
>>
>> Help would be much appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Roy
>

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <1128716701.81fb0b23f18a7a26e56484434428340c@teran ews> on Fri, 7 Oct 2005
21:25:04 +0100, "Roy Amin" <rohitamin@lycos.co.uk> wrote:

>I have a Netgear DG834gtUK router. some areas of the house suffers from
>very low or no signal. Is there any easy way to rdctify this situation. 4
>wireless laptops connects to router via PCMCIA wireless adapters Some
>802.11b and some 802.11g.

Probably the easiest solution is to put a WiFi Repeater (aka Range Expander)
in a part of the house that has signal, which can relay signal to parts of the
house that don't have signal; e.g, Netgear 54 Mbps Wireless Access Point
Model WG602 <http://www.netgear.com/products/details/WG602.php> in Repeater
Mode.

Another option is the Netgear 54 Mbps Wall-Plugged Wireless Range Extender Kit
Model WGXB102 <http://netgear.com/products/details/WGXB102.php>.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:GA92f.124385$qY1.61972@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <1128716701.81fb0b23f18a7a26e56484434428340c@teran ews> on Fri, 7 Oct
> 2005
> 21:25:04 +0100, "Roy Amin" <rohitamin@lycos.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I have a Netgear DG834gtUK router. some areas of the house suffers from
>>very low or no signal. Is there any easy way to rdctify this situation.
>>4
>>wireless laptops connects to router via PCMCIA wireless adapters Some
>>802.11b and some 802.11g.
>
> Probably the easiest solution is to put a WiFi Repeater (aka Range
> Expander)
> in a part of the house that has signal, which can relay signal to parts of
> the
> house that don't have signal; e.g, Netgear 54 Mbps Wireless Access Point
> Model WG602 <http://www.netgear.com/products/details/WG602.php> in
> Repeater
> Mode.
>
> Another option is the Netgear 54 Mbps Wall-Plugged Wireless Range Extender
> Kit
> Model WGXB102 <http://netgear.com/products/details/WGXB102.php>.
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>


THANKS JOHN.

Rohit

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 14:13:58 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

[alt.wireless deleted as Newsguy claims it's an invalid newsgroup]

>[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <1128716701.81fb0b23f18a7a26e56484434428340c@teran ews> on Fri, 7 Oct 2005
>21:25:04 +0100, "Roy Amin" <rohitamin@lycos.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I have a Netgear DG834gtUK router. some areas of the house suffers from
>>very low or no signal. Is there any easy way to rdctify this situation. 4
>>wireless laptops connects to router via PCMCIA wireless adapters Some
>>802.11b and some 802.11g.

>Probably the easiest solution is to put a WiFi Repeater (aka Range Expander)
>in a part of the house that has signal, which can relay signal to parts of the
>house that don't have signal; e.g, Netgear 54 Mbps Wireless Access Point
>Model WG602 <http://www.netgear.com/products/details/WG602.php> in Repeater
>Mode.

I beg to differ. 4 laptops implies a rather spacious house. A
followup indicated that there was foil backed insulation in the walls
turn each room into an RF isolated screen room. The same followup
indicated that the wireless router was in the garage, while the area
lacking coverage was in a possibly disconnected house. Installing a
single repeater might improve the signal in one area, but would
probably not cover all the various 4 or more rooms which I presume are
on the opposite side of the house.

I find it difficult to recommend solutions that sound like "buy this
contraption and all your coverage problems will be solved". In my
never humble opinion, RF repeaters, range extenders, and WDS bridges
are RF polluters of the worst kind. Details on request or you can use
Google to search for my past rants on the subject. Most often, I can
produce better and more reliable by working with the antennas, choice
of equipment, or topology. I save the repeaters for the last resort.

My guess is that the garage is at one end of the house and that the
topology requires that the signal pass through multiple walls.
Possibly, there are windows that will allow the signal to pass. As a
rule of thumb, the signal will go through one wall without much
difficulty. Two walls will cause problems. Three or more walls are a
waste of time. The construction material is also important. Concrete
and foil backed insulation tend to be fatal. As Clarence Dold
suggested, I would first experiment with improving the signal in the
direction of the house using reflectors and possibly replacement
antennas. Unfortunately, the DG834GT only has one antenna, so you
cannot replace one antenna with a directional antenna pointed at the
house, while retaining the original antenna for garage coverage.

>Another option is the Netgear 54 Mbps Wall-Plugged Wireless Range Extender Kit
>Model WGXB102 <http://netgear.com/products/details/WGXB102.php>.

Before you resort to a repeater, methinks it best to add a 2nd access
point to the system. Under ideal circumstances, that would require a
CAT5 cable from the garage to the house connected between a LAN port
on the DG834gt to the added access point. The access point need not
be any particular brand or model. Unlike repeaters, range extenders,
and WDS bridges, adding access points do not have "compatibility"
problems with different chipsets and brands. The access point can
also be a wireless router converted into an access point by disabling
the router section. Instructions on request.

The exact location or number of added access points is largely
dependent on the layout of the house. 4 laptops implies a two story
house, which may be difficult to cover with a single access point.
However, this added access point will be closer to the client radios
and therefore will probably have a more reliable connection.

If a CAT5 cable between the garage and the house is impossible, then
power line networking can be used. See:
http://www.HomePNA.com
Instead of using a power line repeater as suggested above, I suggest
you install an ethernet to power line bridge in the garage, and a
power line wireless access point in the house. You could also just
install power line networking directly to the client computers.
| http://netgear.com/products/details/XE102.php
| http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satel...VisitorWrapper
| http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satel...VisitorWrapper
| http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satel...VisitorWrapper
These power line bridges essentially replace the CAT5 cable to the
house. You can plug the computers directly into the bridge, or
install a wireless access point to connect via wireless.

The problem with power line networking is that it is somewhat slow,
doesn't work through the usual two phases found in home AC wiring, and
may not be available in UK 220V 50Hz devices. It is also susceptible
to local interference from everyone on the single transformer. I
recently fixed a HomePNA system that would die whenever a well pump
motor was running. The fix was easy enough (ferrite clamp on filter)
but finding the cause was a problem. I would run the CAT5 if
possible.

Good luck.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

In article <iueik1dge1uehs743eqp05j9i6rjfub23n@4ax.com>,
jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us says...

> As a rule of thumb, the signal will go through one wall without much
> difficulty. Two walls will cause problems. Three or more walls are a
> waste of time.

Not always.

I have a Netgear DG834G sited at the front of the house, on an upstairs
2nd floor. I am in a 'heavy duty' wooden garden building at the back of
the house, some 15 foot away from the rear house wall, and at ground
level.

In between me - line of sight - and the router, there are 3 brick walls
(the bricks are known as 'clinker' as they contain metal particles I
believe) and 1 thick wooden 'wall', the wall to the garden building.

I have a Draytek USB wireless adapter plugged into the front of the
PC... signal low, but a 'respectable' 12.0 Mbps

Of course, bear in mind that the actual thickness of the wall will
increase with angle, so a 14 inch wall will have considerably more
'cement' to pass through if the angle is greater.

This house is 'solid', in that it was originally built to a very high
specification back in the late 1950's, and doesn't have the timber
frames found in many modern homes in the UK (England) these days.

Quite possibly an exception rather than a rule I would imagine, but it
works, and it works well enough to surf the net, email et al. In fact,
this reply was sent using said connection.

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <iueik1dge1uehs743eqp05j9i6rjfub23n@4ax.com> on Sun, 09 Oct 2005 08:49:24
-0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:

>>Another option is the Netgear 54 Mbps Wall-Plugged Wireless Range Extender Kit
>>Model WGXB102 <http://netgear.com/products/details/WGXB102.php>.
>
>Before you resort to a repeater, methinks it best to add a 2nd access
>point to the system.

That's not a repeater. Regardless, in my own not so humble opinion, a 2nd
access point is no better than a repeater, and arguably worse.

>If a CAT5 cable between the garage and the house is impossible, then
>power line networking can be used. See:
> http://www.HomePNA.com
>Instead of using a power line repeater as suggested above, I suggest
>you install an ethernet to power line bridge in the garage, and a
>power line wireless access point in the house. You could also just
>install power line networking directly to the client computers.

That's essentially what the WGXB102 is, an Ethernet Bridge and a Range
Extender (access point), connected by power line networking.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 16:45:59 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <iueik1dge1uehs743eqp05j9i6rjfub23n@4ax.com> on Sun, 09 Oct 2005 08:49:24
>-0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>
>>>Another option is the Netgear 54 Mbps Wall-Plugged Wireless Range Extender Kit
>>>Model WGXB102 <http://netgear.com/products/details/WGXB102.php>.
>>
>>Before you resort to a repeater, methinks it best to add a 2nd access
>>point to the system.

>That's not a repeater. Regardless, in my own not so humble opinion, a 2nd
>access point is no better than a repeater, and arguably worse.

If the 2nd access point is on a different channel (1, 6, and 11),
there's no interference with the main wireless router. Why is a 2nd
access point worse than a repeater? Store and forward repeaters
retransmit everything heard on a given SSID thus doubling the number
of packets floating in the air. Since only one radio can transmit at
a time, this cuts the maximum thruput in half (or worse). An access
point on the same channel as the main router will also compete for air
time but is more selective about when it transmits as it only belches
traffic to the connected client radios, not regurgitating every
packet.

>>If a CAT5 cable between the garage and the house is impossible, then
>>power line networking can be used. See:
>> http://www.HomePNA.com
>>Instead of using a power line repeater as suggested above, I suggest
>>you install an ethernet to power line bridge in the garage, and a
>>power line wireless access point in the house. You could also just
>>install power line networking directly to the client computers.

>That's essentially what the WGXB102 is, an Ethernet Bridge and a Range
>Extender (access point), connected by power line networking.

Oops. You're correct. It does plug into the wireless router at one
end doing the same thing as what I suggested. I thought it was a
repeater.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Thanks everyone for their input.

Just to clarify my situation:

1. The house is a Modern 4 bedroom detached house.
2. The garage, where the wireless router is located is the only room with
the polyurathane (aluminium foil backed) insulation. My brainwave to
achieve good insulation when the garage was converted into a study. With
hindsight, when I converted the garage, I should have omitted the al.foil in
one area where the signal needs to pass through.
3. There is one laptop in each bedroom. That is where the signal is low
(still surfable in 3 of the 4 rooms).
4. The reason for the router to be in the garage is I do most work in the
garage and the router is connected (via ethernet cable) to a large heavy
colour laser printer which I really do no wish to locate.

Having reviewed what people have said in this NG, my best solution may be to
locate thewireless router in the house (I have tried it before and the
signal is great everywhere except the garage). Then perhaps have a wired
router in the garage which is not too difficult.

Many thanks.
Rohit

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
news:j9lik1hlgocas98jjqeb3ucr73va8evd7r@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 16:45:59 GMT, John Navas
> <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>>In <iueik1dge1uehs743eqp05j9i6rjfub23n@4ax.com> on Sun, 09 Oct 2005
>>08:49:24
>>-0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>>
>>>>Another option is the Netgear 54 Mbps Wall-Plugged Wireless Range
>>>>Extender Kit
>>>>Model WGXB102 <http://netgear.com/products/details/WGXB102.php>.
>>>
>>>Before you resort to a repeater, methinks it best to add a 2nd access
>>>point to the system.
>
>>That's not a repeater. Regardless, in my own not so humble opinion, a 2nd
>>access point is no better than a repeater, and arguably worse.
>
> If the 2nd access point is on a different channel (1, 6, and 11),
> there's no interference with the main wireless router. Why is a 2nd
> access point worse than a repeater? Store and forward repeaters
> retransmit everything heard on a given SSID thus doubling the number
> of packets floating in the air. Since only one radio can transmit at
> a time, this cuts the maximum thruput in half (or worse). An access
> point on the same channel as the main router will also compete for air
> time but is more selective about when it transmits as it only belches
> traffic to the connected client radios, not regurgitating every
> packet.
>
>>>If a CAT5 cable between the garage and the house is impossible, then
>>>power line networking can be used. See:
>>> http://www.HomePNA.com
>>>Instead of using a power line repeater as suggested above, I suggest
>>>you install an ethernet to power line bridge in the garage, and a
>>>power line wireless access point in the house. You could also just
>>>install power line networking directly to the client computers.
>
>>That's essentially what the WGXB102 is, an Ethernet Bridge and a Range
>>Extender (access point), connected by power line networking.
>
> Oops. You're correct. It does plug into the wireless router at one
> end doing the same thing as what I suggested. I thought it was a
> repeater.
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <j9lik1hlgocas98jjqeb3ucr73va8evd7r@4ax.com> on Sun, 09 Oct 2005 10:43:23
-0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:

>... Regardless, in my own not so humble opinion, a 2nd
>>access point is no better than a repeater, and arguably worse.
>
>If the 2nd access point is on a different channel (1, 6, and 11),
>there's no interference with the main wireless router. Why is a 2nd
>access point worse than a repeater? Store and forward repeaters
>retransmit everything heard on a given SSID thus doubling the number
>of packets floating in the air. Since only one radio can transmit at
>a time, this cuts the maximum thruput in half (or worse). An access
>point on the same channel as the main router will also compete for air
>time but is more selective about when it transmits as it only belches
>traffic to the connected client radios, not regurgitating every
>packet.

This all depends on the type of repeater. A dumb repeater is of course the
worst case. But in a connection-based system like WiFi, a repeater need only
repeat traffic where there is a connection.

Consider a home WiFi system with access point A and repeater B, with two
clients X and Y, where X is connected to A, and Y is connected through B. The
access point A does send and receive traffic for both X and Y, but the
repeater B need only repeat traffic for Y.

With two access points, each would have only one client, and thus A would only
send and receive traffic for X, but with both on different primary channels,
two of the available three primary channels would be taken up, which is
considerably less friendly to other users of the band (e.g., neighbors). Plus
there is the problem of connecting them together with some sort of wired
connection, the basic problem that wireless is intended to solve.

In effect, a WiFi access point and a repeater are like two access points that
share the same channel with a wireless link between them. True, the extra
wireless traffic will slow overall network throughput, but for most home
803.11g networks the speed loss won't be much (if any) of an issue, especially
in return for the wireless convenience.

This why I said that in my own not so humble opinion, a 2nd access point is no
better than a repeater, and arguably worse. I should have made it clear that
I was only talking about typical home networking, principally the sharing of a
broadband connection.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <BZt2f.405491$5N3.169664@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> on Mon, 10 Oct
2005 13:25:53 GMT, John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>In <j9lik1hlgocas98jjqeb3ucr73va8evd7r@4ax.com> on Sun, 09 Oct 2005 10:43:23
>-0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>
>>... Regardless, in my own not so humble opinion, a 2nd
>>>access point is no better than a repeater, and arguably worse.
>>
>>If the 2nd access point is on a different channel (1, 6, and 11),
>>there's no interference with the main wireless router. Why is a 2nd
>>access point worse than a repeater? Store and forward repeaters
>>retransmit everything heard on a given SSID thus doubling the number
>>of packets floating in the air. Since only one radio can transmit at
>>a time, this cuts the maximum thruput in half (or worse). An access
>>point on the same channel as the main router will also compete for air
>>time but is more selective about when it transmits as it only belches
>>traffic to the connected client radios, not regurgitating every
>>packet.
>
>This all depends on the type of repeater. A dumb repeater is of course the
>worst case. But in a connection-based system like WiFi, a repeater need only
>repeat traffic where there is a connection.
>
>Consider a home WiFi system with access point A and repeater B, with two
>clients X and Y, where X is connected to A, and Y is connected through B. The
>access point A does send and receive traffic for both X and Y, but the
>repeater B need only repeat traffic for Y.
>
>With two access points, each would have only one client, and thus A would only
>send and receive traffic for X, but with both on different primary channels,
>two of the available three primary channels would be taken up, which is
>considerably less friendly to other users of the band (e.g., neighbors). Plus
>there is the problem of connecting them together with some sort of wired
>connection, the basic problem that wireless is intended to solve.
>
>In effect, a WiFi access point and a repeater are like two access points that
>share the same channel with a wireless link between them. True, the extra
>wireless traffic will slow overall network throughput, but for most home
>803.11g networks the speed loss won't be much (if any) of an issue, especially
>in return for the wireless convenience.
>
>This why I said that in my own not so humble opinion, a 2nd access point is no
>better than a repeater, and arguably worse. I should have made it clear that
>I was only talking about typical home networking, principally the sharing of a
>broadband connection.

p.s. I recall two situations in the past year or so where I was called in to
help people that had home 802.11g networks with two access points. In both
cases the access points were on the same default channel, thus interfering
with each other. In one case I switched the 2nd access point to a different
channel. In the other case I switched one of the access points into a
repeater. Both cases resulted in improved operation, fully satisfying the
people involved. In the case of using two primary channels (probably 6 and
11), those people were taking up twice as much spectrum. I only did it that
way because (a) they had a large amount of property with no nearby neighbors
and (b) neither existing access point had a repeater mode.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Hmm...

Is ther no simple solution such as fitting a more powerful ariel to boost
the signal?

My router model is Netgear DG834GTUK

Thanks

"Phil Thompson" <phil.thompson@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:tr9kk1hgdi8l8aqiv8h7r5mboioumq4mk9@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 14:13:58 GMT, John Navas
> <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>e.g, Netgear 54 Mbps Wireless Access Point
>>Model WG602 <http://www.netgear.com/products/details/WG602.php> in
>>Repeater
>>Mode.
>
> ISTR they only repeat other instances of the same device, and won't
> repeat an 834 router. You could wire a 602 to the router and then use
> a second 602 as a repeater to that, but ??
>
> Phil
> --
>
> Usenet spam eaten by a Hamster http://www.tglsoft.de/
> No more cable clowns :-))
> Please do not feed or re-quote the trolls.

In general, what a better antenna does is concentrate the signal in a given
direction at the expense of other directions. That's why you'll often see
them referred to as "directional" antennas. To be really effective, you may
need them on both ends (wireless clients as well as the access point), which
can be inconvenient. If you want a stronger signal in general, then you need
more transmit power, again perhaps on both ends. That's why it often makes
more sense to (a) relocate the access point; (b) switch to units with longer
range [e.g., new MIMO technology]; (c) add a repeater; or (d) add another
access point.

In <1128953655.5f3e5a1c9d8f54487af14ca7990caf87@teran ews> on Mon, 10 Oct 2005
15:13:56 +0100, "Roy Amin" <rohitamin@lycos.co.uk> wrote:

>Hmm...
>
>Is ther no simple solution such as fitting a more powerful ariel to boost
>the signal?
>
>My router model is Netgear DG834GTUK
>
>Thanks
>
>"Phil Thompson" <phil.thompson@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>news:tr9kk1hgdi8l8aqiv8h7r5mboioumq4mk9@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 14:13:58 GMT, John Navas
>> <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>>e.g, Netgear 54 Mbps Wireless Access Point
>>>Model WG602 <http://www.netgear.com/products/details/WG602.php> in
>>>Repeater
>>>Mode.
>>
>> ISTR they only repeat other instances of the same device, and won't
>> repeat an 834 router. You could wire a 602 to the router and then use
>> a second 602 as a repeater to that, but ??
>>
>> Phil
>> --
>>
>> Usenet spam eaten by a Hamster http://www.tglsoft.de/
>> No more cable clowns :-))
>> Please do not feed or re-quote the trolls.
>

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

> Is ther no simple solution such as fitting a more powerful ariel to boost
> the signal?

Yes but antennas don't have "power" as such but rather take from one
area to provide gain in another.

Pop to www.solwise.co.uk and have a mooch around on the wireless
antennas page but you'll need a minimum of 6dB gain to roughly double
your range and in doing so will remove the signal from other locations.

You'd probably get good results by just locating the router somewhere
near the middle of the property instead of the usual corner where the
phone/cable comes in.

David.

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:35:10 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

[att.wireless deleted as Newsguy claims its an invalid group]

>In general, what a better antenna does is concentrate the signal in a given
>direction at the expense of other directions. That's why you'll often see
>them referred to as "directional" antennas. To be really effective, you may
>need them on both ends (wireless clients as well as the access point), which
>can be inconvenient.

I beg to differ. A directional antenna improves the signal strength
in both transmit and receive. An increase in transmit range also
creates an increase in receive range. Although it does help
substantially, there is no requirement that the client antenna also be
directional in order to derive benifits from a directional antenna at
the access point.

Directional antennas also much of their gain by borrowing signal from
what would otherwise be useless directions. For example, if the
desired coverage pattern is all at the same elevation, there is no
need to send signals into the sky or into the ground. This is the way
a high gain omnidirectional antenna works. It borrows signal that
would normally go up or down, and sends it out horizontally. The net
improvement in range is at the expense of vertical radiation angle. No
corresponding change in client antennas are required.

>If you want a stronger signal in general, then you need
>more transmit power, again perhaps on both ends.

Not perhaps, but required. When increasing transmit power at one end,
there must be a corresponding increase in transmit power at the other
end or the exercise is futile. Let's pretend that instead of the
usual 80 milliwatts (+17dBm) of insipid power, one purchases a 1 watt
amplifier for the access point. That's a 13dB increase in transmit
gain which should correspond to a 4 times increase in range. Sounds
great?

Well, it doesn't work that way. The range in one direction will
increase 4 times, but the client radio is still transmitting at only
+17dB. The receiver at the access point hasn't been improved by this
exercise. Therefore the access point receive range remains the same
as before the power amplifier and no net improvement in range is
achieved.

The addition of a power amplifier also creates a situation resembling
an "alligator" or an animal with a big mouth and small ears. It can
talk much furthur than it can hear. The above 1 watt amplifier
example can be heard in an area 16 times as large as the area in which
it can effectively communicate. In my never humble opinion, that's a
jammer. That's also why I detest Tropos Networks and other mesh
network vendors deploying 1 watt poletop radios. If the clients also
had 1 watt laptops, then the range in both directions would be equal
and all would be well, but they don't.

There is one situation where a tower top amplifier is workable. That's
on a tower, with a long length of very lossy coaxial cable. The
addition of a receive preamplifier to the power amplifier improves the
overall receive sensitivity by eliminating the coax loss from the
receive equations. However, the overall receive sensitivity will
probably not be better than that of the original access point because
they typical all digital receiver is already operating at the noise
floor of the technology. (Exact details and equations on request).

Another situation where an amplifier is workable is a point to point
link. However, to insure equal range in both directions, there has to
symmetry which requires that there be an amplifier at both ends of the
link.

>That's why it often makes
>more sense to (a) relocate the access point;
>(b) switch to units with longer
>range [e.g., new MIMO technology];
>(c) add a repeater;

Methinks repeaters suck. See previous article in this thread. MIMO
is especially good for high reflection environments such as indoors.
However it's currently impossible to add an external antenna to a MIMO
system.

>or (d) add another
>access point.

My order and sequence would be (in order).
1. Move the wireless router closer to the clients.
2. Install a better antenna system on the wireless router end.
3. Add a 2nd access point on a different channel.
4. Replace everything including clients with MIMO technology.
5. Add directional or better antennas on the client radios.
6. Repeater or range extender. Watch out for compatibility issues.
7. Power amplifier (don't bother).
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Thanks for the advice. It seems that an antenna which expands the
horizontal at the expense of vertical may be the answer for me.

My router is positioned such that the devices are no more than 2 metres
above or below it.

What type of antena do I need? I am not familiar with the jargon. Dougnut
Omni directional?

Thanks
Rohit

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
news:kg2lk11l57doh05hcsd39jgoi1eckqmenp@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:35:10 GMT, John Navas
> <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> [att.wireless deleted as Newsguy claims its an invalid group]
>
>>In general, what a better antenna does is concentrate the signal in a
>>given
>>direction at the expense of other directions. That's why you'll often see
>>them referred to as "directional" antennas. To be really effective, you
>>may
>>need them on both ends (wireless clients as well as the access point),
>>which
>>can be inconvenient.
>
> I beg to differ. A directional antenna improves the signal strength
> in both transmit and receive. An increase in transmit range also
> creates an increase in receive range. Although it does help
> substantially, there is no requirement that the client antenna also be
> directional in order to derive benifits from a directional antenna at
> the access point.
>
> Directional antennas also much of their gain by borrowing signal from
> what would otherwise be useless directions. For example, if the
> desired coverage pattern is all at the same elevation, there is no
> need to send signals into the sky or into the ground. This is the way
> a high gain omnidirectional antenna works. It borrows signal that
> would normally go up or down, and sends it out horizontally. The net
> improvement in range is at the expense of vertical radiation angle. No
> corresponding change in client antennas are required.
>
>>If you want a stronger signal in general, then you need
>>more transmit power, again perhaps on both ends.
>
> Not perhaps, but required. When increasing transmit power at one end,
> there must be a corresponding increase in transmit power at the other
> end or the exercise is futile. Let's pretend that instead of the
> usual 80 milliwatts (+17dBm) of insipid power, one purchases a 1 watt
> amplifier for the access point. That's a 13dB increase in transmit
> gain which should correspond to a 4 times increase in range. Sounds
> great?
>
> Well, it doesn't work that way. The range in one direction will
> increase 4 times, but the client radio is still transmitting at only
> +17dB. The receiver at the access point hasn't been improved by this
> exercise. Therefore the access point receive range remains the same
> as before the power amplifier and no net improvement in range is
> achieved.
>
> The addition of a power amplifier also creates a situation resembling
> an "alligator" or an animal with a big mouth and small ears. It can
> talk much furthur than it can hear. The above 1 watt amplifier
> example can be heard in an area 16 times as large as the area in which
> it can effectively communicate. In my never humble opinion, that's a
> jammer. That's also why I detest Tropos Networks and other mesh
> network vendors deploying 1 watt poletop radios. If the clients also
> had 1 watt laptops, then the range in both directions would be equal
> and all would be well, but they don't.
>
> There is one situation where a tower top amplifier is workable. That's
> on a tower, with a long length of very lossy coaxial cable. The
> addition of a receive preamplifier to the power amplifier improves the
> overall receive sensitivity by eliminating the coax loss from the
> receive equations. However, the overall receive sensitivity will
> probably not be better than that of the original access point because
> they typical all digital receiver is already operating at the noise
> floor of the technology. (Exact details and equations on request).
>
> Another situation where an amplifier is workable is a point to point
> link. However, to insure equal range in both directions, there has to
> symmetry which requires that there be an amplifier at both ends of the
> link.
>
>>That's why it often makes
>>more sense to (a) relocate the access point;
>>(b) switch to units with longer
>>range [e.g., new MIMO technology];
>>(c) add a repeater;
>
> Methinks repeaters suck. See previous article in this thread. MIMO
> is especially good for high reflection environments such as indoors.
> However it's currently impossible to add an external antenna to a MIMO
> system.
>
>>or (d) add another
>>access point.
>
> My order and sequence would be (in order).
> 1. Move the wireless router closer to the clients.
> 2. Install a better antenna system on the wireless router end.
> 3. Add a 2nd access point on a different channel.
> 4. Replace everything including clients with MIMO technology.
> 5. Add directional or better antennas on the client radios.
> 6. Repeater or range extender. Watch out for compatibility issues.
> 7. Power amplifier (don't bother).
> --
> Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:40:37 +0100, "Roy Amin" <rohitamin@lycos.co.uk>
wrote:

>Thanks for the advice. It seems that an antenna which expands the
>horizontal at the expense of vertical may be the answer for me.
>
>My router is positioned such that the devices are no more than 2 metres
>above or below it.
>
>What type of antena do I need? I am not familiar with the jargon. Dougnut
>Omni directional?

I can't really tell without have a look at the layout and premsis. My
guess is almost anything with over about 6dBi of gain will work. That
includes coffee can antennas, biguads, and panels. The reflectors in:
http://www.FreeAntennas.com
are an easy start and good way to test if the antenna will make a
difference. Don't use a dish or yagi as they are too high in gain and
will result in a very narrow pattern. A higher gain omni antenna
might be possible, but I don't like the reflection problems they
create. Therefore, I my bias is towards a patch or panel antenna with
about 8-12dBi gain.

You don't sound like you're going to build anything so I suggest:
http://www.fab-corp.com
and a source and supplier. Keep the coax cable lengths short.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:25:53 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <j9lik1hlgocas98jjqeb3ucr73va8evd7r@4ax.com> on Sun, 09 Oct 2005 10:43:23
>-0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>
>>... Regardless, in my own not so humble opinion, a 2nd
>>>access point is no better than a repeater, and arguably worse.
>>
>>If the 2nd access point is on a different channel (1, 6, and 11),
>>there's no interference with the main wireless router. Why is a 2nd
>>access point worse than a repeater? Store and forward repeaters
>>retransmit everything heard on a given SSID thus doubling the number
>>of packets floating in the air. Since only one radio can transmit at
>>a time, this cuts the maximum thruput in half (or worse). An access
>>point on the same channel as the main router will also compete for air
>>time but is more selective about when it transmits as it only belches
>>traffic to the connected client radios, not regurgitating every
>>packet.

>This all depends on the type of repeater. A dumb repeater is of course the
>worst case. But in a connection-based system like WiFi, a repeater need only
>repeat traffic where there is a connection.

I've only seen three types of repeaters.

One is extremely dumb and will store and forward literally anything
that it can decode. No filtering by any criteria. Fortunately, these
are long gone. Unfortunately, some repeaters (DWL-900AP+) can
simulate this abomination by using ANY or a blank for the SSID.

The 2nd type is one that filters by SSID. It will regurgitate
anything that it can decode for a specific SSID. That also includes
broadcasts, ARP requests, multicast, beacons, management frames, flow
control frames, and such. The SSID filtering is crude and not very
effective at limiting useless traffic. It would be really nice if
there were additional filters available, such as by MAC address or IP
address, but I haven't seen that. Neither have I seen one that only
rebroadcasts traffic that is connected through the repeater.

If the repeater were a true wireless bridge, which only passes traffic
to devices that appear in a bridging table, that would work the way
you describe. However, that's difficult bordering on impossible
because the repeater only has one bridge port. There's no way to tell
if a MAC address is appearing at an input or output to the bridge as
the input and output are one and the same in a repeater. If the
wireless bridge worked on two different channels, one for input and
one for output, then it would work as you describe. However, none of
the commercial repeaters or range extenders work like this. I have
built what I guess could be construed as a wireless repeater out of
two WAP11 wireless bridges back to back on different channels. That's
what it takes to only pass unicast traffic to the connected endpoint.
Nobody sells those (yet).

The 3rd type is a WDS bridge. These are limited to compatible
chipsets but work very well. All unicast traffic is directed and the
bridge only repeats traffic destined to the other WDS device. That's
because the MAC addresses of all connected WDS repeaters are
pre-programmed into each WDS device. This is the least obnoxious
repeater and operates the way you describe.

>Consider a home WiFi system with access point A and repeater B, with two
>clients X and Y, where X is connected to A, and Y is connected through B. The
>access point A does send and receive traffic for both X and Y, but the
>repeater B need only repeat traffic for Y.

The common range extender store and forward repeater does not work
like that. It will repeat any traffic it can decode for a specified
SSID even if that traffic is not destined to a device that goes
through the repeater.

>With two access points, each would have only one client, and thus A would only
>send and receive traffic for X, but with both on different primary channels,
>two of the available three primary channels would be taken up, which is
>considerably less friendly to other users of the band (e.g., neighbors). Plus
>there is the problem of connecting them together with some sort of wired
>connection, the basic problem that wireless is intended to solve.

That will work with two radios and two channels. There's also no
reduction in wireless thruput as the system is full duplex. Nobody
makes such a product and few (except me) bother to implement it due to
the cost of two boxes. There are several mesh network vendors that
also make multichannel, full duplex, poletop radios. For example:
http://www.belairnetworks.com
They have 3 radios in the box.

>In effect, a WiFi access point and a repeater are like two access points that
>share the same channel with a wireless link between them.

No they're not. There's no input or output port distinction on a
wireless repeater. It can't tell whether to forward a packet based on
its MAC address as in a real bridge. Instead, the repeater has to use
some other criteria to decide whether to regurgitate a packet. Except
for WDS repeaters, they just retransmit anything they decode for a
given SSID. Are you perhaps thinking of a WDS repeater?

>True, the extra
>wireless traffic will slow overall network throughput, but for most home
>803.11g networks the speed loss won't be much (if any) of an issue, especially
>in return for the wireless convenience.

Ah yes. Convenience is a good thing. Incidentally, I've tinkered
with the Dlink DWL-G710 range extender. It has horrible thruput
problems when in the 802.11b compatibility mode. It's bad enough that
the access point has to switch between 802.11g and 802.11b in the
802.11b compatibility mode. Getting the DWL-G710 to switch at the
exact same time seems to be a problem. When I tested the thruput with
a DI-624 the packet loss with an 802.11b client (Orinoco Silver) was
terrible. Turning off the compatibility mode prevented connections to
802.11b clients, but at least sorta worked with 802.11g clients.

Are you sure you still want to recommend using repeaters?

>This why I said that in my own not so humble opinion, a 2nd access point is no
>better than a repeater, and arguably worse. I should have made it clear that
>I was only talking about typical home networking, principally the sharing of a
>broadband connection.

Adding a 2nd access point does have it's limitations but nothing as
bad as the excess traffic, chipset compatiblity, and 802.11b
compatibility mode problems that I've itemized. If the 2nd access
point is on the same channel as the main wireless router, then there
is a possibility of mutual interference. However, if they are
isolated by an aluminium foil back insulation RF barrier, methinks
they could survive on the same channel. I installed a 2nd access
point in a long thin house, with one radio at each end of the house.
The two access points can barely hear each other and do not interfere
much. Works fine. Of course, using different channels is the right
way to do this and totally eliminates the interference problem. The
only downside is that one must run a CAT5 cable between the boxes, or
as you suggested, use power line networking to extend the system.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 10/10/2005 Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> I can't really tell without have a look at the layout and premsis. My
> guess is almost anything with over about 6dBi of gain will work. That
> includes coffee can antennas, biguads, and panels. The reflectors in:


If I remember the bad old days of CB radio burners were quite popular,
wonder if anybody has come up with one for wireless networks yet?

--
Jeff Gaines - Damerham Hampshire UK
Using XanaNews 1.17.6.5

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <7l7lk1hafbfqhmnv1vpfvgg9b3rcekehhk@4ax.com> on Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:31:52
-0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:

>Are you sure you still want to recommend using repeaters?

Yes. As I wrote in my follow-up, I've gotten good results without the
downside of using a different channel. To be fair, both cases were 802.11g
networks running in 802.11g mode only.

>Adding a 2nd access point does have it's limitations but nothing as
>bad as the excess traffic, chipset compatiblity, and 802.11b
>compatibility mode problems that I've itemized.

As noted in my earlier replies, I select hardware carefully. ;)

>If the 2nd access
>point is on the same channel as the main wireless router, then there
>is a possibility of mutual interference. However, if they are
>isolated by an aluminium foil back insulation RF barrier, methinks
>they could survive on the same channel.

My experience: In the real world they often (usually?) won't be, and on
different channels (as you recommended in your earlier post), they will
pollute an additional primary channel, which I personally think is the greater
sin.

>I installed a 2nd access
>point in a long thin house, with one radio at each end of the house.
>The two access points can barely hear each other and do not interfere
>much. Works fine. ...

Indeed, in that special case. Where they overlap, as they often do,
interference can be a big issue.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <kg2lk11l57doh05hcsd39jgoi1eckqmenp@4ax.com> on Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:35:13
-0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:35:10 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>[att.wireless deleted as Newsguy claims its an invalid group]
>
>>In general, what a better antenna does is concentrate the signal in a given
>>direction at the expense of other directions. That's why you'll often see
>>them referred to as "directional" antennas. To be really effective, you may
>>need them on both ends (wireless clients as well as the access point), which
>>can be inconvenient.
>
>I beg to differ. A directional antenna improves the signal strength
>in both transmit and receive. An increase in transmit range also
>creates an increase in receive range. Although it does help
>substantially, there is no requirement that the client antenna also be
>directional in order to derive benifits from a directional antenna at
>the access point.

<http://www.ce-mag.com/archive/02/Spring/cutler2.html>:

In indoor applications, directional antennas can provide better
performance than omnidirectional antennas. This is not due to the
gain increase typically associated with directional antennas, but
rather to backside and off-axis rejection that can reduce multipath
cancellation. Not all directional antennas (e.g., Yagi antennas) have
much backside rejection.

Antenna gain results from focusing transmitted energy into a smaller
cross-sectional area. Ideal radiators, called isotropic radiators,
radiate energy in all directions from a point source at equal
intensity. Limiting the radiated energy to a portion of this ideal
sphere increases signal intensity in the focal area.

>>If you want a stronger signal in general, then you need
>>more transmit power, again perhaps on both ends.
>
>Not perhaps, but required. When increasing transmit power at one end,
>there must be a corresponding increase in transmit power at the other
>end or the exercise is futile. ...

Not necessarily -- depends on which device is operating closer to its noise
floor. If that's the client, then an increase in access point transmit power
can help, and vice versa.

>>That's why it often makes
>>more sense to (a) relocate the access point;
>>(b) switch to units with longer
>>range [e.g., new MIMO technology];
>>(c) add a repeater;
>
>Methinks repeaters suck. See previous article in this thread.

Fair enough -- we disagree.

>MIMO
>is especially good for high reflection environments such as indoors.
>However it's currently impossible to add an external antenna to a MIMO
>system.
>
>>or (d) add another
>>access point.
>
>My order and sequence would be (in order).
>1. Move the wireless router closer to the clients.
>2. Install a better antenna system on the wireless router end.
>3. Add a 2nd access point on a different channel.
>4. Replace everything including clients with MIMO technology.
>5. Add directional or better antennas on the client radios.
>6. Repeater or range extender. Watch out for compatibility issues.
>7. Power amplifier (don't bother).

Except for our different feelings about repeaters, I don't think we all that
far apart, except that I'm perhaps a bit more pragmatic and sensitive to
creating problems for neighbors. My order and sequence would be (in order).
1. Move the wireless router closer to the clients.
Ideal, but often not possible/practical.
2. Better access point antenna orientation.
Easy fix. Lock down access point with tough Velcro.
Glue antenna in place.
3. Better hardware.
Way too much junk out there.
4. Repeater or range extender. Watch out for compatibility issues.
Agreed.
5. Install a better antenna system on the wireless router end.
Tradeoffs (loss of coverage in another area) may make that impractical.
6. Add a 2nd access point on a different channel.
Piss off the neighbors.
7. Replace everything including clients with MIMO technology.
High cost.
8. Add directional or better antennas on the client radios.
Impractical on mobile computers.
9. Power amplifier (don't bother).
Agreed.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

On 10 Oct 2005 22:02:41 GMT, "Jeff Gaines"
<jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On 10/10/2005 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> I can't really tell without have a look at the layout and premsis. My
>> guess is almost anything with over about 6dBi of gain will work. That
>> includes coffee can antennas, biguads, and panels. The reflectors in:

>If I remember the bad old days of CB radio burners were quite popular,
>wonder if anybody has come up with one for wireless networks yet?

Of course there are power amps, linears, boosters, and all manner of
illegal devices:
http://www.hyperlinktech.com/web/24g...amplifiers.php
Is 25 watts for $4,000 enough? Of course you have to military,
government, amateur radio operator, exporter, or wealthy to buy one.

Some more made for ham radio:
http://www.ssbusa.com/kunamp1.html
Ooooh... 100 watts output. That should cook the coax, antenna,
neighbors, and your dinner.

Just one problem. You might have the strongest signal in the
neighborhood (or country) but you still can hear any better than with
a conventional wireless access point. Unless the other end of a point
to point link is using a similar amplifier, all you're doing is
jamming and creating un-necessary interference. Please note that
Wi-Fi is one of the few technologies developed in the last 20 years
that does not have automagic transmitter power control to minimize
interference.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:57:35 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>>I beg to differ. A directional antenna improves the signal strength
>>in both transmit and receive. An increase in transmit range also
>>creates an