2 Computers...1 Antenna?

That reminds me. Did you ever get the test results report? From the eBay store page:

Q: exactly how much of a DB gain does this give you? A: We are waiting for the report to come back. But I know it will keep up with a 14 db panel antenna and a 500 mw amplifier. So I am guessing around min 26 to 30 db gain to the computer.

How about the specification sheet? Q: I have a local wireless computer networking business here in the boonies 2 hours west of Chicago. But i am interested in your device. Where can i get full specs on it, including transmit power, ability to operate with linux drivers, etc? A: We are in the process of putting a specification sheet together. I know that it can keep up with a 14db panel antenna plus a 500 mw amp. Only have drivers for windows. But will be adding them.

I didn't know antennas required Windoze drivers.

It's not very difficult to do relative gain measurements. (Absolute gain is a challenge). Use a reference antenna, with a known gain, and compare signal strengths with either a client radio with signal strength indication, with an external attenuator, or with a spectrum analyzer. The only real trick is to not do it on a roadway or across a rooftop to avoid ground reflections. Over a canyon or plowed field works nicely. Try to get both ends at least 10 ft off the ground.

Once you have a setup that yields reproduceable results, you can easily measure vertical and horizontal -3dB beamwidth and patterns. The problem is that the pattern will not look anything like the computer generated simulations due to construction variations, reflections, VSWR, measurement errors, and junk pickup. However, it's better than nothing.

Measuring VSWR from 2400.0 to 2483.5 is easy with a directional coupler, sweep generator, RF detector, and oscilloscope. You can build a crude but functional directional coupler out of some semi-rigid coax cables. The signal source is a problem, but I have some tricks that might work. RF detector and scope are common.

I'm not at all interested in becoming part of what I'm guessing is going to be a legal problem. I do evaluate products and write copious and detailed reports with recommendations and analysis. I charge quite a bit but less than a professional lab with lots of test equipment.

In all cases, I sign an NDA (non-disclosure agreement) where all results and equipment are property of the manufacturer. I am not allowed to release any information on what I've found. That's why I can't post performance measurements on some wireless devices. The numbers belong to my client. I've also been very lucky in that my results and testing has been used by the client in an honest manner. This is not universal as some of my friends and competitors have had their test results edited, tweaked, or butchered, by the client.

Anyway, it's all academic because I just picked up a design project, need to fix the house a bit, wanna spend some time away from computahs, it's tax time, and wanna do a vacation. For the price of an antenna, no thanks.

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann
Loading thread data ...

But Jeff, you don't understand. It's a USB router, access point, bridge and client too! And it's extreme range. And he describes it as an antenna. In all fairness to Ed, I get the feeling he's an honest guy, just had a pretty good idea about a product in a field he knows nothing about and dove in head first.

I kicked around some ideas in my head about marketing some devices on eBay based mostly on the qustions I see over and over in this group about problems getting more than 10-15 feet range. But I let the ideas die on the vine, didn't feel like persuing them. Ed is gung ho. Too bad he's teeter-tottering on the line between spamming the group and merely participating. And regardless of the circumstances, he always recommends ad hoc mode, not sure about that advice.

Reply to
Rôgêr

I also try to give everyone the benifit of my doubt. What's disgusting to me is that methinks the basic product is probably fairly decent and could be sold on its own merits. Given a bit of testing and some accurate data, methinks it might compete well with the EtherAnt and USB-Ant type of intergrated radio antennas. However, as long as it's being marketed in the present manner, and apparently without any FCC type certification or Wi-Fi Forum certification, I don't wanna have anything to do with it.

Yep. I'm a firm believer in integrated radio and antenna combinations. It solves lots of problems, especially when dealing with rooftop connectivity. I have a phased array design that methinks is probably overpriced, but offers interference avoidance and reflection optimization. Lots of great ideas out there. However, the ability to turn it into a marketable product, sperating the customers from their money, and supporting the prouduct, is beyond my limited resources and abilities.

I don't have much problem with him offering his antenna as a solution to peoples problems. I do have a problem when he doesn't bother to explain why his antenna offers a solution or what is involved in implimenting his solution. It's back to my distain for "one-line" answers. They're mostly useless and worthless.

I hadn't noticed much of that. However, I agree. Ad-hoc is not the answer to all problems. In this case, the original question about combining antennas isn't answered by either his product or by switching to ad-hoc. Incidentally, bridge and mesh modes are essentially variations of ad-hoc so please don't assume that ad-hoc is worthless.

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.