Extend wifi antenna range

Could I extend the range of this wifi antenna by extending the wire lengths ?

Not sure why there are 8 wires for an antenna.

http://i1289.photobucket.com/albums/...ps765323b0.jpg

Andy

From: "Andy"

Could I extend the range of this wifi antenna by extending the wire
lengths ?

Not sure why there are 8 wires for an antenna.

http://i1289.photobucket.com/albums/...ps765323b0.jpg

Andy


No.

--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

On Thursday, December 19, 2013 6:00:28 PM UTC-6, David H. Lipman wrote:
From: "Andy"



Could I extend the range of this wifi antenna by extending the wire

lengths ?



Not sure why there are 8 wires for an antenna.



http://i1289.photobucket.com/albums/...ps765323b0.jpg



Andy





No.



--

Dave

Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk

http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

Actually there is a way.

Wrap 5 or 6 coils of wire around antenna and cut 8 ft. piece of wire.

Doubled speed.

Andy wrote:
Could I extend the range of this wifi antenna by extending the wire lengths ?

Not sure why there are 8 wires for an antenna.

http://i1289.photobucket.com/albums/...ps765323b0.jpg

Andy

Why not figure out what a quarter wavelength at that frequency would be ?
The length could be optimized for resonance at a particular frequency.

There are some low frequency antennas, where the longer the wire, the
better. But your antenna is for two and a half gig, or five plus gig,
which is microwave frequencies. A good, high gain antenna, may not cover
both bands at the same time. So you'd at least want to check the
Wifi device, to see if it operates at one band or two, or, has separate
antenna connectors for the bands.

This article is intended to give you some idea of the complexity.

http://www.hamuniverse.com/yagibasics.html

And this software, is a simulator for simulating antennas. In
fact, some antenna people, will not buy an antenna over the
Internet, unless they can get the dimensions and simulate it.
Data entry for antenna simulation, is a big detractor from
using this stuff. (Lots of typing...)

http://www.qsl.net/4nec2/

Now, I've built an antenna, from scratch. I had the plots and
predictions as to what frequency it would cut off at. Instead
of behaving as the simulator predicted, it "wasted gain" at
high frequencies, and allowed me to pick up television from
another city. It wasn't supposed to be able to do that. To
its credit, the beam width of the antenna was pretty close.
The antenna was around 15 degrees, and a bitch to point. To
be practical, such an antenna should sit on a rotator. When
your antenna is that directional, it may need to be shifted a
degree or two now and then, for optimum results.

When you get a Wifi device, it comes with an omnidirectional
antenna. Antennas are three dimensional beasts, and the omni
makes a donut pattern. In fact, if you had a Wifi laptop
in the basement, directly below the original antenna, there
might be no signal there, as the antenna lobes don't point
there. It's important to know what the radiation pattern looks
like, before "attempting something dumb". If the antenna
has a dead spot in the pattern, you must avoid it.

Similarly, if you live in a house with two floors to it,
then buy an extremely directional antenna, there may be no
radiation pattern below the horizon. And then an attempt to
reach the other floor might fail. In fact, the antenna may
need to be tipped or rotated.

Even when a transmitter site and receiver site are reasonably
horizontally oriented (same elevation), the antenna may still
need to be tilted for optimal signal. This is caused by
"bending". You can find web sites that discuss the effects of
nearby objects, and the suggestion to not blindly accept
perfectly vertical as the best choice.

Obviously, if you have four receivers, all in different directions
and heights, you can't really use a single directional antenna
to reach all of them. But as I understand your application,
which is "point to point beaming" between two units, carry
on with your extreme directional testing. If you select
the very best antennas, you'll "need a laser to align them".
Getting optimal antenna position is that difficult.

And the best antenna, cannot defeat a Faraday cage. If
there is a metal door frame or something similar in the way,
a high gain antenna might not defeat that. It helps, if you
have some kind of software for your Wifi card, that can
give an indication of signal strength, as you "walk away"
from your router.

Paul

From: "Andy"

On Thursday, December 19, 2013 6:00:28 PM UTC-6, David H. Lipman wrote:
From: "Andy"



Could I extend the range of this wifi antenna by extending the wire

lengths ?



Not sure why there are 8 wires for an antenna.



http://i1289.photobucket.com/albums/...ps765323b0.jpg



Andy





No.



Actually there is a way.

Wrap 5 or 6 coils of wire around antenna and cut 8 ft. piece of wire.

Doubled speed.

LOL - too phunny...


--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

Paul wrote:
Andy wrote:
Could I extend the range of this wifi antenna by extending the wire
lengths ?

Not sure why there are 8 wires for an antenna.

http://i1289.photobucket.com/albums/...ps765323b0.jpg

Andy

Why not figure out what a quarter wavelength at that frequency would be ?
The length could be optimized for resonance at a particular frequency.

where lambda (wavelength) = v / f. But I don't think that's gonna help
much here, but who knows. I'd be surprised if they come out to be 1/4
wavelength, but I could be pleasantly surprised, I guess. :-)

There are some low frequency antennas, where the longer the wire, the
better. But your antenna is for two and a half gig, or five plus gig,
which is microwave frequencies. A good, high gain antenna, may not cover
both bands at the same time. So you'd at least want to check the
Wifi device, to see if it operates at one band or two, or, has separate
antenna connectors for the bands.

This article is intended to give you some idea of the complexity.

http://www.hamuniverse.com/yagibasics.html

And this software, is a simulator for simulating antennas. In
fact, some antenna people, will not buy an antenna over the
Internet, unless they can get the dimensions and simulate it.
Data entry for antenna simulation, is a big detractor from
using this stuff. (Lots of typing...)

http://www.qsl.net/4nec2/

Now, I've built an antenna, from scratch.

Same here. (an ex-amateur radio op, amongst other things)

I had the plots and
predictions as to what frequency it would cut off at. Instead
of behaving as the simulator predicted, it "wasted gain" at
high frequencies, and allowed me to pick up television from
another city. It wasn't supposed to be able to do that. To
its credit, the beam width of the antenna was pretty close.

And who knows what the *bandwidth* of the antenna was (bandwidth, not
beamwidth). So that's another factor here. And it's not all or nothing,
it's a curve, of course. We could be simplistic here and say the antenna
gain vs freq is like a bell curve, but that's being a bit oversimplistic,
and it's going to depend on the antenna type.

Also, directional antennas tend to have multiple lobes, so even if it has a
15 degree beamwidth in the desired direction, there are side lobes that have
some gain. Now I wonder if you're talking about a Yagi-Uda beam antenna
here, like a 3 element beam antenna - I'm guessing you are.

But for a cell phone or Wifi, this is all probably a moot point, as I think
one wants omnidirectionality. So the idea of any antenna gain goes out the
window, since antenna gain comes from directionality, just like a lens.

The antenna was around 15 degrees, and a bitch to point. To
be practical, such an antenna should sit on a rotator. When
your antenna is that directional, it may need to be shifted a
degree or two now and then, for optimum results.

Yup - like for a Yagi beam antenna up on the roof or a tower, for example.

When you get a Wifi device, it comes with an omnidirectional
antenna. Antennas are three dimensional beasts, and the omni
makes a donut pattern. In fact, if you had a Wifi laptop
in the basement, directly below the original antenna, there
might be no signal there, as the antenna lobes don't point
there. It's important to know what the radiation pattern looks
like, before "attempting something dumb". If the antenna
has a dead spot in the pattern, you must avoid it.

Yup. And these dead spots suck, just like for a cell phone. :-)

Similarly, if you live in a house with two floors to it,
then buy an extremely directional antenna, there may be no
radiation pattern below the horizon. And then an attempt to
reach the other floor might fail. In fact, the antenna may
need to be tipped or rotated.

Even when a transmitter site and receiver site are reasonably
horizontally oriented (same elevation),

.... should probably add this:
aka horizontal polarization, as opposed to vertical polarization (as from a
1/4 wavelength vertical antenna, for example)

the antenna may still
need to be tilted for optimal signal. This is caused by
"bending". You can find web sites that discuss the effects of
nearby objects, and the suggestion to not blindly accept
perfectly vertical as the best choice.

Obviously, if you have four receivers, all in different directions
and heights, you can't really use a single directional antenna
to reach all of them. But as I understand your application,
which is "point to point beaming" between two units, carry
on with your extreme directional testing. If you select
the very best antennas, you'll "need a laser to align them".
Getting optimal antenna position is that difficult.

And the best antenna, cannot defeat a Faraday cage. If
there is a metal door frame or something similar in the way,
a high gain antenna might not defeat that. It helps, if you
have some kind of software for your Wifi card, that can
give an indication of signal strength, as you "walk away"
from your router.

Paul

I sometimes tell people using cell phones to get next to a large window in
the hopes of minimizing dropouts caused by any metal conductors in the
rooms. I don't have enough data to confirm it works, but it just makes
intuitive sense to me. :-)

David H. Lipman wrote:
From: "Andy"

On Thursday, December 19, 2013 6:00:28 PM UTC-6, David H. Lipman wrote:
From: "Andy"

Could I extend the range of this wifi antenna by extending the wire
lengths ?

Not sure why there are 8 wires for an antenna.

http://i1289.photobucket.com/albums/
b516/drew77580/antenna_zps765323b0.jpg

Andy

No.

Actually there is a way.
Wrap 5 or 6 coils of wire around antenna and cut 8 ft. piece of wire.
Doubled speed.

LOL - too phunny...

He forgot the "and hang it out the window part". :-)

In message , Paul writes:
Andy wrote:
Could I extend the range of this wifi antenna by extending the wire lengths ?
Not sure why there are 8 wires for an antenna.

http://i1289.photobucket.com/albums/...na_zps765323b0.

Andy

Why not figure out what a quarter wavelength at that frequency would be ?
The length could be optimized for resonance at a particular frequency.

A whole wavelength is 125mm @ 2.4 GHz, 80 @ 5. It's c/f, where c is the
speed of light (about 300 000 000 m/s). Practically aerial elements are
a little shorter.

You can get directional aerials for 2.4; the simplest ones are longer,
which increase the gain in a ring horizontally around them (assuming
they're vertical) at the expense of vertically. (No aerial gives you
gain overall - it's always increased somewhere at the expense of
somewhere else.) [These longer ones aren't just a longer piece of wire
inside though.] Next up are dishes - Hawking sell a few - and even a
Yagi (TV aerial type of thing) - I think Swann do one.
[]
And the best antenna, cannot defeat a Faraday cage. If
there is a metal door frame or something similar in the way,
a high gain antenna might not defeat that. It helps, if you
have some kind of software for your Wifi card, that can
give an indication of signal strength, as you "walk away"
from your router.

Though to be a good Faraday cage, it has to have a mesh finer than the
wavelength, which at 2.4 GHz isn't a doorway (-:. I continue to be
surprised that my SatNav works fine almost on the floor of my car.

Paul
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"What did I do to deserve this?" "How long a list would you like?"- Vila & Avon

In message , Bill in Co
writes:
[]
Now, I've built an antenna, from scratch.

Same here. (an ex-amateur radio op, amongst other things)

Hi! (That's why I was taken with the Yagi offered. Plenty on ebay. I
think some of them claim up to about 14 dB.)
[]
window, since antenna gain comes from directionality, just like a lens.

Indeed!
[]
Even when a transmitter site and receiver site are reasonably
horizontally oriented (same elevation),

... should probably add this:
aka horizontal polarization, as opposed to vertical polarization (as from a
1/4 wavelength vertical antenna, for example)

No, he meant - and said, actually! - same height. For which vertical
polarization would eliminate one axis of doubt ...

the antenna may still
need to be tilted for optimal signal. This is caused by
"bending". You can find web sites that discuss the effects of
nearby objects, and the suggestion to not blindly accept
perfectly vertical as the best choice.

.... apart from that, of course.
[]
I sometimes tell people using cell phones to get next to a large window in
the hopes of minimizing dropouts caused by any metal conductors in the
rooms. I don't have enough data to confirm it works, but it just makes
intuitive sense to me. :-)

Agreed. I don't think it's as much the cage - see my earlier comments
about wavelength - as just energy absorption (which ought to be
re-radiated, but who knows in what direction).

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

- often six furlongs ahead of the field, but on the wrong racecourse. - Colin
Dexter on (his creation the character) Morse; Radio Times 12-18 May 2012.

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:


A whole wavelength is 125mm @ 2.4 GHz, 80 @ 5. It's c/f, where c is the
speed of light (about 300 000 000 m/s). Practically aerial elements are
a little shorter.


So maybe there's "more than meets the eye", to that antenna ?

Antennas need relatively good precision, when building them,
to get close to the simulated results. The cantenna designs
for example, benefit from proper machining. Rather than just
punching a hole with a pencil and ramming the feed into it.

That's also a problem with the simulated results. They
seldom take into account the dielectric constant of the
mechanical framework, or the impact of framework elements.
Some frameworks, the shape of the framework is selected,
because it's known not to interfere with antenna performance
(direction 90 degrees to elements). If you run mechanical
elements in the other direction, they upset the antenna specs.
It's a bit tricky for guys like me, with
drill/saw/sander in the basement :-) My antenna,
the framework wasn't strong enough to hold it
properly, so I had to add to the framework to
make it strong enough.

Paul

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co
writes:
[]
Now, I've built an antenna, from scratch.

Same here. (an ex-amateur radio op, amongst other things)

Hi! (That's why I was taken with the Yagi offered. Plenty on ebay. I
think some of them claim up to about 14 dB.)

That sounds a bit excessive for a Yagi. +10 db gain sounds more realistic
(at least for a 3 element beam), at least as I recall. You can add more
elements (directors, in this case), but the added gain is incremental, and
I'm guessing they weren't talking about such.

I used to love playing around with them on the roof. I was too cheap to
ever own a tower, but the amateurs with a tower could always get distant
contacts that I had difficulty getting. But I gave up amateur radio a long
time ago, when it became filled with a bunch of "appliance operators". The
radio technology aspect of the hobby went out the window, like a lot of
things I miss these days.

[]
window, since antenna gain comes from directionality, just like a lens.

Indeed!

Yup. You can't gain something for nothing But that added gain was
definitely appreciated. So a +10 db gain increases the output power by a
factor of 10, and at no cost (except directionality, of course), and makes a
100W signal sound like a 1 KW from the transmitter. Nice. Plus increasing
the signal strength tremendously in reception, so long as your antenna is
pointed the right way. :-)

[]
Even when a transmitter site and receiver site are reasonably
horizontally oriented (same elevation),

... should probably add this:
aka horizontal polarization, as opposed to vertical polarization (as from
a
1/4 wavelength vertical antenna, for example)

No, he meant - and said, actually! - same height. For which vertical
polarization would eliminate one axis of doubt ...

I must have misread this. My bad.

the antenna may still
need to be tilted for optimal signal. This is caused by
"bending". You can find web sites that discuss the effects of
nearby objects, and the suggestion to not blindly accept
perfectly vertical as the best choice.

... apart from that, of course.
[]
I sometimes tell people using cell phones to get next to a large window
in
the hopes of minimizing dropouts caused by any metal conductors in the
rooms. I don't have enough data to confirm it works, but it just makes
intuitive sense to me. :-)

Agreed. I don't think it's as much the cage - see my earlier comments
about wavelength - as just energy absorption (which ought to be
re-radiated, but who knows in what direction).

Yes, I think it's mostly due to energy absorption.

Bill in Co wrote:

(except directionality, of course)

This is the part that I want amateur antenna makers here to
realize. Is that frequently, you're changing a weak antenna
that works in all directions, into an antenna that "works like
a laser", and only allows one PC to be connected.

If you use nothing but directional antennas, and Wifi PCs
are all over the house, your coverage pattern will be
quite spotty, and there'll be "no roaming for you"
as you walk around the house with the laptop.

If you make the antenna more directional in the Z axis, so
the antenna works on the main floor of the house, and
not on any other floor, then you can't "roam upstairs".

If the computers are in fixed locations, you're only
trying to reach one computer in a remote location,
that's when directional wizardry comes to the rescue.

And if your house has metal door frames, metal 2x4 construction
instead of wood (metal 2x4s behind gypsum board), there can
be lots of reasons for a house to be completely attenuating
remote reception. But you'd probably have a hint of that,
if other kinds of radios do poorly.

*******

There was no radio reception (or TV for that matter) at
work, because of the framing used in the building. As well,
there were strong carrier frequencies due to equipment leakage.
While any individual box would meet FCC part 15, if you have
thousands of RF sources, sooner or later, that's a problem.
When I attempted to tune an FM radio at work, there
was a carrier so strong, the radio would go "quiet" at
exactly 100.0MHz (AGC reacting to input overload). And
that's a ton of "computer crystals" doing that.

I had to listen to "Internet Radio" to listen to music.

Paul

In message , Bill in Co
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co
writes:
[]
Now, I've built an antenna, from scratch.

Same here. (an ex-amateur radio op, amongst other things)

Hi! (That's why I was taken with the Yagi offered. Plenty on ebay. I
think some of them claim up to about 14 dB.)

That sounds a bit excessive for a Yagi. +10 db gain sounds more realistic
(at least for a 3 element beam), at least as I recall. You can add more
elements (directors, in this case), but the added gain is incremental, and
I'm guessing they weren't talking about such.

Remember we're talking about microwaves here - not a 3 element beam,
more like 17! http://ebay.eu/1gLcJkp has a few - either their claims
have become wilder or I've remembered wrong; the _lowest_ claim there is
17 dB (though of course dBi; knock off a few to get dBd). I bought one
for a friend last Christmas, but unfortunately none of his wifi gear has
an external aerial socket, so we've never played with it: I have ones
that do, but asking for a Christmas present back isn't quite right!

I used to love playing around with them on the roof. I was too cheap to
ever own a tower, but the amateurs with a tower could always get distant
contacts that I had difficulty getting. But I gave up amateur radio a long
time ago, when it became filled with a bunch of "appliance operators". The
radio technology aspect of the hobby went out the window, like a lot of
things I miss these days.

I haven't keyed a transmitter (mic switch I mean - I don't think I ever
got into CW), apart from a fobile moan, for many years, though my
licence is still valid. I agree the practical side of the hobby is much
reduced now: IMO the decline, in UK anyway, started with the
introduction of the B licence (for those that hadn't passed the Morse
test) - not that the B licencees are to blame (I was/am one myself), but
they were restricted to above 100 MHz, which for most people meant
bought rigs only, as you need specialised equipment to build kit for up
there. So the new influx were dissuaded from practical work (_except_ on
aerials!), whereas IMO they could have brought new life into the hobby.
(The distinction was subsequently dropped - I can now use h. f., though
never have - but I think too late, the internet was well under way by
then.)
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"When you go in for a job interview, I think a good thing to ask is if they ever
press charges." - Jack Handey

In message , Paul
writes:
[]
And if your house has metal door frames, metal 2x4 construction
instead of wood (metal 2x4s behind gypsum board), there can
be lots of reasons for a house to be completely attenuating
remote reception. But you'd probably have a hint of that,
if other kinds of radios do poorly.
[]
I don't think door frames, girders, etc. will make wifi unusable - I
think only continuous sheets (or mesh) would do that. They'll certainly
do strange things to the radiation patterns, reflections, and so on, but
I don't think they'll block it altogether - remember ordinary radio is
hundreds of metre wavelengths (AM) or about three (FM), whereas wifi is
125mm (2.4 GHz) or 80mm (5 GHz), which may well find a way round or
through such metalwork. As I mentioned in another post, my SatNav (which
is on a similar frequency, I think) works near to the floor of my car,
to my surprise.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

---------------------------------------------------------
"Where do you want to crash today?"
---------------------------------------------------------
Steve Haynes

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co
writes:
[]
Now, I've built an antenna, from scratch.

Same here. (an ex-amateur radio op, amongst other things)

Hi! (That's why I was taken with the Yagi offered. Plenty on ebay. I
think some of them claim up to about 14 dB.)

That sounds a bit excessive for a Yagi. +10 db gain sounds more
realistic
(at least for a 3 element beam), at least as I recall. You can add more
elements (directors, in this case), but the added gain is incremental,
and
I'm guessing they weren't talking about such.

Remember we're talking about microwaves here - not a 3 element beam,
more like 17! http://ebay.eu/1gLcJkp has a few - either their claims
have become wilder or I've remembered wrong; the _lowest_ claim there is
17 dB (though of course dBi; knock off a few to get dBd). I bought one
for a friend last Christmas, but unfortunately none of his wifi gear has
an external aerial socket, so we've never played with it: I have ones
that do, but asking for a Christmas present back isn't quite right!

OK, my mistake as I was just talking about HF antennas. :-) With
microwave antennas and dishes, all bets are off. :-)

I used to love playing around with them on the roof. I was too cheap to
ever own a tower, but the amateurs with a tower could always get distant
contacts that I had difficulty getting. But I gave up amateur radio a
long
time ago, when it became filled with a bunch of "appliance operators".
The
radio technology aspect of the hobby went out the window, like a lot of
things I miss these days.

I haven't keyed a transmitter (mic switch I mean - I don't think I ever
got into CW), apart from a fobile moan, for many years, though my
licence is still valid. I agree the practical side of the hobby is much
reduced now: IMO the decline, in UK anyway, started with the
introduction of the B licence (for those that hadn't passed the Morse
test) - not that the B licencees are to blame (I was/am one myself), but
they were restricted to above 100 MHz, which for most people meant
bought rigs only, as you need specialised equipment to build kit for up
there. So the new influx were dissuaded from practical work (_except_ on
aerials!), whereas IMO they could have brought new life into the hobby.
(The distinction was subsequently dropped - I can now use h. f., though
never have - but I think too late, the internet was well under way by
then.)
[]

We had (and maybe still have) what is called a Technician Class License,
which sure sounds similar to your B license. And then there also was
Citizen's Band, a wholly different ballgame, for the complete neophytes.

As for when things went to pot, I think it's when the FCC sample exam study
books came out, and people bought those and just starting memorizing enough
to pass the exams. You really didn't have to know much radio theory anymore
with these practice exam guides being published.

And also around this time, the old, build-it-yourself, vacuum tube (valve to
you!), CW and AM rigs were going out of style, and were being replaced with
new and shiny, prebuilt, Japanese SSB transceivers right off the shelf,
which you could readily buy (and not easily build on your own). So due to
both of these factors, the rush of "appliance operators" came in, those who
just wanted to chit chat, and the radio technology aspect of the hobby went
out the window, like so many things, nowadays. (I think I was born too
late :-)