Better range notebook antenna available?

Then list ALL the FCC ID numbers.

I think I explained that in great detail in the past. Want article numbers, issues, or a summary? I'm willing if you're willing to answer my questions. So far, you haven't.

I care. I like to know what I'm buying. I like to know what I'm passing judgment on. I've spent a lifetime dealing with numbers and measurements and do not plan to accept your consensus marketing as a measure of anything other than your salesmanship.

Is there anything I posted from the FCCID web pile or the Cameo Communications Inc web site that you find in error?

Oh? What's the gain, VSWR, bandwidth, and -3dB beamwidth of your antenna? Spare me the science fiction and have someone with the proper equipment measure it for you.

They got my home made battery charger. Beware of anything with LED's and exposed red and black wires. If you watch the movies, that's what bombs are suppose to look like. You should list that on the data sheet (which you should be working on) as a feature: "Does not look like a bomb"

For the 4th or 5th time, there are some advantages to your device. Unfortunately, they have NOTHING to do with the antenna. The use of a USB radio offers better receive sensitivity than the usual lossy coax cable pigtail and antenna solution. Almost any type of external antenna is better than the typical PCMCIA and USB printed circuit board antennas. That makes your device a good solution for many situations, some of which you've listed. However, that's not good enough for me. I wanna know how good, which means real and reproducible measurements.

What I don't understand is why you're resisting putting numbers on your radio, antenna, or both. Are you afraid that someone will do some comparison shopping? At this time, there aren't too many similar devices on the market. I previously found 2 that are close, and 1 that was close, but has been withdrawn from the vendors product line. The few that are similar, sell for considerably more than your device. Even if your specs were identical, you currently have a price advantage. Have you even done any competative marketing research?

I don't waste my time and efforts on anyone that I suspect will not benefit from my attention. If you would like me to simply ignore you, please so state and I will ignore your postings. However, if someone else has a question about your product(s), and I suspect can benefit from my analysis, opinions, and guesswork, then I will answer them precisely as I have in the past and am currently doing.

Well, you're correct. Cars have tires and I have a huge ego. In fact, my ego is so large that I go out of my way to help people, answer their questions, do their homework, and offer advice based on calculations and experience. Quite often, they thank me, which really inflates my ego. I appreciate your concern for the condition of my ego, but I promise not to allow it grow to critical mass.

I own a "Signal Seeker" and it works well for me, far better than my wifi card. Driving around I see many more available sites than before. I'm not as technically knowledgeable as others in this group, and I haven't tried other solutions, but I'm happy with this

My problems with Ed's original post is his lack of indicating that the item he reccommends is his product or sale. If no one else steps up and reccommend it so highly, perhaps a disclaimer ID'ing himself as the hawker/owner would be in order.

Alan

It sounds to me from previous discussions here that attaching a higher-gain antenna to any WiFi product requires recertification by the FCC, is that correct?

Of course, if he's using the built-in antenna and some kind of reflector, maybe it doesn't count as attached...

Thanks Alan

Don't worry about breaking the FCC rules. They are already broken.

The details are in 15.204

's a bit too long to quote so just read the original).

The way I understand it (may be wrong):

1. If the unit has an antenna connector, you can replace the antenna with any antenna that has been type certified with the original unit.

1. If the unit has an antenna connector, you can replace the antenna with any antenna that has not been certified with the unit, as long as it is in the same "family" of antenna and has an equal or lower gain. "(1) The antenna type, as used in this paragraph, refers to antennas that have similar in-band and out-of-band radiation patterns." That means you can legally replace an 8dBi patch antenna, with an 8dBi yagi, but not with a 24dBi dish. "(2) Compliance testing shall be performed using the highest gain antenna for each type of antenna to be certified with the intentional radiator."

2. By implication, all stand alone antennas that have not been type certified to operate with a type certified radio, are by definition illegal for sale as there is no corresponding radio to which they may be legally attached. This is obviously not the case, and has not been considered by the FCC.

1. You may NOT modify the RF circuitry in any way to attach an external antenna. That includes a solder connected pigtail or connector.

2. 15.204 does NOT say anything about external reflectors. It's sorta implied that "thou shalt not place RF reflecting objects with XX wavelengths of the intentional radiator that will modify the antenna radiation characteristics". It's not clearly defined but it is in violation of the intent of Part 15.

1. Screwing around with the power level settings in firmware is neither legal nor a great idea as it's almost sure to pollute the band with an excessively broad signal.

The eBay photo shows that the antenna is apparently too thin or too flat to be a reflector. I'm not sure how direct coupling (with a loop, capacitor, or xformer) would apply. My guess is that it's in the gray area along with external reflectors. It certainly violates the intent of Part 15 in controlling the radiation characteristics.

Again, this is my interpretation and may be wrong.

I thought what he said pretty much indicated he just tells people that's what it is, but also that it is clearly *not*.

Then it finally dawned on me why he won't tell us anything about his product! He has a *totally* different mindset than anyone he's been arguing with here, and his view is obviously very different than ours. We're techies, and all look at his product as something perhaps best described as "trivially stupid" on a technical basis, but not a bad idea.

Ed's product is not an engineering feat, but a marketing innovation. (It might actually be, too.) If true, he has a time limited opportunity to capitalize on it and gain name recognition before everyone and their brother starts marketing exactly the same simple, technically trivial, *combination* *of*

*components*. He has *no* incentive to discuss that combination in any way shape or form, because broadcasting that will shorten the time his opportunity is available.

He does *not* want to market a set of specification. For that matter he does not want to market even the combination of components. He has to market a *name* and hide all the other details if he wants to survive any of the hoped for popularity of the idea.

(I think he's full of it... but several people have made a lot of money with marketing schemes that I've laughed at! Regardless of that, this newsgroup is *not* the place to market his product.)

Later Ed tells us he has hundreds of USB adpaters. I wonder if this FCCID is the one in the Signal Seeker, or just one he had on the table at the time that he posted the info. I suppose Ed could have posted more than just the FCCID, but that was [ one of ] the question[s] posed.

For some reason, I thought the Signal Seeker was the WLine, but maybe that has the same FCCID. Ah, yes, that's USB 2.0, 802.11b. Rare bird.

screen shots from the users guide match up nicely with Ed's instructions.

USB 2.0 - 802.11b. I really didn't think those existed. Doesn't seem like there's much point.

Some folks guessed that it was a TrendNet. The TrendNet Web site does have a picture to identify version 2.0 from 1.1. This FCCID is visible as the

2.0 version. There is no "driver" download, and the utility download is different from the utility provided on the Signal Seeker web site.

Would attaching an antenna directly violate FCC certification? We've spoken in this group about how the FCC doesn't seem to pursue any enforcement of end user modifications, but this is for resale.

In reality, it does look very much like a possible bomb. It's a rigid plastic case about 2" x 5" x 6", with glued-on caps with a USB connector in one, and a homemade look. If I were airport security, I'd flag that in an instant. You'd be better off taking something like a cantenna through security; they could see what's (not) inside it.

I also have a small number of 10baseT PCI ethernet cards. Such oddities exist because the corresponding technologies tend to change at different time. The USB 1.1 to 2.0 transition did not happen exactly at the same time as 802.11b to 802.11g transition. There also tend to be chipset shortages of the newer devices, coupled with fire sales of the old chips.

Well, my reading of 15.247 indicated that *ANY* modifications to the RF belching part of the radio is not allowed. Attaching a 50 ohm antenna to a coax connect known to be a 50 ohm driving impedance is probably safe. However, ripping out the circuit board dipole, attaching a pigtail, and connecting a random antenna is almost certain to be a mismatch. The RF power amps are NOT all that stable and are not guaranteed to not oscillate or go insane when presented with a mismatch. Without test equipment (spectrum analyzer) to insure that the radio doesn't spew junk all over the spectrum, methinks attaching pigtails is a bit risky.

Disclaimer: I've been previously wrong about my interpretations of FCC rules and regs in the past and also have my own agenda in creatively interpreting the rules. In other words, I am not an authority on interpreting the legalese and bureaucrat-speak.