Router wireless radiation pattern

[talos2]

Hi Rik
I don't want to hijack this excellent thread, but I noticed what you said about the position of the router, would I be correct in assuming that the higher the better would be a good rule for coverage. I live in a bungalow and have been tempted to try installing it in the loft, because my coverage is patchy to say the least.

[Den]

Shocked to find that my new lap top with built in wireless will receive in parts of my house that my old lap top (with a 2wire card) would not. I can now use my laptop in my lounge which I have never been able to before.

[Rik]

would I be correct in assuming that the higher the better would be a good rule for coverage

Not necessarily, as it also means that you are increasing the distance from the router to PCs, and many ceilings are back-lined with aluminium foil for insulation purposes.

We really need Dean for this one, but afaik, most routers have an omni-directional radiation pattern (depending on antenna design), so effectively radiate a sphere of signals. Therefore, I find, positioning them at the most central point of the coverage area you wish to achieve works best.

I'm going to split this off with a new title, in the hope that it catches Dean's eye for a more authoritative reply.

[Ted]

Why not use a wireless access point to extend the range, something like THIS for example.

[Odos]

I can't say through personal experience because I hate wireless with a passion but I remember reading on a number of tech forums that the radiation pattern of a wireless router is roughly doughnut shaped. Hence if you use a high gain antenna you would increase horizontal distance but decrease vertical.

Cheers

[g7pkf]

Not necessarily, as it also means that you are increasing the distance from the router to PCs, and many ceilings are back-lined with aluminium foil for insulation purposes.

We really need Dean for this one, but afaik, most routers have an omni-directional radiation pattern (depending on antenna design), so effectively radiate a sphere of signals. Therefore, I find, positioning them at the most central point of the coverage area you wish to achieve works best.

I'm going to split this off with a new title, in the hope that it catches Dean's eye for a more authoritative reply.

In an average house you are quite correct rik gets a bit more tricky in commercial with reinforced concrete floor's.

good rule of thumb mount it as centrally as possible. Airing cupboard is one of my favourites.

range extenders work unfortunately most half the speed as they use the same channel to send and receive between 2 bits of kit-if you see what i mean. And they gentally only work well with "same manufacturer kit"

[g7pkf]

Just read what i said and then thought--mines under the kitchen sink! totally the wrong place (but very close to master BT point).

I live in a largeish house with 0.5 acresland My 2700 gives coverage throughout the house and land!

all walls are solid all plasterboard is insulated it really shouldnt work as well as it does

I also get coverage from my neighbours 1800HG (that i installed) some 200 yards away.

why do i need adsl? i can use his-trouble is he's with twascali and speed really is CR*p in the evening.

[g7pkf]

Just to add "MOST" manufacturers try to obtain a ball shape rad pattern (isotropic) this is due to the fact that they design the gear to work upright or lying down (as with the 2 wire).

The best range i ever have had with a 2.4Ghz (b type)linksys access points with ext connectors wireless was 3.2KM line of sight at full 10Mb this was great as i managed to hook a friend up to internet using a cantenne-(pringle tube with an ntype as the radiator) he lived apx 2.2Km away.
he lived up a hill with no broadband and i lived at the bottom and along a bit with NTL 512Kb cable (best you could get at the time). worked well and we had to change to a drainpipe with aluminum tape and an ntype as the prigle tubes kept getting soggy


I don't normally work with 2.4, but i do work heavily with GSM (1.8).