jober
join:2001-12-13
| reply to cmaenginsb
Re: Any updates on WiFi Plus antennas lately?
I tested the omni and directional antennas. 
I have no love for the wifiPlus antenna at all.
1/4 mile of trees with 2 24dB grids did a better job then 2 of their directionals. I even tried 1/2 watt and 1 watt amps.
I did see the same effect as the Luxel circular antennas I tried years ago. I would have a signal that was never the same ,one minute it was great the next it was gone.
The 2 24dB grids and the 19dbi panels had a bad signal but it was the same all the time. |
|
cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA | reply to Airplane777
Back to the original question, we have a competitor who used one of the big multipolarized antennas that looks like a spaceship.
They have problems going any more distance with NLOS links that we do using a regular sector. |
|
Semaphore
Premium
join:2003-11-18
Arnprior On.
| reply to Airplane777
If you're in multipath then you have another problem altogether. I've seen their multipolarized antennas, and seen a couple that had been disassembled (one fell apart in a small twister actually - the other was physically taken to pieces) and I wasn't impressed. I wouldn't buy them 'cause I don't buy the theory they are putting forward regarding the signal being received but the polarization being scattered... to me it looks like they are equating rf to magnetism  |
|
cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA
| reply to Airplane777
Airplane, the multipolarized antennas of WiFi plus really just combine that of horizontal and vertical polarization. This allows them to be a little more effective in multipath situations and a lot effective at the fattening their wallet situation.
Eliptical and circularlly polarized antennas are rare and expensive for the 2.4 band. Typically these polarizations are effective for over water transmissions because they do not have as much of a problem with reflections from the water's surface.
Polarization does not make a significant difference when going through trees since trees absorb signal and do not reflect it (unless there is water on the leaves). So there isn't enough signal of any polarization to recieve. Yes you can play tricks with 45 degree polarization, but the fact will remain that those solutions will only work on a case by case basis and is not something you can depend on for a business.
The bottomline is you need a signal that is not absorbed as much by the leaves, which means a lower frequency signal ie 900mhz. Since Wifi hasn't operated in that band, the availability of cheap chipsets and radio technology is not there. |
|
superdog
I Need A Drink
Premium,MVM
join:2001-07-13
Lebanon, PA
| reply to Airplane777
said by Airplane777  :However if there is multi path, where the signal is still there, then maybe circular or linear, or elliptical might be better then vertical or horizontal? Marlon Shaffer once said that 45 degree polarization seemed to do better than any other with trees?. Since I haven't tried it, I have no idea if this is true or not?. There won't be a lot of multipathing thru trees, as there is nothing to bounce of off, unless maybe You tried to shoot under them, and it bounced off of the ground, cars, or maybe even houses with aluminum siding?.:)
--
»www.wavecrazy.net Join WISPA today! »www.wispa.org/ |
|
Airplane777
join:2004-06-20
1 edit | reply to Airplane777
Vertical and horizontal polarization are the main polarizations. WiFi Plus says they have "multi polarization", but that still seems to be hype.
There is also linear, circular, and elliptical polarization.
Maybe the last 3 aren't any better through trees then regular horizontal and vertical polarization?
However if there is multi path, where the signal is still there, then maybe circular or linear, or elliptical might be better then vertical or horizontal? |
|
superdog
I Need A Drink
Premium,MVM
join:2001-07-13
Lebanon, PA
| reply to Airplane777
said by Airplane777 :On one thread, I heard they aren't made very well and don't perform all that well. But then in the hype, I read they do quite well through trees. I have spoken to a few others who have tried these units. In a few RARE occasions, they have done LITTLE better than regular flat panels, but in almost all cases, the Antennas America flat panels did as good as if not better than the Wi-Fi Plus units. Always remember that trees are trees, and NO ANTENNA will allow You to go thru them. The leaves absorb and block the signal from getting thru, so no matter how good the antenna is, there is no signal to pick up.
--
»www.wavecrazy.net Join WISPA today! »www.wispa.org/ |
|
nwn
Premium
join:2004-03-05
Centerville, IN | reply to Airplane777
Haven't tried the antennas, but physics, not antennas, is the reason trees are a problem. The antenna does not change the fact that the trees absorb/reflect more energy than gets through.
--
Scott |
|
Airplane777
join:2004-06-20
2 edits | Just curious if any of you all have tried or heard any more about the WiFi Plus antennas lately? Or if you have have had a chance yet to test them yourselves? Good, bad, etc?
On one thread, I heard they aren't made very well and don't perform all that well. But then in the hype, I read they do quite well through trees.
I'm in a tree situation in my neighborhood, and I was hoping to hear that at least one person here has had performance improvement with WiFi Plus antennas through trees.
Thanks |
|
