The source cannot be changed.

The extender used to work consistently but lately Internet service is
frequently interrupted. The signal exists, but it's probably weaker.

Bought some supposedly good WiFi antennas from Amazon but got ripped off.
Maybe should have returned them, but it was only $18 and I wanted to see what
was inside.

I have two Netgear extenders... EX7300 and WN2500RP (seems the latter works
better than the former, maybe the EX7300 is a v1 lemon, from Amazon).

I want to NUKE the problem (but of course not spend a fortune).

Amplifying a weak crappy signal produces a strong crappy signal. I don't know
how that works with WiFi.

Thanks.

John Doe wrote:
> The source cannot be changed.
>
> The extender used to work consistently but lately Internet service is
> frequently interrupted. The signal exists, but it's probably weaker.
>
> Bought some supposedly good WiFi antennas from Amazon but got ripped off.
> Maybe should have returned them, but it was only $18 and I wanted to see what
> was inside.
>
> I have two Netgear extenders... EX7300 and WN2500RP (seems the latter works
> better than the former, maybe the EX7300 is a v1 lemon, from Amazon).
>
> I want to NUKE the problem (but of course not spend a fortune).
>
> Amplifying a weak crappy signal produces a strong crappy signal. I don't know
> how that works with WiFi.
>
> Thanks.

There are no crappy signals.

The signals start off nice.

They bounce off things and suffer multipath.

The industry switched to MIMO and placing multiple
antennas at different angles. This allows "one of the
antennas to get lucky and receive a mostly multipath
free signal".

You are operating within unlicensed bands, with EIRP
power limits. This means you can't use a microwave
dish to "slice a path" to the other unit. Nobody
is Goldfinger. Using a parabolic antenna, raises the
EIRP in the center of the beam, such that it violates
unlicensed spectrum usage (by maybe 20dB or more).

Unless you can fill in more details, I don't think
much more constructive input is possible.

Normally, one of the things you'd try, would be
changing channels or bands. But with your first
sentence, it sounds like you have absolutely none
of the normal levers to work.

Paul

On 31/05/2021 20:24, Paul wrote:
> Using a parabolic antenna, raises the
> EIRP in the center of the beam, such that it violates
> unlicensed spectrum usage (by maybe 20dB or more).

If the OP has an Ethernet port available, he can put a Mikrotik transceiver
and any antenna of his choice, at the cost of about that of a home router.
https://mikrotik.com/products/group/wireless-for-home-and-office

The transceiver can easily transmit up to legal limits with high receiver
sensitivity so he would get most signal he could ever legally ask for.

> Unless you can fill in more details, I don't think
> much more constructive input is possible.

Agree.

>
> Normally, one of the things you'd try, would be
> changing channels or bands. But with your first
> sentence, it sounds like you have absolutely none
> of the normal levers to work.

Yes. Maybe everyone in the neighborhood is on the same channel?

Regards,
Martin Brown

That sounds silly, the idea the supply side is the only way to configure
wireless signal transmission/reception. It's nonsense. Both sides are
obviously equally important. If the transmission is garbage, it won't work,
but the same goes for the reception being garbage.

Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Paul wrote:

>> Using a parabolic antenna, raises the EIRP in the center of the beam,
>> such that it violates unlicensed spectrum usage (by maybe 20dB or
>> more).

Says who? I have seen absolutely nothing about that while extensively
looking at directional WiFi antennas and their user comments.

Doesn't make sense anyway. A directional antenna doesn't transmit anything
when receiving. When transmitting, a signal that is just adequate won't be
violating anything since it would be no different than a signal generated
close to the source WiFi device. It won't be hitting anything else.

Anybody paranoid about wireless signals must be crazy by now.

>> Unless you can fill in more details, I don't think much more
>> constructive input is possible.
>
> Agree.

Says a poster who apparently knows little about the subject, or is putting
no thought into its reply.

>> Normally, one of the things you'd try, would be changing channels or
>> bands. But with your first sentence, it sounds like you have absolutely
>> none of the normal levers to work.
>
> Yes.

No. That's nonsense. There is nothing in the original post about the
channels being limited.

> Maybe everyone in the neighborhood is on the same channel?

Like I said (and for some strange reason the poster snipped), it's a weak
signal, it's not overcrowding.

Martin Brown wrote:
> On 31/05/2021 20:24, Paul wrote:
>> Using a parabolic antenna, raises the
>> EIRP in the center of the beam, such that it violates
>> unlicensed spectrum usage (by maybe 20dB or more).
>
> If the OP has an Ethernet port available, he can put a Mikrotik transceiver
> and any antenna of his choice, at the cost of about that of a home router.
> https://mikrotik.com/products/group/wireless-for-home-and-office
>
> The transceiver can easily transmit up to legal limits with high receiver
> sensitivity so he would get most signal he could ever legally ask for.
>
>> Unless you can fill in more details, I don't think
>> much more constructive input is possible.
>
> Agree.
>
>>
>> Normally, one of the things you'd try, would be
>> changing channels or bands. But with your first
>> sentence, it sounds like you have absolutely none
>> of the normal levers to work.
>
> Yes. Maybe everyone in the neighborhood is on the same channel?
>
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
A few wifi applications available that can show the 'neighboorhood wi-fi
and channel being used.

I've used an older tool - Xirrus Wi-Fi Inspector
- works fine(Version 2)on Windows 10 21H1 and 20H2
-still available from 3rd party download sites(e.g. Softpedia, Techspot,
etc., if interested look for version 2.0 the latest(last)
- used to be available on the Xirrus web site, but when Cambium
purchased/acquired Xirrus hosting on the Cambium site was short-lived(no
longer available)

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ

In article <s975lp$500$1@dont-email.me>,
....w¡ñ§±¤n says...

> A few wifi applications available that can show the 'neighboorhood wi-fi
> and channel being used.
>
A good one is:

Nirsoft WifiInfoView v2.70
https://www.nirsoft.net/utils/wifi_information_view.html

--
Ken

Unsteadyken wrote:

> ...w¡ñ§±¤n says...
>
>> A few wifi applications available that can show the 'neighboorhood wi-fi
>> and channel being used.

>> I've used an older tool - Xirrus Wi-Fi Inspector
>> - works fine(Version 2)on Windows 10 21H1 and 20H2
>> -still available from 3rd party download sites(e.g. Softpedia,
>> Techspot, etc., if interested look for version 2.0

> A good one is:
>
> Nirsoft WifiInfoView v2.70
> https://www.nirsoft.net/utils/wifi_information_view.html

Thanks for both recommendations.

I already randomly got "Acrylic_WiFi_Home_v4.5.7802.24791-Setup" after
jumping through hoops.

Seems real-time WiFi signal feedback is useful when positioning a
directional antenna.

I'm keeping ALL the Amazon packaging for this trial, and it (or they) will
be thoroughly tested in the one-month return window.

On 02/06/2021 04:23, John Doe wrote:
> That sounds silly, the idea the supply side is the only way to configure
> wireless signal transmission/reception. It's nonsense. Both sides are
> obviously equally important. If the transmission is garbage, it won't work,
> but the same goes for the reception being garbage.

Why didn't you read the part I wrote about receiver sensitivity?
And did you not notice the part Paul & I wrote about noise interference?

Seeking good receiver sensitivity is not "silly."
And checking for local interference is not "nonsense."

You may need to read at least one article that describes how radios work.
https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/radio/radio-receiver-sensitivity/basics.php
Regards,
Martin Brown

Saying it's a bandwidth problem suggests the poster was not paying
attention. If you have a weak signal, that says nothing about bandwidth.
In fact, a weak signal is less likely to produce bandwidth problems, of
course, since users are less able to use the service. No interest in
reading more nonsense...

--
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!hGrsookgpxVab8ciKZ/QnA.user.gioia.aioe.org.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10
> Subject: Re: OT: Do WiFi antennas matter?
> Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2021 18:24:34 +0100
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Lines: 17
> Message-ID: <s98esf$129n$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> References: <s92q8r$3r5$1@dont-email.me> <s93d63$kit$1@dont-email.me> <s96qoj$6om$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s97149$dsg$1@dont-email.me>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: hGrsookgpxVab8ciKZ/QnA.user.gioia.aioe.org
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0
> Content-Language: en-GB
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-10:145958
>
> On 02/06/2021 04:23, John Doe wrote:
>> That sounds silly, the idea the supply side is the only way to configure
>> wireless signal transmission/reception. It's nonsense. Both sides are
>> obviously equally important. If the transmission is garbage, it won't work,
>> but the same goes for the reception being garbage.
>
> Why didn't you read the part I wrote about receiver sensitivity?
> And did you not notice the part Paul & I wrote about noise interference?
>
> Seeking good receiver sensitivity is not "silly."
> And checking for local interference is not "nonsense."
>
> You may need to read at least one article that describes how radios work.
> https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/radio/radio-receiver-sensitivity/basics.php
>
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
>
>

On 02/06/2021 19.36, John Doe wrote:
> Saying it's a bandwidth problem suggests the poster was not paying
> attention. If you have a weak signal, that says nothing about bandwidth.
> In fact, a weak signal is less likely to produce bandwidth problems, of
> course, since users are less able to use the service. No interest in
> reading more nonsense...
>

You do need to read on radio basics.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 21:18:25, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid>
wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
>On 02/06/2021 19.36, John Doe wrote:
>> Saying it's a bandwidth problem suggests the poster was not paying
>> attention. If you have a weak signal, that says nothing about bandwidth.
>> In fact, a weak signal is less likely to produce bandwidth problems, of
>> course, since users are less able to use the service. No interest in
>> reading more nonsense...
>>
>
>You do need to read on radio basics.
>
Be also aware that modern digital engineers sometimes use the term
"bandwidth" rather freely, at least as far as those who know "radio
basics" are concerned.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

resentment is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die -
attributed to Carrie Fisher by Gareth McLean, in Radio Times 28 January-3
February 2012

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 09:55:19, Unsteadyken <unsteadyken@gmail.com>
wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
>In article <s975lp$500$1@dont-email.me>,
>
>...w¡ñ§±¤n says...
>
>> A few wifi applications available that can show the 'neighboorhood wi-fi
>> and channel being used.
>>
>A good one is:
>
>Nirsoft WifiInfoView v2.70
>https://www.nirsoft.net/utils/wifi_information_view.html
>
(Anything from Nirsoft is likely to be good.)

Remember these kinds of app.s - ancient or modern - can only show wifi
users of the channel; other things (microwave oven leakage, [analogue]
security cameras, many other things) can be using part or all of the
band, but won't show up. There can be no band users showing at all in
such tools, and there still be enough crud that the band (or parts of
it) is unusable.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

resentment is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die -
attributed to Carrie Fisher by Gareth McLean, in Radio Times 28 January-3
February 2012

This Bozo provides ZERO information,
nothing but a troll...

--
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
> From: "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10,free.spam
> Subject: Re: OT: Do WiFi antennas matter?
> Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2021 21:18:25 +0200
> Lines: 12
> Message-ID: <152loh-6s3.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>
> References: <s92q8r$3r5$1@dont-email.me> <s93d63$kit$1@dont-email.me> <s96qoj$6om$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s97149$dsg$1@dont-email.me> <s98esf$129n$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s98fi5$tdd$1@dont-email.me>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Trace: individual.net OIEX0FsMTqz052XVgNwIdAgYIbB3/29HVMrXWFcMCw5jLLLQki
> X-Orig-Path: Telcontar.valinor!not-for-mail
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:vkSBQbnBHqJZu6Y3U1eUQicMdzM=
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
> In-Reply-To: <s98fi5$tdd$1@dont-email.me>
> Content-Language: en-CA
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-10:145970 free.spam:14725
>
> On 02/06/2021 19.36, John Doe wrote:
>> Saying it's a bandwidth problem suggests the poster was not paying
>> attention. If you have a weak signal, that says nothing about bandwidth.
>> In fact, a weak signal is less likely to produce bandwidth problems, of
>> course, since users are less able to use the service. No interest in
>> reading more nonsense...
>>
>
> You do need to read on radio basics.
>
> --
> Cheers, Carlos.
>

No, the language is easy to understand in this context. The other Bozo
suggested "everyone in the neighborhood is on the same channel". We're
talking about overusing a connection. The concept is straightforward,
understood by everybody but a troll...

--
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.brightview.co.uk!news.brightview.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2021 15:03:26 -0500
> Message-ID: <4AoObE8xP+tgFwUu@255soft.uk>
> Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2021 21:02:57 +0100
> From: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10,free.spam
> Subject: Re: OT: Do WiFi antennas matter?
> References: <s92q8r$3r5$1@dont-email.me> <s93d63$kit$1@dont-email.me> <s96qoj$6om$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s97149$dsg$1@dont-email.me> <s98esf$129n$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s98fi5$tdd$1@dont-email.me> <152loh-6s3.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>
> Organization: 255 software
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
> User-Agent: Turnpike/6.07-M (<rCoDL4mD8kS25AEg$VeACA8O2m>)
> Lines: 21
> X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
> X-Trace: sv3-qGM91J7yCm1PJ2LSVgbKKl7oEl0SB72afnZBVyH0Czqom4kPFDWa7UFQ7BDCqxl9Vgrh4DHp0nCFEsl!zptMGCE1Dil7bUGGwGL4GRD4aMaC7du2jvwSE7F+Z6Gr7bxgDeHhit49KeOZYxXce1PBHlPn
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
> X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
> X-Original-Bytes: 2119
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-10:145977 free.spam:14726
>
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 21:18:25, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid>
> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
>>On 02/06/2021 19.36, John Doe wrote:
>>> Saying it's a bandwidth problem suggests the poster was not paying
>>> attention. If you have a weak signal, that says nothing about bandwidth.
>>> In fact, a weak signal is less likely to produce bandwidth problems, of
>>> course, since users are less able to use the service. No interest in
>>> reading more nonsense...
>>>
>>
>>You do need to read on radio basics.
>>
> Be also aware that modern digital engineers sometimes use the term
> "bandwidth" rather freely, at least as far as those who know "radio
> basics" are concerned.
> --
> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
>
> resentment is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die -
> attributed to Carrie Fisher by Gareth McLean, in Radio Times 28 January-3
> February 2012
>

On 02/06/2021 22:06, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> Remember these kinds of app.s - ancient or modern - can only show wifi
> users of the channel; other things (microwave oven leakage, [analogue]
> security cameras, many other things) can be using part or all of the
> band, but won't show up. There can be no band users showing at all in
> such tools, and there still be enough crud that the band (or parts of
> it) is unusable.

To that objective many transceivers come with built in software that shows
all the noise within the radio frequency range, not just Wi-Fi channels.

This document is required reading for the OP but look at page 9 for noise.
https://mum.mikrotik.com/presentations/US19/presentation_6899_1554737579.pdf
Regards,
Martin Brown

Such a cute troll reply, but I'm looking for a solution.

My problem is not uncommon. Out of a grand total of 60 Amazon reviews for
the most popular directional WiFi dual band antenna, this one is fitting...

> I live in an apartment across the street from a university building that
> has Eduroam hotspots. I could *almost* get an OK connection with the
> stock antennas that came with my Asus PCIE network card (PCE-AC56), but
> it was not strong enough to be able to stream video, and would often
> drop.
>
> With this antenna, I'm able to get a connection that is good enough to -
> most of the time - reliably stream videos or play (online) multiplayer
> video games. I'm quite satisfied with the performance of this antenna.
>
> Note that my network card has two antenna ports (MIMO?), but I'm only
> using this antenna (I disconnected the stock antennas so I have one free
> antenna port right now). I may get another one of these antennas to try
> and improve signal strength and speed even more.
>
> ...
>
> I think that this antenna will work well for people who are right on the
> edge of being able to connect to a WiFi network, and don't have control
> of the network they want to connect to...

Also, a reply in the electronics design group suggests I'm on the right
path...

> ...
>
> The motherboard (or USB, or PCI) transmitter circuit provides whatever
> amount of power it provides.
>
> It will provide the same amount of power into a 13 dBi directional
> antenna, as it will into an ordinary "no gain" omnidirectional antenna,
> or into an on-the-PC-board antenna (assuming that all of these antennas
> have the correct design impedance of 50 ohms).
>
> The directional antenna simply directs the available transmitter power
> in a single direction. It'll beam about 20 times as much power in that
> direction as an omni would (at the expense of sending far less power in
> other directions). You'll get 4-5x (rough guesstimate) the range with
> an antenna like this than you would with an omni.
>
> ...
>
> The FCC places transmitter-power limits on Part 15 devices such as WiFi
> transmitters. The limits vary by frequency and usage mode... typically
> on the order of a watt to a few watts. If you buy an illegal high-power
> WiFi amplifier, and exceed these limits, and somebody complains about
> inteference, there's a theoretical possibility that you might be cited
> by the FCC for illegal operation of an uncertified radio transmitter.
>
> The FCC used to require that transmitters (e.g. WiFi cards) and their
> antennas must be certified as a single unit, and didn't allow swapping
> of antennas. My impression is that this is a rule far more honored in
> the breach than in the observance :-)
>
> ...
>
> You won't damage the antenna (or cause it to misbehave) by connecting
> it to a typical less-than-a-watt WiFi card.

Will it work? I'm betting on it. Time will tell. Place your bets, or keep it
shut.

I'm a little surprised this group's users are not familiar with directional
WiFi antennas.

John Doe wrote:
> The source cannot be changed.
>
> The extender used to work consistently but lately Internet service is
> frequently interrupted. The signal exists, but it's probably weaker.
>
> Bought some supposedly good WiFi antennas from Amazon but got ripped off.
> Maybe should have returned them, but it was only $18 and I wanted to see what
> was inside.
>
> I have two Netgear extenders... EX7300 and WN2500RP (seems the latter works
> better than the former, maybe the EX7300 is a v1 lemon, from Amazon).
>
> I want to NUKE the problem (but of course not spend a fortune).
>
> Amplifying a weak crappy signal produces a strong crappy signal. I don't know
> how that works with WiFi.
>
> Thanks.

I sometimes install cellular equipment for my employer so had a
couple of Wilson 31125 cell antennas with 15' cables in the parts box.
The only problem was that the cell and wifi have different connectors.
RP-SMA female vs. SMA male... or what ever it was... I forgot.
So I got two adapters off of E-Bay for $5 and screwed the cell antennas
into two of my wifi router jacks. For the center jack I kept the
1/4 wave dipole blade. Moving the antenna about 10'-15' on either
side of the router solved the multi-path problem. The laptops now
have solid connections. I thought about planar or yagi but don't
want to beam my wifi across a city block.
I could tune the Wilson antennas to better match wifi wavelength
but they work good enough as is and I may need them for a cell
install someday. Impedance should be similar. The Wilson antennas
are loaded coil half wave dual band antennas.

You can buy similar antennas made for wifi.

On 03/06/2021 03:08, Paul in Houston TX wrote:
> You can buy similar antennas made for wifi.

There's no doubt anyone can retrofit a more directional Wi-Fi antenna
but most of the antennas purposefully built for PC's are usually omni
https://www.amazon.com/pc-wifi-antenna/s?k=pc+wifi+antenna

Those omni antennas "waste" signal where they're heading off in the wrong
direction but omni's are what you mostly get when you search for a PC fit.
https://products.bestreviews.com/best-wireless-antennas

Even if someone finds a highly directional antenna they're still limited by
the transmit/receive specifications of the (probably cheap) PC Wi-Fi card.

That's why, for best performance, I suggest using a spare Ethernet port.

You can plug in any well chosen transceiver which can transmit up to the
legal limits for your country and which also has high receiver sensitivity.

That will attain the best possible two-way signal given the OP's limits
that the OP can only change what's on the PC and nothing else anywhere else.

If the OP can find a more powerful transmitter & more sensitive receiver
than what I proposed given the OP's constraints that only the PC can be
changed, I'd love to hear his solution.

That's assuming the problem is signal strength (and not noise interference).
Regards,
Martin Brown

Bozo doesn't know the simple fact that directional antennas CONCENTRATE the
signal. So, No, it's not just being "limited by the transmit/receive
specifications".

Bozo doesn't know what it's talking about...

--
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!
Ha0BfivyJq25yGMxuuK4MQ.user.gioia.aioe.org.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10
> Subject: Re: OT: Do WiFi antennas matter?
> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2021 18:01:44 +0100
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Lines: 30
> Message-ID: <s9b1tk$1c1h$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> References: <s92q8r$3r5$1@dont-email.me> <s99a3c$b18$1@dont-email.me>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: Ha0BfivyJq25yGMxuuK4MQ.user.gioia.aioe.org
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/68.6.0
> Content-Language: en-GB
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-10:146009
>
> On 03/06/2021 03:08, Paul in Houston TX wrote:
>> You can buy similar antennas made for wifi.
>
> There's no doubt anyone can retrofit a more directional Wi-Fi antenna
> but most of the antennas purposefully built for PC's are usually omni
> https://www.amazon.com/pc-wifi-antenna/s?k=pc+wifi+antenna
>
> Those omni antennas "waste" signal where they're heading off in the wrong
> direction but omni's are what you mostly get when you search for a PC fit.
> https://products.bestreviews.com/best-wireless-antennas
>
> Even if someone finds a highly directional antenna they're still limited by
> the transmit/receive specifications of the (probably cheap) PC Wi-Fi card.
>
> That's why, for best performance, I suggest using a spare Ethernet port.
>
> You can plug in any well chosen transceiver which can transmit up to the
> legal limits for your country and which also has high receiver sensitivity.
>
> That will attain the best possible two-way signal given the OP's limits
> that the OP can only change what's on the PC and nothing else anywhere else.
>
> If the OP can find a more powerful transmitter & more sensitive receiver
> than what I proposed given the OP's constraints that only the PC can be
> changed, I'd love to hear his solution.
>
> That's assuming the problem is signal strength (and not noise interference).
>
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
>
>

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 18:01:44 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 03/06/2021 03:08, Paul in Houston TX wrote:
>> You can buy similar antennas made for wifi.
>
>There's no doubt anyone can retrofit a more directional Wi-Fi antenna
>but most of the antennas purposefully built for PC's are usually omni
>https://www.amazon.com/pc-wifi-antenna/s?k=pc+wifi+antenna
>
>Those omni antennas "waste" signal where they're heading off in the wrong
>direction but omni's are what you mostly get when you search for a PC fit.
>https://products.bestreviews.com/best-wireless-antennas
>
>Even if someone finds a highly directional antenna they're still limited by
>the transmit/receive specifications of the (probably cheap) PC Wi-Fi card.
>
>That's why, for best performance, I suggest using a spare Ethernet port.
>
>You can plug in any well chosen transceiver which can transmit up to the
>legal limits for your country and which also has high receiver sensitivity.
>
>That will attain the best possible two-way signal given the OP's limits
>that the OP can only change what's on the PC and nothing else anywhere else.
>
>If the OP can find a more powerful transmitter & more sensitive receiver
>than what I proposed given the OP's constraints that only the PC can be
>changed, I'd love to hear his solution.
>
>That's assuming the problem is signal strength (and not noise interference).

You're on exactly the right track. What you described is what I attempted
to do some 15-20 years ago. I started with an omni antenna connected
directly to a laptop, then for phase II of the experiment I used an
ethernet-connected wifi router configured as an access point so that I
could place it in a better location. Next, I replaced the AP's omni
antennas with a single Cantenna (first a homemade version from a Pringles
can, then a storebought version). Finally, I replaced the Cantenna with a
30db parabolic dish. The dish was highly directional, but once aimed
properly it worked very well.

Around the same time, at a friend's house, I cobbled together an omni
antenna and a repurposed satellite dish. That also worked extremely well
for my friend's purpose at the time, but it's also highly directional.

These days, considering the quality of Ubiquity and Microtik and others,
I'd definitely start there if I was doing it all again.

On 03/06/2021 14:16, Char Jackson wrote:
> These days, considering the quality of Ubiquity and Microtik and others,
> I'd definitely start there if I was doing it all again.

I use only Mikrotik but I had forgotten that Ubiquiti is more user friendly.
Mikrotik is for the old Radio Shack kind of person if you know what I mean.

Both Mikrotik & Ubiquiti will output the maximum legal transmit power and
what the OP doesn't seem to understand is their high receiver sensitivity.
https://dl.ubnt.com/datasheets/powerbeam/PowerBeam_DS.pdf

With Ubiquiti you should be able to buy a directional horn and that's it.
https://www.ui.com/airmax/powerbeam-ac/

You plug the horn into the PC RJ45 and after configuring it you're all set.
https://community.spiceworks.com/how_to/102255-point-to-point-wireless-bridge-with-ubiquiti

This is too complicated for the OP but you normally set it up as a bridge.
https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Interface/Bridge

Depending on the situation you often don't need the dish the horn sits in.

If signal strength is the problem there is no better solution if the OP is
limited to only changing what's on the PC and not the access point setup.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On 03-06-2021 17:49 John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote:

> Bozo doesn't know the simple fact that directional antennas CONCENTRATE the
> signal. So, No, it's not just being "limited by the transmit/receive
> specifications".
>
> Bozo doesn't know what it's talking about...

You do need to read up on radio basics.

What the hell is "using a spare Ethernet port" supposed to mean?

WHERE IS THE PRODUCT, BOZO?

This idiot troll is not being distracted well enough... Like it was,
fortunately, for many months before...

--
Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx02.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10
> Subject: Re: OT: Do WiFi antennas matter?
> Message-ID: <u1aibg5ggq8oujt7jn77bgq6cqum3s3dfr@4ax.com>
> References: <s92q8r$3r5$1@dont-email.me> <s99a3c$b18$1@dont-email.me> <s9b1tk$1c1h$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Lines: 48
> X-Complaints-To: abuse(at)newshosting.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2021 19:16:58 UTC
> Organization: Newshosting.com - Highest quality at a great price! www.newshosting.com
> Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2021 14:16:58 -0500
> X-Received-Bytes: 3184
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-10:146017
>
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 18:01:44 +0100, Martin Brown
> <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 03/06/2021 03:08, Paul in Houston TX wrote:
>>> You can buy similar antennas made for wifi.
>>
>>There's no doubt anyone can retrofit a more directional Wi-Fi antenna
>>but most of the antennas purposefully built for PC's are usually omni
>>https://www.amazon.com/pc-wifi-antenna/s?k=pc+wifi+antenna
>>
>>Those omni antennas "waste" signal where they're heading off in the wrong
>>direction but omni's are what you mostly get when you search for a PC fit.
>>https://products.bestreviews.com/best-wireless-antennas
>>
>>Even if someone finds a highly directional antenna they're still limited by
>>the transmit/receive specifications of the (probably cheap) PC Wi-Fi card.
>>
>>That's why, for best performance, I suggest using a spare Ethernet port.
>>
>>You can plug in any well chosen transceiver which can transmit up to the
>>legal limits for your country and which also has high receiver sensitivity.
>>
>>That will attain the best possible two-way signal given the OP's limits
>>that the OP can only change what's on the PC and nothing else anywhere else.
>>
>>If the OP can find a more powerful transmitter & more sensitive receiver
>>than what I proposed given the OP's constraints that only the PC can be
>>changed, I'd love to hear his solution.
>>
>>That's assuming the problem is signal strength (and not noise interference).
>
> You're on exactly the right track. What you described is what I attempted
> to do some 15-20 years ago. I started with an omni antenna connected
> directly to a laptop, then for phase II of the experiment I used an
> ethernet-connected wifi router configured as an access point so that I
> could place it in a better location. Next, I replaced the AP's omni
> antennas with a single Cantenna (first a homemade version from a Pringles
> can, then a storebought version). Finally, I replaced the Cantenna with a
> 30db parabolic dish. The dish was highly directional, but once aimed
> properly it worked very well.
>
> Around the same time, at a friend's house, I cobbled together an omni
> antenna and a repurposed satellite dish. That also worked extremely well
> for my friend's purpose at the time, but it's also highly directional.
>
> These days, considering the quality of Ubiquity and Microtik and others,
> I'd definitely start there if I was doing it all again.
>
>

As per my prior post, there is perfectly fitting advice from product
reviews and the electronics design group. And in fact I've already set up
the directional antenna. It greatly boosted both bands. I'm having some
trouble connecting and staying connected, but I suspect that's to do with
the built-in WiFi. That will be easy to test by buying a WiFi card, after
I run out of other leads.

If "using a spare ethernet port" (whatever that's supposed to mean) is
such a great idea, where is the product, Bozo?

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."

This idiot is spewing garbage and calling it pearls...

--
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!Ha0BfivyJq25yGMxuuK4MQ.user.gioia.aioe.org.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10
> Subject: Re: OT: Do WiFi antennas matter?
> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2021 20:52:32 +0100
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Lines: 27
> Message-ID: <s9bbts$28s$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> References: <s92q8r$3r5$1@dont-email.me> <s99a3c$b18$1@dont-email.me> <s9b1tk$1c1h$1@gioia.aioe.org> <u1aibg5ggq8oujt7jn77bgq6cqum3s3dfr@4ax.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: Ha0BfivyJq25yGMxuuK4MQ.user.gioia.aioe.org
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
> Content-Language: en-GB
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-10:146021
>
> On 03/06/2021 14:16, Char Jackson wrote:
>> These days, considering the quality of Ubiquity and Microtik and others,
>> I'd definitely start there if I was doing it all again.
>
> I use only Mikrotik but I had forgotten that Ubiquiti is more user friendly.
> Mikrotik is for the old Radio Shack kind of person if you know what I mean.
>
> Both Mikrotik & Ubiquiti will output the maximum legal transmit power and
> what the OP doesn't seem to understand is their high receiver sensitivity.
> https://dl.ubnt.com/datasheets/powerbeam/PowerBeam_DS.pdf
>
> With Ubiquiti you should be able to buy a directional horn and that's it.
> https://www.ui.com/airmax/powerbeam-ac/
>
> You plug the horn into the PC RJ45 and after configuring it you're all set.
> https://community.spiceworks.com/how_to/102255-point-to-point-wireless-bridge-with-ubiquiti
>
> This is too complicated for the OP but you normally set it up as a bridge.
> https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Interface/Bridge
>
> Depending on the situation you often don't need the dish the horn sits in.
>
> If signal strength is the problem there is no better solution if the OP is
> limited to only changing what's on the PC and not the access point setup.
>
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
>
>