NetStumbler.org Forums

Hi All,

I purchased a 1 watt amp and set it up on my Dlink. I am curiose how much of a jump I should get in Dbm Sound/Noise using a 1 watt amp. I can get see the bars go from -70 to -50 with the amp. My question would be how does this work exactly. Will the signal be sustained at a longer distance and I wont see much of an increase in dBm?

Can some one give me just a little break down what I should expect to see with a 1 watt amp. I want to make shure the Sherren amp I bought is doing all its supposed to.

Thanks.

DaveMalton wrote:Hi All,

I purchased a 1 watt amp and set it up on my Dlink. I am curiose how much of a jump I should get in Dbm Sound/Noise using a 1 watt amp. I can get see the bars go from -70 to -50 with the amp. My question would be how does this work exactly. Will the signal be sustained at a longer distance and I wont see much of an increase in dBm?

Can some one give me just a little break down what I should expect to see with a 1 watt amp. I want to make shure the Sherren amp I bought is doing all its supposed to.

Thanks.

There's no way to be sure since your DLink card is not fully supported in NS. While it may work, it cannot accurately measure SNR.

Purchase a fully supported card, and you will see an accurate SNR,

Sorry my Dlink is a my Radio I am using a 2wire PCMIA card on my laptop with net stumbler.

DaveMalton wrote:Sorry my Dlink is a my Radio I am using a 2wire PCMIA card on my laptop with net stumbler.

Unless you have an Orinoco Classic Gold, then you won't get accurate SNR.

streaker69 wrote:Unless you have an Orinoco Classic Gold, then you won't get accurate SNR.

He *MIGHT* have one since the 2wire's were rebranded cards.. But it would be advisable for him to do a chipset check

DaveMalton wrote:
Can some one give me just a little break down what I should expect to see with a 1 watt amp. I want to make shure the Sherren amp I bought is doing all its supposed to.

Thanks.

Depends on antenna, coax, number of connectors involved...

You should expect to see either an increase or decrease in performance.

If you use that 1 Watt amp with the wrong antenna you can expect to see some FCC folks at your door. Using a high gain antenna with a 1 Watt amp will drive your RF power beyond the fcc limits for 2.4ghz.

Not to mention the fact it could very well be dangerous if you use a high gain antenna. Do microwaved eyeballs sound nice?

(although, some even think it's dangerous without the antennas or amps...)

I've translated my web page from french language (with µsoft translator)(sorry!).

So, be sure to understand this, before to buy an amplifier:
The Yves MAGUER WiFi Web Page

yves_mag wrote:I've translated my web page from french language (with µsoft translator)(sorry!).

So, be sure to understand this, before to buy an amplifier:
The Yves MAGUER WiFi Web Page

... and another strike against Microsoft...

Nothing beats an actual gray matter translator. Yet.

yves_mag wrote:I've translated my web page from french language (with µsoft translator)(sorry!).

So, be sure to understand this, before to buy an amplifier:
The Yves MAGUER WiFi Web Page

You should have just left it in French as there are plenty of English RF theory web sites.

HAHAHAHAHA....

Joker!!! For the materials which have 2 exits of antenna:
If one has access to the low layers of software which controls the hardware, one can use an exit for the transmission and the other for the reception. And there, you known as “why make me”?

yves_mag wrote:I've translated my web page from french language (with µsoft translator)(sorry!).

To what? Because that certainly isn't English.

Thorn wrote:To what? Because that certainly isn't English.

It is according to the deaf people here at NTID. ASL > English looks exactly like his "document". That soldering job for his antenna was downright ugly too.

itsnotme wrote:It is according to the deaf people here at NTID. ASL > English looks exactly like his "document". That soldering job for his antenna was downright ugly too.

Someone, Beakyman I think, brought that up before on the forums, remarking that your written English was a lot clearer than most deaf people's writing he'd encountered before. It seems I've also heard about that from other sources. If a recall correctly, ASL drops articles and propositions in favor of a more pithy style that is mainly verbs, nouns and some modifiers and that the syntax is completely different from standard US English. Is that an accurate representation?

Thorn wrote:Someone, Beakyman I think, brought that up before on the forums, remarking that your written English was a lot clearer than most deaf people's writing he'd encountered before. It seems I've also heard about that from other sources. If a recall correctly, ASL drops articles and propositions in favor of a more pithy style that is mainly verbs, nouns and some modifiers and that the syntax is completely different from standard US English. Is that an accurate representation?

Yes, I guess that would be accurate. I've always argued that ASL is not a language since there isn't really any documented syntax. If you got a group of people to say something in ASL, they either wouldn't say it the same, or they wouldn't say it in ASL at all! The other sign languages have merged into ASL so it's not in it's pure form anymore (if it ever was). ASL may have been a language years ago but it's died out.