On Sat, 5 Jun 2021 14:58:36 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 05/06/2021 01:08, Char Jackson wrote:
>> If your goal is to establish two simultaneous network connections to the
>> same network, whether it's via wired or wireless or multiples of either,
>> you probably don't want to do that.
>
>That's not my goal but I always wondered why the PC can't "share" two
>connections easily. I know there are "metrics" in the routing table which
>determine _which_ connection the PC uses, but it seems to only use one.

Correct, by design.

>> Doing so requires special 'trunking'
>> software on both ends of those connections if you actually expect to use
>> more than one of those connections at a time. You can easily _connect_
>> both, but you can't easily _use_ both at the same time.
>
>Thanks for the suggestion of the "trunking" software.
>I concur that you can easily connect to _either_ but not to both.
>
>> The problem is that, without that special software, the OS (Windows in this
>> case) makes sure you don't accidentally do that by giving each of your NICs
>> a different metric, which you can see when you do a 'route print'.
>
>Yep. How they arrive at those numbers is black magic to me.
>But I'm aware the metric determines which connection is used.

The actual metrics are fairly arbitrary. The important part is their
respective values relative to one another. When there are two or more
available connections to the same network, the connection with the lowest
metric will be used exclusively. In Windows world, wired connections (to a
specific network) always get a lower metric than wireless connections (to
that same network). So the easy way to use more than one NIC is to simply
connect the second (and subsequent, if available), to different networks.

>> The
>> wired NIC gets preference over the WiFi NIC, if you have one of each and
>> both are enabled and connected.
>
>Yep.
>In my case both are wireless only the PC doesn't realize that.
>The PC "thinks" the Ethernet port is connected directly to the router.
>
>But the Ethernet port is connected to the router also by Wi-Fi.

Strictly speaking, the Ethernet port must be connected to a device via an
Ethernet cable. In turn, that device can be connected to the router via
WiFi, right?

>> If you were able to use more than one
>> connection to the same network at the same time, your host wouldn't know
>> how to split its outbound traffic across the different connections and the
>> remote host wouldn't know how to reassemble everything, and of course
>> likewise for incoming traffic. That's why you need specialized software and
>> it has to be running and configured identically at both endpoints.
>
>Sounds reasonable.
>
>> OTOH, if you want to connect to two or more _different_ networks
>> simultaneously, that's easy. That part just works.
>
>Oh! I never thought of that. Thanks.

Back around 2004 or so, I had 8 cable modems for a period of time and the
only way to use them simultaneously was to put each of them on a different
network. Fortunately, it's easy to configure multiple IPs on each NIC.

>> No special software is
>> needed. You can connect to about as many networks as you like, using a
>> single NIC or as many NICs as you have, regardless of whether they're wired
>> or wireless.
>
>I need to think about that.
>And how it would work.

Locally, you just assign additional IPv4 and/or IPv6 addresses to one or
more of your network adapters, each with an optional default gateway or no
gateway at all, depending on your needs. Windows will take care of the
rest, building a merged routing table for you. If you send traffic to a
network that you're a member of, Windows will source that traffic from the
IP that matches your destination address. Naturally, you'll need to have a
destination on your LAN for that traffic. I suppose that's obvious.

>I don't have two networks but my first thought is that if I connected the PC
>Wi-Fi to my neighbor's network and if I simultaneously connect the PC
>Ethernet Wi-Fi bridge to my own router, don't I have the same routing table
>metric problem that I had before?

No, because the two NICs will be connected to different networks. There's
one additional step required, though, before Windows will use the second
network connection. You have to define the remote networks that should use
the second connection as their gateway, and you do that by adding static
route(s) to your routing table. If you want your static routes to survive a
reboot, make them persistent. ("route /?" from a Command Prompt.

>When I ping Google, how does the ping command know _which_ network to use?

The routing table decides that. All non-local traffic will use the default
route except for traffic that you've configured to use another route.

>>>> BTW, I didn't follow all of your links, but this one caught my eye.
>>>> http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/difference-between-router-and-bridge/
>>>> I think it's about 90% right but could use some edits to bring it up to
>>>> speed. Even so, still a good start.
>>>
>>>It's a very common question of how bridging differs from routing.
>>>
>>>I don't know it well enough to summarize perfectly but a router deals with
>>>IP addresses while that router set up as a bridge deals with MAC addresses.
>>
>> It can also be helpful to note that a router joins two or more different
>> networks, while switches and bridges deal only with MAC addresses and have
>> no knowledge of the concept of a 'network'.
>
>Sounds good.
>I never really understand things that "just work" so all I know about
>bridges is that they "just work" once you follow the setup directions.
>
>To me the main difference between a router and a bridge is a router deals in
>IP addresses while a bridge deals in MAC addresses. The rest is just setup.
>
>Given what you said maybe I'll summarize to the next person that a router
>deals in IP addresses and networks while a bridge deals in MAC addresses and
>a single net. ;-)
>
>> That's why you can have as many
>> different networks as you'd like, within your LAN, and connect all of their
>> hosts together via switches, for example. Different networks in that
>> example, but no router. A router is only required if you need to get to a
>> network that your system isn't already a member of.
>
>Good explanation.
>Better than mine was.
>
>>>Instead of physically laying a cat5 cable from the MAC address at the RJ45
>>>of the PC Ethernet card to the MAC address of the router RJ45, we use Wi-Fi.
>>
>> Remember that all WiFi is bridging. All WiFi works at Layer 2, the MAC
>> layer.
>
>Another good summary.
>
>>
>>>A Wi-Fi bridge connects _only_ from the PC RJ45 MAC to the router RJ45 MAC.
>>>It's just a wire but without using wires.
>>
>> There are devices that are explicitly sold as wireless bridges, but you can
>> also use any WiFi router as a wireless bridge, even if they don't offer a
>> bridge mode.
>
>That's news to me but I'll accept it as I only know what I've had to do.

I could list the steps here, but they're all over the web already. Just
google something like 'how to use a wifi router as an access point'.

Here's the first hit in my search results just now:
https://www.speedguide.net/articles/how-to-set-a-wireless-router-as-an-access-point-2556#

>>>In addition, you're transmitting at the highest (EIRP) signal strength you
>>>can (legally) transmit & your receiver sensitivity is as good as it gets.
>>>
>>>This is a good solution for anyone who wants to spend about as much as
>>>either a new router or repeater costs and who doesn't want to change
>>>anything in the PC or in the router or on the network.
>>>
>>>Bridging is like adding a wire directly & only from the PC to the router.
>>
>> At its core, that describes every WiFi connection, but you're suggesting
>> that it be done with better than average equipment. I concur.
>
>Yep. It's better than home equipment at the same price as home equipment.
>
>With Mikrotik you can actually transmit (EIRP) at far better than legal
>because you can choose your country code in the equipment whereas Ubiquiti
>has that choice locked down better than my old Mikrotik equipment did.
>
>With Ubiquiti as I recall you get something like a choice of US or Australia
>or something like that, which isn't much of a choice at all.
>
>With my Mikrotik transceiver I get a choice of a hundred or so countries as
>I recall. But even so the US allows pretty high EIRP limits so it's not
>meaningful in the long run to bother to pick anything other than the US.
>
>What the OP doesn't understand is the receiver sensitivity is critical since
>the effective transmit power (EIRP) of the typical Netgear, Cisco, or TPLink
>home router is anemic at best and for a variety of unfixable reasons.
>
>The OP is all about antenna gain but it turns out given the anemic transmit
>power of a typical home router radio you can't source an antenna to overcome
>that anemic typical router's transmit power limitation.
>
>When you're _already_ able to transmit at the legal limit, when you add the
>antenna you actually have to dial _down_ the transmit power in order to stay
>within legal limits.
>
>And just as the starting point is greater on transmit than the typical home
>router but also the starting point on receiver sensitivity is also greater.
>
>So the far weaker return signals from the home router can be picked up at
>the PC over the noise due to the greater sensitivity of the transceiver.
>
>All for around the same price (give or take) as the typical home router.
>(although usually the antenna is much larger than an omni would be)
>
>None of this do I say for the OP per se since, as you said, the OP is a lost
>cause from the start - but I say all this by way of communication where I
>appreciate that you know more than I do which is nice to learn from you.
>
>Hopefully others will learn too and add knowledge where we both are weak.

wolfgang kern <nowhere@nospicedham.never.at> wrote:

> John Doe wrote:

>> Again... A typical WiFi communications device through a directional
>> antenna has its signal CONCENTRATED in one direction.
>>
>> As pointed out in the electronics design group...
>>
>> "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."
>>
>> I thought this idiot had given up on suggesting it's idea is good for
>> my application, but apparently it's still spewing that nonsense.
>>
>> If it's such a good idea, where are the APPLICATIONS??? There are none,
>> that's why the trolls never respond to that repeated question.
>>
>> At least the idiot troll admits it's clueless...
>
> What is the output transmit power (in dBm) of your wifi card measured at
> the RF connector to whatever antenna you want to connect to that wifi
> card?

According to the electronics design group...

"PC WiFi typical outputs 20-30 dBm"

That's 40 to 60% of the "Max Input Power" of the directional antenna.

I actually have no idea why (besides trolling) the clowns are talking
about transceivers. Apparently they don't either. Otherwise they would
point to discussion by people who actually use such a device to solve poor
WiFi reception. Talking about omnidirectional antenna WiFi devices is
on-topic, but a typical desktop user does not need to increase
omnidirectional range. A directional antenna is the obvious solution to a
weak signal.

If what it is trolling about now were true, it could point to example use
by consumers struggling with poor WiFi reception.

A longtime regular troll...

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

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.uzoreto.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed9.news.xs4all.nl!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx20.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: <rdrobgd715e3k2d1ovh4sv63gna4oh6v8d@4ax.com>
> References: <s92q8r$3r5$1@dont-email.me> <s99a3c$b18$1@dont-email.me> <s9b1tk$1c1h$1@gioia.aioe.org> <u1aibg5ggq8oujt7jn77bgq6cqum3s3dfr@4ax.com> <s9cmt3$s88$2@dont-email.me> <s9d80j$lh7$1@dont-email.me> <s9dge4$1lgp$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s9dhgk$sfl$1@dont-email.me> <s9djvu$1ci4$1@gioia.aioe.org> <8dokbgdk9uqplg9j1ha8uvdkqcq7uh6ckb@4ax.com> <s9dveu$p87$1@gioia.aioe.org> <9polbg5prs7mn8snmumtgkb525838vtr8e@4ax.com> <s9fvu8$1fqd$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: 215
> X-Complaints-To: abuse(at)newshosting.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2021 07:22:22 UTC
> Organization: Newshosting.com - Highest quality at a great price! www.newshosting.com
> Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2021 02:22:22 -0500
> X-Received-Bytes: 11327
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-10:146206
>
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2021 14:58:36 +0100, Martin Brown
> <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 05/06/2021 01:08, Char Jackson wrote:
>>> If your goal is to establish two simultaneous network connections to the
>>> same network, whether it's via wired or wireless or multiples of either,
>>> you probably don't want to do that.
>>
>>That's not my goal but I always wondered why the PC can't "share" two
>>connections easily. I know there are "metrics" in the routing table which
>>determine _which_ connection the PC uses, but it seems to only use one.
>
> Correct, by design.
>
>>> Doing so requires special 'trunking'
>>> software on both ends of those connections if you actually expect to use
>>> more than one of those connections at a time. You can easily _connect_
>>> both, but you can't easily _use_ both at the same time.
>>
>>Thanks for the suggestion of the "trunking" software.
>>I concur that you can easily connect to _either_ but not to both.
>>
>>> The problem is that, without that special software, the OS (Windows in this
>>> case) makes sure you don't accidentally do that by giving each of your NICs
>>> a different metric, which you can see when you do a 'route print'.
>>
>>Yep. How they arrive at those numbers is black magic to me.
>>But I'm aware the metric determines which connection is used.
>
> The actual metrics are fairly arbitrary. The important part is their
> respective values relative to one another. When there are two or more
> available connections to the same network, the connection with the lowest
> metric will be used exclusively. In Windows world, wired connections (to a
> specific network) always get a lower metric than wireless connections (to
> that same network). So the easy way to use more than one NIC is to simply
> connect the second (and subsequent, if available), to different networks.
>
>>> The
>>> wired NIC gets preference over the WiFi NIC, if you have one of each and
>>> both are enabled and connected.
>>
>>Yep.
>>In my case both are wireless only the PC doesn't realize that.
>>The PC "thinks" the Ethernet port is connected directly to the router.
>>
>>But the Ethernet port is connected to the router also by Wi-Fi.
>
> Strictly speaking, the Ethernet port must be connected to a device via an
> Ethernet cable. In turn, that device can be connected to the router via
> WiFi, right?
>
>>> If you were able to use more than one
>>> connection to the same network at the same time, your host wouldn't know
>>> how to split its outbound traffic across the different connections and the
>>> remote host wouldn't know how to reassemble everything, and of course
>>> likewise for incoming traffic. That's why you need specialized software and
>>> it has to be running and configured identically at both endpoints.
>>
>>Sounds reasonable.
>>
>>> OTOH, if you want to connect to two or more _different_ networks
>>> simultaneously, that's easy. That part just works.
>>
>>Oh! I never thought of that. Thanks.
>
> Back around 2004 or so, I had 8 cable modems for a period of time and the
> only way to use them simultaneously was to put each of them on a different
> network. Fortunately, it's easy to configure multiple IPs on each NIC.
>
>>> No special software is
>>> needed. You can connect to about as many networks as you like, using a
>>> single NIC or as many NICs as you have, regardless of whether they're wired
>>> or wireless.
>>
>>I need to think about that.
>>And how it would work.
>
> Locally, you just assign additional IPv4 and/or IPv6 addresses to one or
> more of your network adapters, each with an optional default gateway or no
> gateway at all, depending on your needs. Windows will take care of the
> rest, building a merged routing table for you. If you send traffic to a
> network that you're a member of, Windows will source that traffic from the
> IP that matches your destination address. Naturally, you'll need to have a
> destination on your LAN for that traffic. I suppose that's obvious.
>
>>I don't have two networks but my first thought is that if I connected the PC
>>Wi-Fi to my neighbor's network and if I simultaneously connect the PC
>>Ethernet Wi-Fi bridge to my own router, don't I have the same routing table
>>metric problem that I had before?
>
> No, because the two NICs will be connected to different networks. There's
> one additional step required, though, before Windows will use the second
> network connection. You have to define the remote networks that should use
> the second connection as their gateway, and you do that by adding static
> route(s) to your routing table. If you want your static routes to survive a
> reboot, make them persistent. ("route /?" from a Command Prompt.
>
>>When I ping Google, how does the ping command know _which_ network to use?
>
> The routing table decides that. All non-local traffic will use the default
> route except for traffic that you've configured to use another route.
>
>>>>> BTW, I didn't follow all of your links, but this one caught my eye.
>>>>> http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/difference-between-router-and-bridge/
>>>>> I think it's about 90% right but could use some edits to bring it up to
>>>>> speed. Even so, still a good start.
>>>>
>>>>It's a very common question of how bridging differs from routing.
>>>>
>>>>I don't know it well enough to summarize perfectly but a router deals with
>>>>IP addresses while that router set up as a bridge deals with MAC addresses.
>>>
>>> It can also be helpful to note that a router joins two or more different
>>> networks, while switches and bridges deal only with MAC addresses and have
>>> no knowledge of the concept of a 'network'.
>>
>>Sounds good.
>>I never really understand things that "just work" so all I know about
>>bridges is that they "just work" once you follow the setup directions.
>>
>>To me the main difference between a router and a bridge is a router deals in
>>IP addresses while a bridge deals in MAC addresses. The rest is just setup.
>>
>>Given what you said maybe I'll summarize to the next person that a router
>>deals in IP addresses and networks while a bridge deals in MAC addresses and
>>a single net. ;-)
>>
>>> That's why you can have as many
>>> different networks as you'd like, within your LAN, and connect all of their
>>> hosts together via switches, for example. Different networks in that
>>> example, but no router. A router is only required if you need to get to a
>>> network that your system isn't already a member of.
>>
>>Good explanation.
>>Better than mine was.
>>
>>>>Instead of physically laying a cat5 cable from the MAC address at the RJ45
>>>>of the PC Ethernet card to the MAC address of the router RJ45, we use Wi-Fi.
>>>
>>> Remember that all WiFi is bridging. All WiFi works at Layer 2, the MAC
>>> layer.
>>
>>Another good summary.
>>
>>>
>>>>A Wi-Fi bridge connects _only_ from the PC RJ45 MAC to the router RJ45 MAC.
>>>>It's just a wire but without using wires.
>>>
>>> There are devices that are explicitly sold as wireless bridges, but you can
>>> also use any WiFi router as a wireless bridge, even if they don't offer a
>>> bridge mode.
>>
>>That's news to me but I'll accept it as I only know what I've had to do.
>
> I could list the steps here, but they're all over the web already. Just
> google something like 'how to use a wifi router as an access point'.
>
> Here's the first hit in my search results just now:
> https://www.speedguide.net/articles/how-to-set-a-wireless-router-as-an-access-point-2556#
>
>>>>In addition, you're transmitting at the highest (EIRP) signal strength you
>>>>can (legally) transmit & your receiver sensitivity is as good as it gets.
>>>>
>>>>This is a good solution for anyone who wants to spend about as much as
>>>>either a new router or repeater costs and who doesn't want to change
>>>>anything in the PC or in the router or on the network.
>>>>
>>>>Bridging is like adding a wire directly & only from the PC to the router.
>>>
>>> At its core, that describes every WiFi connection, but you're suggesting
>>> that it be done with better than average equipment. I concur.
>>
>>Yep. It's better than home equipment at the same price as home equipment.
>>
>>With Mikrotik you can actually transmit (EIRP) at far better than legal
>>because you can choose your country code in the equipment whereas Ubiquiti
>>has that choice locked down better than my old Mikrotik equipment did.
>>
>>With Ubiquiti as I recall you get something like a choice of US or Australia
>>or something like that, which isn't much of a choice at all.
>>
>>With my Mikrotik transceiver I get a choice of a hundred or so countries as
>>I recall. But even so the US allows pretty high EIRP limits so it's not
>>meaningful in the long run to bother to pick anything other than the US.
>>
>>What the OP doesn't understand is the receiver sensitivity is critical since
>>the effective transmit power (EIRP) of the typical Netgear, Cisco, or TPLink
>>home router is anemic at best and for a variety of unfixable reasons.
>>
>>The OP is all about antenna gain but it turns out given the anemic transmit
>>power of a typical home router radio you can't source an antenna to overcome
>>that anemic typical router's transmit power limitation.
>>
>>When you're _already_ able to transmit at the legal limit, when you add the
>>antenna you actually have to dial _down_ the transmit power in order to stay
>>within legal limits.
>>
>>And just as the starting point is greater on transmit than the typical home
>>router but also the starting point on receiver sensitivity is also greater.
>>
>>So the far weaker return signals from the home router can be picked up at
>>the PC over the noise due to the greater sensitivity of the transceiver.
>>
>>All for around the same price (give or take) as the typical home router.
>>(although usually the antenna is much larger than an omni would be)
>>
>>None of this do I say for the OP per se since, as you said, the OP is a lost
>>cause from the start - but I say all this by way of communication where I
>>appreciate that you know more than I do which is nice to learn from you.
>>
>>Hopefully others will learn too and add knowledge where we both are weak.
>
> Exactly.
>
>
>
>

But of course that's not what I meant.

If you weren't just spewing garbage (perhaps to make up for your initial
ignorant reply), you could point to example USE of the device by consumers
who are struggling with a week WiFi signal.

Doesn't exist. You guys are just trolling.

--
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10
> Subject: Re: OT: Do WiFi antennas matter?
> Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2021 15:27:04 -0400
> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
> Lines: 15
> Message-ID: <s9gj69$8n0$1@dont-email.me>
> References: <s92q8r$3r5$1@dont-email.me> <s99a3c$b18$1@dont-email.me> <s9b1tk$1c1h$1@gioia.aioe.org> <u1aibg5ggq8oujt7jn77bgq6cqum3s3dfr@4ax.com> <s9cmt3$s88$2@dont-email.me> <s9d80j$lh7$1@dont-email.me> <s9dge4$1lgp$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s9dhgk$sfl$1@dont-email.me> <s9djvu$1ci4$1@gioia.aioe.org> <8dokbgdk9uqplg9j1ha8uvdkqcq7uh6ckb@4ax.com> <s9dveu$p87$1@gioia.aioe.org> <9polbg5prs7mn8snmumtgkb525838vtr8e@4ax.com> <s9fvu8$1fqd$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s9g7q2$pf6$1@dont-email.me> <s9gea6$3lr$2@dont-email.me>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Injection-Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2021 19:27:05 -0000 (UTC)
> Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="f3c86d401552725efc0f2931218dd00b"; logging-data="8928"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+/k1sWx/EUh3XoiVXx9aPqrAAvURs4hLU="
> User-Agent: Ratcatcher/2.0.0.25 (Windows/20130802)
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:/aNZ81CYbQkt7pKZrrVAQmQjrNo=
> In-Reply-To: <s9gea6$3lr$2@dont-email.me>
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-10:146167
>
> John Doe wrote:
>> Since you continue to insist it's a good device for my situation...
>>
>> WHERE'S THE APPLICATION???
>>
>
> central ------ Eth ------- AccessPoint /\/\/ RemoteMachine
> router
> \
> /
> \
> /
>
> Local
> WifiMachine
>

Searching for troll redemption...

Using a transceiver for weak WiFi signals?

First result...

"7 Easy Ways to Fix a Weak WiFi Signal"
....
Missing "transceiver". Must include "transceiver"?

Second result...

"10 Ways To Boost a Weak WiFi Signal"

No "transceiver" there either!

Bozo and the Trolls...

--
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: Sat, 5 Jun 2021 14:58:36 +0100
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Lines: 169
> Message-ID: <s9fvu8$1fqd$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> References: <s92q8r$3r5$1@dont-email.me> <s99a3c$b18$1@dont-email.me> <s9b1tk$1c1h$1@gioia.aioe.org> <u1aibg5ggq8oujt7jn77bgq6cqum3s3dfr@4ax.com> <s9cmt3$s88$2@dont-email.me> <s9d80j$lh7$1@dont-email.me> <s9dge4$1lgp$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s9dhgk$sfl$1@dont-email.me> <s9djvu$1ci4$1@gioia.aioe.org> <8dokbgdk9uqplg9j1ha8uvdkqcq7uh6ckb@4ax.com> <s9dveu$p87$1@gioia.aioe.org> <9polbg5prs7mn8snmumtgkb525838vtr8e@4ax.com>
> 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
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
> Content-Language: en-GB
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-10:146140
>
> On 05/06/2021 01:08, Char Jackson wrote:
>> If your goal is to establish two simultaneous network connections to the
>> same network, whether it's via wired or wireless or multiples of either,
>> you probably don't want to do that.
>
> That's not my goal but I always wondered why the PC can't "share" two
> connections easily. I know there are "metrics" in the routing table which
> determine _which_ connection the PC uses, but it seems to only use one.
>
>> Doing so requires special 'trunking'
>> software on both ends of those connections if you actually expect to use
>> more than one of those connections at a time. You can easily _connect_
>> both, but you can't easily _use_ both at the same time.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion of the "trunking" software.
> I concur that you can easily connect to _either_ but not to both.
>
>> The problem is that, without that special software, the OS (Windows in this
>> case) makes sure you don't accidentally do that by giving each of your NICs
>> a different metric, which you can see when you do a 'route print'.
>
> Yep. How they arrive at those numbers is black magic to me.
> But I'm aware the metric determines which connection is used.
>
>> The
>> wired NIC gets preference over the WiFi NIC, if you have one of each and
>> both are enabled and connected.
>
> Yep.
> In my case both are wireless only the PC doesn't realize that.
> The PC "thinks" the Ethernet port is connected directly to the router.
>
> But the Ethernet port is connected to the router also by Wi-Fi.
>
>> If you were able to use more than one
>> connection to the same network at the same time, your host wouldn't know
>> how to split its outbound traffic across the different connections and the
>> remote host wouldn't know how to reassemble everything, and of course
>> likewise for incoming traffic. That's why you need specialized software and
>> it has to be running and configured identically at both endpoints.
>
> Sounds reasonable.
>
>> OTOH, if you want to connect to two or more _different_ networks
>> simultaneously, that's easy. That part just works.
>
> Oh! I never thought of that. Thanks.
>
>> No special software is
>> needed. You can connect to about as many networks as you like, using a
>> single NIC or as many NICs as you have, regardless of whether they're wired
>> or wireless.
>
> I need to think about that.
> And how it would work.
>
> I don't have two networks but my first thought is that if I connected the PC
> Wi-Fi to my neighbor's network and if I simultaneously connect the PC
> Ethernet Wi-Fi bridge to my own router, don't I have the same routing table
> metric problem that I had before?
>
> When I ping Google, how does the ping command know _which_ network to use?
>
>>>> BTW, I didn't follow all of your links, but this one caught my eye.
>>>> http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/difference-between-router-and-bridge/
>>>> I think it's about 90% right but could use some edits to bring it up to
>>>> speed. Even so, still a good start.
>>>
>>>It's a very common question of how bridging differs from routing.
>>>
>>>I don't know it well enough to summarize perfectly but a router deals with
>>>IP addresses while that router set up as a bridge deals with MAC addresses.
>>
>> It can also be helpful to note that a router joins two or more different
>> networks, while switches and bridges deal only with MAC addresses and have
>> no knowledge of the concept of a 'network'.
>
> Sounds good.
> I never really understand things that "just work" so all I know about
> bridges is that they "just work" once you follow the setup directions.
>
> To me the main difference between a router and a bridge is a router deals in
> IP addresses while a bridge deals in MAC addresses. The rest is just setup.
>
> Given what you said maybe I'll summarize to the next person that a router
> deals in IP addresses and networks while a bridge deals in MAC addresses and
> a single net. ;-)
>
>> That's why you can have as many
>> different networks as you'd like, within your LAN, and connect all of their
>> hosts together via switches, for example. Different networks in that
>> example, but no router. A router is only required if you need to get to a
>> network that your system isn't already a member of.
>
> Good explanation.
> Better than mine was.
>
>>>Instead of physically laying a cat5 cable from the MAC address at the RJ45
>>>of the PC Ethernet card to the MAC address of the router RJ45, we use Wi-Fi.
>>
>> Remember that all WiFi is bridging. All WiFi works at Layer 2, the MAC
>> layer.
>
> Another good summary.
>
>>
>>>A Wi-Fi bridge connects _only_ from the PC RJ45 MAC to the router RJ45 MAC.
>>>It's just a wire but without using wires.
>>
>> There are devices that are explicitly sold as wireless bridges, but you can
>> also use any WiFi router as a wireless bridge, even if they don't offer a
>> bridge mode.
>
> That's news to me but I'll accept it as I only know what I've had to do.
>>
>>>In addition, you're transmitting at the highest (EIRP) signal strength you
>>>can (legally) transmit & your receiver sensitivity is as good as it gets.
>>>
>>>This is a good solution for anyone who wants to spend about as much as
>>>either a new router or repeater costs and who doesn't want to change
>>>anything in the PC or in the router or on the network.
>>>
>>>Bridging is like adding a wire directly & only from the PC to the router.
>>
>> At its core, that describes every WiFi connection, but you're suggesting
>> that it be done with better than average equipment. I concur.
>
> Yep. It's better than home equipment at the same price as home equipment.
>
> With Mikrotik you can actually transmit (EIRP) at far better than legal
> because you can choose your country code in the equipment whereas Ubiquiti
> has that choice locked down better than my old Mikrotik equipment did.
>
> With Ubiquiti as I recall you get something like a choice of US or Australia
> or something like that, which isn't much of a choice at all.
>
> With my Mikrotik transceiver I get a choice of a hundred or so countries as
> I recall. But even so the US allows pretty high EIRP limits so it's not
> meaningful in the long run to bother to pick anything other than the US.
>
> What the OP doesn't understand is the receiver sensitivity is critical since
> the effective transmit power (EIRP) of the typical Netgear, Cisco, or TPLink
> home router is anemic at best and for a variety of unfixable reasons.
>
> The OP is all about antenna gain but it turns out given the anemic transmit
> power of a typical home router radio you can't source an antenna to overcome
> that anemic typical router's transmit power limitation.
>
> When you're _already_ able to transmit at the legal limit, when you add the
> antenna you actually have to dial _down_ the transmit power in order to stay
> within legal limits.
>
> And just as the starting point is greater on transmit than the typical home
> router but also the starting point on receiver sensitivity is also greater.
>
> So the far weaker return signals from the home router can be picked up at
> the PC over the noise due to the greater sensitivity of the transceiver.
>
> All for around the same price (give or take) as the typical home router.
> (although usually the antenna is much larger than an omni would be)
>
> None of this do I say for the OP per se since, as you said, the OP is a lost
> cause from the start - but I say all this by way of communication where I
> appreciate that you know more than I do which is nice to learn from you.
>
> Hopefully others will learn too and add knowledge where we both are weak.
> --
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
>

On 06.06.2021 07:48, John Doe wrote:
>> What is the output transmit power (in dBm) of your wifi card measured at
>> the RF connector to whatever antenna you want to connect to that wifi
>> card?
>
> According to the electronics design group...
>
> "PC WiFi typical outputs 20-30 dBm"
>
> That's 40 to 60% of the "Max Input Power" of the directional antenna.
>
> I actually have no idea why (besides trolling) the clowns are talking
> about transceivers. Apparently they don't either. Otherwise they would
> point to discussion by people who actually use such a device to solve poor
> WiFi reception. Talking about omnidirectional antenna WiFi devices is
> on-topic, but a typical desktop user does not need to increase
> omnidirectional range. A directional antenna is the obvious solution to a
> weak signal.

What's the receiver sensitivity of your wifi card?

On 06/06/2021 09:22, Char Jackson wrote:
>>But the Ethernet port is connected to the router also by Wi-Fi.
>
> Strictly speaking, the Ethernet port must be connected to a device via an
> Ethernet cable. In turn, that device can be connected to the router via
> WiFi, right?

Right.

[1] The Ethernet port on the PC connects to a cat5 cable as you said.
[2] The cat5 cable connects to the tranceiver (which also has an antenna).
[3] Over the air the radio "bridges" to the home router AP, MAC to MAC

The PC "thinks" it's talking through an Ethernet connection.
And as you said, it /is/ an Ethernet connection.
At least until it gets to the radio.

The radio set up as a bridge just passes the data MAC to MAC.
As if it were a wire.
At least that's how I understand it.

>>When I ping Google, how does the ping command know _which_ network to use?
>
> The routing table decides that. All non-local traffic will use the default
> route except for traffic that you've configured to use another route.

That makes sense.
I didn't think of that.
Thanks.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 6/6/2021 8:11 AM, John Doe wrote:
> Searching for troll redemption...
>
> Using a transceiver for weak WiFi signals?
>
> First result...
>
> "7 Easy Ways to Fix a Weak WiFi Signal"
> ...
> Missing "transceiver". Must include "transceiver"?
>
> Second result...
>
> "10 Ways To Boost a Weak WiFi Signal"
>
> No "transceiver" there either!
>
> Bozo and the Trolls...

You are calling everyone a bozo and a troll & yet you don't even know that
every Wi-Fi card is a "transceiver" - just like every Wi-Fi router is.

Including the Wi-Fi card in your own computer & the router in your own home.

As others said you really need to read an introductory text on radio basics.
--
J. B. Wood e-mail: arl_123234@hotmail.com

J.B. Wood wrote:
> On 6/6/2021 8:11 AM, John Doe wrote:
>> Searching for troll redemption...
>>
>> Using a transceiver for weak WiFi signals?
>>
>> First result...
>>
>> "7 Easy Ways to Fix a Weak WiFi Signal"
>> ...
>> Missing "transceiver". Must include "transceiver"?
>>
>> Second result...
>>
>> "10 Ways To Boost a Weak WiFi Signal"
>>
>> No "transceiver" there either!
>>
>> Bozo and the Trolls...
>
> You are calling everyone a bozo and a troll & yet you don't even know
> that every Wi-Fi card is a "transceiver" - just like every Wi-Fi router is.
>
> Including the Wi-Fi card in your own computer & the router in your own
> home.
>
> As others said you really need to read an introductory text on radio
> basics.

Diagram:

https://www.mouser.com/images/microsites/rf-wireless-diagram.png

On quality designs, the RF chain is separate bipolar devices,
and you can follow the arch with your eyeball. Some of the
older router articles, gave descriptions of the RF chain,
including what RF switches were used for T/R.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Linksys_WRT54GL_v1.1_-_board-2443.jpg

Paul

I provided the pertinent, precise answer to the question asked.
And of course nobody needs to know a specific WiFi card power output,
in this GENERAL discussion on a WORLDWIDE forum.

Don't like the fitting answer to your question?
Go bug the electronics design group...

--
wolfgang kern <nowhere@nospicedham.never.at> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!s+Ui1sUtrFeNha6o44/2FQ.user.gioia.aioe.org.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: wolfgang kern <nowhere@nospicedham.never.at>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10
> Subject: Re: OT: Do WiFi antennas matter?
> Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2021 15:41:35 +0200
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Lines: 20
> Message-ID: <s9ijaa$14qc$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> References: <s92q8r$3r5$1@dont-email.me> <s99a3c$b18$1@dont-email.me> <s9b1tk$1c1h$1@gioia.aioe.org> <u1aibg5ggq8oujt7jn77bgq6cqum3s3dfr@4ax.com> <s9cmt3$s88$2@dont-email.me> <s9d80j$lh7$1@dont-email.me> <s9dge4$1lgp$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s9dhgk$sfl$1@dont-email.me> <s9djvu$1ci4$1@gioia.aioe.org> <8dokbgdk9uqplg9j1ha8uvdkqcq7uh6ckb@4ax.com> <s9dveu$p87$1@gioia.aioe.org> <9polbg5prs7mn8snmumtgkb525838vtr8e@4ax.com> <s9fvu8$1fqd$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s9ge7b$3lr$1@dont-email.me> <s9h0oh$12v9$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s9hul1$g13$1@dont-email.me>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: s+Ui1sUtrFeNha6o44/2FQ.user.gioia.aioe.org
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:86.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/86.0
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-10:146224
>
> On 06.06.2021 07:48, John Doe wrote:
>>> What is the output transmit power (in dBm) of your wifi card measured at
>>> the RF connector to whatever antenna you want to connect to that wifi
>>> card?
>>
>> According to the electronics design group...
>>
>> "PC WiFi typical outputs 20-30 dBm"
>>
>> That's 40 to 60% of the "Max Input Power" of the directional antenna.
>>
>> I actually have no idea why (besides trolling) the clowns are talking
>> about transceivers. Apparently they don't either. Otherwise they would
>> point to discussion by people who actually use such a device to solve poor
>> WiFi reception. Talking about omnidirectional antenna WiFi devices is
>> on-topic, but a typical desktop user does not need to increase
>> omnidirectional range. A directional antenna is the obvious solution to a
>> weak signal.
>
> What's the receiver sensitivity of your wifi card?
>
>

This idiot is calling everything a "transceiver", and therefore somehow I
am being unfair by asking for example uses of the TRANSCEIVER the clowns
are talking about.

Nothing but a troll...

--
"J.B. Wood" <arl_123234@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!d6+SGZl6mJFJHTCKpaIiNQ.user.gioia.aioe.org.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: "J.B. Wood" <arl_123234@hotmail.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10
> Subject: Re: OT: Do WiFi antennas matter?
> Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2021 09:02:28 -0500
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Lines: 27
> Message-ID: <s9ikhf$1lm0$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> References: <s92q8r$3r5$1@dont-email.me> <s99a3c$b18$1@dont-email.me> <s9b1tk$1c1h$1@gioia.aioe.org> <u1aibg5ggq8oujt7jn77bgq6cqum3s3dfr@4ax.com> <s9cmt3$s88$2@dont-email.me> <s9d80j$lh7$1@dont-email.me> <s9dge4$1lgp$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s9dhgk$sfl$1@dont-email.me> <s9djvu$1ci4$1@gioia.aioe.org> <8dokbgdk9uqplg9j1ha8uvdkqcq7uh6ckb@4ax.com> <s9dveu$p87$1@gioia.aioe.org> <9polbg5prs7mn8snmumtgkb525838vtr8e@4ax.com> <s9fvu8$1fqd$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s9hvvg$pev$1@dont-email.me>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: d6+SGZl6mJFJHTCKpaIiNQ.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 10.0; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
> Content-Language: en-US
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-10:146227
>
> On 6/6/2021 8:11 AM, John Doe wrote:
>> Searching for troll redemption...
>>
>> Using a transceiver for weak WiFi signals?
>>
>> First result...
>>
>> "7 Easy Ways to Fix a Weak WiFi Signal"
>> ...
>> Missing "transceiver". Must include "transceiver"?
>>
>> Second result...
>>
>> "10 Ways To Boost a Weak WiFi Signal"
>>
>> No "transceiver" there either!
>>
>> Bozo and the Trolls...
>
> You are calling everyone a bozo and a troll & yet you don't even know that
> every Wi-Fi card is a "transceiver" - just like every Wi-Fi router is.
>
> Including the Wi-Fi card in your own computer & the router in your own home.
>
> As others said you really need to read an introductory text on radio basics.
> --
> J. B. Wood e-mail: arl_123234@hotmail.com
>
>

Bozo is trolling for answers...

--
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: Sun, 6 Jun 2021 14:53:30 +0100
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Lines: 33
> Message-ID: <s9ik0l$1dv5$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> References: <s92q8r$3r5$1@dont-email.me> <s99a3c$b18$1@dont-email.me> <s9b1tk$1c1h$1@gioia.aioe.org> <u1aibg5ggq8oujt7jn77bgq6cqum3s3dfr@4ax.com> <s9cmt3$s88$2@dont-email.me> <s9d80j$lh7$1@dont-email.me> <s9dge4$1lgp$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s9dhgk$sfl$1@dont-email.me> <s9djvu$1ci4$1@gioia.aioe.org> <8dokbgdk9uqplg9j1ha8uvdkqcq7uh6ckb@4ax.com> <s9dveu$p87$1@gioia.aioe.org> <9polbg5prs7mn8snmumtgkb525838vtr8e@4ax.com> <s9fvu8$1fqd$1@gioia.aioe.org> <rdrobgd715e3k2d1ovh4sv63gna4oh6v8d@4ax.com>
> 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-10:146226
>
> On 06/06/2021 09:22, Char Jackson wrote:
>>>But the Ethernet port is connected to the router also by Wi-Fi.
>>
>> Strictly speaking, the Ethernet port must be connected to a device via an
>> Ethernet cable. In turn, that device can be connected to the router via
>> WiFi, right?
>
> Right.
>
> [1] The Ethernet port on the PC connects to a cat5 cable as you said.
> [2] The cat5 cable connects to the tranceiver (which also has an antenna).
> [3] Over the air the radio "bridges" to the home router AP, MAC to MAC
>
> The PC "thinks" it's talking through an Ethernet connection.
> And as you said, it /is/ an Ethernet connection.
> At least until it gets to the radio.
>
> The radio set up as a bridge just passes the data MAC to MAC.
> As if it were a wire.
> At least that's how I understand it.
>
>>>When I ping Google, how does the ping command know _which_ network to use?
>>
>> The routing table decides that. All non-local traffic will use the default
>> route except for traffic that you've configured to use another route.
>
> That makes sense.
> I didn't think of that.
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
>
>

On 06/06/2021 14:39, Paul wrote:
> Diagram:
>
> https://www.mouser.com/images/microsites/rf-wireless-diagram.png

Yes. Transmitter. Receiver. Transceiver.
What you want is a high transmit power.
And what you want is high receiver sensitivity.

You can't fix crappy transmit power easily.
It's even harder to fix crappy receiver sensitivity.

But by adding a single transceiver to the OP's existing setup he would gain
excellent transmit power & excellent receiver sensitivity - which he needs!

As you noticed from the start the OP severely limited his options.
Worse, the OP doesn't understand anything we've said in this thread.
So he calls us bozos because he can't seem to understand what we're saying.

Not for the OP (he's a lost cause) but for those who do understand radio
basics, if we're severely limited to not being able to change anything else
on the LAN but what's connected to the PC, then _adding_ a more powerful &
more sensitive transceiver easily can solve signal strength problems
_without_ changing _anything_ on the PC.

That meets the OP's stringent requirements of far more power & far greater
sensitivity without changing anything on the LAN or on the router or the PC
(other than to plug it into a spare Ethernet port on that PC).

Adding a more powerful & more sensitive transceiver can also mitigate some
noise interference (depending of course on the level of noise and the SNR).

Where do you add that more powerful and more sensitive transceiver?
<a> You can replace the internal Wi-Fi card but that's doomed to fail
because almost all have very low power output to start with unless
you can find a much more powerful & sensitive transceiver card.
<b> You switch to a more directional external antenna to the existing
internal Wi-Fi card which is what the OP seems to be aiming to do
but that's often doomed to failure because you can't fix a starting
point of poor power output & lousy input sensitivity of the Wi-Fi card.
<c> You could add external adapters such as USB-based Wi-Fi transceivers
but they're generally of lower power & sensitivity than internal cards.

Or, without changing _anything_, one can add an inexpensive yet powerful &
sensitive external transceiver (via the unused Ethernet port) which far
exceeds in specifications that of any internal Wi-Fi card even with the
narrowest beam antenna the OP can find to put on that crappy Wi-Fi card.
https://dl.ubnt.com/datasheets/PowerBeam_ac/PowerBeam5ac_DS.pdf
(It works even without the dish - you just compensate by setting the power.)

As a side note, in some applications you can outfit the PCI card slot with a
powerful Wi-Fi transmitter but you'd have to search to find them. This is a
different frequency range but it shows what kind of power & sensitivity a 2W
PCI card can attain. https://help.mikrotik.com/docs/display/UM/R11e-LR8
RF Output power - 862-870MHz (EU) @ 14dBm
Receive max sensitivity - 137 dB @ SF12 (Depends on the antenna used)

These would all work in any home Wi-Fi network (they work without the dish).
https://dl.ubnt.com/datasheets/powerbeam/PowerBeam_DS.pdf
--
Regards,
Martin Brown

John Doe wrote:
> This idiot is calling everything a "transceiver", and therefore somehow I
> am being unfair by asking for example uses of the TRANSCEIVER the clowns
> are talking about.
>
> Nothing but a troll...

Do you have a problem that needs solving ?

Do you think you could describe it in a way,
that we could offer help ?

Moderate gain isotropic antennas, work mainly
on the main floor (same floor as Wifi router).
The more gain you suck out of them, the less
signal there is for basement and second floor.

It's possible to tilt antennas, to shift what
the upstairs or downstairs gets.

Or with MIMO and tilting each of the antennas
a different amount, it's possible to make the
effective radiation pattern more spherical.

In cases where a specific remote computer is
not getting coverage, you may do a one-off
solution to bring it back into the fold.
Sometimes, a single networking box is not
sufficient to solve all problems. And a
Mesh solution, which removes all the guesswork,
takes the better part of $1000 for a 5000sqft house.
That's like a firehose, but it works.

Or, the one-off solution could be done for
$40, and a length of Ethernet cable for the
remote Access Point.

Paul

On 07/06/2021 00:51, Paul wrote:
> Do you have a problem that needs solving ?

Even if he doesn't want a solution, it's a common problem many will have.
That means the discussion itself carries value when we all pitch in nicely.

> Do you think you could describe it in a way,
> that we could offer help ?

I think he has the same common problem of anyone with a Wi-Fi router which
isn't effectively reaching the computer with enough of a signal to work.

> Moderate gain isotropic antennas, work mainly
> on the main floor (same floor as Wifi router).
> The more gain you suck out of them, the less
> signal there is for basement and second floor.
>
> It's possible to tilt antennas, to shift what
> the upstairs or downstairs gets.
>
> Or with MIMO and tilting each of the antennas
> a different amount, it's possible to make the
> effective radiation pattern more spherical.

All true to a point in that the minute situational variability is infinite.

The first step for anyone else with this problem is to download an open
source Wi-Fi analyzer to measure accurate signal strength & interference.

This is just one often recommended free open source analyzer for your phone.
https://vremsoftwaredevelopment.github.io/WiFiAnalyzer/
Identify nearby Access Points
Graph channels signal strength
Graph Access Point signal strength over time
Analyze WiFi networks to rate channels
HT/VHT Detection - 40/80/160MHz (Requires Android OS 6+)
Access Point view complete or compact
Estimated Distance to the Access Points
Export access points details
Available filters: WiFi band, Signal strength, Security and SSID
> In cases where a specific remote computer is
> not getting coverage, you may do a one-off
> solution to bring it back into the fold.

That's where adding power & sensitivity to the computer itself works well.

> Sometimes, a single networking box is not
> sufficient to solve all problems. And a
> Mesh solution, which removes all the guesswork,
> takes the better part of $1000 for a 5000sqft house.
> That's like a firehose, but it works.

If we relax the OP's stringent "nothing can change" criteria we have quite a
few options which are commonly used whenever we need more signal (or better
sensitivity - but most people don't aim directly for better sensitivity).

If you can add to the network, many people will add a more powerful router
many people just add a repeater half way.
Others just as often I think will swap in a more directional antenna.
Some will replace the Wi-Fi card with one with more power & sensitivity.
A few will add an external USB Wi-Fi transceiver (usually doomed to fail).

I would just add the power & sensitivity an external transceiver gets me.
You can't ever do better than that without breaking the legal limits.

> Or, the one-off solution could be done for
> $40, and a length of Ethernet cable for the
> remote Access Point.

There are a few fundamental options for anyone in this situation.
However I think it's folly to do anything without testing the situation.

It would be nice if the OP can download the FOSS Wi-Fi analyzer.
And then tell us the readings he gets at the problem computer.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Bozo has been trolling for answers to some personal problems, lying about
it having to do with my situation.

Bozo's big ego babbles a lot but provides no real-world examples of its
application. If using its device for WiFi reception were a great idea,
somebody would be using it...

This is obviously a troll. It can't get much clearer.

Who's using it for WiFi???

--
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: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 01:57:23 +0100
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Lines: 62
> Message-ID: <s9jqtc$ura$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> References: <s92q8r$3r5$1@dont-email.me> <s99a3c$b18$1@dont-email.me> <s9b1tk$1c1h$1@gioia.aioe.org> <u1aibg5ggq8oujt7jn77bgq6cqum3s3dfr@4ax.com> <s9cmt3$s88$2@dont-email.me> <s9d80j$lh7$1@dont-email.me> <s9dge4$1lgp$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s9dhgk$sfl$1@dont-email.me> <s9djvu$1ci4$1@gioia.aioe.org> <8dokbgdk9uqplg9j1ha8uvdkqcq7uh6ckb@4ax.com> <s9dveu$p87$1@gioia.aioe.org> <9polbg5prs7mn8snmumtgkb525838vtr8e@4ax.com> <s9fvu8$1fqd$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s9hvvg$pev$1@dont-email.me> <s9ikhf$1lm0$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s9itp0$rs$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
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
> Content-Language: en-GB
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-10:146279
>
> On 06/06/2021 14:39, Paul wrote:
>> Diagram:
>>
>> https://www.mouser.com/images/microsites/rf-wireless-diagram.png
>
> Yes. Transmitter. Receiver. Transceiver.
> What you want is a high transmit power.
> And what you want is high receiver sensitivity.
>
> You can't fix crappy transmit power easily.
> It's even harder to fix crappy receiver sensitivity.
>
> But by adding a single transceiver to the OP's existing setup he would gain
> excellent transmit power & excellent receiver sensitivity - which he needs!
>
> As you noticed from the start the OP severely limited his options.
> Worse, the OP doesn't understand anything we've said in this thread.
> So he calls us bozos because he can't seem to understand what we're saying.
>
> Not for the OP (he's a lost cause) but for those who do understand radio
> basics, if we're severely limited to not being able to change anything else
> on the LAN but what's connected to the PC, then _adding_ a more powerful &
> more sensitive transceiver easily can solve signal strength problems
> _without_ changing _anything_ on the PC.
>
> That meets the OP's stringent requirements of far more power & far greater
> sensitivity without changing anything on the LAN or on the router or the PC
> (other than to plug it into a spare Ethernet port on that PC).
>
> Adding a more powerful & more sensitive transceiver can also mitigate some
> noise interference (depending of course on the level of noise and the SNR).
>
> Where do you add that more powerful and more sensitive transceiver?
> <a> You can replace the internal Wi-Fi card but that's doomed to fail
> because almost all have very low power output to start with unless
> you can find a much more powerful & sensitive transceiver card.
> <b> You switch to a more directional external antenna to the existing
> internal Wi-Fi card which is what the OP seems to be aiming to do
> but that's often doomed to failure because you can't fix a starting
> point of poor power output & lousy input sensitivity of the Wi-Fi card.
> <c> You could add external adapters such as USB-based Wi-Fi transceivers
> but they're generally of lower power & sensitivity than internal cards.
>
> Or, without changing _anything_, one can add an inexpensive yet powerful &
> sensitive external transceiver (via the unused Ethernet port) which far
> exceeds in specifications that of any internal Wi-Fi card even with the
> narrowest beam antenna the OP can find to put on that crappy Wi-Fi card.
> https://dl.ubnt.com/datasheets/PowerBeam_ac/PowerBeam5ac_DS.pdf
> (It works even without the dish - you just compensate by setting the power.)
>
> As a side note, in some applications you can outfit the PCI card slot with a
> powerful Wi-Fi transmitter but you'd have to search to find them. This is a
> different frequency range but it shows what kind of power & sensitivity a 2W
> PCI card can attain. https://help.mikrotik.com/docs/display/UM/R11e-LR8
> RF Output power - 862-870MHz (EU) @ 14dBm
> Receive max sensitivity - 137 dB @ SF12 (Depends on the antenna used)
>
> These would all work in any home Wi-Fi network (they work without the dish).
> https://dl.ubnt.com/datasheets/powerbeam/PowerBeam_DS.pdf
> --
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
>
>

Nothing but a troll...

--
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10
> Subject: Re: OT: Do WiFi antennas matter?
> Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2021 22:51:12 -0400
> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
> Lines: 38
> Message-ID: <s9k1j1$pqf$1@dont-email.me>
> References: <s92q8r$3r5$1@dont-email.me> <s99a3c$b18$1@dont-email.me> <s9b1tk$1c1h$1@gioia.aioe.org> <u1aibg5ggq8oujt7jn77bgq6cqum3s3dfr@4ax.com> <s9cmt3$s88$2@dont-email.me> <s9d80j$lh7$1@dont-email.me> <s9dge4$1lgp$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s9dhgk$sfl$1@dont-email.me> <s9djvu$1ci4$1@gioia.aioe.org> <8dokbgdk9uqplg9j1ha8uvdkqcq7uh6ckb@4ax.com> <s9dveu$p87$1@gioia.aioe.org> <9polbg5prs7mn8snmumtgkb525838vtr8e@4ax.com> <s9fvu8$1fqd$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s9hvvg$pev$1@dont-email.me> <s9ikhf$1lm0$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s9jj3m$gt8$2@dont-email.me>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Injection-Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 02:51:13 -0000 (UTC)
> Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="7de5402cb2bbcb277e8d12b9858e35e1"; logging-data="26447"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/pchcFWZOAbMq3W7id51M6WXLivlXHZNc="
> User-Agent: Ratcatcher/2.0.0.25 (Windows/20130802)
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:Kf42mjFXW3ddQkqbyzxd69Ma+7M=
> In-Reply-To: <s9jj3m$gt8$2@dont-email.me>
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-10:146283
>
> John Doe wrote:
>> This idiot is calling everything a "transceiver", and therefore somehow I
>> am being unfair by asking for example uses of the TRANSCEIVER the clowns
>> are talking about.
>>
>> Nothing but a troll...
>
> Do you have a problem that needs solving ?
>
> Do you think you could describe it in a way,
> that we could offer help ?
>
> Moderate gain isotropic antennas, work mainly
> on the main floor (same floor as Wifi router).
> The more gain you suck out of them, the less
> signal there is for basement and second floor.
>
> It's possible to tilt antennas, to shift what
> the upstairs or downstairs gets.
>
> Or with MIMO and tilting each of the antennas
> a different amount, it's possible to make the
> effective radiation pattern more spherical.
>
> In cases where a specific remote computer is
> not getting coverage, you may do a one-off
> solution to bring it back into the fold.
> Sometimes, a single networking box is not
> sufficient to solve all problems. And a
> Mesh solution, which removes all the guesswork,
> takes the better part of $1000 for a 5000sqft house.
> That's like a firehose, but it works.
>
> Or, the one-off solution could be done for
> $40, and a length of Ethernet cable for the
> remote Access Point.
>
> Paul
>
>

On 06.06.2021 22:41, John Doe wrote:
> I provided the pertinent, precise answer to the question asked.

I saw your response but I didn't see any answers to the questions.

What is the transmit power of your specific existing Wi-Fi transceiver?
You don't know.

What is the receive sensitivity of your specific existing Wi-Fi transceiver?
You don't know.

You don't even know what the signal strength is at your computer.
Nor do you know what interference there is on your channel at your computer.

You don't even know the basics of how radio transmission & reception works.

> And of course nobody needs to know a specific WiFi card power output,
> in this GENERAL discussion on a WORLDWIDE forum.

You need to read a book about basic radio reception & transmission.

> Don't like the fitting answer to your question?

You didn't answer the questions. You don't know the answers.
You don't even know the _name_ (brand/model) of your Wi-Fi card.

> Go bug the electronics design group...

You have no idea what Wi-Fi transceiver you have in your computer.
You don't know its power output nor it's receiver sensitivity.
You don't know what your router signal strength is at the computer.
And you have no idea if your next door neighbor is flooding the channel.

You know nothing but what's more important is you can't learn anything.
Until you answer those basic questions above you know absolutely nothing.

Paul should post it to wikishit. Obviously it's a great idea
that will change WiFi usage as we know it...

As it is APPARENTLY, nobody uses the device for WiFi,
looks like nothing but a silly troll...

--
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: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 16:00:52 +0100
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Lines: 78
> Message-ID: <s9lcb3$1cn3$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> References: <s92q8r$3r5$1@dont-email.me> <s99a3c$b18$1@dont-email.me> <s9b1tk$1c1h$1@gioia.aioe.org> <u1aibg5ggq8oujt7jn77bgq6cqum3s3dfr@4ax.com> <s9cmt3$s88$2@dont-email.me> <s9d80j$lh7$1@dont-email.me> <s9dge4$1lgp$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s9dhgk$sfl$1@dont-email.me> <s9djvu$1ci4$1@gioia.aioe.org> <8dokbgdk9uqplg9j1ha8uvdkqcq7uh6ckb@4ax.com> <s9dveu$p87$1@gioia.aioe.org> <9polbg5prs7mn8snmumtgkb525838vtr8e@4ax.com> <s9fvu8$1fqd$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s9hvvg$pev$1@dont-email.me> <s9ikhf$1lm0$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s9jj3m$gt8$2@dont-email.me> <s9k1j1$pqf$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-10:146295
>
> On 07/06/2021 00:51, Paul wrote:
>> Do you have a problem that needs solving ?
>
> Even if he doesn't want a solution, it's a common problem many will have.
> That means the discussion itself carries value when we all pitch in nicely.
>
>> Do you think you could describe it in a way,
>> that we could offer help ?
>
> I think he has the same common problem of anyone with a Wi-Fi router which
> isn't effectively reaching the computer with enough of a signal to work.
>
>> Moderate gain isotropic antennas, work mainly
>> on the main floor (same floor as Wifi router).
>> The more gain you suck out of them, the less
>> signal there is for basement and second floor.
>>
>> It's possible to tilt antennas, to shift what
>> the upstairs or downstairs gets.
>>
>> Or with MIMO and tilting each of the antennas
>> a different amount, it's possible to make the
>> effective radiation pattern more spherical.
>
> All true to a point in that the minute situational variability is infinite.
>
> The first step for anyone else with this problem is to download an open
> source Wi-Fi analyzer to measure accurate signal strength & interference.
>
> This is just one often recommended free open source analyzer for your phone.
> https://vremsoftwaredevelopment.github.io/WiFiAnalyzer/
> Identify nearby Access Points
> Graph channels signal strength
> Graph Access Point signal strength over time
> Analyze WiFi networks to rate channels
> HT/VHT Detection - 40/80/160MHz (Requires Android OS 6+)
> Access Point view complete or compact
> Estimated Distance to the Access Points
> Export access points details
> Available filters: WiFi band, Signal strength, Security and SSID
>
>> In cases where a specific remote computer is
>> not getting coverage, you may do a one-off
>> solution to bring it back into the fold.
>
> That's where adding power & sensitivity to the computer itself works well.
>
>> Sometimes, a single networking box is not
>> sufficient to solve all problems. And a
>> Mesh solution, which removes all the guesswork,
>> takes the better part of $1000 for a 5000sqft house.
>> That's like a firehose, but it works.
>
> If we relax the OP's stringent "nothing can change" criteria we have quite a
> few options which are commonly used whenever we need more signal (or better
> sensitivity - but most people don't aim directly for better sensitivity).
>
> If you can add to the network, many people will add a more powerful router
> many people just add a repeater half way.
> Others just as often I think will swap in a more directional antenna.
> Some will replace the Wi-Fi card with one with more power & sensitivity.
> A few will add an external USB Wi-Fi transceiver (usually doomed to fail).
>
> I would just add the power & sensitivity an external transceiver gets me.
> You can't ever do better than that without breaking the legal limits.
>
>> Or, the one-off solution could be done for
>> $40, and a length of Ethernet cable for the
>> remote Access Point.
>
> There are a few fundamental options for anyone in this situation.
> However I think it's folly to do anything without testing the situation.
>
> It would be nice if the OP can download the FOSS Wi-Fi analyzer.
> And then tell us the readings he gets at the problem computer.
> --
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
>
>

On 2021-06-07 10:31 a.m., John Doe wrote:
> Nothing but a troll...
>

Your ass is out a mile John Doe, considering Paul, He has more knowledge
in his little finger than you have in your whole body, Further more, He
has helped more people on Usenet than yo can count.

SO SHAPE UP John Doe.

Rene

The onboard WiFi will not connect directly to the ISP's router, but it will
connect to my extender (slow rates). Seems to do with drivers. The motherboard
is recent. Then again, my extender is old. Using the floppy antennas is slower
than using the directional antenna.

Anybody who can connect to the ISP's router has access to its settings (they
don't bother using a password), but I see nothing nefarious in its settings.

The first line is more than enough reading.

Don't like the answer, put it where the sun don't shine...

--
wolfgang kern <nowhere@nospicedham.never.at> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!s+Ui1sUtrFeNha6o44/2FQ.user.gioia.aioe.org.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: wolfgang kern <nowhere@nospicedham.never.at>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10
> Subject: Re: OT: Do WiFi antennas matter?
> Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 17:33:18 +0200
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Lines: 35
> Message-ID: <s9le7t$c7r$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> References: <s92q8r$3r5$1@dont-email.me> <s99a3c$b18$1@dont-email.me> <s9b1tk$1c1h$1@gioia.aioe.org> <u1aibg5ggq8oujt7jn77bgq6cqum3s3dfr@4ax.com> <s9cmt3$s88$2@dont-email.me> <s9d80j$lh7$1@dont-email.me> <s9dge4$1lgp$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s9dhgk$sfl$1@dont-email.me> <s9djvu$1ci4$1@gioia.aioe.org> <8dokbgdk9uqplg9j1ha8uvdkqcq7uh6ckb@4ax.com> <s9dveu$p87$1@gioia.aioe.org> <9polbg5prs7mn8snmumtgkb525838vtr8e@4ax.com> <s9fvu8$1fqd$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s9ge7b$3lr$1@dont-email.me> <s9h0oh$12v9$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s9hul1$g13$1@dont-email.me> <s9ijaa$14qc$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s9jium$gt8$1@dont-email.me>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: s+Ui1sUtrFeNha6o44/2FQ.user.gioia.aioe.org
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:86.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/86.0
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-10:146302
>
> On 06.06.2021 22:41, John Doe wrote:
>> I provided the pertinent, precise answer to the question asked.
>
> I saw your response but I didn't see any answers to the questions.
>
> What is the transmit power of your specific existing Wi-Fi transceiver?
> You don't know.
>
> What is the receive sensitivity of your specific existing Wi-Fi transceiver?
> You don't know.
>
> You don't even know what the signal strength is at your computer.
> Nor do you know what interference there is on your channel at your computer.
>
> You don't even know the basics of how radio transmission & reception works.
>
>> And of course nobody needs to know a specific WiFi card power output,
>> in this GENERAL discussion on a WORLDWIDE forum.
>
> You need to read a book about basic radio reception & transmission.
>
>> Don't like the fitting answer to your question?
>
> You didn't answer the questions. You don't know the answers.
> You don't even know the _name_ (brand/model) of your Wi-Fi card.
>
>> Go bug the electronics design group...
>
> You have no idea what Wi-Fi transceiver you have in your computer.
> You don't know its power output nor it's receiver sensitivity.
> You don't know what your router signal strength is at the computer.
> And you have no idea if your next door neighbor is flooding the channel.
>
> You know nothing but what's more important is you can't learn anything.
> Until you answer those basic questions above you know absolutely nothing.
>
>

I'm calling what is obviously a troll, a troll.

This isn't the mainstream media, the cancel culture isn't welcome here.

Don't like it, go fuck yourself...

--
Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!lilly.ping.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
> From: Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10,free.spam
> Subject: Re: OT: Do WiFi antennas matter?
> Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 10:40:06 -0500
> Lines: 14
> Message-ID: <ii6sulF90ndU1@mid.individual.net>
> References: <s92q8r$3r5$1@dont-email.me> <s99a3c$b18$1@dont-email.me> <s9b1tk$1c1h$1@gioia.aioe.org> <u1aibg5ggq8oujt7jn77bgq6cqum3s3dfr@4ax.com> <s9cmt3$s88$2@dont-email.me> <s9d80j$lh7$1@dont-email.me> <s9dge4$1lgp$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s9dhgk$sfl$1@dont-email.me> <s9djvu$1ci4$1@gioia.aioe.org> <8dokbgdk9uqplg9j1ha8uvdkqcq7uh6ckb@4ax.com> <s9dveu$p87$1@gioia.aioe.org> <9polbg5prs7mn8snmumtgkb525838vtr8e@4ax.com> <s9fvu8$1fqd$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s9hvvg$pev$1@dont-email.me> <s9ikhf$1lm0$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s9jj3m$gt8$2@dont-email.me> <s9k1j1$pqf$1@dont-email.me> <s9le4b$5kd$2@dont-email.me>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Trace: individual.net QdXkGuOXpjyUOsEiSBQJCQrMxRE5OXT8osEdN1trJrKaTY8jDZ
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:CywIjeDHiC0tWUY9tCTuYxqqPh4=
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
> In-Reply-To: <s9le4b$5kd$2@dont-email.me>
> Content-Language: en-US
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-10:146305 free.spam:14766
>
> On 2021-06-07 10:31 a.m., John Doe wrote:
>> Nothing but a troll...
>>
>
> Your ass is out a mile John Doe, considering Paul, He has more knowledge
> in his little finger than you have in your whole body, Further more, He
> has helped more people on Usenet than yo can count.
>
> SO SHAPE UP John Doe.
>
> Rene
>
>
>
>
>

John Doe wrote:
> A directional antenna is best since this is a desktop PC, and apparently
> the antenna does what it's supposed to do. But... The connection drops
> immediately, or it doesn't connect at all. After two clean installations,
> one with all the motherboard drivers, no joy. That eliminates all sorts of
> stuff. I have a spare motherboard, but no built-in WiFi there. The
> extender could be attached to the directional antenna, but it's currently
> my only connection and doing that without the proper connectors might
> require some soldering finesse. Probably need a WiFi card and some
> connectors. Kinda sucks that the motherboard WiFi doesn't work, if so.
> Seems to be a dearth of information on the subject, usually that indicates
> it's a local problem...

Did any of the recommended utilities show signal level anomalies ?

Some single-chip-CMOS Wifi gadgets on 2.4GHz, the output
isn't stable with time, and after three months there is
less RF signal than when they were brand new.

Paul

In article <s9lf46$e31$1@dont-email.me>, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
wrote:

> Some single-chip-CMOS Wifi gadgets on 2.4GHz, the output
> isn't stable with time, and after three months there is
> less RF signal than when they were brand new.

nonsense.