|
|
|||||||
| Register | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
03-30-2005
|
#1 (permalink) |
|
Registered Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1
|
Long Range Pre-N setup possible using 2.4ghz Antennas? Needed for 1100ft span.
Hi there,
I have seen some very promising reviews and feedback from friends about Belkin's Pre-N new line of router/cards. I was wondering is it possible to use this Pre-N technology and apply it to a situation of spanning the signal across a 1100ft distance (only line of site obstacles are trees). This question arises as most high dB antennas seem to be for "2.4 ghz" operation... I am unsure if Pre-N could still use and benefit from these antennas for such an application. I would greatly appreciate any tips or alternatives to my situation. Thank you for your time and help. |
|
|
|
03-30-2005
|
#2 (permalink) | |
|
I amuse you?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 9,147
|
Quote:
What would make you think that Pre-N would have a problem using a 2.4GHz antenna? Have you read any of the "Welcome Desk" posts? Have you done any research on the equipment you want to use? Last edited by wrzwaldo : 03-30-2005 at 02:17 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
03-30-2005
|
#3 (permalink) | |
|
Humourless EuroMod.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: City of Mermaids, Denmark
Posts: 6,819
|
Quote:
If you don't have a free RF-LOS, you'll have trouble maintaining a stable link. You still need to do the math. Calculate the link budget, and the FZ. And as wrzwaldo said, why do you think that Pre-N shouldn't use 2.4Ghz antennas ? Dutch
__________________
All your answers are belong to Google. SEARCH DAMMIT! Warning. Warning. Low C8H10N4O2 level detected. Operator halted.... |
|
|
|
|
|
03-30-2005
|
#4 (permalink) |
|
Registered Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Toulouse France
Posts: 18
|
If we speak about 802.11n (pre-N), i think that this norm will use the MIMO technology, and will use an important (from 3 to 7) number of antennas.
if so, each antenna, would be an omni antenna, in order to use reflections on every things wich are on the radio path. For a clear fresnel zone (FZ), i dont think that MIMO will make better long ranges. (i could be wrong, this technology is so young!). so, if there are trees on LOS, i'm unable to predict what will be the losses! "do the math??" who knows any existing model calculation of losses, for the MIMO technology????? |
|
|
|
|
03-30-2005
|
#5 (permalink) | |
|
Did you do the math?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Villa Straylight
Posts: 10,360
|
Quote:
wifibee, Use caution about buying any "pre" anything. Standards have been known to change at the last cycle of implementation. It's not often, but it does happen. If that does happen, hopefully the manuafacturer makes an update, but there is no guarantee. You have the possiblity of owning a device that is only useful as a paperweight. Being an early adopter is one thing, but don't get burned by it.
__________________
Thorn "Read Altas Shrugged. Compare it to today. Repeat as necessary" |
|
|
|
|
|
04-02-2005
|
#6 (permalink) |
|
Registered Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Toulouse France
Posts: 18
|
Sure Thorn, if a link is good with 802.11b/g technology, it will be right with a new one
 But the question i ask myself, is: if a link with MIMO technology is good, is it good too with the "old" (802.11b/g) technology?? You know (like me), how it's difficult to compute a link when there are walls, trees and reflections on the radio path! In this case, calculations are rather pessimists for the diversity mode. Then the algoritms for simulation, are wrong. I think, that MIMO technology could be better for this kind of links. So simulation of MIMO links with obstacles, are worst, until there is no good models of simulation. Just note: I know some simulation models for indoor, but without computing the "gain" given by the diversity mode. (they just take in account the reflexions). http://www.inria.fr/actualites/inedi...indusa.fr.html sorry for the language. Take a look at the end of this article: http://www.techworld.com/mobility/fe...FeatureID=1301 you dont think like me, Thorn? Last edited by yves_mag : 04-02-2005 at 08:16 AM. Reason: url added |
|
|
|
|
04-07-2005
|
#8 (permalink) | |
|
Pr0nStumbler Expert Level
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,536
|
Quote:
not nice to taunt Thorn... last person that did, we still have not found all of their body parts. As for MIMO... I see it better suited for areas of high levels of wifi traffic (wifi cafe's and such) seeings how you get multipaths to the MIMO router but the key you have once again remember is that jumping on the bandwagon at the beginning often costs you since its not a ratified standard and all the players have to agree on it. Look at the history of the A, B and G standard... each wifi player took their time to get their equipment just right to work with the "standard" and there are still sporatic inter-operability issues from time to time
__________________
Against the run of the mill, static as it seems We break the surface tension with our wild kinetic dreams Curves and lines -- of grand designs... Tonight's movie "Soylent Green" has been brought to you by our sponsor - Waste Management My mind is like a Steel trap - Rusty and Illegal in most states |
|
|
|
|
|
04-07-2005
|
#9 (permalink) | |
|
Did you do the math?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Villa Straylight
Posts: 10,360
|
Yves, I like you just fine, and I'm up, just busy.
As to whether the N/Pre-N/MIMO will work better than the current standards for long distance links, I doubt it. At it's most basic level multipath systems "vote" on the clearest signal, choose that and ignore the other signals. This will certainly make for better signal reception over a larger given area. This will tranlate to places such as office buldings should requiring fewer Access Points. However, it shouldn't do a thing for PtP links, as there is no multipoint per se. By the way, what I said about adopting stuff early still stands. In looking around on the Belkin "Pre-N" equipment, I found several referernces that indicate the the "Pre-N" designation is probably marketing ploy. It seems while using similar technology, that "Pre-N" gear will not ever meet the N standard. Quote:
__________________
Thorn "Read Altas Shrugged. Compare it to today. Repeat as necessary" |
|
|
|
|
|
04-08-2005
|
#10 (permalink) |
|
Registered Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Toulouse France
Posts: 18
|
I respect Thorn, and all of you, sorry!
Honestly, for long ranges (more than 3000ft)(I have done a 45 000 ft link) i used only one antenna on each side. So I'm unable to say if a 1100ft link, could be better with theses new technologies, using many antennas on each side. Some devices use 7 antennas. if it is not possible to make a link (with trees) with the original antennas, it could be very expensive to buy 14 antennas!! (and 14 pigtails) |
|
|
|
Linear Mode
