 |
|
 |
How can I optimize my 2.4GHz Link?
|
|
|
| cocacola |
|
Posts: 123
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:49 am
Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| wisp_engineer |
|
Posts: 45
Joined: 28 Apr 2008
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:43 am
Post subject:
|
While that booster might appear to be better, and it may or may not help it will for sure pollute the RF spectrum. This makes it more difficult for others to use the spectrum efficiently.
Higher gain directionals would solve the issue, and keep the spectrum usable should the OP need to install additional cameras, or should someone else might need to put some other WIFI on the air.
The "big hammer" approach to RF should never be used unless you know exactly what you are doing and completely comprehend the potential issues it can cause. 
|
|
|
|
| cocacola |
|
Posts: 123
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 1:05 am
Post subject:
|
| |
 |
 |
| wisp_engineer wrote: |
While that booster might appear to be better, and it may or may not help it will for sure pollute the RF spectrum. This makes it more difficult for others to use the spectrum efficiently.
Higher gain directionals would solve the issue, and keep the spectrum usable should the OP need to install additional cameras, or should someone else might need to put some other WIFI on the air.
The "big hammer" approach to RF should never be used unless you know exactly what you are doing and completely comprehend the potential issues it can cause. |
8~12 bdi gain antenna's cover a lager aerea, than the booster solution whit 2/3 dbi antenna's, but the range of the boosters will be more dence. So rf pollution will be less.
Anny way 500mW (thats max) in not mutch @t all.
a 12 bdi omni will give witt 100mW input more than 1.5 Watt (1.6 to be correct) 100mw=20 dbi+12 dbi=32 dbi=1.6 Watt
Whit 8 dbi omni antenna 20dbi+8=28 dbi= 630mW
See my point, the booster is not so bad @t all, and has a littel booster for incomming signal to!
dBm Watt
0 1.0 mW
1 1.3 mW
2 1.6 mW
3 2.0 mW
4 2.5 mW
5 3.2 mW
6 4 mW
7 5 mW
8 6 mW
9 8 mW
10 10 mW
11 13 mW
12 16 mW
13 20 mW
14 25 mW
15 32 mW
16 40 mW
17 50 mw
18 63 mW
19 79 mW
20 100 mw
21 126 mW
22 158 mW
23 200 mW
24 250 mW
25 316 mW
26 398 mW
27 500 mW
28 630 mW
29 800 mW
30 1.0 W
31 1.3 W
32 1.6 W
_________________
GPS and GSM Jammers: http://stores.ebay.com/Zeta-0049
|
|
|
|
| CCTV_Solutions |
|
Posts: 6
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:52 pm
Post subject:
|
|
All thats going to do is send a bigger signal to the rest of the neighborhood. I have 1/2 watt transmitters, and all they have to go it 120 feet.
|
|
|
|
| mcs |
|
Posts: 301
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Location: Austie
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 9:01 pm
Post subject:
|
D link have a booster you can buy which is basically a repeater...
_________________
GEOVISION, SAMSUNG reseller- Installer- Qualified cabler and Licensed Security company.
Inner Range Certified technician
S/E QLD Australia.
|
|
|
|
| cocacola |
|
Posts: 123
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:31 am
Post subject:
|
| CCTV_Solutions wrote: |
| All thats going to do is send a bigger signal to the rest of the neighborhood. I have 1/2 watt transmitters, and all they have to go it 120 feet. |
No a 8~12 dbi antenna is a pest neighborhood. better one booster whit a small 2/3dbi antenna for a denser signal that a pancake flat signal thats goinig for miles.
_________________
GPS and GSM Jammers: http://stores.ebay.com/Zeta-0049
|
|
|
|
| wisp_engineer |
|
Posts: 45
Joined: 28 Apr 2008
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:44 pm
Post subject:
|
Actually a directional is better for ANY solution where you must communicate between just two devices..... Period. There are times for omni-directional
antennas and the OP's situation is not one.
I work on multi-city-wide wireless networks every day. I install and troubleshoot point-to-point and point-to-multipoint networks as well. I have a firm grasp on where power amps should and should not be used. I think I know when/where various types of antennas should be used.
This is a situation where it could possibly cause harm to the existing 2.4GHz spectrum as well as the OP's system.
CCTV_Solutions what was your outcome?
|
|
|
|
| cocacola |
|
Posts: 123
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 6:55 am
Post subject:
|
| |
|
|
| wisp_engineer wrote: |
Actually a directional is better for ANY solution where you must communicate between just two devices..... Period. There are times for omni-directional
antennas and the OP's situation is not one.
I work on multi-city-wide wireless networks every day. I install and troubleshoot point-to-point and point-to-multipoint networks as well. I have a firm grasp on where power amps should and should not be used. I think I know when/where various types of antennas should be used.
This is a situation where it could possibly cause harm to the existing 2.4GHz spectrum as well as the OP's system.
CCTV_Solutions what was your outcome? |
how can it possibly harm when the out put signal is lower than a directional antenna solution.
Also it cost a lot to try diversity of antenna`s intill you got the right one's.
My solution is anyway working, easy to install, cheaper, less output power, and smaller to!
I work weekly whit 2.4 receivers, antenna's and boosters.
I know a dens signal is really important for reception otherwise you can get distortion from 2.4 ghz devises.
The booster is a really cheap solution, i do not know why a expensive experiment whit antenna`s should be the better sollution...
(you know what connectors, coax, antenna's co$t!)
_________________
GPS and GSM Jammers: http://stores.ebay.com/Zeta-0049
|
|
|
|
| cocacola |
|
Posts: 123
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 7:10 am
Post subject:
|
|
|
|
| cocacola |
|
Posts: 123
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 3:39 am
Post subject:
|
| |
|
|
I really like the stock antennas in combination whit the booster unless you have a specific fixed application
There are a couple problems using higher gain antennas in your situation. The first (detailed below) is loss of gain in the vertical and immediate surrounding area. Second is the loss in the cable and connectors - you lose significant gain in every foot of cable, and in every extra connector - stock antennas have no cable and only one connector.
When you use a "higher gain omni" antenna, you are actually losing gain from other directions (the sum of omnidirectional gain in all passive antennas approach the same value - therefore you are always correspondingly less omnidirectional the higher the antenna gain.) A higher-gain omni flattens the coverage area and/or decreases/eliminates gain for close proximity. True omnidirectional coverage is zero gain with the antenna in the center. Obviously all omni antennas have gain - so the coverage looks more like a doughnut. The higher the gain, the flatter the doughnut and the larger the hole is in the middle (the middle being where the antenna is located.)
So, long story short, I like the stock antennas, they have just the right balance for the dynamic conditions in a vehicle, house or fixes close position. They also have only one connector loss, and no cable loss.
_________________
GPS and GSM Jammers: http://stores.ebay.com/Zeta-0049
|
|
|
|
|
Options and Permissions
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
